Transcript of Cheney's speech in Oregon is scary and weird

[baby_bear]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040917-15.html

He does all the standard fear-mongering - really nasty - but also has odd statements that would seem to reflect very badly on the current administration on issues from missile defense to Afghanistan.

<snip>
And the old strategies that worked with the Soviet Union during the Cold War don't have much relevance when you're talking about al Qaeda, or a group of terrorists. There's nothing you can put at risk that would deter them from launching an attack against the United States. So we're faced with the necessity to develop a new way to secure the nation.
...
We moved very aggressively to enhance our defenses here at home. We created the Department of Homeland Security, the biggest reorganization since the Defense Department was created over 50 years ago. We passed the Patriot Act to give law enforcement the tools they needed to prosecute terrorists. We've enacted Project BioShield to fund specialized research that's needed to develop countermeasures against biological attack -- a whole series of steps that we've taken over the course of the last three years.

But we also had to go beyond that. The President made a decision very early on that mounting a good defense wasn't enough, that when you consider the nature of the threat, the possibility of the terrorists acquiring deadlier weapons than anything we've ever seen before to be used against that even if you're successful 99 percent of the time on defense, that's not enough, because if they get through once, we've got a terrible problem, with a possible loss of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of American lives. And so it's absolutely essential that we also go on offense. That's been a vital part of the Bush strategy in terms of dealing with the threat that we're now faced with.

...
When we went into Afghanistan, we took down the Taliban regime that was there. We've captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda. We closed the training camps that the terrorists have used in training to attack the United States. That's also where they trained some 20,000 terrorists by one estimate in the late '90s, who have subsequently then gone out and gone back, oftentimes, to their home countries and established cells various places around the world.

And having done that, obviously, we then -- are now embarked upon a course of action in Afghanistan, standing up a new government. We've got Hamid Karzai there as interim President.
....
But in Iraq, we're also working now to stand up a new government. And it's a very important piece to finishing the task. You can't just simply go in and take down the old regime and then walk away because what you'll have is failed state. You'll have an area that will go the way that Afghanistan did, or that Iraq had in the past. We got to complete the task. And completing the task means going and standing up a democratically elected, representative government in Iraq -- one that will be broadly representative to the Iraqi people and will not again become a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, never again be a safe haven, if you will, for terrorists, or a state that aggressively pursues and uses weapons of mass destruction, as Saddam Hussein had.

</snip>
Is the man just a prevaricator, or is he delusional? Either option makes me exceedingly uncomfortable, unless he is retired ASAP by theh voters.

s_m

[Julien Sorel]

1. It's the big lie at work.

Repeat something often and loud enough, and people will believe it. The media are even playing along now, complimenting Bush and Cheney for their lying by calling it "audacity."


Here's a scenario that has been kicking around in my head. Bush wins, and after a couple of years, Cheney either kicks the bucket (possible), or has to resign for "health reasons;" some of his bizarre pronouncements recently certainly suggest something's going wrong with him. Anguished by his loss, Bush looks around for a replacement, someone he can trust, and chooses his brother Jeb, who then has the inside track to the '08 nomination.

I first thought of this a couple of days ago and dismissed it, but the thought keeps coming back into my mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. don't dismiss it

the bush lickers are talking it up, Jeb in 08 and 12 and then the kids....

who should be 35 by then.

Of course if he wins I expect an ammendment allowing King George to run inderinitely and taht assumes we still have elections

[koopie57]

4. I had thought about that

but after seeing some of the repulicans speak at the RNC and most of them seemed to be settings sites on the nomination in 2008. I think if it defaults to Jeb, many repugs will get their noses out of joint. They have been working for years hoping at some point to run for president and I don't think they would sit quietly letting Jeb step up to the plate. IMHO.

[Julien Sorel]

5. That's what I think as well.

That's why I think Jebby needs the VP slot as a launching pad. The only thing that kills it for me is it looks too much like cronyism, but these guys are allowed to get away with so much, that there is probably a way they could spin this so that the media would be dazzled by the boldness and audacity of it all, and shine it on, as they seem to be with everything else.

[cliss]

3. Interesting statement....

"You'll have an area that will go the way Afghanistan did"...

I'd really like to know what time frame he's referring to here. Does he mean when the USSR occupied it, and threw in the towel after spending 10 years there & lots of money.

Or is he referring to our most recent failed adventure, where we supposedly went in to capture Bin Laden. We never finished the job there, as he so clearly states we should be doing in Iraq.

The guy is such a liar. I'm sorry he polluted my city for a few hours. Thanks for leaving, Dick.