I had more to say on this yesterday, but the fritz was on the blog. Mere hours after the Post reported that Cheney had said a Kerry-Edwards victory would lead to a terrorist attack on the United States, Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu were playing it high in the lede of their front-page story in the morning edition.
Today’s Milbank/Hsu story reports that John Edwards has an answer for Cheney’s Vote-Bush-Or-Else rhetoric: "It is outrageous and shameful . . . It is completely inappropriate and dangerous, for the vice president to in effect threaten the American people, to be part of instilling fear in our country."
A little perspective, please. First, Cheney’s argument—pretty sound as it goes—was that this election is pivotal in determining America’s long-term policy in the war on terror. It follows that, if Kerry-Edwards are elected, you’ll see a very different response to any terrorist attack on the United States than you saw in the aftermath of 9/11. Two, why isn’t it legitimate for Cheney to emphasize differences regarding the most important policy issue around—terror—which is nothing if not a life or death issue?
1 hour ago