NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerry Envisions Terrorism As 'Just Another Nuisance'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry -- in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine -- said the Sept. 11 attacks "didn't change me much at all"; and said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance," the same way that prostitution and illegal gambling are a nuisance.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200410/POL20041011b.html

You mean the attitude of "If we allow the terrorists to change the way we live they win"? Thats what he is saying, as far as I can make out.

We all need to go back to the way things were in our frames of mind, because if we don't do so, the American populace will never be able to go another day without living in fear that today might be there last.

If the alert drops below red, THE TERRORISTS WIN! Fearmongering is a surprisingly effective way to drum up government support...

We all need to go back to the way things were in our frames of mind, because if we don't do so, the American populace will never be able to go another day without living in fear that today might be there last.

Um ... didn't President Bush say that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism was to go about our jobs?

I think the most telling thing in that article was Kerry saying that 9/11 didn't change him at all. I don't know about you folks, but it sure did change me. My youngest daughter was in the Windows on the World restaurant on 9/10 and got stranded at the airport the next day. :(

"out of sight, out of mind" annoys you, you mean?

If so...yes...but to be honust how can you win a war against a disembdoied entity which any person on the face of the earth can fit into if they wish? Without killing a very great number of people (99%) and reverting to a small self contained community, that is...

Actually, terrorism is pretty insignificant on the global scale of things. Like, how many people die from it in any given year, on average? And how spread out is it?

I think people will find that it's a local problem for a handful of states. Certainly not meriting a global war on nations, as opposed to local efforts against groups.

State violence is by far a bigger problem. Kerry has it right, actually. It's only people's perceptions that are at fault, blowing the problem out of all proportion.

Um ... didn't President Bush say that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism was to go about our jobs?

I didn't say otherwise.

I think the most telling thing in that article was Kerry saying that 9/11 didn't change him at all. I don't know about you folks, but it sure did change me. My youngest daughter was in the Windows on the World restaurant on 9/10 and got stranded at the airport the next day. :(

I have relatives that live in NY; hell, my cousin is a stock broker and routinely went to the WTC on a busy afternoon. Trust me, I know all about this hitting home, but nevertheless, the only thing 9/11 did to me was give me a good topic to do my senior English department thesis on.

Momentarily, 9/11 inspired me, but the aftermath of it and America's steadfast attitude of obliterating any government on the planet because it's not democratic got the better of me.

Kerry's feeling the same way, that's all, as is his right as an American citizen.

So, why not stop bashing him for having an opinion - unlike Bush who was the first one to start using 9/11 as cannon fodder for his election campaign AFTER families explicitly warned him of using the images for his adverts and what-not - and start debating something that matters?

Um ... didn't President Bush say that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism was to go about our jobs?

I think the most telling thing in that article was Kerry saying that 9/11 didn't change him at all. I don't know about you folks, but it sure did change me. My youngest daughter was in the Windows on the World restaurant on 9/10 and got stranded at the airport the next day. :(
Not everyone was "changed" by 9/11 some of us were just fine the way we were, thank you.

But I am sorry for your fears.
State violence is by far a bigger problem. Kerry has it right, actually. It's only people's perceptions that are at fault, blowing the problem out of all proportion.
Agreed, Kerry is correct. Perception is the most influencing factor.

Um ... didn't President Bush say that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism was to go about our jobs? So Bush and Kerry agree? Good.

I think the most telling thing in that article was Kerry saying that 9/11 didn't change him at all. I don't know about you folks, but it sure did change me. My youngest daughter was in the Windows on the World restaurant on 9/10 and got stranded at the airport the next day. :( Why should it change him? Al-Quaeda was a terrorist organisation before the attack, the USA was nominally trying to stamp out terrorism even before 911.

All it did was create one more reason to stop terrorists and the Al-Quaeda network in particular. That, and kill a lot of people.

Actually, terrorism is pretty insignificant on the global scale of things. Like, how many people die from it in any given year, on average? And how spread out is it?n.

This (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Terrorism_Statistics.html) web site has some could statistics on those numbers.

Basically, more people die from rabies every year than they do from terrorism.

I didn't say otherwise.

I have relatives that live in NY; hell, my cousin is a stock broker and routinely went to the WTC on a busy afternoon. Trust me, I know all about this hitting home, but nevertheless, the only thing 9/11 did to me was give me a good topic to do my senior English department thesis on.

Momentarily, 9/11 inspired me, but the aftermath of it and America's steadfast attitude of obliterating any government on the planet because it's not democratic got the better of me.

Kerry's feeling the same way, that's all, as is his right as an American citizen.

So, why not stop bashing him for having an opinion - unlike Bush who was the first one to start using 9/11 as cannon fodder for his election campaign AFTER families explicitly warned him of using the images for his adverts and what-not - and start debating something that matters?

Um ... which opinion might that be?

"As best I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.' He would do it by forging a broader and effective 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted.' The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat. When he wasn't demanding the troops be brought home from Iraq, Mr. Kerry was urging more of them be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'a grand diversion,' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us,' but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words closely that questions arose. If you just drifted along with him, it all sounded good enough for government work. Besides, he's a lot taller than the president." --Paul Greenberg

This (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Terrorism_Statistics.html) web site has some could statistics on those numbers.

Basically, more people die from rabies every year than they do from terrorism.

Well, that certainly justifies allowing terrorists free reign, doesn't it! :rolleyes:

And by the way ... if more people die from rabies every year than die from terrorists, why then are you concerned about how many American soldiers die in Iraq? Are their lives somehow more important than those who died during the 9/11 attacks? Or, for that matter, those who die from rabies?

Well, that certainly justifies allowing terrorists free reign, doesn't it! :rolleyes:

And by the way ... if more people die from rabies every year than die from terrorists, why then are you concerned about how many American soldiers die in Iraq? Are their lives somehow more important than those who died during the 9/11 attacks? Or, for that matter, those who die from rabies?
People dying in Iraq are from military deaths and civilians from both sides (collatoral damage)
Well 9/11 Twin towers are more important because that was terrorism.
Rabies is a terrible epidemic; we must stop it!

"As best I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.' He would do it by forging a broader and effective 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted.' The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat. When he wasn't demanding the troops be brought home from Iraq, Mr. Kerry was urging more of them be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'a grand diversion,' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us,' but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words closely that questions arose. If you just drifted along with him, it all sounded good enough for government work. Besides, he's a lot taller than the president." --Paul Greenberg
"As best as I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong wat at the wrong time in the wrong place'. He would do it by replacing the 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted' and replacing it by a broad and effective coalition of the willing. The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat on American interests. When he wasn't demanding that the troops who had been sent to Iraq get the support they need so they could finish the job and come home, he was urging more troops and support be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'grand diversion' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe that this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us', but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words carefully that one realised the logic behind them. If you just drifted along with him, it all just sounded like normal liberal nonsense. Besides, he is a lot more well-spoken, clever and educated than the president."

Fixed it.

"As best as I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong wat at the wrong time in the wrong place'. He would do it by replacing the 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted' and replacing it by a broad and effective coalition of the willing. The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat on American interests. When he wasn't demanding that the troops who had been sent to Iraq get the support they need so they could finish the job and come home, he was urging more troops and support be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'grand diversion' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe that this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us', but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words carefully that one realised the logic behind them. If you just drifted along with him, it all just sounded like normal liberal nonsense. Besides, he is a lot more well-spoken, clever and educated than the president."

Fixed it.

According to whom? You'm? :D

Well, that certainly justifies allowing terrorists free reign, doesn't it! :rolleyes:

And by the way ... if more people die from rabies every year than die from terrorists, why then are you concerned about how many American soldiers die in Iraq? Are their lives somehow more important than those who died during the 9/11 attacks? Or, for that matter, those who die from rabies?
Saying that rabies is more of a problem than terrorism doesn't say that terrorism is not a problem.
It just say that you should care about rabies as much, if not more and not focus all your life on terrorism. People are dying of hunger they need help as much (well more) as those who die from terrorism. Terrorism should not hide everything else.

Obviously according to me, given that I wrote it.

Well, that certainly justifies allowing terrorists free reign, doesn't it! :rolleyes:

If you're going to debate, please stop putting words in my mouth... I never said it justified allowing terrorists free region. Terrorism is happening everywhere else, and we're going in and taking care of it for governments that should be handling it themselves.

Hence, why the world hates us right now; we meddle in affairs that are not our own.

9/11 is becoming increasingly insignificant because of the way our country handled its grief; we went to war.

And by the way ... if more people die from rabies every year than die from terrorists, why then are you concerned about how many American soldiers die in Iraq?

I'm concerned because I, like many others on NS, have friends, family, and colleagues over in various danger zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what the war over there's like from the accounts from those close to me. Thus, I have every right to be concerned with who's dying and who's not, because I may, too, lose someone over there in an unjustified provokation of a "war on terrorism" that is nothing more than an attempt to justify why we let 9/11 happen in the first place.

Are their lives somehow more important than those who died during the 9/11 attacks? Or, for that matter, those who die from rabies?

Damn right my friends, family, and colleagues' lives are more important to me, personally, than those that were lost on 9/11, because I didn't know anyone who died on the latter day.

I've also never known anyone, personally, who died from rabies.

If you're going to debate, please stop putting words in my mouth... I never said it justified allowing terrorists free region. Terrorism is happening everywhere else, and we're going in and taking care of it for governments that should be handling it themselves.

Hence, why the world hates us right now; we meddle in affairs that are not our own.

9/11 is becoming increasingly insignificant because of the way our country handled its grief; we went to war.



I'm concerned because I, like many others on NS, have friends, family, and colleagues over in various danger zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what the war over there's like from the accounts from those close to me. Thus, I have every right to be concerned with who's dying and who's not, because I may, too, lose someone over there in an unjustified provokation of a "war on terrorism" that is nothing more than an attempt to justify why we let 9/11 happen in the first place.



Damn right my friends, family, and colleagues' lives are more important to me, personally, than those that were lost on 9/11, because I didn't know anyone who died on the latter day.

I've also never known anyone, personally, who died from rabies.

I've known dogs of people. They were dear freinds both human and canine. Its a terrible thing.

Saying that rabies is more of a problem than terrorism doesn't say that terrorism is not a problem.
It just say that you should care about rabies as much, if not more and not focus all your life on terrorism. People are dying of hunger they need help as much (well more) as those who die from terrorism. Terrorism should not hide everything else.

Surprisingly enough, I agree with you. Perhaps it's the idea of terrorism that carries so much weight?

Once again, I have to wonder if Eutrusca ever bothered to read the whole article before posting it:

Bai also noted that when he asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment: "It accelerated -- " Kerry paused. "I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing."
Kerry said the 9/11 attacks didn't transform him as much as they angered and frustrated him - "that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it."

From the article that 'angered' Eutrusca so much.
Yep, I can see how pissed you'd be having a President who was angered and frustrated about the fact that these events hadn't been prevented and more needs to be done in order to ensure such attacks don't happen again. :rolleyes:


To be honest I was under the impression that it wasn't attitudes like this that got Eustrusca angry, more just forgetting to take those little red pills every day. :)

Surprisingly enough, I agree with you. Perhaps it's the idea of terrorism that carries so much weight?
It is the purpose of terrorism to make you focus on the issue. It works but it shouldn't.

Um ... which opinion might that be?

