There's a good op-ed in the Washington Post on Cheney's recent remarks that a vote for Kerry would increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack. Here's the quote:The point isn't who was in office on 9/11/01, it's who'll be in office on 1/20/05, Bush or Kerry. The latter happens to be an infamous waffler, voter against defense programs, ardent mulitlateralist, and advocate of last-ditch self-defense. But that doesn't seem to register with Watkins."It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice. 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," Cheney said.I forget just who was in office on 9-11? Certainly not Bush and Cheney. It must have been Clinton.
Now, for a bit of supercilious ideological purity, Watkins says:
I certainly won't be voting for John Kerry, but this latest attack is yet another reason in the column of why I won't be voting for Bush either.Oh, let me guess, he'll vote for someone from the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. If Watkins lives in California, where his employer (The Indpendent Institute) is based, that'll make a big difference. It will reduce Kerry's claim on California's electoral votes by exactly one popular vote. That'll show that George Bush a thing or three.
