I’m late weighing in on this, but I just finally saw a tape of Vice President Cheney’s remarks that have caused such consternation among the Libs (e.g. ) and some tut-tutting on our side. I cannot for the life of me understand what the big deal is. I don’t even see why people should be trying to make excuses — like he was “rambling,” he was “inartful,” etc. What he was was right. He might not express the thought precisely the same way if he were to sit down and write prepared remarks rather than speaking off the top of his head, but what he said was both true and important.

Cheney said that if the wrong choice is made on election day — meaning if Kerry wins — “the danger is that we’ll get hit again” (meaning like 9/11), and that we’ll go back to a pre-9/11 mindset, meaning that terrorism will once again be regarded as a criminal justice issue rather than a military challenge. Isn’t that exactly what we think? Bush believes in, and has governed since 9/11 in accordance with, a doctrine of pre-emption and a military-first approach to terrorism. The reason we support those initiatives is because they drastically reduce — not eliminate, but reduce — the chance of a successful 9/11 style strike. They result in the killing or capturing of terrorists before they can strike, and, obviously, the permanent removal of those terrorists as a future threat. Since September 11, 2001, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in the domestic U.S.

Kerry has said in his nomination acceptance speech that he is for a reactive approach to terror — hitting back at the enemy only after we have been hit. He has said on other occasions that he regards terrorism primarily as a law enforcement and intelligence issue. This approach — the one that was in vogue from Feb. 26, 1993, through September 11, 2001 — has been shown to embolden terrorists and convince them that their attacks risk comparatively little consequence. It makes them more able to recruit and plan, and more likely to strike, than they would be if they thought the price of simply planning could be annihilation. Not surprisingly, when the Kerry approach, which is the pre-9/11 approach, was in place, we were subjected to repeated terrorist attacks and plots at home and abroad.

Based then on the empirical record, there is a “danger . . . that we’ll get hit again” if Kerry wins that is qualitatively differnt and more immediate than the danger that will exist if Bush wins. That doesn’t mean we’re out of danger if Kerry loses; but it does mean we’re in significantly less danger.

This doesn’t mean Kerry is a bad man, that he is unpatriotic, that he doesn’t care about national security, or that he would not work against terrorism. But he has a different approach and a different set of priorities which have been shown to increase the risk of terrorist attack. What is wrong with saying that? It’s what the election is about.