"As best I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.' He would do it by forging a broader and effective 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted.' The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat. When he wasn't demanding the troops be brought home from Iraq, Mr. Kerry was urging more of them be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'a grand diversion,' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us,' but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words closely that questions arose. If you just drifted along with him, it all sounded good enough for government work. Besides, he's a lot taller than the president." --Paul Greenberg

That would be Paul Greenberg's opinion, not Kerry's. All Greenberg did was take parts of Kerry's statements and pepper his rhetoric with them to make it sound like that's what Kerry meant. Kerry himself said in the second debate (or was it the first?) that he honored the soldiers' sacrifices, not that they were fighting in vain. The war may be wrong, but he didn't say the soldiers were wrong.

The political laundry remains in spin cycle...

If you're going to debate, please stop putting words in my mouth... I never said it justified allowing terrorists free region. Terrorism is happening everywhere else, and we're going in and taking care of it for governments that should be handling it themselves.

Hence, why the world hates us right now; we meddle in affairs that are not our own.

9/11 is becoming increasingly insignificant because of the way our country handled its grief; we went to war.

I'm concerned because I, like many others on NS, have friends, family, and colleagues over in various danger zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what the war over there's like from the accounts from those close to me. Thus, I have every right to be concerned with who's dying and who's not, because I may, too, lose someone over there in an unjustified provokation of a "war on terrorism" that is nothing more than an attempt to justify why we let 9/11 happen in the first place.

Damn right my friends, family, and colleagues' lives are more important to me, personally, than those that were lost on 9/11, because I didn't know anyone who died on the latter day.

I've also never known anyone, personally, who died from rabies.

I appreciate the clarification. I understand your personal concern with family and friends. I'm sure if one of my sons was fighting overseas, I would be greatly concerned as well. However ... I would also want to support winning the war because they would have gone of their own free will.

That would be Paul Greenberg's opinion, not Kerry's. All Greenberg did was take parts of Kerry's statements and pepper his rhetoric with them to make it sound like that's what Kerry meant. Kerry himself said in the second debate (or was it the first?) that he honored the soldiers' sacrifices, not that they were fighting in vain. The war may be wrong, but he didn't say the soldiers were wrong.

The political laundry remains in spin cycle...

Yes, it is spinning rapidly, with Kerry doing 99.99% of it. I consider myself to be pretty good at comprehending what people are trying to say, but when I try to sort out all of Kerry's multiple positions on any given topic, I get a headache.

It is the purpose of terrorism to make you focus on the issue. It works but it shouldn't.

That's where we part ways. The purpose of terrorism is "warfare by other means." It's an attempt to get your own way by, for example, beheading those who oppose you.

To be honest I was under the impression that it wasn't attitudes like this that got Eustrusca angry, more just forgetting to take those little red pills every day. :)

Um ... "little red pills?" What little red pills?

That's where we part ways. The purpose of terrorism is "warfare by other means." It's an attempt to get your own way by, for example, beheading those who oppose you.Well guerilla and assassination tactics is not the same as terrorism.

That would be Paul Greenberg's opinion, not Kerry's. All Greenberg did was take parts of Kerry's statements and pepper his rhetoric with them to make it sound like that's what Kerry meant. Kerry himself said in the second debate (or was it the first?) that he honored the soldiers' sacrifices, not that they were fighting in vain. The war may be wrong, but he didn't say the soldiers were wrong.

In fairness, here's a nice little poem made up of excerpts from Bush's speeches (Not from me, from Washington Post writer Richard Thompson):

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
Where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!

Make the pie higher!
Make the pie higher!

Um ... "little red pills?" What little red pills?
forgetfulness is another sign of having not taken them. ;)

Yes, it is spinning rapidly, with Kerry doing 99.99% of it. I consider myself to be pretty good at comprehending what people are trying to say, but when I try to sort out all of Kerry's multiple positions on any given topic, I get a headache.

But... didn't you just post a spin yourself? Greenberg's quote misrepresented Kerry's words to apply them to his own views. And from what I've seen, Bush's party has been doing most of the spin. The debates are showing that. Not that the Democrats aren't guilty of it as well, but the Republican party is responsible for more. Besides, all Bush says is "9/11, TERRAR! Kerry is a FLIP FLOPPAH! You can't send mexed missages!"

Well guerilla and assassination tactics is not the same as terrorism.

Hmmm. You might be able to build a case that guerilla tactics aren't terrorism, but assassination? I suppose it would depend upon how and under what circumstances the assassinations were carried out, and upon who was being assassinated.

forgetfulness is another sign of having not taken them. ;)

LOL! What an excellent example of circular reasoning. It's like the dolt who used Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore. Or some Christians who try to use the Bible to prove the Bible. :)

But... didn't you just post a spin yourself?

Um ... not that I'm aware of. ( Looks around for any stray spins laying about )

Hmmm. You might be able to build a case that guerilla tactics aren't terrorism, but assassination? I suppose it would depend upon how and under what circumstances the assassinations were carried out, and upon who was being assassinated.Well I'd say assassination is one thing and terrorism is another. There can be a case of terrorism by assassination, but it does not mean terrorism and assassination is the same thing. Terrorism is about getting as much attention as possible. If you pay more attention to terrorism than to hunger then it works.

said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance,"
You mean he hopes to significantly reduce terrorism? Well, who wouldn't?

However ... I would also want to support winning the war because they would have gone of their own free will.

While I don't necessarily support the war, I do support our troops, every single one of them.

Kerry Envisions Terrorism As 'Just Another Nuisance'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry -- in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine -- said the Sept. 11 attacks "didn't change me much at all"; and said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance," the same way that prostitution and illegal gambling are a nuisance.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200410/POL20041011b.html

Oh God, someone get rid of Kerry....

So he wants the good old days when we ignored terrorism... which led to 9/11. Wow, that man is a genious... :headbang:

Oh God, someone get rid of Kerry....

So he wants the good old days when we ignored terrorism... which led to 9/11. Wow, that man is a genious... :headbang:

ROFLMAO!!! Well, he may very well BE a genious ... he seems to understand what he's saying even though no one else does! :D

Oh God, someone get rid of Kerry....

So he wants the good old days when we ignored terrorism... which led to 9/11. Wow, that man is a genious... :headbang:

We didn't ignore terrorism. We just knew better than to go into other country's and mess with matters that neither concerned us nor threatened us.

ROFLMAO!!! Well, he may very well BE a genious ... he seems to understand what he's saying even though no one else does! :D

LOL, indeed.

We didn't ignore terrorism. We just knew better than to go into other country's and mess with matters that neither concerned us nor threatened us.

Oh, so thats why Clinton never went after bin Laden...

Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

LOL! What an excellent example of circular reasoning. It's like the dolt who used Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore. Or some Christians who try to use the Bible to prove the Bible. :)

Or that guy who keeps using GoP rhetoric to prove GoP rhetoric...

Or that guy who keeps using GoP rhetoric to prove GoP rhetoric...

Um ... I don't know anyone like that. Do you know anyone like that? Hmmm! :D

Oh, so thats why Clinton never went after bin Laden...

Ok, let's get something straight: Just because I don't support George Bush doesn't mean I support everyone else that ignored problems in the US.

Besides, we trained bin Laden to be the terrorist he is today, now, didn't we? :p

Kerry Envisions Terrorism As 'Just Another Nuisance'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry -- in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine -- said the Sept. 11 attacks "didn't change me much at all"; and said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance," the same way that prostitution and illegal gambling are a nuisance.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200410/POL20041011b.html

I dislike GWB greatly....but I do trust him more when it comes to Islamofascism. Kerry has no plan in that respect, or one that is far too passive.

I dislike GWB greatly....but I do trust him more when it comes to Islamofascism. Kerry has no plan in that respect, or one that is far too passive.

I see not how you can trust him - "Oh, we need a scapegoat, how about Iraq, despite the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein hated one another!" And then to (like Blair) say that, actually, the war was about saving Iraqis is low.

Ok, let's get something straight: Just because I don't support George Bush doesn't mean I support everyone else that ignored problems in the US.


Don't worry. I wasn't trying to say you supported Clinton.

I dislike GWB greatly....but I do trust him more when it comes to Islamofascism. Kerry has no plan in that respect, or one that is far too passive.

Damn straight.

I dislike GWB greatly....but I do trust him more when it comes to Islamofascism. Kerry has no plan in that respect, or one that is far too passive.

Which is a point I have been trying and trying to get accross to some on here. :rolleyes:

Which is a point I have been trying and trying to get accross to some on here. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but at least there are people who agree with you.

I see not how you can trust him - "Oh, we need a scapegoat, how about Iraq, despite the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein hated one another!" And then to (like Blair) say that, actually, the war was about saving Iraqis is low.

To call Iraq a scapegoat implies an innocence that does not and never has existed. Hussein would use any means necessary to strike back at the US, and Islamists would have used the powers of a nation state to gain means for a crippling strike. Symbiosis.

I think proactive measures on terrorism is a superior strategy than vesting trust in the ever wringing hands of the UN Security Council.

Yeah, but at least there are people who agree with you.
I don't agree with your opinions, but I will fight untill I get a nosebleed for your right to state it.

Oh, so thats why Clinton never went after bin Laden...

Thanks for clearing that up.

If you would check out the links here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558918.stm) and here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59781-2004Feb21&notFound=true), you would easily be able to see that Clinton - regardless of the man's many, many faults in other areas - did in fact go after bin Laden. A lot. He failed, but so has Bush thus far. It's not really a commentary on either.

Kerry Envisions Terrorism As 'Just Another Nuisance'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry -- in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine -- said the Sept. 11 attacks "didn't change me much at all"; and said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance," the same way that prostitution and illegal gambling are a nuisance.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200410/POL20041011b.html


Of course, if you read the full quote, he isn't saying that terrorism is just a nuisance, but that we should push for a time when we won't be causing more of it and that it will fall into the background.

In other words, it is much more than a nuisance right now but we hope one day it won't be.

Understand?

All I have to say on this matter is, how can anyone trust Bush on handling fundamentalists. He is creating far more of them than he is destroying through these wars. And besides practically putting up recruitment flyers for terrorist cells he has managed to alienate our allies. Britain is like the only country that matters that is still on our side, and most of people there are ready to lynch Blair. So if any of you intend on voting Bush it shouldn't be because he is doing a great job against terrorism! Actually... while I'm on my soap box here I might as well throw in some terrorism comments. How many people are actually losing sleep over terrorism? It sure isn't bothering me. The bottom line is you slip in the shower and die. We're all gonna die someday unless any of you happen to be able to stop death (kudos to you if you can). Anyway we're are all going to die it doesn't really matter how happens. If you are going to die then you are going to die, no point in worrying about it. Sorry for this long rambling speach, but if you took the time to read it I hope you thought about what I had to say and formed your own opinions instead of just taking what other people say as gospell. Also sorry for any typing errors... I have a habit of thinking faster than I type.

Of course, if you read the full quote, he isn't saying that terrorism is just a nuisance, but that we should push for a time when we won't be causing more of it and that it will fall into the background.

In other words, it is much more than a nuisance right now but we hope one day it won't be.

Understand?

Shhhhhhhhh...that's the...the...the Word that Cannot by Spoken. You know, starts with T, rhymes with Ruth? Don't SAY those kinda things. In fact, when you say thet-the Word that Cannot be Spoken, then Terrorism (capitol t, because we ALL know it's a group of people, not an ideology) has won!

