Full quote:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

My emphasis. Transcript.

Those of you who think that the meaning of the above quote is that a Kerry victory would cause a terrorist attack, you go to the back of the class, because you fail the reading comprehension test.

Those of you who think that the meaning of the above quote is that a Kerry adminstration would treat terrorism as a law-enforcement problem rather than a military one, congratulations. You pass.

Don't fall for media spin.

And on the gun thing, here's a relevant quote:

"If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another" in "reducing death and injury."

-- Tom Diaz, from the gun-control group Violence Policy Center

How you can read Cheney's comments as anything OTHER than fear-mongering politics? Your inability to fully comprehend his words indicates a lack of basic English understanding. Perhaps you need to repeat a few grades. Brett, you have consistently shown yourself as less than reasonable and prone to fall for any type of Republican "media spin".

To quote Cheney from his transcript: "We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election."

So, because "they" don't have any tolerance of religious freedom, then We, as the U.S.A., have the authority to go in and wipe out any Muslim who disagrees with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Have you heard Bush's views of women's rights? How funny, it is exactly the same as the fundamental Christian view of women, which matches closely the Muslim religious belief. Have you actually BEEN to a fundamentalist Christian church lately? Women are commanded to stay silent, obey the "head of the household", raise the children in the way of the Lord...need I go on? Any personal choice is strictly forbidden w/out the permission of her husband.

What about the "faith-based initiatives" that Bush is promoting? He is ignorantly attempting to legislate abstinence and marriage over education and prevention. Nevermind that two people screw once, make a baby, and don't really LOVE each other. If there's a kid, then they must marry according to the Bush agenda.

Of course, if marriage doesn't work out, the kid can always be tossed out for adoption. Heaven forbid a gay couple would want to clean up the refuse of the "traditional" couple.

Brett - John Kerry actually wants to go after Alqueda (sp?) and bin Laden rather than waste our military resources being pinned down in Iraq by AlSadr and Saddam's extended family.

Don't fall for Carl Rove lies.

Brett, calling people stupid is no way to win them over with your charming arguments. Why don't you extend Dick Cheney's statement to its logical conclusion?

"...we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war." AND THEN WHAT?

He is absolutely saying that a vote for John Kerry is a vote to allow the terrorists to "win." I'll let Maureen Dowd finish my argument, because she does it so well:

Mr. Cheney implies that John Kerry couldn't protect us from an attack like 9/11, blithely ignoring the fact that he and President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11. Think of what brass-knuckled Republicans could have made of a 9/11 tape of an uncertain Democratic president giving a shaky statement that looked like a hostage tape and flying randomly from air base to air base, as the veep ordered that planes be shot down.

Mr. Cheney warns against falling back "into the pre-9/11 mind-set,'' when, in fact, the Bush team's pre-9/11 mind-set was all about being stuck in the cold war and reviving "Star Wars" - which doesn't work and is useless against terrorist tactics. The Bush crowd played down terrorism because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger had told their successors that Osama was a priority, and the Bushies scorned all things Clinton. The president shrugged off intelligence briefings with such headlines as "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'' because there was brush to be cleared and unaffordable tax-cutting to be done.

(The entire editorial is here.)

You can say Cheney was fear-mongering if you want. You can say he's incompetent. You can say his priorities are off. You can even quote Maureen Dowd if you want.

But it is simply false to interpret Cheney's quote as saying that a Kerry victory would make a terror attack more likely. That is an undeniable misreading of the quote, and that was the point of the post:

The trigger that would launch this attack, according to our esteemed Vice President, is a "wrong choice" made by the American people during the upcoming 2004 election.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you're going to criticize Cheney, which is fine, you don't need to misrepresent his quotes to do so.

We, as the U.S.A., have the authority to go in and wipe out any Muslim who disagrees with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm arguing. That's a fair reading of my comments.

What about the "faith-based initiatives" that Bush is promoting?

As I've made clear elsewhere, I despise Bush's social agenda and constant invocation of the divine. I'm a liberal atheist. I just happen to believe that the war is the most important issue in this election, and I don't trust Kerry to fight it.

If we're going to have this debate, let's do it on an intellectually honest level.

Intellectual honesty is the first thing sacrificed in a political season.

That's definitely true, and this season has been one of the worst ever. Both sides are at fault, though the last few days have been filled with some nasty stuff from the left. Kitty Kelley, etc -- completely unsubstantiated allegations that are denied by her main source. Looks like someone's taking Susan Estrich's pleas to heart.

this didn't cut at all along political lines

I would actually say that it redrew the political lines. Friedman is a good example, although he's stayed on his side of the line. I would point to people like Ed Koch, Dennis Miller, and, frankly, me. (I leave out the other Miller for fear of making heads explode.) People who have been lifelong Democrats who are unhappy with the direction the party has taken post-9/11. Joe Trippi says that there will be a credible third party in 2008, that will have more funding than either major party. I don't know about that, but I do know that the lines you speak of are in flux.

For the sake of this argument, let's assume you're right about Cheney's fear-mongering. How is that different from what Kerry and Edwards have been saying about Bush's performance? I quote today's editorial (entitled, amazingly, "In Defense of Dick Cheney") from that bastion of right-wing propaganda, the LA Times:

Sens. Kerry and John Edwards have been criticizing President Bush's performance on terrorism since 9/11 and promising to do a better job at it if given the chance. In doing so, they surely mean to suggest that the risk of another terrorist attack will be greater if Bush and Cheney win the election. A vote for George W. Bush, in other words, is a vote for more terrorism. Or if Kerry and Edwards don't mean that, it's hard to know what they do mean.

What Cheney said, even granting your interpretation, is no different.

"they surely mean to suggest that..."

i don't know, telling people they're going to be killed if they don't vote for you and modestly suggesting that you and yours could do a better job at reversing the threat of terrorism are worlds apart in my book.

Kerry's camp has laid out why Bush stinks at fighting terrorism. granted, its easier for them because Bush has a pretty bad record that they can tap. the Bush camp, on the other hand, is forced to use hyperbole and hearsay because Kerry doesn't have a record of fighting terrorism that they can use against him (with all the powers of the prez, that is...maybe he's fighting them on the side. at night. in a batsuit).

saying that "we" can do a better job is what progressives do. saying that you'll die a horrible death if you try and do a better job than "me" is what neo-conservative a-holes do.

"Nice little country you have here. Be a pity if anything were to happen to it..."

And wouldn't you just be sorry if the only recourse you had was to have me and my associates locked up, instead of carpet-bombing this whole neighborhood that you and I both live in?

So far Brett and Dick have told me that the war approach is superior to the law enforcement approach. Funny how the evidence shows that it's less effective (comparing the amount of terrorism created to the amount suppressed seems a pretty reasonable measurement). Maybe I won't take Brett or Dick as credible sources.

i don't know, telling people they're going to be killed if they don't vote for you

"Nice little country you have here. Be a pity if anything were to happen to it..."

I would agree with you two if that is what Cheney had actually said.