Kerry Vows to 'Destroy the Terrorists'

Kerry Vows to 'Destroy the Terrorists'

2 hours, 27 minutes ago

By ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer

GREEN BAY, Wis. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) on Friday vowed to "destroy the terrorists" and repair relations with allies to ensure that an international force in Iraq (news - web sites) accelerates the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

During a campaign stop in Wisconsin and an interview with The Associated Press, Kerry was pressed about how quickly Americans would get out of Iraq, a growing concern among rank-and-file Democrats.

"If I'm president of the United States, we will not hesitate to move rapidly to get this internationalized in a way that ends combat operations and begins to get our troops out rapidly," Kerry said in the interview.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=4&u=/ap/20040528/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_veterans

Ah well, let's just hope this is not indicative that Kerry will turn out to be only a lesser Bush when taking over the so-called wars on terror and on Iraq. I am so totally opposed, however, to the Neoconservatives that taking a chance on Kerry at this point in time appears to be a must. Bush and his obvious criminals must go.

We all agree that Bush's misadventure in Iraq has made the country less safe, but we must also acknowledge that the danger of Al-Qaeda (not Saddam and Iraq, mind you) is a real one. So basically Kerry is saying we will do our best to get back on our good graces with our allies, get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, and focus on the real threats facing our nation. I don't know how anyone could see that as anything less than the absolute right approach.

I supported the war in Afghanistan. Iraq is an unnecessary diversion. We have every right to wage war, when there is a just cause and as a last resort. Bush chose war FIRST - and the blood of innocent Iraqis and our soldiers are on HIS hands. I hope he goes insane with guilt, but I know he has no conscience. Otherwise, he would not have been in a headlong rush to war.

And the war was based on the premise that al Qaeda pulled off 9/11 on their own - a premise we were promised would be backed up by evidence. That promise was never fulfilled.

The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden if the U.S. would show them evidence that ObL and al Qaeda were behind 9/11.

The b*sh administration refused to turn over any evidence whatsoever.

So, tell me again why you supported the war in Afghanistan?

Hell, even Kucinich voted for the war in Afghanistan, IIRC - a stance that I really wish he hadn't taken.

and spoke out against it.

I do think that some level of military intervention in Afghanistan was necessary, simply not on that scale or using the tactics it was done with. The terrorist bases needed to be destroyed, but that could have been done without causing massive chaos and destruction and slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

1. The Taliban harbored al qaeda and allowed them to train in Afghanistan.
2. If you think the Taliban would turn over Bin laden or any other Muslim hero, you're very naive.
3. The US had wide international support for an attack on Afghanistan.
4. The Taliban was a murderous and repressive regime.
5. The Taliban was not creating a utopia that we cruelly interrupted. They were (and are) evil people who were harboring our enemies. That made them our enemies.

I don't agree with the way we attacked Afghanistan, but the US had just cause to wage war there to destroy our enemies.

1. Yes, I'm aware of this.

2. I never thought they would. That's a given. However, the Taliban was shrewd to ask for proof - and the b*shies should have shown the world proof. They didn't. Why?

3. Yes. The world should have asked to see proof as well. I suspect, but cannot prove, that many countries' leaders suspected the b*sh administration as I do, but declined to press the point. I feel they were wrong not to do so.

4. Yep. No argument there! Of course, like many terrible regimes, we funded and supported them - including millions given to them in 2000 by the b*sh administration.

5. No arguments there, either.

I will, however, argue with your last point conditionally: we had an obligation to show evidence that al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks.

We did not. Therefore, we attacked based solely on the word of a pack of already-proven liars who stole their way into power in the first place.

We were wrong to allow the attack without evidence being presented and debate following such evidence. In that, our Congressional leaders failed us.

One can argue we had a right to attack the Taliban, in a limited way so that innocents would not be killed, for harboring al Qaeda - which, as far as I'm aware, had been proven to have committed earlier attacks that killed American (and other) citizens. However, given our aforementioned funding of the Taliban, minus 9/11 this may have been hard to press through Congress.

Let's face it: PNAC asked for a Pearl Harbor, and they conveniently got what they needed to implement their plans. You do the math.

