It is repeatedly said that Bush bashing (aka explaining just how bad the administration truly is) will not win the Democrats the election this November. Fine. After all, Kerry is showing some signs of life. I personally, along with many other voters, still find it a fairly easy call when my options are to drink ammonia and perhaps bland kool aid (non-Jonestown version).
Many say, however, that emotional appeals are trouble, and suggest your own candidate isn't up to snuff. But my Vice President (it bears repeating that these aren't just party hacks) says:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" ...
If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks 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.
Yeah. Two things. The emotional response this speech is meant to foster is that Kerry cannot handle the job, and God forbid if he was in office on 9/11! As Al Franken noted, this amusingly makes being in office when we were attacked (i.e. not preventing it) a good thing. Of course, when challenged, these guys never admit to this. "Scare tactics? Us?"
This is a load of crap, though referencing Kerry's Swift Boat service will not really explain why. Second, if anything, Kerry might be more successful in the "offensive approach." At any rate, he strongly supported the attack on Afghanistan and gave Bush authority to act against Iraq. Iraq, by the way, did not really harbor the particular "terrorists" Cheney obviously has in mind here.
I understand, however, why the Bush Administration is loathe to focus on criminal matters. It is partly a criminal matter, of course, including the collection of illicit funds and violating immigration laws. After all, what is the purpose of the USA Patriot Act, if everything will be a question of military action and military commissions where normal rules don't apply? Still, the Bushies have a slight problem, as suggested by a good article over in Slate criticizing the military commission system:
It is not being soft on the war on terror to criticize a system so problematic that it has failed to produce a single conviction or charge against a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda in three years; a system that has seen only four low-level individuals charged at all.
In fact, one major conviction was overturned because of major prosecutorial misconduct, another was deemed too flimsy by a jury in Idaho, and the so-called "twentieth hijacker" (the 9/11 Commission Report is only the latest group who suggest the government was wrong to so label him) continues to make the government look as looney as his antics suggest he is. The "shoe bomber" alone suggests that we are dealing with some dangerous individuals here, but if we want to determine who makes us less safe, it is surely at best (for the current occupant) a wash.
And, then there is the domestic side of things, where it really is no contest. Item: "The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost [$134 Billion more than expected] of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months of his salary to the government, federal investigators said Tuesday."
The Bush Administration answers with their tried and true response: executive privilege. The GAO argues that current law quite legitimately actions that "prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the federal government'' from communicating with Congress such information. And, no secret or sensitive policy discussions (e.g., allegedly, Cheney's energy policy commission) were at stake. It is just useful information for the legislative branch to have when is considering a major piece of legislation.
But, then, this is the administration whose spokesperson recently made a backhanded slam against his own mother.
If Kerry/Edwards cannot beat this bunch, they should hold their heads down in shame.