Dick Cheney is out scaring folks a bit early:
We cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that Kerry is the wrong choice — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
—Dick Cheney, October 19, 2004
OK, so those weren’t his exact words, but close enough:
Vice President Dick Cheney cast doubt Tuesday on whether Senator John Kerry was strong enough to fight terrorism, and asserted that the nation might one day face terrorists “in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us,” including a nuclear bomb.
[…]
“The biggest threat we face now as a nation,” he said, “is the possibility of terrorists’ ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us – biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind – to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.”
[…]
John Kerry would lead you to believe he has the same kind of view that George Bush has, that he would be tough and aggressive,” Mr. Cheney said. “I don’t believe it. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it.”
Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star argue otherwise, but let’s not rehash ancient history again. Let’s look at what Cheney’s really saying here: We need a president who will work to ensure nuclear weapons are not used against our cities. Now, running around the world invading countries that don’t have nuclear weapons appears to be the Bush plan for preventing this; whereas the Kerry plan is, as one might expect, a bit more detailed. In short it goes:
The Kerry-Edwards strategy uses all of our resources and the might of international alliances to (1) safeguard existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials within four years, (2) end production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons, (3) reduce existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons materials, (4) end nuclear weapons programs in nations like North Korea and Iran, (5) enhance international efforts to stop trafficking in nuclear materials, and (6) make preventing nuclear terrorism a major national priority. (details at link)
It may comfort Cheney to think that Bush’s clarity of vision, personal relationship with God, and willingness to pre-emptively invade countries with no weapons will save us from a nuclear weapons attack, but personally, I believe God helps those who help themselves, and the systematic approach and clarity of planning Kerry is going to rely on is oh-so-more comforting to me.
Three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star argue otherwise, but let’s not rehash ancient history again.
In rather more recent history, Kerry’s solid work against BCCI also argues otherwise. There are far more successful ways of being tough and aggressive against terrorists than bombing or invading countries, and shutting down the money is one of them.
I was wondering why this wasn’t a major theme of Kerry’s campaign, but – via Political Animal – apparently Robert Shrum thinks Americans are too dumb to understand it.
I know the theory is that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people” but sometimes I really wish some politician would have the guts to prove this theory wrong.
The GOP used a series of talking points about Kerry’s Senate voting record back in February, which I’ve seen cited all round the right-wing blogosphere as accepted fact, though an examination of Kerry’s real voting record would have corrected these misconceptions in short order.
But then, Dick Cheney is the guy who believes that if he just keeps saying that there were WMD in Iraq and a proven connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, enough people will believe him to make a difference. Cheney is certainly working on the assumption that you can’t underestimate the intelligence of the American people. I hope November 3 proves him wrong.
excellent comment Jes!
The important thing is that you don’t go around scaring the voters. Bush doesn’t like that.
Er. . unless you’re scaring them into voting for him. That’s cool.
Given the complete failure of his government to prevent dangerous nuclear proliferation (North Korea, the Khan affair, Iran’s nuclear program, the recent pilfering of nuclear equipment from Iraq, and the enormous terrorist-making machine now running in Iraq), for Cheney to actually say this, well, I have a lot of admiration for his application of the big lie strategy.
To paraphrase Josh Marshall from last year, it’s like the arsonist burning down your house telling you not to let the firefighters in because they’re dangerous.
“North Korea, the Khan affair, Iran’s nuclear program, the recent pilfering of nuclear equipment from Iraq, and the enormous terrorist-making machine now running in Iraq”
3 of those 4 were well under way years before Bush came to office.
Which one of the five points D-U-P named are you ignoring?
3 of those 4 were well under way years before Bush came to office.
Even if that were true, what have they done to rectify the situation?
And could Cheney be then excused for making the claim that all that stands between nuclear terrorism and the American electorate is the Bush adminstration, despite an awful scorecard on the issue?
The answer to your question depends upon how similar Kerry’s proposed programs are to the failed ones from the past.
The answer to your question depends upon how similar Kerry’s proposed programs are to the failed ones from the past.
Failed ones? I don’t recall any terrorist nuclear attacks. Or do you mean failed programs to keep nuclear materials out of the hands … of…
Actually, Sebastian, what do you mean?