If the government of Chile asked for Bush to turn over Henry Kissinger for his illegal support of the murderous dictator Pinochet, what would be the reaction?

How many of the people backing the Afghan war would approve of war against the US for refusing that request?

almost always war ends up harming the innocent more than the guilty, and in modern war this principle is greatly expanded.

It is true that the Taliban harbored Al Qaeda. The US harbors a whole variety of international terrorists, from "exiles" who have committed terrorist atrocities in Cuba to criminals like Kissinger who have been the instruments of large-scale state terrorism.

It is also true that it is unlikely - though not impossible - that the Taliban would have turned over Osama or any of the other high-ranking Al Qaeda officials there. However, any possibility of a peaceful resolution was ignored. The Taliban asked for evidence; the US refused to give any, and simply attacked. So, though I do think it was unlikely, the US didn't even try beyond simply demanding someone, without evidence of his crimes.

If Chile asked the US for Pinochet, would the US turn him in? Would you back a war against the US on that basis?

International support is important, but meaningless when speaking of the justification. If the Aghanistan war wasn't justified, it would remain so whether the US had fifty allies or none, and the reverse is also true.

There are tons of murderous and repressive regimes out there, including the United States, whose record of murder and repression is quite long. Would you support a war against the US for that reason? Did you support the war against Iraq for that reason?

If (5) is a justification for war, then I must assume you would support a coalition of Latin American and Middle Eastern nations - say, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Venezeula, Chile, Brazil, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and others - attacking the US for its harboring of a variety of international terrorists and record of and support for state terrorism in those nations and elsewhere. Is that accurate?

your logic is beyond my comprehension.

1. Please tell me what country you admire and, with your standards, I can just as easily identify their "terrorist atrocities" and support for international terrorism. The Taliban harbored a group which had recently planned and executed the murder of over 3000 innocent civilians. What group is the US harboring which has done this?

2. International support is meaningless? Again your logic escapes me. Not only is international support a bellwether for the righteousness of a war, it also ensures a joint effort which can be accomplished and ended more quickly.

3. The US has extradited thousands of criminals to their home nations in accordance with the rule of law. Please inform me of the status of one terrorist that the US has refused to extradite.

4. The fact that the Taliban was a murderous and barbaric regime added value to the argument for the invasion, but was not the sole justification. I do not want the US to "clean up the globe."

5. Are the Latin American and Middle Eastern nations you cite blameless, with a spotless record of only following the path of peace? I suggest you apply your rigorous standards equally, not like a laser on the US, and like a dim bulb on other countries.

with the great and benevolent United States! Never have we had illegitimate, unelected religious fundamentalists leading our country! Never have we ignored the rule of law! Never have we supported, committed, and harbored the committers of terrorism!

:eyes:

1. In answer to your question, several members of Ronald Reagan's administration, responsible for helping to engineer the murder of thousands of innocent people in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Also, various defense officials who ordered and executed terrorist atrocities in Iraq; say, the bombardment of Baghdad, strikes using DU and cluster munitions, the recent attack on the wedding, etc. Civilian casualties are generally reported to greatly exceed three thousand. Similar conclusions could be drawn about Afghanistan.

It is also true that terrorist atrocities are not something strange and abnormal. That is why I do not support attacking nations simply because they have committed them.

2. We are arguing about the JUSTIFICATION for a war, not whether or not it should have been launched. International support is meaningless in the first regard, and essential in the second.

If the atrocities of 9/11 had been executed by a large number of terrorist organizations, with the aid of a dozen or so states, would they have been any more justified?

3. Kissinger remains at large. Didn't Bush nominate him to a government post? That's one of many.

4. You posted five justifications for the war in Afghanistan. I understand that you meant them in a collective sense, but my point was that without the others, that was meaningless. Since I contested every other one of your justifications, my point stands.

5. Did I ever say they were blameless? No. I do not think that those who enforce justice must be blameless. The point I am making is that if you accepted these statements as justification for war against Afghanistan, then you also must accept them as justification for war against the US.

To clarify, I would NOT accept them as justification in either case.

