Bike Guy

On Tuesday, Mr. Cheney made the following statement:

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us - biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

His intention was to illustrate that given a worst case scenario, the current administration would be in a better position to respond than Mr. Kerry's administration. This is, of course, based on nothing more than speculation - in the event of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on a US city, we wouldn't be "responding" to anyone.

Since he raised the question, I have a few of my own for the vice president:

1) Let's assume a worst case scenario (like you proposed), of simultaneous nuclear detonations in multiple cities across the US. How exactly would we respond? It seems to me that our military, already stretched too thin in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, would need to be recalled to provide security, render aid and deliver supplies. Wouldn't his cause the collapse of the current Iraqi government, send the entire Middle East into a state of upheaval and most likely create World War Three? Since you raised the question, Mr. Vice President, I'd really like to see your action plan for coping with just such a catastrophe.

2) Again, thinking about worst case scenarios. Let's assume (this time) that there's a biological attack on several US cities. If we can't even sort out a simple flu vaccine problem, what are the chances we could produce enough vaccines to combat smallpox (or any other potential nasties) in an acceptable time frame? Can we safely assume that the chances are slim to none?

3) Throwing out the "what if" worst case scenarios, can you give me our potential responses to the following:
a. A direct hit from a large (< 1km across) meteor on US soil?
b. An invasion from a hostile race of extraterrestrials with superior technology?
c. Simultaneous catastrophic natural disasters (what happens if the San Andreas fault lets go, Mt. St. Helens explodes, another hurricane demolishes a major metro area in the southeast while tornadoes wreak havoc across the plains)? Surely you have a plan to deal with this, while John Kerry does not.

Yes, Mr. Cheney, I'm being sarcastic. Quite frankly, we both know what the proper response in any of the above situations will be - put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Neither the Bush administration nor the Kerry administration would be in a postion to do anything about the above threats - it comes down to reaction.

And if the worst did happen, I'd want John Kerry in that underground bunker, not George Bush. Why?

1) Kerry actually has combat experience.
2) Kerry would be more likely to get aid from our former allies. Let's face it - John Kerry hasn't pissed off all of Europe like your administration has.
3) Kerry (I believe) would focus more on rendering aid and rebuilding the infrastructure than on bombing a country with possible terrorist links.

It's been said, Mr. Cheney, that you can "fool some of the people some of the time and jerk the rest off". I'm telling you that's not always the case.