"As best as I could make out, John Kerry proposed to better wage this 'wrong wat at the wrong time in the wrong place'. He would do it by replacing the 'coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted' and replacing it by a broad and effective coalition of the willing. The senator would have removed the threat of Saddam Hussein without removing Saddam Hussein, who represented no real threat on American interests. When he wasn't demanding that the troops who had been sent to Iraq get the support they need so they could finish the job and come home, he was urging more troops and support be sent. Our troops, who are engaged in a 'colossal error' and 'grand diversion' are not fighting in vain. Out on the campaign trail, the senator may believe that this administration 'has lied to us, they have misled us', but he has never accused his opponent of lying. It was only when one listened to the senator's words carefully that one realised the logic behind them. If you just drifted along with him, it all just sounded like normal liberal nonsense. Besides, he is a lot more well-spoken, clever and educated than the president."

Fixed it.Jesus, how is this difficult to understand? If we're there, we should be there with the manpower and equipment that we need to keep both soldiers and civillians safe. Of course, the best way to keep them safe is to have them back at home.

To call Iraq a scapegoat implies an innocence that does not and never has existed. Hussein would use any means necessary to strike back at the US, and Islamists would have used the powers of a nation state to gain means for a crippling strike. Symbiosis.

I think proactive measures on terrorism is a superior strategy than vesting trust in the ever wringing hands of the UN Security Council.
Private England was a scapegoat. She wasn't innocent, but she got saddled with far more than she actually did.

I don't want to read the article based on the interview. I want to read the interview itself. Because the interview is directly what he said, the article is based on what he said and drives it in a biased way. Subtle difference.

I have to get this off my chest because Kerry's statement about getting back to how we were before 9/11 where terrorism was just a "nuisance" really really bothers me.


What he doesn't seem to understand is that, the reason attacks such as 9/11 were available to terrorists is because we didn't take them seriously enough. He says that our policy in the past limited them to just being a nuisance but, obviously thats wrong. Nuisances don't fly commericial airliners into buildings. Our policy didn't make them nuisances. It just gave us a false sense of sercurity in which we believed they weren't a serious threat.

A flea bite is a nuisance. People who are willing to fly planes into buildings and kill as many innocent people as possible are a serious problem and should be treated as such.

Never again should we return to the "it won't happen to us" attitude that we had before.

On a side note: Its funny that he isn't chosing his words wisely but, its ok because he isn't Bush. When Bush has a slip up everyone calls stupidity right away.

I have to get this off my chest because Kerry's statement about getting back to how we were before 9/11 where terrorism was just a "nuisance" really really bothers me.


What he doesn't seem to understand is that, the reason attacks such as 9/11 were available to terrorists is because we didn't take them seriously enough. He says that our policy in the past limited them to just being a nuisance but, obviously thats wrong. Nuisances don't fly commericial airliners into buildings. Our policy didn't make them nuisances. It just gave us a false sense of sercurity in which we believed they weren't a serious threat.

A flea bite is a nuisance. People who are willing to fly planes into buildings and kill as many innocent people as possible are a serious problem and should be treated as such.

Never again should we return to the "it won't happen to us" attitude that we had before.

On a side note: Its funny that he isn't chosing his words wisely but, its ok because he isn't Bush. When Bush has a slip up everyone calls stupidity right away.


It WAS a nuisance. 9/11 has less to do with terrorists being big and powerful then it did security reasons. Before 9/11 security was a joke, and after 9/11 it was an even bigger joke (though a much more sarcastic one). Before, you could carry a knife onboard a plane. Now you can't clip your fingernails.

It WAS a nuisance. 9/11 has less to do with terrorists being big and powerful then it did security reasons. Before 9/11 security was a joke, and after 9/11 it was an even bigger joke (though a much more sarcastic one). Before, you could carry a knife onboard a plane. Now you can't clip your fingernails.
That is completely different from the point of this thread. Kerry thinks one day terrorism will just be a "nuisance," which would be like saying one day war will be a memory.

Terrorism, to kerry, is a nuisance. Kerry wants to deal with it they way Clinton did, as a law enforcement matter. It is no longer a police matter. Bush is right on this one. Gotta attack them and kill them. Kerry won't do this.

That is completely different from the point of this thread. Kerry thinks one day terrorism will just be a "nuisance," which would be like saying one day war will be a memory.
You're right on target Arammanar.

Terrorism, to kerry, is a nuisance. Kerry wants to deal with it they way Clinton did, as a law enforcement matter. It is no longer a police matter. Bush is right on this one. Gotta attack them and kill them. Kerry won't do this.

Actually that's false; Kerrry has on at least one occasion said so.

As for as the "nuisance" quote, that has been taken out of context. What he said was he doesn't think terrorism can be completely eliminated, but believes it can be reduced such that it's only a nuisance and not a huge issue.

Actually that's false; Kerrry has on at least one occasion said so.

I wish someone will tell me what he plans then because he hasn't said it yet.

As for as the "nuisance" quote, that has been taken out of context. What he said was he doesn't think terrorism can be completely eliminated, but believes it can be reduced such that it's only a nuisance and not a huge issue.

I doubt very much it was taken out of context. As for the rest of what you said, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT GWB SAID!!!!!!

I wish someone will tell me what he plans then because he hasn't said it yet.


Here's a speech:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html


I doubt very much it was taken out of context.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/kerry.terror/index.html

It doesnt contain the full quote (cant find it atm :( ) but:

He said that, like prostitution and illegal gambling, terrorism will never go away, "but we're going to reduce it ... to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day.

Actually that's false; Kerrry has on at least one occasion said so.

As for as the "nuisance" quote, that has been taken out of context. What he said was he doesn't think terrorism can be completely eliminated, but believes it can be reduced such that it's only a nuisance and not a huge issue.

Sorry Cosgrach but he has not stated his plan. At least not to the detail he needs too.

As for the quote out of context, I saw the debate and I was appalled that he said that. Why should we take it back to when terrorism was a nuisance. Sorry hun but if I was of voting age, that'll turn me off of him.

I have to get this off my chest because Kerry's statement about getting back to how we were before 9/11 where terrorism was just a "nuisance" really really bothers me.

You picked the wrong forum to take Kerry's words out of context. Even the anti-Kerry people I would like to think were smart enough to take the comment in context. This type of out of context comment won't fly well on these forums as many here are quite up on the political situation in the American election. Perhaps you really didn't understand what Kerry was saying.. that's okay.. most of us did. In other words, Kerry is saying under his leadership he would like to see terrorism no more then a piece of gum stuck to your shoe. In other words, fight a smart war on terror, as opposed to what Bush has done. Even Bush has admitted the war on terror can never be won totally.

As for the quote out of context, I saw the debate and I was appalled that he said that.

This is almost as dishonest as you were with the Senate Intel report.. there was no debate, the quote was taken from "The NewYork Times Magazine" Really FD, I expected more of you then outright lies!

Sorry Cosgrach but he has not stated his plan. At least not to the detail he needs too.

As for the quote out of context, I saw the debate and I was appalled that he said that. Why should we take it back to when terrorism was a nuisance. Sorry hun but if I was of voting age, that'll turn me off of him.

Well, Kerry has stated his plan, you just refuse to listen to him. I know you are opposed to him, and you are free to disagree with him, but to state that he hasn't outlined his plan is sheer denial.

You are living in a fantasy world. The quote that is being referenced didn't happen in the debate. What world do you live in? It happened in a New York Times Magazine interview. Kerry wasn't saying that terrorism was a nuisance. All he was saying is that as long as the world exists, there's always going to be madmen with bombs. We have to beat back terrorism and anti-American snetiment to the point where terrorism is no longer a fear in everyone's heart but merely a rare thing that still needs our attention, but fails to grip our heart with anxiety.

In other words, winning the war on terror. Bush was saying the exact same thing when he said "I don't think we can win it." So, I think Democrats who criticize Bush for this particular comment are equally as wrong.

Check thyself for malignant hypocrisy. It may be life-threatening.

What he doesn't seem to understand is that, the reason attacks such as 9/11 were available to terrorists is because we didn't take them seriously enough.
By "we" you mean Bush, Ashcroft, et. al., right? Seems to me terrorism was nothing more than a nuisance all the way up until they all went to bed on Sept. 10th, 2001.
He's saying, like Bush has said, that we are never going to eradicate terrorism from the planet. Period.

Terrorism, to kerry, is a nuisance. Kerry wants to deal with it they way Clinton did, as a law enforcement matter. It is no longer a police matter. Bush is right on this one. Gotta attack them and kill them. Kerry won't do this.

AAARRRRGGHHH
That isn't what Kerry said and that's not what Clinton did. :headbang:
Get your political news from someone other than Rupert Murdock.
Kerry was talking about reducing the possibility of terrorism NOT pretending that it's low already the way Bush does.

And the way Clinton treated terrorism worked. Remember the first WTC bombing? Under Clinton they caught the guys who did it and they found out that Osama bin Laden was the big terrorist lynchpin.
Remember the millenium bomb plot? No? Probably because it the Clinton administration prevented it by "mistaking" it as a law enforcement matter.

The Clinton administration's model worked, Bush's model of "it doesn't matter who you hit as long as you hit'em hard enough" doesn't. And as far as guessing what Kerry will do... I'll gamble on the advice of a war hero far sooner than I'll stick the advice of a semi-retarded male cheerleader.

I can't believe you are making a big deal about taking it out of context, the Dems do the same to Bush all the time. If either canidate says just one little thing a bit off the media and the other barty are going to cook them alive. Remember when Bush said that thing about the war on terrorism not being winnable or something? The media and Kerry eat him for breakfast for just one little sentence and now they are doing the same to Kerry.

I can't believe you are making a big deal about taking it out of context... SNIP
thanks. laughter does good.

This is almost as dishonest as you were with the Senate Intel report.. there was no debate, the quote was taken from "The NewYork Times Magazine" Really FD, I expected more of you then outright lies!

Ok so it didn't come from a debate but from a speech somewhere. I remember hearing him say it. I also know he said that. It is hard to take a quote like that out of context Stephistan. Terrorism is a THREAT not a nuisance to society. He calls terrorism a nuisance is a slap in the face to all those that have died in a terrorist attack.

I'm sorry but I cannot give someone that is this idiotic, my vote.

Terrorism, to kerry, is a nuisance. Kerry wants to deal with it they way Clinton did, as a law enforcement matter. It is no longer a police matter. Bush is right on this one. Gotta attack them and kill them. Kerry won't do this.
Bin Laden who?

Iraq a threat. Ya okay.

Bush has not delivered on his promises and has even made it worse by attacking Iraq.

I continually find this whole idea that we have a War on Terrorism to be most amusing. Might I point out that we have a similar War going on in this country and have had for 20 years. We call it the War on Drugs. Both [Wars] are against an unidentifiable group of people bent on acheiving their own ends.

In both of these situations, the citizens of the US have given up some amazing rights in the name of [I] making the country safer.] We now accept that things just have to be this way because of 9/11. It's a crock of swill that most everyone in this country swallows daily.

Kerry's right, of course. You can't defeat terrorism. You can't stop those that are disenfranchised from seeking ways violent or not from changing their circumstances. During the Viet Nam war(which was also not a War), we had what would now be described as 'domestic terrorists' launching attacks on targets within the US to make the US change it's policies.

The most we can hope to do is promote the concepts of freedom and open society world wide. Bush is right in this regard freedom will help reduce this problem, but I wonder. Does he really believe that we are promoting freedom and justice by bombing civilians in the middle east?

Flame on!!

Terrorism, to kerry, is a nuisance. Kerry wants to deal with it they way Clinton did, as a law enforcement matter. It is no longer a police matter. Bush is right on this one. Gotta attack them and kill them. Kerry won't do this.