Al Quaeda has been harmed badly when the evilish taliban regime fell, almost defeated. Unfortunatly because of the Bush stupidity and his criminal Iraq diversion it had the opportunity, not to regroup, but on the contruary, and it's far more dangerous, to squatter everywhere. Not only Iraq is a faillure but the entire combat on terrorism is a massive faillure. Wrong path, wrong methods, dispersion of potential, loss of credibility, etc, etc, etc, etc....
More than ever we need John Kerry in the WH.

ITS TIME TO LEAVE THERE IS ONLY DEATH AND DISHONOR LEFT

killing, bombing, torturing, raping, invading, occupying or murdering until you have some inkling as to what the causes of terrorism are. Otherwise, you are (almost literally) shooting in the dark at a crowd. Eventually, people are going to start shooting back -- even if these people had originally no intention at all of doing so. You will find yourself alone and with many new enemies -- which is what Bush has done to the U.S.

Also, there are corporate defense and military industrial interests that seek to use this kind of rhetoric in continuing an endless war against a nameless, faceless enemy. Other more insidious interests seek to manipulate fear of this nameless, faceless enemy to eradicate civil liberties and basic freedoms to consolidate their power.

So saying something like "destroy the terrorists" and "sounds good to me" really doesn't cut it. It is what put us in this predicament in the first place.

The act of Terrorism (senseless killing of the innocent for shock effect and subduing a class of people) has been around since the beginning of humanity.

Albeit a smaller scale, Europe has been dealing with these acts much longer than the USA. The politicians are irritating when they spew their "War on Terror" sermons. I'm NOT at war. Besides can't win a war of political and religious ideology fully, and damn sure won't if we only employ a military solution to counter these highly motivated extremist enemies.

Unfortunately a muti-pronged solution, to include diplomacy, is interpreted by our morally and military science challenged President as less than macho, i.e., bad. Damn, we're screwed as a democracy if Bush is given four more years of preaching these bravado laden, simplistic geopolitical strategies.

I'd always prefer to share a foxhole with a highly intelligent combat veteran over a former NG fly-boy cheerleader.

*Don't misinterpret the above paragraph please = No offense, only my profound respect goes to those Soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves who actually "show up" (not AWOL like Bush) for their drills each month. :-)

ought to pretty much destroy them.

on rigged machines?

It'd be like waging a war on bombing runs - impossible and illogical.

The "war on terrorism" is America's new "war on Communism". It's designed to give maximum political cover for illicit deeds.

I suspect ANYONE who continues with suh an insane and unwinnable concept...

You are correct, but pretending terrorism does not exist does noone any good either.

Personally, as I have stated, I believe this sort of talk is simply to re-assure the masses that he will not roll over and be weak on terror. When it comes down to how it can actually be fought, I believe Kerry knows it is not a war that can be fought like a typical war. Bush has made that painfully clear to all of us.

If it can ever be won, it will be through intelligence, police work, and a serious effort to strike terror where it starts, at its roots--those roots, of course, being the hatred of America. Bush has dug us into a hole we may never be able to dig ourselves out of, but we have to try, and we have to protect ourselves as we do it. John Kerry can do this.

Looking at the root causes - like America's uncritical support for Israel's war crimes against Palestinians, and our heavy military presence in the Middle East, as well as our decades of interference and desire to ensure U.S. global hegemony - would be a good start.

If Kerry moves in that direction, I'll be the first to applaud him.

is cease committing it or supporting it when done by "allies".

Every guerilla force, including terrorist organizations not part of a government, needs some way to hide from its enemies. The easiest way to do this is to hide among the civilian population, and this is made simple when there is a high level of popular support for such crimes, as exists in many areas. Anger against US atrocities greatly contributes to this popular support.

Damn, we're screwed as a democracy if Bush is given four more years of preaching these bravado laden, simplistic geopolitical strategies.

Well-said. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

So is this the campaign strategy? "I'm just as macho as bush*, except I'm smarter"?

The presidential election as pissing contest -- how charming. :eyes:

sw

And for the forseeable future in this country, I think every president will have to be tough to get elected.

...and a logical concept that makes sense!

