THE PROACTIVE PREZ VS. THE REACTIVE SENATOR:

Powell targets terror comment: Kerry's response would be 'robust' (Glen Johnson, September 13, 2004, Boston Globe)

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday he believes Senator John F. Kerry would, if elected president, respond to terrorism "in a robust way," challenging a comment made last week by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I can't tell you how he might respond to it. As commander in chief, I think he'd respond to it in a robust way," the retired Army general said of Kerry during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Powell added: "There's no commander in chief, no president of the United States, who would not respond to terrorism. Now, how he would respond, which strategies that individual would use, I can't predict the future."

Cheney, speaking to supporters last Tuesday in Des Moines, said: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

Two days later, in an interview with the Cincinnati Enquirer, the vice president explained he would like to "clean up" his remark. "I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," Cheney said. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: 'Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat?' George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry."

How is there any contradiction here? The Vice President is saying, as the Senator said himself in his convention speech, that Mr. Kerry would only respond, not have as aggressive a pre-emptive policy as the Administration has enacted. Does anyone question that?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 13, 2004 6:09 PM