You are wrong and wrong. Batting 0/2. The War On Terror is and can only be mostly a police matter. Bush seems to think that the deployment of M1A1 Battle Tanks and Blackhawk helicopters is going to defeat the terrorists. That's not the case. The United States must work with the rest of the world's investigation agencies to ferret out and take down sleeper cells. Britain probably has terrorist cells hiding in it....are you going to invade them?

AAARRRRGGHHH
That isn't what Kerry said and that's not what Clinton did. :headbang:
Get your political news from someone other than Rupert Murdock.
Kerry was talking about reducing the possibility of terrorism NOT pretending that it's low already the way Bush does.

Oh I'm sorry! I guess I missed the war against the Al Qaeda during the Clinton Administration. I did not know that he accepted Bin Ladin from Sudan.
I guess that since he erected a barrier between the FBI and the CIA, doesn't mean much to you does it? Yes he wants to reduce terrorism but the way to do that is to kill them.

And the way Clinton treated terrorism worked.

That is bullshit. If it worked, don't you think that Al Qaeda would not have been able to HIT US on 9/11? I guess having 3000 dead in 2001 in one attack that was PLANNED during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION says that what he was doing was working. I guess you missed Kobar as well as the embassy Bombings as well as the USS Cole, yep what he did against terror sure worked.

Remember the first WTC bombing? Under Clinton they caught the guys who did it and they found out that Osama bin Laden was the big terrorist lynchpin.

Yep caught him alright. And when Sudan OFFERED BIN LADIN up, he turned them DOWN FLAT. Also, we caught the PLANNER of the USS Cole and the US Embassy bombings under Bush's watch.

Remember the millenium bomb plot? No? Probably because it the Clinton administration prevented it by "mistaking" it as a law enforcement matter.

Ironic that it was by shear luck and it was not Clinton that prevented it. It was the Border Guard that was suspicious and alerted the authorities that prevented it. I guess you did not know this.

The Clinton administration's model worked, Bush's model of "it doesn't matter who you hit as long as you hit'em hard enough" doesn't. And as far as guessing what Kerry will do... I'll gamble on the advice of a war hero far sooner than I'll stick the advice of a semi-retarded male cheerleader.

And as I just shown, it did not work. We had Kobar, Cole, Embassy Bombings, and other terror attacks under Clinton. Under Bush we had 9/11! Clinton did not accept Bin Ladin when Sudan offered him up on a plate and that is why we are dealing with him now. Under Bush, 75% of Al Qaeda's leadership is either dead or captured. That is not a statistic that Clinton can claim. Yes they have refilled those positions because that is what you do but the major players are dead or captured.

Bin Laden who?

Osama bin Ladin! Head of Al Qaeda though we've been hearing more from number 2 than from Bin Ladin. I wonder why?

Iraq a threat. Ya okay.

Everyone, including Kerry, that Iraq was and though he may not have had WMD, IAEA has proof that he did have them.

Bush has not delivered on his promises and has even made it worse by attacking Iraq.

Why do you care since you are Canadian. Won't matter, Bush will win re-election and I can't wait to hear the shouting start on here when he does.

Ok so it didn't come from a debate but from a speech somewhere. I remember hearing him say it. I also know he said that. It is hard to take a quote like that out of context Stephistan. Terrorism is a THREAT not a nuisance to society. He calls terrorism a nuisance is a slap in the face to all those that have died in a terrorist attack.

I'm sorry but I cannot give someone that is this idiotic, my vote.

0-2, not a speech either, It was an interview, and you couldn't have heard it. Any yes, it is easy to take it out of context, since you just did it. Anyone who reads the interview can see that he isn't calling terrorism, as it exists today, "a nuisance." It is okay to disagree. It is NOT okay to be delusional.

Now lets see here...what would work better to succsessfully drive terrorists away from America--spy on them and wait until they make a move, and then track them with the FBI to try and bring them to justice? Go the law enforcement way, and more innocent people will die than have to. If we find and kill the b*stards, they aren't a threat anymore, because they're dead. The only way to successfully kill the terrorist threat is to go after the head--Osama bin Laden and other leaders--not try and arrest the operatives. Arresting individual cells would be like cutting off a finger--a finger that grows back. If you kill the head, you kill the body.

You are wrong and wrong. Batting 0/2.

Ok, I figured out that your supporting Kerry.

The War On Terror is and can only be mostly a police matter.

Clinton thought the same way and it didn't turn out as he had hoped did he?

Bush seems to think that the deployment of M1A1 Battle Tanks and Blackhawk helicopters is going to defeat the terrorists. That's not the case. The United States must work with the rest of the world's investigation agencies to ferret out and take down sleeper cells. Britain probably has terrorist cells hiding in it....are you going to invade them?

And we all have seen when we work with the rest of the world that we can still get things wrong. WORLD INTEL was wrong on Iraqi WMD though the IAEA is now saying that he did have them since some buildings that had them went missing. I believe they are going to release details of this. The US is in the process of taking out sleeper cells here in the states, the Buffalo Six comes to mind.

0-2, not a speech either, It was an interview, and you couldn't have heard it. Any yes, it is easy to take it out of context, since you just did it. Anyone who reads the interview can see that he isn't calling terrorism, as it exists today, "a nuisance." It is okay to disagree. It is NOT okay to be delusional.

It was an interview that has been being blasted on Talk Radio so yes she could've heard it because I know I DID hear it. You can't treat Terrorism as a Nuisance. It does not work.

[/QUOTE]
Yes they have refilled those positions because that is what you do but the major players are dead or captured.[/QUOTE]


And with that, you just invalidated your entire argument. By your own recognition, you can't [I]defeat[I] terrorism. Moreover, you can't beat it with at tank, gunship or bomb. When are you going to notice that there is no difference whether it's a cruise missle or a improvised home-made bomb. It's ALL terrorism. The only question is who paid for the bomb?

People always scream that they don't want their tax dollars spent on abortions or stem cell research. Where to I sign up for the idea that I don't want my tax dollars spent bombing civilians in another country??

Now lets see here...what would work better to succsessfully drive terrorists away from America--spy on them and wait until they make a move, and then track them with the FBI to try and bring them to justice? Go the law enforcement way, and more innocent people will die than have to. If we find and kill the b*stards, they aren't a threat anymore, because they're dead. The only way to successfully kill the terrorist threat is to go after the head--Osama bin Laden and other leaders--not try and arrest the operatives. Arresting individual cells would be like cutting off a finger--a finger that grows back. If you kill the head, you kill the body.

I agree with you Joe Barnett. You have to go against terror at its source and that is what we are doing.

Besides, the majority of the country still Trusts Bush over Kerry on the War on Terror. That should tell you something.

Ok so it didn't come from a debate but from a speech somewhere. I remember hearing him say it.

No FD, you didn't hear him say it. You would have to read the "Newyork Times Magazine" to get the quote.. I know you have it in you to be fair.. thus I will chalk this up to you being confused with some thing else he perhaps said. Kerry wants to fight the terrorists to the point that they are nothing more then gum stuck to your shoe.. He's not talking about now.. he's talking about the future. Any way, if you want to objectively review it for yourself I suggest picking up the article.. (Magazine) so you can clearly see what he said without all the spin doctors.

Ok so it didn't come from a debate but from a speech somewhere. I remember hearing him say it. I also know he said that. It is hard to take a quote like that out of context Stephistan. Terrorism is a THREAT not a nuisance to society. He calls terrorism a nuisance is a slap in the face to all those that have died in a terrorist attack.

I'm sorry but I cannot give someone that is this idiotic, my vote.

And yet you support the moron in the presidency who has stated that Osama bin Laden is not a priority? You support the moron who took away our opportunity to capture and destroy Al-Qaida once and for all? You support the moron who giggles about weapons of mass destruction being hidden under a table?

You know who else said what Kerry said? The elder president Bush's former National Security Advisor. He said the same exact thing that Kerry has said, AFTER 9/11 too.

Why is it you Republicans want to live in a world of fear for the remainder of your lives? Why is it you want to live under the thumb of being in a constant state of war for the remainder of your lives?

You sit there all smugly and condemn someone for a statement that you didn't even know where it came from.

Kerry said this during the debate, which obviously you didn't pay attention to: "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists." Bush has instead focused his attention away from terrorism and made our country less safe as a result. Why are our prime targets for terrorism getting less funding from Homeland Security than places like Anchorage, Alaska?

Quick!!! Go check what color code it is today! Another false warning was issued about dangers to our schools in the last few days!! Nevermind the fact that it was known by the CIA BEFORE the warning was issued that the disk recovered was actually discussing how to deal with threats to Iraqi schools.

Sad...pathetic really.

Oh I'm sorry! I guess I missed the war against the Al Qaeda during the Clinton Administration. I did not know that he accepted Bin Ladin from Sudan.

I can't let this go by, since it's simply a lie. First, no one connected to the actual rulers of sudan "offered" Bin Laden's head on a platter. This is a Sean Hannity lie, and no one with any credibility makes the assertion. The guy who "offered" us Bin Laden had no power, no authority or credibility.

I would also add that Clinton would have been better at fighting terrorism if the Republican Congress hadn't constantly stonewalled him and delayed any actions against terrorists he tried to make. There was also the collossal waste of time Congress indulged in where they should have been helping Clinton fight terrorism, but instead were investigating him for a blowjob and a non existant real estate swindle connection.

Republicans should really be ashamed of themselves. It's amazing that Clinton was as effective as he was. Think what he could have done if the entire Republican party hadn't been antagonistic towards him?

Osama bin Ladin! Head of Al Qaeda though we've been hearing more from number 2 than from Bin Ladin. I wonder why?
Bush has FAILED in the search for Bin Laden and complicated it by taking most of the forces to Iraq in a useless war that has INCREASED terrorism.

Give it up.

Everyone, including Kerry, that Iraq was and though he may not have had WMD, IAEA has proof that he did have them.
Kerry wanted Bush to exhaust ALL reasonable efforts before attacking Iraq and he didn't do that. Read Gymoor's thread that quote Kerry's words to the Senate.

George Bush screwed up badly.


Why do you care since you are Canadian. Won't matter, Bush will win re-election and I can't wait to hear the shouting start on here when he does.
IF Bush wins re-election, and I don't think he will, then the US is in for far more worse times. He has made some extremely critical mistakes.

BTW, Canadians care very much. This is from today's news:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097503800081_28?hub=topstories

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 48 per cent of Canadians worry about the threat of terrorism at home. Only 39 per cent held the same fears in February.

The poll also revealed some interesting viewpoints about the ongoing conflict in Iraq. About two thirds of respondents (67 per cent) said the military action in Iraq raised the worldwide terrorist threat. Fifty-three per cent felt the same way in February.

Another good reason for Bush to go!!

Yes they have refilled those positions because that is what you do but the major players are dead or captured.[/QUOTE]


And with that, you just invalidated your entire argument.[/quote]

Actually it really doesn't. The people that are dead where better at doing the jobs that they were doing before they got killed than the people that took over.

By your own recognition, you can't [I]defeat[I] terrorism. Moreover, you can't beat it with at tank, gunship or bomb. When are you going to notice that there is no difference whether it's a cruise missle or a improvised home-made bomb. It's ALL terrorism. The only question is who paid for the bomb?

I know you can't beat terror with a tank or gunship. You can defeat them though by going at its source. 75% of the leadership is gone. Refilled? most are but not all. These people will not be as proficent in their jobs as the people who occupied them previously because they are dead or captured.

People always scream that they don't want their tax dollars spent on abortions or stem cell research. Where to I sign up for the idea that I don't want my tax dollars spent bombing civilians in another country??

