9/7     "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." -VP Cheney
        Vote for Dubya:  No danger or much reduced danger of devastating
                         terrorist attack.
        Vote for Kerry:  Danger of devastating terrorist attack.
        The choice is yours!
        \_ how DARE they field a candidate!
        \_ Hasn't that been the basis of their whole campaign from the start?
           No news here.
           \_ It's been hinted at, but it hasn't been put so succinctly and
              obviously until now by Cheney.
        \_ Who does al queda hate more: a bush-led america or a kerry-led
           america?
           \_ They hated a Clinton-led America and planned to assassinate him.
              Osama supports Nader.
           \_ We need an arab to attempt but fail to assasinate Kerry.
        \_ But not devastating from other standpoints. That's good to clarify.
           But I think you mis-summarized Cheney's contention:
           Vote Kerry (="wrong choice"): Danger of devastating (to US) hit.
           Vote Bush: Won't get hit.
           Vote for Bush if you want to live!
           \_ There, I modified op for you.
           \_ BTW, if you read the http://cnn.com article now, you'll see Edwards
              saying what you said, and a Cheney spokesperson saying "that's
              not what [Cheney] meant".
              \_ Ha ha! Ok, I read it. The spokeswoman says:
                 "Whoever is elected in November faces the prospect of another
                 terrorist attack. The question is whether or not we have the
                 right policies in place to best protect our country. That's
                 what the vice president said."  What utter BS.
        \_ I believe this also means Cheney is pretty confident there won't
           be a "devastating" attack before the election.  I agree with him.
           Maybe a couple "small" or "medium" ones though.
           \_ Would an attack hurt or help Bush? It would mean Bush didn't
              prevent it. But it would show the greatness of the danger,
              and the need for anti-terror Bush. Bush is the best at fighting
              terror, nevermind 9/11 and failure to catch bin laden. Hard
              to say which factor would win.