The WoT is a joke. You can never win a war on a fighting tactic.

Now, saying something like "we'll prevent terrorism through tough but fair police actions", okay, that's a bit different.

Almost every American has bought into the flawed concept of a "war on terrorism", and it's very frightening to see the illogic at work in good honest people who should, by all rights, know better.

But unfortunately the "War on Terror" is the language that your average American has come to understand, and that is who Kerry is speaking to when he says these things.

If he came out and said "we'll prevent terrorism through tough but fair police actions" the right-wing would have a field day with it. Kerry may be sexing up the language to make it more acceptable to the public, but I think he expects people like you and I to understand what he means. You and I are not the people he has to persuade to win the election.

It makes absolutly sense but you are obviously not working in political communication with nascar dads as targets Zhade.... ;)

And I fully approve.

If you don't show these guys that their tactics will get them none of what they want, they'll do it every time they want something. And I guarantee you won't find that charming.

Many of those claiming to be "tough on 'terror'" turn out to be exponentially more hideous and aggressive monsters than those they claim to oppose. What should be done about them?

But you see? You can be angry at people and left-wing at the same time. Nothing weird about me wanting to get rid of terrorists then.

and decry this junk for what it is: terror in the guise of opposition to terror.

Bush has fanned the flames of hatred with his shortsighted macho swagger. Kerry is too much of a statesman for that The American public will not elect anyone who does not take a strong stand against terrorism, nor should they. But a strong stand doesn't have to be a stupid one. A strong stand would have been a forceful, co-ordinated police action, but Bush seems to have diverted resources from that mission--perhaps to stay in the good graces of his benefactors. Kerry is in a position to get us back on course. I think he will fight terrorism rather than fight the people of Iraq. George doesn't seem to be able to separate the two. Hell, he can't pronounce any of their names. I think that Kerry will not try to liberate Iraq by destroying it. I will be interested in seeing how tied in he is to the goal of the 14 bases. That will tell the tale.

Even more importantly, a stronger stand could be taken by looking at how The United States wrongs other countries in our desperate scramble to sustain our wholly unsustainable appetites.

That scramble leads to the U.S. supporting terrible regimes in exchange for having its needs met. It leads to cutting deals with a thousand devils in order to prop up the out-of-control lifestyle Americans demand at all costs.

When we take a good, hard, painful look at ourselves, then - and only then - can we truly start to make a dent in terrorism and form the answer to the question, "why do they hate us?"

Should such soul-searching occur, I imagine there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the many iniquities we've perpetrated over our country's short existence.

Bush and his "obvious criminals" must indeed go-- to be replaced by the less obvious?

for treason and war crimes?

Or will he pardon them?

Good question.

If he does...my GOD, there will be hell to pay.

Has the man learnt nothing from Bush's follies? Al-qaeda membership is up over 2,000 per cent since Bush took that approach.

This guy needs to have someone sensible, like General Zinni, sit him down and explain how the world and human nature work.

Do you really believe Kerry is thinking in the same terms as Bush? Do you think he would invade a country? I think all this tough talk is to reassure the nation that he is not weak against terrorism, because if he lets the right-wing paint him that way, he will lose. It is a smart, nessesary tactic to win the election.

I believe he will be smart, careful, and calculated when it comes to fighting the war on terror, not reckless and short-sighted like Bush is.

I also think Kerry is playing the game he needs to right now to defend against the right wing.

I think he is thinking in much the same terms as Bush. But, he sort of has to from where he is. That's much of what I don't like about him:--what he cannot possibly do from his position.

But thats the reality of the situation.

Being a stronger, smarter Bush isnt nessesarily a good thing, but a strong, smart leader who recognizes the danger we face and reacts to it appropriately is exactly what we need. You have to remember that despite Kerry's strong talk these days, he is coming from a very different place than Bush is. He has seen the horrors of war, and knows the reality of it. He will not be swayed by grandoise ideology and reckless warhawking.

perhaps he'll be slightly less destructive, but frankly the only place where there will be a clear difference is the environment and perhaps abortion rights.