You can't sign up for that. As for stem cells, you do know that Bush is the only president to fund Stem Cell research right? Yep, I believe it is 77 lines have been funded by Bush and that is the 1st time it has happened. As for tax dollars being used on Abortion, provide me a link that this is taking place because even I am against that.

I can't let this go by, since it's simply a lie. First, no one connected to the actual rulers of sudan "offered" Bin Laden's head on a platter.

Dude, its a known fact that Sudan OFFERED bin Ladin to the United States. You cannot deny that this took place.

This is a Sean Hannity lie, and no one with any credibility makes the assertion. The guy who "offered" us Bin Laden had no power, no authority or credibility.

And you would know this how? Dude, Sudan did offer him up because they didn't want him in their country. When we turned them down, they threw him out of their country and he went to Afghanistan.

I would also add that Clinton would have been better at fighting terrorism if the Republican Congress hadn't constantly stonewalled him and delayed any actions against terrorists he tried to make. There was also the collossal waste of time Congress indulged in where they should have been helping Clinton fight terrorism, but instead were investigating him for a blowjob and a non existant real estate swindle connection.

As well as PURGERY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Two crimes that he was impeached on. I love it when people try to say he was impeached on a blow job. Sorry dude but he was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. To bad the dems in the Senate wouldn't let the evidence in. Now as for terror, wasn't it Kerry that wanted to cut 6 Billion Dollars from the Intel Budget?

Republicans should really be ashamed of themselves. It's amazing that Clinton was as effective as he was. Think what he could have done if the entire Republican party hadn't been antagonistic towards him?

And I don't think Clinton was as effective as he could be. Did you know that the President can send in troops for 90 days without congressional approval? Clinton could've done that. Clinton could've issued Executive Orders that could've help fight terrorism and he didn't. Why?

I know you can't beat terror with a tank or gunship. You can defeat them though by going at its source. 75% of the leadership is gone. Refilled? most are but not all. These people will not be as proficent in their jobs as the people who occupied them previously because they are dead or captured.

1. The report Bush got this number from said 2/3's, not 75%. Now Bush may not be the brightest bulb in the bin, but 2/3's is 67%, not 75%.

2. The report Bush got this number from also stated that the actual number is in the 10's and perhaps dozens. Not very impressive considering that:

3. The report also lists that Al-Qaida now has up to 18,000 new recruits. Also, the 75% quote isn't very impressive considering that:

4. The report stated that it was only 2/3's of the known leadership before 2002. New intelligence on Al-Qaida is virtually nil, especially considering that the Bush administration RELEASED THE NAME OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE AL-QAIDA MOLE INTELLIGENCE HAD!

Bush has FAILED in the search for Bin Laden and complicated it by taking most of the forces to Iraq in a useless war that has INCREASED terrorism.

Ok so I guess that since Bin Ladin is up in the mountains that he knows so well and can hide up there, it is a failure? WOW. I'm glad I don't think the way you do.

Give it up.

nope

Kerry wanted Bush to exhaust ALL reasonable efforts before attacking Iraq and he didn't do that. Read Gymoor's thread that quote Kerry's words to the Senate.

I guess you didn't know that Kerry called Saddam "a Grave Threat"

George Bush screwed up badly.

How when we have 30 nations in Iraq and elections in January?

IF Bush wins re-election, and I don't think he will, then the US is in for far more worse times. He has made some extremely critical mistakes.[quote]

I think he will and we will be in for better times than if Kerry gets elected. I don't trust Kerry economically. To much social spending. WE don't want socialized Healthcare. If he is elected, I can't wait till the House shoots down his promises.

[quote]BTW, Canadians care very much. This is from today's news:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097503800081_28?hub=topstories

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 48 per cent of Canadians worry about the threat of terrorism at home. Only 39 per cent held the same fears in February.

The poll also revealed some interesting viewpoints about the ongoing conflict in Iraq. About two thirds of respondents (67 per cent) said the military action in Iraq raised the worldwide terrorist threat. Fifty-three per cent felt the same way in February.

Another good reason for Bush to go!!

Unfortunately, the people here don't agree with you otherwise, Kerry would be ahead in major polls as well as the Electoral College and he isn't.

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

MOst of you dont understand the nature of terrorism. These people are fanatically dedicated to thrier leader. The only affect killing the top people will have is be reduceing the communication between cells.

Large scale terrorism such as in Chechnay (spelling?) or Isreal is primarily a social and political problem. The people fell that they are being oppressed :mad: and that the only solution is to take up arms :mp5:. For every militant you kill two more will be willing to step up and avenge him. :headbang: :headbang:

To defeat terrorism on must solve the root social cause. After that the only terrorists remaining will be alienated nutjobs. Then you let the special forces go in and do their thing. >) :mp5: :mp5:

Ok Kerry supporters.

State in your own words what "The Kerry Plan" is as far as handling the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Use your own words, not words found on some internet website.

IMO, Bush is doing it right. Take them out at the source! Don't give them a chance to regroup. But you probably already figured I'd say that.

And as for those who insult The President's intelligence by calling him a moron or stupid. How many of you have graduated from an Ivy League school or any college? For that matter I'd say the same to those who question Kerry's intelligence. It's awful easy for those who don't understand to call someone a moron or stupid.

I shutter to think where we would be if Al Gore were in office.

1. The report Bush got this number from said 2/3's, not 75%. Now Bush may not be the brightest bulb in the bin, but 2/3's is 67%, not 75%.

2. The report Bush got this number from also stated that the actual number is in the 10's and perhaps dozens. Not very impressive considering that:

3. The report also lists that Al-Qaida now has up to 18,000 new recruits. Also, the 75% quote isn't very impressive considering that:

4. The report stated that it was only 2/3's of the known leadership before 2002. New intelligence on Al-Qaida is virtually nil, especially considering that the Bush administration RELEASED THE NAME OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE AL-QAIDA MOLE INTELLIGENCE HAD!


Actually its 3/5th's I think. Bush exaggerated. Plus its Taliban leadership(yes they ran when we took over Afgan) who are.

Ok Kerry supporters.

State in your own words what "The Kerry Plan" is as far as handling the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Use your own words, not words found on some internet website.

IMO, Bush is doing it right. Take them out at the source! Don't give them a chance to regroup. But you probably already figured I'd say that.

And as for those who insult The President's intelligence by calling him a moron or stupid. How many of you have graduated from an Ivy League school or any college? For that matter I'd say the same to those who question Kerry's intelligence. It's awful easy for those who don't understand to call someone a moron or stupid.

I shutter to think where we would be if Al Gore were in office.

Because our credibility would still be #1 in the world? Yeah Credibility is a terrible thing; Gore would do terible things like restoring it.

Gore would be decent guy. He would attack Afganistan give control away from warlords. Fully rebuild it and keep it safe. All those funds used in Iraq eould be used in Afgan.

In 2004 when Gore is reelected then he might attack Iraq if there is a credible rationale. Like inspectors find something, not heresday.

A flea bite is a nuisance. People who are willing to fly planes into buildings and kill as many innocent people as possible are a serious problem and should be treated as such.


Well, I'm sorry to say that there will always be terrorists and terrorism, just like there has always been, and whoever believes that the problem can be erradicated through military might is deeply deluded.

Many countries in Europe have been living with terrorism for many years. France, UK, Spain, they all have suffered terrorist attacks and still continue to get threats and bomb warnings. However, for the average citizen of those countries, terrorism is not an ever impending menace over their heads. From that point of view it has become a nuisance. Even the average Israeli citizen is relatively safe. A weekend in Mexico City is often more dangerous.

When the US learns to live with terrorism and gets their security in place, the average US citizen will stop being fearful and paranoid about terrorist attacks. Then terrorism will have become a nuisance without it meaning that things are back like they were before 2001. Then terrorism will have lost its power.

So, from that point of view Kerry was right. Sure, it requires a lot more brain power to interpret Kerry's comments than the easily digested Bush sound bites, but that doesn't mean he is less right.

As for treating terrorism as a police matter.... let's look at that for a bit.

What do the police do... they respond to calls about crimes that either have been committed or are being committed. In the former, they gather clues and attempt to identify and apprehend the person(s) responsible for the crime. In the latter they do what they can to make sure the person(s) responsible do not get away.

In neither case do they prevent the crime from occuring in the first place. So, saying terrorism being treated as a police matter, you are advocating that we let the terrorists commit their acts of terror... and then go about getting the people responsible.

I think by then it's too late. Don't you?

As for treating terrorism as a police matter.... let's look at that for a bit.

What do the police do... they respond to calls about crimes that either have been committed or are being committed. In the former, they gather clues and attempt to identify and apprehend the person(s) responsible for the crime. In the latter they do what they can to make sure the person(s) responsible do not get away.

In neither case do they prevent the crime from occuring in the first place. So, saying terrorism being treated as a police matter, you are advocating that we let the terrorists commit their acts of terror... and then go about getting the people responsible.

I think by then it's too late. Don't you?

I do TheOneRule! Clinton treated it as a police matter and look how that ended up. Kerry would do the samething and that scares me just the same. Stay the course is what I say. Continue doing what we are doing.

Because our credibility would still be #1 in the world? Yeah Credibility is a terrible thing; Gore would do terible things like restoring it.

Gore would be decent guy. He would attack Afganistan give control away from warlords. Fully rebuild it and keep it safe. All those funds used in Iraq eould be used in Afgan.

In 2004 when Gore is reelected then he might attack Iraq if there is a credible rationale. Like inspectors find something, not heresday.

What credibility from who? France? Germany? Russia?

I think their credibility will be gone when all the details come out on them being bribed by Sadam.

I somehow don't think the US credibility is all that fractured.

You are only fooling yourself if you think Gore would have gone into Afganistan or Iraq.

Oh and Gore (especially after the last election) turned into a nutcase..

I do TheOneRule! Clinton treated it as a police matter and look how that ended up. Kerry would do the samething and that scares me just the same. Stay the course is what I say. Continue doing what we are doing.
Effectively recruit more terrorists by our actions, so we are able to say they are in Iraq, of which we created a terrorist state of? So we can police them in there?

What credibility from who? France? Germany? Russia?

I think their credibility will be gone when all the details come out on them being bribed by Sadam.

I somehow don't think the US credibility is all that fractured.

You are only fooling yourself if you think Gore would have gone into Afganistan or Iraq.

Oh and Gore (especially after the last election) turned into a nutcase..
Howq is saying Gore would attack the people who attacked us directly fooling?
Or is this just a partisan thing you have against Gore?

What credibility from who? France? Germany? Russia?

I think their credibility will be gone when all the details come out on them being bribed by Sadam.

I somehow don't think the US credibility is all that fractured.

You are only fooling yourself if you think Gore would have gone into Afganistan or Iraq.

Oh and Gore (especially after the last election) turned into a nutcase..

Is Germany implicated in the oil for food scandal?

Is Germany implicated in the oil for food scandal?

Actually they are Gymoor! As is France and Russia.

Howq is saying Gore would attack the people who attacked us directly fooling?
Or is this just a partisan thing you have against Gore?
Perhaps he is saying that because of Clinton's record on it, and by default Gore's record. Perhaps that is a bit unfair, we really don't know what Gore would have done.

If Gore had disagreed with Clinton, he would most assuradly not have spoken out against him. Unified front and all that.

Actually they are Gymoor! As is France and Russia.

And we PUT Saddam Hussein in power. Which is more distasteful and damaging?

