Cheney in Chicago: Taunts Kerry. Is the election over yet?

SHARE Cheney in Chicago: Taunts Kerry. Is the election over yet?
SHARE Cheney in Chicago: Taunts Kerry. Is the election over yet?

Who needs to be told the election is over?

From Vice President Cheney, Friday in Chicago:

“ You might recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Somebody should do him a favor and tell him the election’s over so he can stop flip-flopping. ”




Office of the Vice President


For Immediate Release June 23, 2006



Hilton Chicago

Chicago, Illinois

12:23 P.M. CDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Well,

thank you, David. I appreciate your kind words and that warm welcome.

It’s great to be back in Chicago, a city I love to visit. I explained

earlier to some friends our daughter and her husband lived here for

three years while she went to school at the University of Chicago. And

our oldest granddaughter was born here. So we used to get here a lot

and always — always enjoy coming back to a great city.

I’ve looked forward to the trip, and to joining all of you and the

next Congressman for the eighth district, Dave McSweeney. (Applause.)

And I bring good wishes to all of you from the President of the United

States, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

I’m delighted to join you in giving strong support to Dave in his

campaign for Congress. He has deep roots in this part of the country.

He’s a person who clearly speaks with conviction. He’s an active

citizen, a common-sense conservative. And he knows the issues, he

understands the needs of the eighth district, and he’s perfectly in tune

with the values of the people who live here. This is the kind of man

who belongs in the United States Congress, and there’s no doubt in my

mind that Dave is on the road to victory on the 7th of November.


It’s important that we elect public servants like Dave because

these are times of incredible consequence for our nation. In the last

five-and-a-half years we’ve seen an unprecedented series challenges.

We’ve experienced war, national emergency, economic recession, corporate

scandals, historic natural disasters. And yet we’ve faced up to those

changes — challenges. We’ve shown our strength as a people. And

America is a stronger and a better nation.

When the President and I came to office, we inherited an economy

that was heading into recession. But we took bold action to turn it

around — and because we acted, the nation’s economy today is healthy

and vigorous — and in 2005 it grew faster than any other major

industrialized nation in the world.

Since August 2003, America has created over 5.3 million new jobs.

The national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent — lower than the average

rate of the 1970s, the 1980s, or the 1990s. Productivity is strong.

Household net worth is at an all-time high.

The current expansion is also translating into higher than

projected federal revenues, as we knew would happen. There is no

mystery to this. Over the last several generations, there have been

three major tax cuts in the country — in the 1960s under President

Kennedy, in the 1980s under President Reagan, and now under President

Bush. All three resulted in sustained growth, in new jobs, and new

wealth across the country. The evidence is in — the best tax policy

for America is found in the wisdom of John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan,

and George W. Bush.

Yet even as revenue grows, we have a responsibility to be good

stewards of the taxpayer’s dollar. Wise stewardship means taking a

second look at the way business has often been done in the Nation’s

Capital. We commend the House of Representatives for passing a

constitutional line-item veto, a critical tool to help protect American

taxpayers. And as the congressional leadership has stated, we need

reform in the way projects are earmarked for funding. And we look

forward to working with members on the Hill on earmark reform.

Government has a duty to spend taxpayer dollars wisely or not spend them

at all. Your next congressman understands this very well. He’ll be a

strong voice for spending discipline, and we need more people like Dave

McSweeney in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

We have a full agenda for 2006 and beyond, and President Bush

understands that every decision he makes will affect the lives of

millions of Americans far into the future. He’s going to lead the

effort on comprehensive immigration reform, to make the system rational

and get control of the borders. And he will continue appointing solid

judges like John Roberts and Sam Alito to the federal bench.


Above all else, President Bush never loses sight of his most

fundamental duty — to defend this nation and to protect our people.

There is still hard work ahead in the global war on terror, because

we are dealing with enemies who have declared an intention to bring

great harm to any nation that opposes their aims. And their prime

targets are the United States and the American people.

In the face of such enemies, we have to consider a few basic

questions: First, whether to confront them on our terms, or on their

terms. Second: whether to face them on their territory, or on our

territory. And third: whether to wage this war on offense or defense.

America and the civilized world have made our decision: Wherever

terrorists operate, we will find them where they dwell, stop them in

their planning, bring them to justice, and stay in the fight until the

fight is won. (Applause.)

We remain on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. We

can expect further acts of violence and destruction by the enemies of

freedom. But progress has been steady — and there should be no

discounting the hopeful signs in that part of the world. In less than

two years’ time the Iraqi people have gained sovereignty, voted for a

transitional government, drafted a progressive, democratic constitution,

then approved the document in a national referendum, and elected a new

national government under the provisions of that constitution. The most

recent election had a voter turnout of more than 70 percent, as Iraqis

defied the killers and the car-bombers and went to the polls in huge


And Iraq now has a unity government that is committed to a future of

freedom and progress for all Iraqis. They have made a strong stand for

their own liberty; the U.S. is proud to be at their side.

Our coalition is also helping to build an Iraqi security force that is

well trained and well equipped. As that force grows in strength and the

political process continues to advance, we’ll be able to decrease troop

levels without losing our capacity to defeat the terrorists.

