Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm not sure I see this as being as offensive as you do, oddly enough. I could see the other side saying the same thing. Using the exact same words.
What would differ is the underlying assumption: for Cheney, it is (I suppose) the fear that we will be weak and subject to attack. For Dems, it's that the policies of the current administration, if continued, will subject us to ever increasing motive for reprisal, on the one hand, while doing nothing to combat the actual means of attackers, on the other. I'm not sure either fear is well founded, but if either prediction turns out to be true for the side who wins, we're screwed.
So Cheney's right: the wrong choice has the potential to have a devastating impact on America.
|
He's basically saying that unless you elect Bush there will be another attack. That is ass. I think it is fair game to disagree with policies or to believe that Bush will prosecute the war more effectively, etc., but to say what he said is a scare tactic that crosses the line in my book. The administration should get credit for there being no attacks since 9/11, but a good portion of this is just plain luck and that luck will run out at some point, regardless of who is president.