As well as PURGERY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Two crimes that he was impeached on. I love it when people try to say he was impeached on a blow job. Sorry dude but he was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. To bad the dems in the Senate wouldn't let the evidence in. Now as for terror, wasn't it Kerry that wanted to cut 6 Billion Dollars from the Intel Budget?
The Democrats did not even control the Senate at the time, the Republicans did. And your GOP friends used a personal failing to try and throw a President out who constantly beat them in political maneuvering, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Tell me, what part of:

-Record deficits
-Eroding Civil Rights
-Skyrocketing Health Care Prices
-Soaring Gas Prices
-Lies
-Failures in the War On Terror
-Shattered International Credibility

strikes your fancy?


TWO MORE WEEKS! TWO MORE WEEKS!

Actually they are Gymoor! As is France and Russia.

Nope, those implicated are France, Russia and China.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041005-022528-7849r.htm

No mention of Germany

And we PUT Saddam Hussein in power. Which is more distasteful and damaging?
Yes, this is one example where the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" proved to be a mistake.
The Democrats did not even control the Senate at the time, the Republicans did. And your GOP friends used a personal failing to try and throw a President out who constantly beat them in political maneuvering, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.
But you see.. most reasonable people do not think perjury and obstruction of justice to be "personal failings". Or are you saying that because he was Clinton, he was above the law?
Tell me, what part of:

-Record deficits
-Eroding Civil Rights
-Skyrocketing Health Care Prices
-Soaring Gas Prices
-Lies
-Failures in the War On Terror
-Shattered International Credibility

strikes your fancy?
-Record deficits... I sure do wish Bush would curtail some of his spending... But Kerry is even worse.
-Eroding Civil Rights.... sorry, don't see it.
-Skyrocketing Health Care Prices... You're right... we should disbar people like Edwards for contributing to the mess.
-Soaring Gas Prices... wow, then this war wasn't about oil?
-Lies.... sorry, haven't seen any yet.
-Failures in the War on Terror... let's see... can't win the war, failure to win the war... isn't that like having your cake and eating it too?
-Shattered International Credibility... don't see that either. People hate the US... so what's new?

Yes, this is one example where the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" proved to be a mistake.

But you see.. most reasonable people do not think perjury and obstruction of justice to be "personal failings". Or are you saying that because he was Clinton, he was above the law?

-Record deficits... I sure do wish Bush would curtail some of his spending... But Kerry is even worse.
-Eroding Civil Rights.... sorry, don't see it.
-Skyrocketing Health Care Prices... You're right... we should disbar people like Edwards for contributing to the mess.
-Soaring Gas Prices... wow, then this war wasn't about oil?
-Lies.... sorry, haven't seen any yet.
-Failures in the War on Terror... let's see... can't win the war, failure to win the war... isn't that like having your cake and eating it too?
-Shattered International Credibility... don't see that either. People hate the US... so what's new?

Seeing as Kerry hadn't been President yet...how can he be worse at spending?

So you against against Bush's can't win the war but fighting it anyway?

People didn't always hate the US.

Nope, those implicated are France, Russia and China.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041005-022528-7849r.htm

No mention of Germany

I stand corrected. :headbang: I appologize to the German Government.

Seeing as Kerry hadn't been President yet...how can he be worse at spending?

So you against against Bush's can't win the war but fighting it anyway?

People didn't always hate the US.
Because of the plan man.. the plan.

I wasn't the one saying he can't win.. I was making a comment on the fact that the very same people saying he can't win the war on terror are saying he failed in the war on terror.

And yes, people have always hated the US... perhaps not as many as do now, but people have always hated the US.

I don't see why people think Bush would do any better against terrorism than Kerry. Bush invaded Iraq to prevent it supposively, and other than that there is no proof that damage was done that Kerry couldn't do. John Kerry can just as easily call an Orange Alert and tell Americans to be "wary." Same goes with CIA and any special forces missions. He just may not invade a country.

"A nuisance." Apparently for Senator Kerry, terrorism ranks somewhere between 'paper cut' and 'noisy fly' on the Irk Scale.

I don't see why people think Bush would do any better against terrorism than Kerry. Bush invaded Iraq to prevent it supposively, and other than that there is no proof that damage was done that Kerry couldn't do. John Kerry can just as easily call an Orange Alert and tell Americans to be "wary." Same goes with CIA and any special forces missions. He just may not invade a country.

Bush will do better and has done better because Kerry will not do what's necessary when it comes to military action. When has a Democrat done anything correct when it comes to military action? Even FDR was essentially an isolationist until the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor. THINK about it!

"A nuisance." Apparently for Senator Kerry, terrorism ranks somewhere between 'paper cut' and 'noisy fly' on the Irk Scale.

That's not what he said, and you know it. Why are people being intentionally dense? Really, this is f*cking stupid. I have no respect whatsoever for people who think one word, taken out of context, is what Kerry said.

I stand corrected. :headbang: I appologize to the German Government.

Wait a minute! NO, Germany is not implicated in the oil for food scandel, BUT they did have several illegal oil contracts with Saddam. The point here is simple. Most of those countries who opposed military action against Iraq had illegal interests in Iraq. That goes for France, Russia, China and Germany.

Bush will do better and has done better because Kerry will not do what's necessary when it comes to military action. When has a Democrat done anything correct when it comes to military action? Even FDR was essentially an isolationist until the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor. THINK about it!

Only Democrats mishandle military action? I suppose the entire Vietnam War was a beacon of military perfection? Thinking that Kerry won't do anything is wrong. The idea of an American President doing nothing is something I don't see. Besides with FDR, our country was going through the Great Depression, we didn't exactly have the energy to get involved with other conflicts.

Wait a minute! NO, Germany is not implicated in the oil for food scandel, BUT they did have several illegal oil contracts with Saddam. The point here is simple. Most of those countries who opposed military action against Iraq had illegal interests in Iraq. That goes for France, Russia, China and Germany.

Okay, I'm willing to accept that Germany may have been involved. Please cite a reputable source. I simply haven't seen anything on Germany being connected, and I did a search on it.

If no source is found, can we dismiss the charges against Germany?

That's not what he said, and you know it. Why are people being intentionally dense? Really, this is f*cking stupid. I have no respect whatsoever for people who think one word, taken out of context, is what Kerry said.

Words mean things cowboy! That's what you need to get through your dense head. If he said it, he must of meant it. THINK about it!

Only Democrats mishandle military action? I suppose the entire Vietnam War was a beacon of military perfection? Thinking that Kerry won't do anything is wrong. The idea of an American President doing nothing is something I don't see. Besides with FDR, our country was going through the Great Depression, we didn't exactly have the energy to get involved with other conflicts.

And who got us into Vietnam? Democrats! Who got us out of it? A republican.

Okay, I'm willing to accept that Germany may have been involved. Please cite a reputable source. I simply haven't seen anything on Germany being connected, and I did a search on it.

If no source is found, can we dismiss the charges against Germany?

How about the Duelfer Report? I am checking it out now.

And who got us into Vietnam? Democrats! Who got us out of it? A republican.

Getting out of it if you mean running away in defeat leaving the country Communist which was the entire point of the war. I hardly the end was satisfactory to call anything Nixon did as a success.

Words mean things cowboy! That's what you need to get through your dense head. If he said it, he must of meant it. THINK about it!

Yes, words do mean something. So when he states that it is not a nuisance, you understand it to mean that he said it is a nuisance?

See, if I take your words out of contexts above, I can make you say

...cowboy...you need to get...head...THINK about it!

The actions of George Bush HAVE made America more hated around the world. I know from personal experience. Not only have I conversed with Americans who went travelling in Europe, I also talk to Europeans and a Canadian on a daily basis. The credibility of the United States in their eyes is gone. They resent Bush's cowboy "go-it-alone" approach, and did not particularly like it when the Bush Administration insulted them by calling them "Old Europe".

A recent poll conducted in many worldwide nations showed that Kerry sweeps the board. He won by double digits, for example, in every European nation except Poland. In the Pacific, Kerry won repeatedly except for in Indonesia, which chose Bush (Somewhat ironic, considering that it's a Muslim state). Say what you will about Kerry, the fact remains that Bush is EXTREMELY unpopular around the world. If we elect him to a second term in the White House, there WILL be repercussions. Almost all of our traditional allies have refused to give us meaningful support in Iraq. Re-electing George . Bush will validate everything he's done in the past four years, and will strengthen the resolve to defy America in the rest of the world.

In addition, there were more terrorist attacks throughout the world last year than ever before. Bush's actions are NOT making the United States safer. He is weakening the United States considerably with his flailing about. He has expended money, soldiery, and political alliances in Iraq that are critical to fighting the War on Terror elsewhere. He has stirred up anti-Americanism to a whole new level. Even Pat Buchanan said, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do."

Getting out of it if you mean running away in defeat leaving the country Communist which was the entire point of the war. I hardly the end was satisfactory to call anything Nixon did as a success.

Did you know we signed a Peace Treaty to end it? No I guess not. When we left, the North re-attacked and took over South Vietnam. Sorry but we did not run.

Also did you know that we won every military battle in Vietnam? Yep its true. We won militarily but thanks to Foreign Affairs we lost vietnam on the diplomatic front.

The actions of George Bush HAVE made America more hated around the world. I know from personal experience. Not only have I conversed with Americans who went travelling in Europe, I also talk to Europeans and a Canadian on a daily basis. The credibility of the United States in their eyes is gone. They resent Bush's cowboy "go-it-alone" approach, and did not particularly like it when the Bush Administration insulted them by calling them "Old Europe".

A recent poll conducted in many worldwide nations showed that Kerry sweeps the board. He won by double digits, for example, in every European nation except Poland. In the Pacific, Kerry won repeatedly except for in Indonesia, which chose Bush (Somewhat ironic, considering that it's a Muslim state). Say what you will about Kerry, the fact remains that Bush is EXTREMELY unpopular around the world. If we elect him to a second term in the White House, there WILL be repercussions. Almost all of our traditional allies have refused to give us meaningful support in Iraq. Re-electing George . Bush will validate everything he's done in the past four years, and will strengthen the resolve to defy America in the rest of the world.

In addition, there were more terrorist attacks throughout the world last year than ever before. Bush's actions are NOT making the United States safer. He is weakening the United States considerably with his flailing about. He has expended money, soldiery, and political alliances in Iraq that are critical to fighting the War on Terror elsewhere. He has stirred up anti-Americanism to a whole new level. Even Pat Buchanan said, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do."

Now I know I'm not the only one who finds this to be hilarious xD

I agree with all of those who said that Clinton dealt with terrorists the right way, and Kerry is perfectly right to want to bring it back the way it was in the Clinton era. It's super that all you Americans feel safer now that Bush is president, but you're not, and moreover, the rest of the world has become your nuisance. I'm not just talking about Iraq, Iran and other potentially dangerous nations, I'm talking about places like Canada and France and other so-called weasles, where the United States is stepping all over thier soverenty. There is nothing to be gained from this War on Terror, it's not worth the lives lost and freedoms comprimised, that is why America should go back to the way it dealt with terror under Clinton, and Kerry can do that.

The actions of George Bush HAVE made America more hated around the world. I know from personal experience. Not only have I conversed with Americans who went travelling in Europe, I also talk to Europeans and a Canadian on a daily basis. The credibility of the United States in their eyes is gone. They resent Bush's cowboy "go-it-alone" approach, and did not particularly like it when the Bush Administration insulted them by calling them "Old Europe".