There’s a vigorous debate now taking place right now about the way

forward in Iraq. It’s always good to have such a discussion, because it

directly involves the security of the nation — the very issue that all

of us care about. Democrats and Republicans, obviously, are heavily

engaged in the debate, as it should be. We’ve reached the point where a

number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential

nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal. You might

recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it.

(Laughter and applause.) Somebody should do him a favor and tell him

the election’s over so he can stop flip-flopping. (Applause.)

Seriously, Senator Kerry’s prescription — giving up and setting a hard

deadline — is a terrible idea, and the Senate was correct in knocking

it down yesterday. It got 13 votes. (Applause.)

First, such a move would signal to the Iraqi people that America does

not keep its word. Second, it completely disregards the opinions of

commanders in charge of the war effort. Americans and our allies need

to know that decisions about troop levels will be driven by the

conditions on the ground and the judgment of our military commanders —

not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.


Another prominent Democrat, a friend of mine, Congressman Jack Murtha,

was on TV Sunday with his own plan for a withdrawal. He said that we

can deal with the Iraqi situation by redeploying forces to Okinawa.

(Laughter.) The Pacific Ocean is a long way from the Persian Gulf,

obviously. But the most troubling aspect of his proposal is this: He

cited two previous instances of American military withdrawal, and

suggested they would be good models for us to follow now. The first was

America’s exit from Beirut in 1983, and the second is the withdrawal

from Somalia in 1993.

I’ve known Jack Murtha for a long time. I worked closely with him when

I was Secretary of Defense and he chaired the defense appropriations

subcommittee. I respect him, but he’s dead wrong on this issue. His

proposal is contrary to the national interest. And he draws exactly the

wrong lessons from the examples of Beirut and Somalia. If you look back

at the years before 9/11, you see case after case where terrorists hit

America — and America failed to hit back hard enough. In Beirut

terrorists killed 241 of our servicemen. In Somalia we had the killing

of 19 Americans. In both cases, the United States responded to the

attacks by withdrawing our forces. But by doing so, we simply invited

more danger, because the terrorists concluded that if they killed enough

Americans, they could change American policy. And they did. So they

continued to wage attacks against America and American interests. We

had the bombing at the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, the

murders at the Saudi National Guard training facility in Riyadh in 1995;

the killings at Khobar Towers in 1996; the simultaneous bombings of

American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the bombing on the USS

Cole in 2000; and, ultimately, the events of 9/11, when we lost 3,000

Americans here at home.

If we follow Congressman Murtha’s advice and withdraw from Iraq the same

way we withdrew from Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, we will simply

validate the al Qaeda strategy and guarantee more terrorist attacks in

the future.

In the decade prior to 9/11, this country spent more than two trillion

dollars on national security. Yet we lost nearly 3,000 Americans at the

hands of 19 men armed with box cutters and airline tickets. In the case

of al Qaeda we are not dealing with large armies we can track, or

uniforms we can see, or men with territory of their own to defend.

Their preferred tactic, which they boldly proclaim, is to slip into this

country, to blend in among the innocent, and to kill without mercy and

without restraint. They have intelligence and counterintelligence

operations of their own. They take their orders from overseas. They

are using the most sophisticated communications technology they can get

their hands on.

The enemy also has a set of clear objectives. The terrorists want to

end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal

in that region is to seize control of a country, so they have a base

from which to launch attacks and wage war against governments that do

not meet their demands. The terrorists believe that by controlling one

country, they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in

the region, and ultimately to establish an authoritarian empire that

encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle

East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia.

They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambition: to arm

themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons; to

destroy Israel; to intimidate all Western countries; and to cause mass

death here in the United States.

In pursuit of those objectives, they have carried out a number of

attacks since 9/11 — in Casablanca, Jakarta, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh,

Baghdad, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm al-Sheikh, and elsewhere. Here

in the U.S., we have not had another 9/11. (Applause.)

Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won’t be hit again. But

the relative safety of these years was not an accident. We’ve been

protected by sensible policy decisions by the President, by decisive

action at home and abroad, by the round-the-clock efforts on the part of

people in the armed forces, law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland

security. (Applause.)

Unless somebody thinks the threat has gone away and does not exist,

they ought to look at their morning newspaper. We’ve had two weeks ago,

of course, in Toronto, a 17-man cell arrested by the Canadians plotting

attacks against civilian targets. And of course, this morning the

Attorney General held a press conference which I was watching as I came

in on the plane to Chicago to announce the arrest of seven individuals

in a cell in Miami, plotting among other things an attack on the Sears

Tower here in Chicago. It is a very real threat. There are still

people out there who are trying to do everything they can to kill

Americans. We have to defend ourselves against that threat.

The President has made a number of decisions since 9/11 that are

designed to do exactly that. One of those is the terrorist surveillance

program some of you have heard recently referred to as the domestic

surveillance program by the press corps. It is not domestic

surveillance. This is a program that’s targeted upon communications one

end of which is outside the United States, and one end of which, we

believe, is affiliated with al Qaeda. It is a good program.