Kerry is not wedded to religious and fanatical ideology. That alone is a HUGE difference. Add in his commitment to economic reform and how he has fought against corruption in big buisness and you have a candidate who is absolutely NOTHING like Bush.

Kerry is not perfect. He is, however, an honorable, sensible democrat who will make an excellent president. Were this a perfect world, I'd be a green, but in the face of today's reality Kerry is exactly what we need.

He is, as this and other news stories indicate, dedicated to the imperial policies of the United States government.

What particular "commitment to economic reform" would you be referring to?

My idea of an excellent president isn't one who maintains the status quo and continues in the destruction of the lives of thousands across the globe.

BTW, welcome to DU! :toast:

I'm sorry, but to say Kerry supports imperial policies is a stretch. I see zero indication that Kerry has any intention of continuing the ideology and imperialism that led to the occupation of Iraq. I do wish he would come out and plainly say he regrets his vote, but hindsight is 20/20.

What I meant by economic reform was simply how he has talked about dealing with corporate corruption, so perhaps I phrased it wrong. I agree that he has made mistakes, NAFTA and Iraq being among the largest. He is certainly not perfect, but I do not believe he will simply maintain the status quo. He may not hit every issue exactly how we'd like, but he will definately move us in the right direction.

Thank you for the welcome, everyone has been very kind in my short time here. I do find it troubling, however, how many people seem to think Kerry will simply be another version of Bush. I think this notion is misguided and ultimately very dangerous as it undermines our chances of victory in november.

occupation of Iraq, and the accompanying atrocities committed for "pacification" purposes.

He also has made clear his opposition to Hugo Chavez and other leaders opposed to corporations seizing their economies, destroying their democracies, and exploiting their workers.

I support Kerry against Bush, as I mentioned earlier he will be less destructive, which is a good thing however small the difference may be. I simply do not believe much progress will be achieved.

From what I gather, he intends to stay in Iraq until we can leave it in a state other than a failed, chaotic mess. As much as I HATE what is happening over there, I fear the Iraqi people would be much worse off were we to simply leave now and let them fend for themselves. It is a narrow line to walk, I know, but I agree with Kerry on this position.

Were this a perfect world I would be voting for Dennis Kucinich in November. Unfortunately, as it stands, Kerry is our best shot at ending Bush's reign of tyranny. It may be a while until we can truly move forward, but digging out of the hole Bush has dug for us must come first. I do believe Kerry is the man for that job.

as it currently stands, the US is not helping them, it is hurting them. Attacks against US forces will continue regardless of who leads them, because of over a dozen years of bombings, sanctions, and wars supported and ran by the US, and so the violence will continue, causing more chaos and destruction.

The US has done so much damage to Iraq that it's hard to see how it could get any worse in the case of a US withdrawal. Though there will certainly be much unrest and violence, there is unrest and violence now, and at least in this case there will be no force launching atrocities in retaliation.

It's a big mess with no good options, a disaster of foreign policy. But regardless of whether one believes that the occupation of Iraq should continue or not, Kerry has not expressed much criticism of the tactics used during the occupation, many of which are violations of human rights and international law, aside from being heavy-handed and unproductive.

Anyway, we agree that Kerry is the best shot at knocking the current thugs out of the White House. He is the Democratic candidate for President, and as such, whatever his failures, of which there are many, he is the only person with a real chance of defeating Bush. For that reason I support him in his quest to do so.

You are most certainly correct that we are hurting more than we are helping, but I believe if we left tomorrow it would be dooming Iraq to a fate worse than they have yet seen. Civil war would most certainly break out, warlords would come to power, and Iran would just sit back and laugh at the magnificent job we did in helping them further their own causes. Unfortunately, I think the violence will continue no matter what we do, but if we are responsible and handle the situation right at least we can give them a fighting chance at success.

I also agree that Kerry needs to come out hard against the tactics used. Thats something that makes me so damned angry, not just that we did this, but that we did it in such a god damned stupid and irresponsible manner.

Anyway--thanks for the discussion. Cheers!

Thanks, but we can do without those "economic reforms".

Clearly, b*sh and his fellow traitors must go. But Kerry is no savior. Sorry. He just isn't.