A recent poll conducted in many worldwide nations showed that Kerry sweeps the board. He won by double digits, for example, in every European nation except Poland. In the Pacific, Kerry won repeatedly except for in Indonesia, which chose Bush (Somewhat ironic, considering that it's a Muslim state). Say what you will about Kerry, the fact remains that Bush is EXTREMELY unpopular around the world. If we elect him to a second term in the White House, there WILL be repercussions. Almost all of our traditional allies have refused to give us meaningful support in Iraq. Re-electing George . Bush will validate everything he's done in the past four years, and will strengthen the resolve to defy America in the rest of the world.

In addition, there were more terrorist attacks throughout the world last year than ever before. Bush's actions are NOT making the United States safer. He is weakening the United States considerably with his flailing about. He has expended money, soldiery, and political alliances in Iraq that are critical to fighting the War on Terror elsewhere. He has stirred up anti-Americanism to a whole new level. Even Pat Buchanan said, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do."

Hear, Hear! George W. Bush's cowboy antics have got us into a major situaton. Thanks to his "crusade" we are in deep you know what in Iraq. I suppose taking that country without any serious foreign support or proof of the supposed WMD's has helped America? If we want to try to end terrorism perhaps Bush should put his knee on Ariel Sharon. Get Isreal to give the Palestinians their own country on the West Bank. Perhaps things might get a tiny bit better then?

Only Democrats mishandle military action? I suppose the entire Vietnam War was a beacon of military perfection? Thinking that Kerry won't do anything is wrong. The idea of an American President doing nothing is something I don't see. Besides with FDR, our country was going through the Great Depression, we didn't exactly have the energy to get involved with other conflicts.

Yeah... The Democrats did a great job in Vietnam. Check your history.

Kerry won't do anything of any value in this arena. Do you really think that he has the backbone to launch a war with Iraq? Hell no! He'd continue to play patty-cake with the pansy-nations in Europe, rather than get anything done. Look at Clinton's do-nothing strategy. He cut the military and slashed our intelligence community while spending money on pet social programs. Then came the embassy bombings, USS Cole and eventually September 11th. Yeah... Thanks Bill!

As for FDR during WWII, check your facts. The Great Depression was over by the early 1930's; then, we had the Raw Deal. We waited until the late 30's to even show an interest in WWII, and we didn't launch any notable actions until the 40's. The Demo's were calling WWII, "Europe's problem".

The actions of George Bush HAVE made America more hated around the world. I know from personal experience. Not only have I conversed with Americans who went travelling in Europe, I also talk to Europeans and a Canadian on a daily basis. The credibility of the United States in their eyes is gone. They resent Bush's cowboy "go-it-alone" approach, and did not particularly like it when the Bush Administration insulted them by calling them "Old Europe".

A recent poll conducted in many worldwide nations showed that Kerry sweeps the board. He won by double digits, for example, in every European nation except Poland. In the Pacific, Kerry won repeatedly except for in Indonesia, which chose Bush (Somewhat ironic, considering that it's a Muslim state). Say what you will about Kerry, the fact remains that Bush is EXTREMELY unpopular around the world. If we elect him to a second term in the White House, there WILL be repercussions. Almost all of our traditional allies have refused to give us meaningful support in Iraq. Re-electing George . Bush will validate everything he's done in the past four years, and will strengthen the resolve to defy America in the rest of the world.

In addition, there were more terrorist attacks throughout the world last year than ever before. Bush's actions are NOT making the United States safer. He is weakening the United States considerably with his flailing about. He has expended money, soldiery, and political alliances in Iraq that are critical to fighting the War on Terror elsewhere. He has stirred up anti-Americanism to a whole new level. Even Pat Buchanan said, "America is not hated for what we are, but what we do."

I don't think that's hilarious, I think it's true. In fact, I know it's true, I'm Anti-American. Actually, no, that's not true, I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-America, or anti-Bush, or... the point is, Americans, be not offended, even though your country is making this world a worse place to live in, I know that is not the fault of the average American. It is the fault of the few who are in power and the American dream. And you can't blame us, your forgien policies are ridiculos and you have the stupidest man I have ever had the misfortune of hearing of as the leader of your countey. When you distroy your environment, you distroy it for the world. When you declare a war on terror, everyone suffers. If you want the rest of the world to distroy it's N. weapons you have to distroy your own. This is where Anti-Americanisum comes from, it's not about jelousy of power or anything of that nature, it's about the American disregard for the rest of us.

Yeah... The Democrats did a great job in Vietnam. Check your history.

Kerry won't do anything of any value in this arena. Do you really think that he has the backbone to launch a war with Iraq? Hell no! He'd continue to play patty-cake with the pansy-nations in Europe, rather than get anything done. Look at Clinton's do-nothing strategy. He cut the military and slashed our intelligence community while spending money on pet social programs. Then came the embassy bombings, USS Cole and eventually September 11th. Yeah... Thanks Bill!

As for FDR during WWII, check your facts. The Great Depression was over by the early 1930's; then, we had the Raw Deal. We waited until the late 30's to even show an interest in WWII, and we didn't launch any notable actions until the 40's. The Demo's were calling WWII, "Europe's problem".

Bush was very quick to invade Iraq. I'm sure Kerry could but why? To remove a tinpot dictator? There are plenty of those. Free the Iraqis? There are plenty of oppressed in Africa. Where is Bush to help those in the Sudan? Liberia? Ivory Coast? Congo? Rwanda? Plenty of countries that could use liberation that doesn't have any oil. I simply don't believe that Iraq posed a threat to the United States. I can understand not having Europe run our affairs but with Iraq we should have listened and MAYBE we could have gotten more help. It is not just us you know, the Madrid train bombing should show that. You also can't blame Clinton for the Beirut bombing can you?

Words mean things cowboy! That's what you need to get through your dense head. If he said it, he must of meant it. THINK about it!

Yes, words do mean something. So when he states that it is not a nuisance, you understand it to mean that he said it is a nuisance?

See, if I take your words out of contexts above, I can make you say

...cowboy...you need to get...head...THINK about it!

in fact, I think the above (mis)quote will be my catchphrase whenever someone quotes something out of context.

I consider myself to be pretty good at comprehending what people are trying to say, but when I try to sort out all of Kerry's multiple positions on any given topic, I get a headache.
perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you are as skilled at comprehension as you like to claim...

So he wants the good old days when we ignored terrorism
and another one who could profit from joining you in comprehension remedial classes...

I guess if you want to get a clear message out, it helps if people are willing to misunderestimate you...Kerry should take lessons in gibberish...works for Bush after all.

This (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Terrorism_Statistics.html) web site has some could statistics on those numbers.

Basically, more people die from rabies every year than they do from terrorism.

Bush had a bunch of CIA agents telling him Osama might have had a dog...

Of course he was hiding the dog and refusing to co-operate with animal-control.

Oh God, someone get rid of Kerry....

So he wants the good old days when we ignored terrorism... which led to 9/11. Wow, that man is a genious... :headbang:

...cowboy...you need to get...head...THINK about it!

with thanks to Yornoc for providing me with a quote I can totally take out of context. It's my catchphrase for taking things out of context. Like it?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364912&page=5

with thanks to Yornoc for providing me with a quote I can totally take out of context. It's my catchphrase for taking things out of context. Like it?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364912&page=5
Totally unrelated to this, but LOL

Totally unrelated to this, but LOL

Not at all. Saying that Kerry thinks terrorism is just a nuisance is akin to saying the person I quoted was actually offering oral favors to a cowboy. Neither has anything to do with reality.

You mean the attitude of "If we allow the terrorists to change the way we live they win"? Thats what he is saying, as far as I can make out.

Amen. It's the same attitude Israeli citizens have had for years. The thread poster is also demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what Kerry was saying.

Let's not forget that you have a better chance of dying in a plane crash or getting hit by lightning than of being caught in a terrorist attack. Seriously, let's not get hysterical over terrorism here people. I'm not saying let's be blase (that's blah-zay to you) about the threat of terrorism, but let's not ignore that we are in more danger now than we were before March, 2003, according to the CIA and the National Intelligence Council. We should not let terrorism, or fear of terrorism, dominate our thoughts or our lives. Other issues are just as important, and we can't neglect them out of misplaced fear.

In light of those other issues, I'm going to give the terrorists a big "fuck you" by voting for exactly who I'd be voting for, 9/11 or no 9/11. And that's John Kerry and John Edwards.

Amen. It's the same attitude Israeli citizens have had for years. The thread poster is also demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what Kerry was saying.

Let's not forget that you have a better chance of dying in a plane crash or getting hit by lightning than of being caught in a terrorist attack. Seriously, let's not get hysterical over terrorism here people. I'm not saying let's be blase (that's blah-zay to you) about the threat of terrorism, but let's not ignore that we are in more danger now than we were before March, 2003, according to the CIA and the National Intelligence Council. We should not let terrorism, or fear of terrorism, dominate our thoughts or our lives. Other issues are just as important, and we can't neglect them out of misplaced fear.

In light of those other issues, I'm going to give the terrorists a big "fuck you" by voting for exactly who I'd be voting for, 9/11 or no 9/11. And that's John Kerry and John Edwards.


Extremely well stated. To abandon rational thought because of the terrorists is to let them win.

I think what Kerry has wrong is that terrorism is not just a nuissance. On a practical scale, yes, more people die in car accidents than in terrorist attacks. But this is just the beginning of something. This is feedback from extremist groups who want global changes, made easier by this open and global society. An example I'm surprised isn't touched on more is the Weimar Republic. Throughout the twenties, small but lethal terrorist groups, left and right, operated with the government interfering mainly if it affected their power. Hitler's' own SA was arguably a terrorist group. Terrorism was not the means they gained power, but the fear and support it produced rallied it. That is why we must stop it now, for as we know, states born in terrorism are nearly always rogue states.

I think what Kerry has wrong is that terrorism is not just a nuissance. On a practical scale, yes, more people die in car accidents than in terrorist attacks. But this is just the beginning of something. This is feedback from extremist groups who want global changes, made easier by this open and global society. An example I'm surprised isn't touched on more is the Weimar Republic. Throughout the twenties, small but lethal terrorist groups, left and right, operated with the government interfering mainly if it affected their power. Hitler's' own SA was arguably a terrorist group. Terrorism was not the means they gained power, but the fear and support it produced rallied it. That is why we must stop it now, for as we know, states born in terrorism are nearly always rogue states.

*trying to desperately control my temper.

Kerry Did Not Say Terrorism Was Just A Nuisance.

Yes, he used the word. Did he use the word to indicate that the state of terrorism today is just a nuisance? No. Categorically not. I'm sorry, but the next person who says Kerry said terrorism as it exists today is just a nuisance will receive my everlasting scorn. Do you people not have minds of your own? How are you able to interpret something as the opposite of what it's saying? It boggles my mind!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

*trying to desperately control my temper.

Kerry Did Not Say Terrorism Was Just A Nuisance.

Yes, he used the word. Did he use the word to indicate that the state of terrorism today is just a nuisance? No. Categorically not. I'm sorry, but the next person who says Kerry said terrorism as it exists today is just a nuisance will receive my everlasting scorn. Do you people not have minds of your own? How are you able to interpret something as the opposite of what it's saying? It boggles my mind!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
I won't bother arguing with you on this one. You're hopelessly partisan. Politicians love guys like you.

I won't bother arguing with you on this one. You're hopelessly partisan. Politicians love guys like you.

Fine. Quote the paragraph where Kerry says terrorism is just a nuisance. No editing now. All I need is the text to prove it. Show me the text. Prove it. Come on.

Fine. Quote the paragraph where Kerry says terrorism is just a nuisance. No editing now. All I need is the text to prove it. Show me the text. Prove it. Come on.
I know what you are doing. This just further shows how partisan you are.