There’s another program that has been in the papers this morning

that deals with finances, that is referred to — or I will refer to it

as a the terrorist finance tracking program, that allows us to track the

movements of funds internationally that are al Qaeda-related and al


Now, the President has been criticized. We’ve been criticized, the

administration on the terrorist surveillance program — may also be

criticized on the financial program by our opponents. Russ Feingold,

the senator from Wisconsin, has called for the censure of the President

over the terrorist surveillance program. The fact of the matter is that

these are good, solid sound programs. They are conducted in accordance

with the laws of the land. They are — they’re carried in a manner that

is fully consistent with the constitutional authority of the President

of the United States. They are absolutely essential in terms of

protecting us against attacks. And I am personally persuaded that they

are absolutely — have been absolutely essential in the fact that we

have not been hit again since 9/11.

The thing that I find most disturbing about these stories — even

though these programs have been briefed to the Congress, and they are

conducted in a way to guarantee and safeguard the civil liberties of the

American people, what I find most disturbing about these stories is the

fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose

vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for

us to prevent future attacks against the American people. That offends

me. (Applause.)

This nation is pursuing a clear and a necessary course of action against

the terrorists. We are absolutely determined to prevent attacks before

they occur, and so we’re working with other countries to break up terror

cells, to track down terrorist operatives, and to put heavy pressure on

their ability to organize and plan attacks. The work is difficult.

It’s often perilous, and there is much yet to do. But we have made

tremendous progress against this enemy that dwells in the shadows.

Second, we are determined to deny safe haven to the terrorists. Since

the day our country was attacked, we have pursued the Bush Doctrine: Any

person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is

complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account.


Third, we are working to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction, and to keep those weapons out of the hands of killers.

Fourth, we are determined to deny the terrorists control of any nation,

which they could use as a home base and staging ground for terrorist

attacks against the United States or others. That’s why we continue to

fight Taliban remnants and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. That is why

we are working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the

terrorist element in Pakistan. And that is why we are fighting the

remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al Qaeda-affiliated

terrorists in Iraq.

Because our coalition has stood by our commitments to the Afghan and

Iraqi peoples, some 50 million men, women, and children who lived under

dictators now live in freedom. Afghanistan is a rising democracy, with

the first fully elected government in its 5,000-year history. Iraq has

the most progressive constitution and the strongest democratic mandate

in the entire Arab world. The people now on duty in that part of the

world, our men and women in uniform, have done an absolutely outstanding

job for all of us. (Applause.)

So, ladies and gentlemen, it is critically important that we keep these

issues of national security at the top of the agenda in this election

year. The President and I welcome the discussion, because every voter

in America needs to know where the President and I stand and where Dave

McSweeney stands, as well as how the leaders of the Democratic Party

view the war on terror. (Applause.)

Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, boasted publicly of his efforts

to kill the Patriot Act. The Chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard

Dean, said the capture of Saddam Hussein would not make America safer.

And those prominent Democrats who now advocate a sudden withdrawal from

Iraq are counseling the very kind of retreat that has been tried in the

past and would only heighten the danger to the United States. For the

sake of our security, this nation must reject any strategy of

resignation and defeatism in the face of terrorist enemies. (Applause.)

We have to face the simple truth. The enemies that struck America are

weakened and fractured, but they are still lethal and still desperately

trying to find ways to kill Americans. They hate us, they hate our

country, and they hate the liberties for which we stand. They have

contempt for our values. They doubt our strength and our resolve. We

have a duty to act against them as effectively as we possibly can.

Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not. As long as

George W. Bush is leading this nation, we are serious, and we will not

let down our guard. (Applause.)

Ladies and gentlemen, in these five-and-a-half years we’ve been through

a great deal as a nation. Yet with each test, the American people have

displayed the true character of our country. We have built ourselves an

economy and a standard of living that are the envy of the world. We

have faced dangers with resolve. And we have been defended by some of

the bravest men and women this nation has ever produced. And when

future generations look back on our time, they will know that we met our

moment with courage and clear thinking. And they will know that America

became a better nation — stronger, more prosperous, and more secure —

under the leadership of our President, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

We’ll continue making progress for the American people — and it’s vital

we have strong partners like Dave McSweeney in the Congress of the

United States to help us. (Applause.) The President and I have

tremendous confidence in Dave. Send him to Washington and you’ll have a

congressman who speaks for your interests and your values each and every

day. I’m proud to join you in supporting Dave’s campaign. He’ll do a

fantastic job, and the President and I look forward to working with him

beginning in January.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 12:45 P.M. CDT

The Latest
Jordan Jackson, 22, faces three counts of aggravated assault of a peace officer, one count of possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, Chicago police said.
Mr. Wiley started as a copy clerk in 1952, working from midnight to 8 a.m., and attending classes at Northwestern University during the day.
A man was wounded by a security guard during a shootout at Millennium Park.
Ms. Osborne earned her bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and a master’s degree from Northwestern University. She was a founding member of the Chicago chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists.
David Smith, complete streets manager at the Chicago Department of Transportation, sat down for an interview recently to answer cyclists’ most pressing questions.