BCT Editorial – 9/13/04

This page was last updated on September 27, 2004.

Scare tactic; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 13, 2004.

I wondered how long it would take for this subject to appear in an editorial or letter to the editor. By manipulating a statement by VP Dick Cheney, the Times gave us a good example about what it meant in its True Lies editorial.

9/27/04 - I added this update to include a statement by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). In a speech he was to give at George Washington University on September 27, 2004, Kennedy said, “The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely.”¹ Even if you believe the Times’ spin on what VP Cheney said, how does that compare to Kennedy saying President Bush increased the chances terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States? What are the odds the Times will accuse Kennedy of using scare tactics?

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney basically said the United States will risk another terrorist attack if voters make the wrong choice on Election Day, i.e., electing U.S. Sen. John Kerry.”

[RWC] Did you wonder why the editorial never provided us with VP Cheney’s actual statement? Here is his full response to a question Cheney received at a town hall meeting on Labor Day.

“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 then we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, 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.”

As many other old media outlets clearly supporting Kerry, the Times carved out part of Cheney’s answer to make it sound like Cheney said, “Elect Kerry and we’ll be attacked.” That is clearly not what Cheney meant when you read the whole response. Here is what Cheney was trying to say. Someday, we’ll get hit again – regardless of who is in office – and it would be a terrible mistake to revert to the law enforcement approach to terrorism that was prevalent prior to 9/11. Granted, Cheney could have worded his response better, but remember this was an impromptu response to a question, not a prepared statement.

“The Associated Press reports he suggested the Democratic presidential nominee would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.”

[RWC] Note how the editorial takes the main point of Cheney’s response and makes it sound like an aside.

“If Kerry were elected president, Cheney said the nation would risk falling back into a ‘pre-9/11 mind-set’ that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush’s offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists, the AP reports.

“But wait. If Bush could change, couldn’t Kerry? After all, when Cheney refers to a ‘pre-9/11 mindset,’ he must include Bush and himself in the mix. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, they weren’t exactly pursuing a vigorous anti-terrorism policy.

“Sept. 11 changed that.”

[RWC] The editorial wants us to believe Bush and Kerry favored the same approach to terrorism before 9/11. That’s an incorrect position. At the same time, the editorial inadvertently admits its man Kerry favors or favored the already failed law enforcement approach to terrorism. Someone at the Times really must proofread these editorials a little better to avoid these gaffes. <g>

Saying the Bush administration wasn’t “exactly pursuing a vigorous anti-terrorism policy” isn’t exactly true. It is true we didn’t launch any attacks on terrorists until 9/11, but Richard “darling of the Democrats” Clarke himself made it clear this was not the long-term strategy. In a 2002 background briefing to the media, Clarke made the following points.

· The Bush administration decided in spring 2001 to augment the existing Clinton strategy and increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaida.

· During summer 2001, the Bush administration developed and approved implementation details. They changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, and changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [This prep work is what allowed the United States to enlist the aid of Pakistan, the Northern Alliance, et cetera, so quickly when we attacked al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.]

· The Bush administration changed the strategy from one of rollback of al-Qaida over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al-Qaida.

It’s clear President Bush didn’t buy into the law enforcement approach even before 9/11. 9/11 may have changed his sense of urgency, as he himself once said, but not his strategy.

“There’s another point that cannot be overlooked. How does Cheney know what Kerry would do? The fact of the matter is that he doesn’t. He has taken speculation based on what he thinks Kerry would do in a hypothetical event and turned it into a political scare tactic.”

[RWC] It’s true no one really knows how Kerry would react, but Cheney’s view is based on Kerry’s 20-year Senate record. During that time, Kerry opposed President Reagan’s anticommunism strategy and sponsored large intelligence and military cuts. Against the law, Kerry and fellow prevaricator Tom Harkin (D-IA) even carried on negotiations with the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.²

“What would the Bush-Cheney administration do if North Korea threatens to invade South Korea? What would the president and vice president do if Iran develops a nuclear weapon? What would their White House do if radicals overthrew the House of Saud and gained control of Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth? What would they do if the Taliban reaches an accord with the warlords who control much of Afghanistan? What would they do if terrorists were to gain control of a school and hold more than 1,000 students and teachers as hostages?

“The honest answer to these questions is that we don’t know. Much would depend on specific circumstances surrounding each event and the options that are available at that time. To say that they would do this is or do that would be sheer speculation.”

[RWC] These statements are true. However, we can make educated guesses at the strategies different administrations would take based on their previous actions and records.

“But here’s what Cheney does know: The GOP has an edge over the Democrats with voters when it comes to national security and foreign policy.

“And here’s what we know: Cheney doesn’t mind using scare tactics to frighten more into the fold.”

[RWC] When you read Cheney’s statement in full, it’s clear he wasn’t employing scare tactics. He took a position based on Kerry’s Senate record. Could Kerry do something different than his history would suggest? Sure, but should we assume an unproven leopard will change his spots, or go with a president with a proven track record?

1. Kennedy says Bush makes U.S. more vulnerable to nuclear attack; Lolita C. Baldor – AP; The Boston Globe; September 26, 2004.

2. At one time, Harkin claimed he was a combat pilot in Vietnam. His military records told a different story, however. Though a pilot, Harkin did not fly missions – combat or otherwise – in Vietnam. For the most part, Harkin ferried aircraft between Japan and the Philippines for repair. Don’t get me wrong; that was honorable service not without risk. What was not honorable was trying to inflate his record. Sound familiar?