Four years ago, George Bush said he?d stand with and protect America?s police officers by extending the assault weapons ban ? which keeps the most dangerous assault weapons off our streets. The same weapons that America?s police officers want off our streets, not just to fight ordinary crime but to take on terrorists. In fact, an al Qaeda training manual recovered in Afghanistan included a chapter urging terrorists to get assault weapons in the United States. Why is George Bush making the job of the terrorists easier and making the job for America?s police officers harder?

…Here?s the question: is George Bush going to stand with special interests or with the safety of the American people? He has 72 hours to decide.

…Let me be very clear. I support the Second Amendment. I?ve been a hunter all my life. But I don?t think we need to make the job of the terrorists any easier. I stand with the vast majority of the American people and call on George W. Bush to protect our police ? and our security ? and keep assault weapons off our street.

John Kerry: 09-10-2004

If this lapses, we’ll be seeing machine guns back on the streets of Philly.

Cheney blithely dismissed Tim Russert when the host asked what would happen if “we’re not treated as liberators but as conquerors.” Would the American people be “prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?”

Not to worry, said Cheney: “I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.” Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki’s view of how many troops an occupation would require: “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.” Have we forgotten this, too?

E. J. Dionne Jr.: 09-10-2004

The real issue in the National Guard story isn’t what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It’s the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn’t, the White House’s repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn’t.

It’s the same pattern of dishonesty, this time involving personal matters that the public can easily understand, that some of us have long seen on policy issues, from global warming to the war in Iraq. On budget matters, which is where I came in, serious analysts now take administration dishonesty for granted.

It wasn’t always that way. Three years ago, those of us who accused the administration of cooking the budget books were ourselves accused, by moderates as well as by Bush loyalists, of being “shrill.” These days the coalition of the shrill has widened to include almost every independent budget expert.

Paul Krugman: 09-10-2004

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy – the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours.

Garrison Keillor: 08-26-2004

Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry’s accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.

Kevin Drum: 09-09-2004

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn’t, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he’s making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you’re accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power?the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush’s critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

Slate: 09-02-2004

…the danger is that we’ll get hit again — that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

Cheney on Kerry win: 09-07-2004

Most of the troops – 85 percent – died after President Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1, 2003. Nearly 15 percent died after the United States turned over sovereignty to Iraq’s new leaders this June. The deadliest month was this April, as insurgents stepped up their attacks. Nearly as many American troops died that month as had in the initial invasion.

NYTimes: 09-09-2004