We'll likely see this after he gets in the White House (assuming we have an election, of course).

...count that as a difference.

NT!

I think much of the al Q talk is bogus boogie man, we got you afraid and you're gonna die bullshit.

Terrorists don't all go to some (secret) alQ University, then tell the world who they want as US President, then post their recruitment stats in the Mid East sports pages for our Intel to peruse.

Sorry for the rant. But we buy too much of this.

I agree the numbers are so much horse manure since they're all over the map. But they do make estimates, as worthless as they may be. Here's where I got my +2000% figure.

1. UN report - June, 2002 - 800 al-Qaeda members
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3910.htm

2. NY Times - June, 2002 - 200-300 members at that time
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/international/16QAED.html?pagewanted ...

3. AP (IISS) - May 26, 2004 - 18,000 al-qaeda members
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AL_QAIDA?SITE=MNWIN&SECTION=HOM...

But the point is that it's impossibly to destoy all the terrorists one earth, just as you can't destroy all the criminals on earth. And when you start destroying them, usually abandoning the rule of law, you end up creating more.

I wonder if Senator Kerry can even define the "terrorists" he is going to destroy. Does that include terrorists that are on our side? Does it include countries that engage in terror against their own citizens?

For example, see: Poll question: Is Moqtada al-Sadr a terrorist?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&a...

Terrorism has been a strategy practiced by governments, groups and individuals for thousands of years. Chuck this 'war on terror' crap and treat American voters like adults.

George Bush did say one sensible thing on how to handle terror:

"Ultimately, one of the best weapons, one of the truest weapons that we have against terrorism is to show the world the true strength of character and kindness of the American people."

Too bad he ignored his own advice. Imagine if the 200 billion he has squandered in Iraq had been spent making the world a better place. Would al-queda's numbers of 200 to 800 two years ago be up to 18,000 today or down to the size of a street gang?

Bush is all about Military Action, Kerry is all about Law Enforcement

from Kirkus review quoted on Amazon:

snip

According to Kerry, who until this year was the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, the menace of global crime is greater than ever before. In a richly anecdotal book drawn from his tenure as an insider in the war against crime, Kerry details the newest quintuplet of dangers, which he calls ``The Big Five'': the Italian Mafia, the Russian mobs, the Japanese Yakuza, the Chinese triads, and the Colombian drug cartels. He devotes chapters to each of these threats and explains their growing influence and the ominous signs of transcontinental cooperation among them. Of their significance, Kerry writes: ``In strategy, sophistication and reach the criminal organizations of the late twentieth century function like transnational corporations and make the gangs of the past look like mom-and-pop operations.'' Other chapters are devoted to modern crimes like terrorism, money laundering, and illegal immigration, which the senator says threaten our very way of life. Kerry outlines a plan for meeting the new dangers, which includes the globalization of law enforcement and a ``reengineering of international law'' to allow countries to work together to fight criminals who ignore borders. At its worst moments, the book smells like a political pitch for the 2000 presidential race; at its best, it is a bold call to arms that Americans should not miss.

snip

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0684846144/reviews/104-0047965-1644774#06848461445123

Is Kerry going 'police state' on us?

:crazy:

cooperate and communicate w each other in cutting off financing to terrorists, getting intelligence, etc etc. Our allies all have a stake in thwarting terrorist attacks.

Basically, Zhade, in the last CBS poll I saw, Kerry is beating Bush on EVERY issue except terrorism. . .for some reason people think that the ham-fisted tactics of GWB are making the US and the world safer. Kerry's approach is fundamentally different - law enforcement, strenghting ties w allies, real security at our ports and borders, more money for first responders etc etc, military action if necessary. But he has to convince voters that a dem can do a better job than a bellicose Republican, and that is what he is up to.

If not, that means there is a HUGE logic gap in this country.

I hope my first suspicion is the right one!

Well Kerry?.....

I guess you and Bush will have to Blow up the whole world with those fighting words!!!

Have you ever heard that you can attrack more bees with honey????

Try killing them with kindness and then screwing them to the wall??

You are validating Michael Moore "Stupid White Men" book!!!

