WE'LL MISS HIM (via John Resnick):

VP's Remarks in Dayton, Ohio (Dayton Convention Center, 8/12/04)

As you might have heard, there was a bit of a political gathering up in Boston a few weeks ago. (Laughter.) It's now official -- I have an opponent. (Laughter.) No, I really do. I have an opponent. People keep telling me that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks, his charm, and his great hair. I explain to them, "How do you think I got the job?" (Laughter and applause.)

Now, we are in the midst of an extraordinarily important election campaign -- maybe the most important in my lifetime. This election could not come at a more crucial time in our history. Today we face an enemy every bit as intent on destroying us as the Axis powers were in World War II, or the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. This enemy, in the words of the 9/11 Commission report released recently, is "sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal." What the enemy wants, as the 9/11 report explains, is to do away with democracy, to end all rights for women, and to impose their way of life on the rest of us. And as we saw on the morning of 9/11, this enemy is perfectly prepared to slaughter anyone -- man, woman, or child -- who stands in the way.

This is not an enemy that we can reason with or negotiate with or appease. This is, to put it simply, an enemy that we must destroy. And with President Bush as our Commander-in-Chief, that is exactly what we are going to do. (Applause.)

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on America, people in every part of the country, regardless of party, took pride and comfort in the conduct of our President. They saw a man calm in a crisis, comfortable with responsibility, and determined to do everything necessary to protect our people.

Under the President's leadership, we have driven the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and closed down the camps where terrorists trained to kill Americans. (Applause.) Under the President's leadership, we rid the world of a gathering threat by eliminating the regime of Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) Sixteen months ago, Saddam Hussein controlled the lives and the future of nearly 25 million people. Today, he is in jail. (Applause.)

A year ago, Libya had a secret nuclear weapons program. But after our forces ousted Saddam, and captured him in his hiding spot north of Baghdad, Libya's leader, Moammar Ghaddafi, had a change of heart. He turned over control of Libya's programs including the uranium, the centrifuges, the weapons plans, and today they are they are under American lock and key down at Oak Ridge, in Tennessee. (Applause.)

We've also shut down the secret network based in Pakistan that was the world's most dangerous supplier of illegal nuclear weapons technology. We've put terrorist financers out of office, and dismantled terror cells worldwide. And most of the planners of the 9/11 attacks have now been captured or killed -- including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

We could not have succeeded in these efforts, without the help of dozens of countries around the world. Now if you were to listen to our opponents in this election, you would think that America was fighting the war on terror all alone. Nothing could be further from the truth -- or more insulting to our allies. Terrorists have been killed or captured because of the efforts of our partners in Pakistan and Turkey, in Saudi Arabia, in Kenya and Malaysia. France and Germany have had troops alongside ours in Afghanistan. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, South Korea, the Ukraine, Japan and more than 20 other nations have contributed troops for the freedom of the Iraqi people. And as we fight the global war on terror, we have the support of Canada and Mexico, of Colombia, Jordan, and Morocco, of India, Paraguay, Denmark, the Netherlands, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Algeria, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Singapore, and Russia -- and the list of those who have joined with us in the global war on terror goes on. Remember this list -- and remember how long it is -- the next time you hear Senator Kerry say America does not have allies. (Applause.)

We are proud of our allies' contributions to the common effort. We will always seek international support for international efforts, but as President Bush has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. This President will never seek a permission slip to defend the United States of America. (Applause.)

Under the President's leadership, we have taken unprecedented steps to protect the American people here at home. To give law enforcement the tools they need to track down terrorists, we passed the Patriot Act. To focus our government on the mission of protecting the American people, we created the Department of Homeland Security. To fund cutting edge drugs and other defenses against the possibility of an attack with biological weapons, we set up Project BioShield.

But a good defense is not enough, and so we have also gone on the offense in the war on terror -- but the President's opponent, Senator Kerry, sometimes seems to object. He has even said that by using our strength, we are creating terrorists and placing ourselves in greater danger. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world we are living in works. Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. (Applause.)

Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. (Laughter.) America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare -- nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A "sensitive war" will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity. As our opponents see it, the problem isn't the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. Well, the American people know better. They know that we are in a fight to preserve our freedom and our way of life, and that we are on the side of rights and justice in this battle. Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed. (Applause.)

I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston, and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force. (Applause.)

In his convention speech, Senator Kerry invited us to judge him by his record, and that seems like a pretty good idea. (Laughter and applause.) As he frequently reminds people, he was once a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and what was his record there? Well, to begin with, he attended less than 25 percent of the intelligence committee's public meetings. In the aftermath of the first terror attack on the World Trade Center, Senator Kerry put forward two measures to gut the intelligence budget by $7.5 billion. His first proposal was voted down 75 to 20. Not even Senator Ted Kennedy, from his own state, would vote for it. When he proposed his second bill, he was unable to find a single co-sponsor for it. Even after this the -- even after this attack on the World Trade Center, Senator Kerry proposed legislation so harmful to our intelligence capabilities -- so extreme and out of the mainstream -- that even his fellow Democrats refused to support it.

The Senator has taken lately to portraying himself as a champion of strengthening our intelligence, but looking at the record, as he has invited us to do, paints a picture that ought to give us pause. The American people deserve a Commander-in-Chief who truly understands the need for intelligence capabilities, a leader who appreciates the vital work done by the men and women of our nation's intelligence community. They have had many successes that will forever go unheralded, and they deserve our gratitude. (Applause.)

We also have important differences with the Kerry-Edwards record when it comes to providing for our men and women in uniform. And there's one story that makes that about as clear as anything could be. It starts with Senators Kerry and Edwards voting yes when the President asked the Congress to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. But then, when it came time to vote for funds that would provide our fighting men and women with body armor, ammunition, jet fuel, and spare parts, Senators Kerry and Edwards voted no. Only 12 members of the United States Senate opposed the funding that would provide vital resources for our troops. Only four Senators voted for the use of force and against the resources our men and women in uniform needed once they were in combat. Only four. And Senators Kerry and Edwards were two of those four.

At first Senator Kerry said that he didn't really oppose the funding. He both supported and opposed it. He said, and I quote, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Well, that certainly clears things up. (Laughter.) But lately he's been saying he's proud that he and John Edwards voted no, and he explains that his decision was "complicated." But funding American troops in combat should never be a complicated question.