I know what you are doing. This just further shows how partisan you are.

Actually he is correct.. Kerry said in the future.. as in he wants to fight terrorism and defeat it till it becomes nothing more then a nuisance. Which is not unlike what Bush has said in saying the war on terror can't be won. Because I think we must all agree there will always be some one , some where willing to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up for a cause.

Actually he is correct.. Kerry said in the future.. as in he wants to fight terrorism and defeat it till it becomes nothing more then a nuisance. Which is not unlike what Bush has said in saying the war on terror can't be won. Because I think we must all agree there will always be some one , some where willing to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up for a cause.
If it's some lone cult or weirdo, like Jim Jones's group or Timothy McVeigh, then they are essentially a nuissaince. But they aren't just a nuissance when there's thousands of them that can turn every defeat for them into a victory.

I know what you are doing. This just further shows how partisan you are.

Partisan? Why, because I require proof for me to believe something? Post the article dude. You don't even know what Kerry said, and yet you parrot your side. That's partisan. Looking at the originals and coming to your own conclusion is as far from partisan as is possible in a fallible human being.

So come on. Prove your point. I read the quote. Kerry said no such thing. Prove me wrong. Can you not work Google?

In the words of Bush, "Bring it on."

Where is your proof?

If it's some lone cult or weirdo, like Jim Jones's group or Timothy McVeigh, then they are essentially a nuissaince. But they aren't just a nuissance when there's thousands of them that can turn every defeat for them into a victory.

Exactly. Kerry wants to reduce terrorism to the point where it is only a lone cult or weirdo, instead of a militant movement with countless followers.

Errrr, isn't that the only way to defeat terrorism?

Partisan? Why, because I require proof for me to believe something? Post the article dude. You don't even know what Kerry said, and yet you parrot your side. That's partisan. Looking at the originals and coming to your own conclusion is as far from partisan as is possible in a fallible human being.

So come on. Prove your point. I read the quote. Kerry said no such thing. Prove me wrong. Can you not work Google?

In the words of Bush, "Bring it on."

Where is your proof?
I never said anything about Kerry saying it wasn't dangerous. I was saying that he was wrong to call it a "nuisance at the present time", because it isn't. It's feedback from something larger. Terrorists are the tip of a grisly iceberg that the US must destroy, or it may wind up into WWIII a few decades down the road.

If it's some lone cult or weirdo, like Jim Jones's group or Timothy McVeigh, then they are essentially a nuissaince. But they aren't just a nuissance when there's thousands of them that can turn every defeat for them into a victory.

Yeah, but you're looking at one quote taken out of context.. Kerry clearly said in the interview that is where he wants to get, that is not how he sees' it now. Kerry does not believe that terrorism is simply a nuisance at this point.. it's where he'd like to bring it though. It's unrealistic to believe terrorism will ever totally be destroyed even Bush concedes that.. I think it's a stretch at best at trying to take Kerry's words out of context. Read the whole article. Don't let the spin doctors take you down the road to contextual oblivion.

What it would take for Americans to feel safe again.


We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

See?

Exactly. Kerry wants to reduce terrorism to the point where it is only a lone cult or weirdo, instead of a militant movement with countless followers.

Errrr, isn't that the only way to defeat terrorism?
I believe that can be done only one of two ways. The first is to nuke the Middle East. It's very easy, but of course extremely immoral. The second is to reform it politically, socially, and economically. First we remove the idiot dictators from power, and have a government that, even if they aren't initially democratic, can carry through on reform. I just don't believe Kerry sees it that way, but rather, that terrorism is a form of supercrime.

Seems pretty clear to me. We'll never get rid of terrorism completely (duh--it's a tactic, not a group of people), but we can create the conditions where the use of terrorism will be a nuisance rather than a constant fear.

Yeah, but you're looking at one quote taken out of context.. Kerry clearly said in the interview that is where he wants to get, that is not how he sees' it now. Kerry does not believe that terrorism is simply a nuisance at this point.. it's where he'd like to bring it though. It's unrealistic to believe terrorism will ever totally be destroyed even Bush concedes that.. I think it's a stretch at best at trying to take Kerry's words out of context. Read the whole article. Don't let the spin doctors take you down the road to contextual oblivion.
Sorry, bubba. I can't have my mind changed at this point. I don't care if Kerry reveals he's the reincarnation of George Washington. I still wouldn't vote for him.

Sorry, bubba. I can't have my mind changed at this point. I don't care if Kerry reveals he's the reincarnation of George Washington. I still wouldn't vote for him.

I'm the partisan here? You willingly admit that if facts prove you wrong, you won't change your mind.

Seems pretty clear to me. We'll never get rid of terrorism completely (duh--it's a tactic, not a group of people), but we can create the conditions where the use of terrorism will be a nuisance rather than a constant fear.

Exactly.. sadly there are powers that be in the United States that thrive off of the people being in a state of perpetual fear. Without it, they have nothing else to run on.

Sorry, bubba. I can't have my mind changed at this point. I don't care if Kerry reveals he's the reincarnation of George Washington. I still wouldn't vote for him.

I'm not asking you to.. if Bush is your guy, vote for him. Just trying to keep you honest :)

I'm the partisan here? You willingly admit that if facts prove you wrong, you won't change your mind.
I don't need further facts. The entire paragraph is enough for me to conclude that Kerry isn't truely interested in terrorism. Maybe he's fallen into the Cold War trap, like so many politicians have. If we loose the War on Terror, it's because of this mentality. Call it the "Red revenge", if you will.

I'm not asking you to.. if Bush is your guy, vote for him. Just trying to keep you honest :)
Fair enough. The good news, however, is that I don't need to be honest. Why? I'm too young to vote :). But I really do believe that what we are talking about can be analytical. Was that quote taken out of context? Maybe. In any case, Kerry must tell the American people what he meant. He's bad at that. I mean, we never got a clear explanation about what he thought on Iraq until a few weeks ago, and even then, it was a bit puzzling.

I don't need further facts. The entire paragraph is enough for me to conclude that Kerry isn't truely interested in terrorism. Maybe he's fallen into the Cold War trap, like so many politicians have. If we loose the War on Terror, it's because of this mentality. Call it the "Red revenge", if you will.
I remember when you were open-minded, Purly. It's sad to see this happen.

I don't need further facts. The entire paragraph is enough for me to conclude that Kerry isn't truely interested in terrorism. Maybe he's fallen into the Cold War trap, like so many politicians have. If we loose the War on Terror, it's because of this mentality. Call it the "Red revenge", if you will.

You mean Bush 4 years ago saying "Terrorism is not a high priority for me" despite all the warnings he received from the out-going Clinton administration and CIA reports? Or his own counter-terrorism guys.. or any one else who has ever tried to warn Bush of any thing he doesn't agree with? Don't forget, he's never made a mistake! :rolleyes:

Fair enough. The good news, however, is that I don't need to be honest. Why? I'm too young to vote :). But I really do believe that what we are talking about can be analytical. Was that quote taken out of context? Maybe. In any case, Kerry must tell the American people what he meant. He's bad at that. I mean, we never got a clear explanation about what he thought on Iraq until a few weeks ago, and even then, it was a bit puzzling.

October 9th, 2002, saying then exactly what he is saying now, minus the new intelligence that there actually weren't WMD, of course.


The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

You mean Bush 4 years ago saying "Terrorism is not a high priority for me" despite all the warnings he received from the out-going Clinton administration and CIA reports? Or his own counter-terrorism guys.. or any one else who has ever tried to warn Bush of any thing he doesn't agree with? Don't forget, he's never made a mistake! :rolleyes:
Yeah, he fell into the trap, too. He did a good job getting out, though, and his reaction was masterful. It seems as if Kerry is still struggling to realize that this isn't just supercrime, but the new world order.

Yeah, he fell into the trap, too. He did a good job getting out, though, and his reaction was masterful. It seems as if Kerry is still struggling to realize that this isn't just supercrime, but the new world order.

That's the thing, it's not a new world order, just like Pearl harbor, after the ghosts of war faded, wasn't a new world order. We cannot live our lives in fear. Terrorism isn't new, it's been around since the dawn of time. We need to resolve the causes that make it so virulent. It shouldn't change us for all time, otherwise the terrorists have won. If we live in terror, then the terrorists can put up a banner saying "Mission Accomplished."

I really don't get this whole discussion. Kerry didn't know what was going on. Bush did. Isn't it that simple? There must be something very simple about this but i'm not gonna try and solve the puzzle myself because i just believe Bush made a terrible mistake with 9/11 no matter whatever Kerry thought. I don't care for the latter as the former is far more important.

Kerry Envisions Terrorism As 'Just Another Nuisance'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John F. Kerry -- in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine -- said the Sept. 11 attacks "didn't change me much at all"; and said he hopes the country will return to the days when terrorism was "just a nuisance," the same way that prostitution and illegal gambling are a nuisance.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200410/POL20041011b.html

Maybe their aren't any terroists. Have you ever thought of that Etrusca(that's the proper spelling)

Maybe their aren't any terroists. Have you ever thought of that Etrusca(that's the proper spelling)

Define "terror" you might be right.. perhaps there are only people fighting rightly or wrongly for what they believe in.. depending on your view.. who is the terrorist? It's a complicated question and not as obvious as most people think it is.

Ok so it didn't come from a debate but from a speech somewhere. I remember hearing him say it. I also know he said that. It is hard to take a quote like that out of context Stephistan. Terrorism is a THREAT not a nuisance to society. He calls terrorism a nuisance is a slap in the face to all those that have died in a terrorist attack.

I'm sorry but I cannot give someone that is this idiotic, my vote.
FD:
I am writing this slowly so you can follow it. What follows is the relevent section of the article. Kerry's spoken words are in red. The interviewer, Bai's words are in blue. Ok? . . . Ready? . . . Here we go;

Reporter Bai said Kerry's vision strikes him as more hopeful than Bush's because, Bai said, Kerry foresees a day when anxiety about terror attacks "could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts."

Bai also noted that when he asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment: "It accelerated -- " Kerry paused. "I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing."

Kerry said the 9/11 attacks didn't transform him as much as they angered and frustrated him - "that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it."

Bai said Kerry forsees a day. That indicates that the sense of what he got was a looking into a possible future reality. Not a comment on the current debacle.

Bai then comments on how he probed Kerry on how 9-11 changed him and that Kerry's response was that those events had little cause to change or transform him but commented on how those events angered and frustrated him (it affected him.)

I typed this as carefully and slowly as possible. I hope you were able to keep up.

Bush will do better and has done better because Kerry will not do what's necessary when it comes to military action. When has a Democrat done anything correct when it comes to military action? Even FDR was essentially an isolationist until the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor. THINK about it!
FDR an isolationist? You should really do some reading.

FDR an isolationist? You should really do some reading.

FDR was hardly an isolationist, he just did not have enough popular support to go to war. He was doing what he could to involve the USA in World War II, such as Lend-Lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union.

FDR was hardly an isolationist, he just did not have enough popular support to go to war. He was doing what he could to involve the USA in World War II, such as Lend-Lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union.
And he took a world of shit for it in public opinion as well, until Pearl Harbor.

FDR was hardly an isolationist, he just did not have enough popular support to go to war. He was doing what he could to involve the USA in World War II, such as Lend-Lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union.
Exactly my point. There was a great reticence on the part of the average American to become involoved in yet another European war. Thanks for agreeing with the historical facts.

Now if we could get Yornoc to do some reading . . .