No amount of kindness is going to stop the people who attacked us on 9/11. Perhaps those we turned against us due to our reaction to 9/11 can be convinced we are a good people, but we must never let our guard down, or underestimate those who dedicate their lives to destroying our country.

I know we desperately need to gain back the trust and admiration of the world, but laying down and pretending the threat is not real will only lead to more tragedy. Bush's reaction was quite possibly the worst possible one, but doing nothing at all is certainly not a reasonable option either.

That would have been a good first step, wouldn't you agree?

Unfortunately, like the Reichstag, 9/11 was exploited immediately to stampede the populace into doing what this government wanted - and the majorities of both Republicans AND Democrats are responsible for that stampeding.

Just so I'm clear on the subject: I fully believe the evidence supports the allegation that the b*sh administration, at the very least, allowed 9/11 to happen. And that's the generous version.

You are correct, and hopefully it will be a mistake we all learn from. Not that it makes it right, but I don't think at the time anyone really believed the Bush administration would exploit the situation to the extent they did. We must never let it happen again.

I am not yet ready to accept the notion of LIHOP or MIHOP, but I do not totally dismiss them either. I wouldn't put *anything* past these people at this point.

I'm very encouraged by your open-minded nature. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

Don't think it'll work? Me neither. And it won't work with the much more escalated game of fighting terrorists.

Which supports what I just said.

What I would like to see Kerry do is call on an investigation on who in the whitehouse gave Bin Ladin the OK?

Let us find out who the real terrorists are before we shoot
our guns off literally.

So I can empathize with your desire to combat the terrorist,
but if the Bush Cabal are the terrorist then they are the ones we should pursue.

Bush attacks Iraq, Kerry goes after terrorist finance and works with our allies law enforcement agencies.

As to hearts and minds of moderate Muslims and Middle East nations, Bush does Prison Abuse, Kerry works with diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

It is NOT THE SAME. . .

Sounds good. How is he going to find them?

Point at the nearest convenient scapegoat and say "There's one!"

His approach is diff than bush. . .Bush is the "war president." Kerry is the "law president"

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0227a.html

snip

John Kerry outlined a seven-point comprehensive plan to fight the war against terror:


I. Use Direct Military Action: Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders.  He will also increase active duty end strength and tailor forces to be better prepared for post-conflict and stability operation. 


II. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Kerry will strengthen communication networks between intelligence agencies, build cooperative capacity with international law enforcement agencies, increase the number of linguists trained in critical languages and create a real Director of National Intelligence with budget and personnel power.


III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds: Kerry will impose tough financial sanction against banks or nations that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it and will launch a “name and shame’ campaign against those that finance terror.


IV. Control the Spread of Weapons on Mass Destruction: Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to lead the effort and expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.


V. Win the Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan: Kerry will bring real security in Iraq by broadening the coalition, including the United Nations, and creating a real Iraqi security force that can take care of itself and the people it is supposed to protect.  In Afghanistan, Kerry would put forward a major increase in security and fund the promised a Marshall Plan for reconstruction.


VI. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Young Generation:  Kerry will build bridges to the Arab and Islamic world by supporting and assisting human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture.


VII. Secure America's Homeland: Kerry will restore funding for the COPS program, add 100,000 firefighters to our streets, secure and protect our nuclear and chemical facilities, bolster port and aviation security.

snip

Kerry's approach stinks on ice and it will fail. It is only marginally different that the Bush doctrine.

You cannot defeat terrorism by killing more people.

PERIOD.

There is no excuse for it.

Well, let us just hope that one day, you or someone you know, doesn't become a victim to these people you have no sympathy for.

Maybe instead of sympathy you should try empathy. Put yourself in their shoes and think about their situation.

I have a feeling terrorism as we understand it would disappear.

As a Green Party member, I know that the USA cannot survive 4 more years of Bushco. I would prefer Kucinich to J. Kerry or Nadar. The compromise has to be J. Kerry. I don't hold much cheery hope for his Admin. but the alternative is way to depressing. Damn, why can't we have a true multi-party system? Yeah, wishful thinking.

I don't believe that the USA will be able to avoid being attacked by a terrorist group. Whatever they call themselves.

I sure would have liked to have seen the definitive proof that it was Osama and Al Q. that attacked on 911. Why no proof provided, indeed? Powel, that disgrace of a person, was supposed to deliver documentation of proof but never did.

The Taliban are scum but the method of the US and Allies on their invasion was bad news and it is still bad news. 3 years now and not much gain and a whole lot of pain for those poor masses in Afghanistan. It is an irony that Afghanistan could be a well off country because they have trillions of dollars of natural gas. Then there is that possible pipeline. Seems that the US and other Western countries don't know how to deal with this other than greedy exploitation.

I don't have answers but dream that billions of dollars could perhaps be used more wisely than killing, torturing people and destroying property. Extremists groups usually cannot be bought off so I am not suggesting that but taking away some of their rationale for their support could help. Can the USA figure out a way to survive without the present methods? I know that there are people that have solutions
that are better than what has been tried so far.

what a yobbo.

Relieve the political pressures that give rise to terrorism and terrorism will subside.

The only way to combat "terrorism," broadly speaking, is by confronting the specific regional, economic, and cultural problems that lead people to commit these violent acts. It will require a world-wide effort.

Military success comes at the cost of political failure.

Makes sense to me. I've got a family to protect.

It's also a good message to the middle-of-the-roader voters. They want a commander-in-chief who knows WTF he's doing.



We need to contrast Kerry's record of heroism and SMARTS.

We hear that THEY over there do not like our free society. However, Osama and others would be highly unlikely to want to come over to American soil to stage murderous attacks just because we do cultural immoralities and domestic political things he does not approve of.

Osama does have a "logic" for what he does (or did, just in case he might already be dead by now), but his statements are usually reported in brief snips by the establishment media. We do not really hear and discuss what his main points are. We cannot oppose his message and appeal to other Arabs and Muslims not to follow him unless we know what he and they actually believe.

Here is what Osama said at the start of the US-led war on Iraq last year. Note: This is probably not a false tape (put out by American deceivers} because what is claimed by "Osama" in this message is exactly what many Arab and other Muslim leaders official and unoffical have been saying for over 50 years. It may sound only bizarre and paranoid at first, but there are historical reasons why this belief has become so strong in extremist Islamic circles.

Bin Laden exhorts Muslims to fight "enemy" U.S.

By Miral Fahmy

DUBAI, Feb 16 (Reuters) - An Islamist website broadcast an audio tape purported to be the voice of Osama bin Laden telling Muslims to fight against the "enemy" United States and saying holy war was the only way to win Muslim rights.

If authenticated, the recording broadcast by the Jihad Forum site would be the latest proof that bin Laden had escaped the 2001 U.S.-led military campaign to flush him and his al Qaeda operatives from Afghanistan.

The voice on the tape was very clear and sounded like previous audio and video recordings allegedly made by bin Laden.

"Regarding this Zionist Crusader war on the nation of Islam, it is the duty of Muslims to fight for the sake of God and to incite the faithful to fight the infidels," the speaker said.

skip to later section of message

Bin Laden said an attack on Iraq would be followed by U.S. "aggressions" against more Arab countries such as Egypt, Sudan, Iran and Syria for the benefit of its ally Israel.

"This attack on Iraq is part of a new crusade to prepare the region, after dividing it, for the creation of a Greater Israel. This means the whole region will be ruled by Jews," he said.

The recording began with bin Laden identifying the United States and its "foolish" President George W. Bush as the enemy.

It said Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to carve up the Middle East like a 1916 British-French pact that divided up the territory of the Ottoman Empire.

"The United States' goal to divide the Middle East is not just a passing fancy," the al Qaeda leader said. "The only way to defeat the infidels is through Holy War.

To see more about this common belief among many Muslims, go here:

http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/greaterisrael.htm

he said the "war on terror" has to be focused on intelligence and co-operation with allies first, and military force only as a second option. Russert practically jumped out of his seat and questioned the strategy, but Kerry wouldn't back down.

Personally I'd love to hear our "leaders" speak intelligently about the root causes of terror, but I'm not holding my breath.