Please help me respond to a freeper coworker

Yesterday my coworker started telling me about Kerry's "nuisance" comment claiming that thinking along those lines is the reason he will not be voting for John Kerry. I had yet to hear anything about the comment at the time, so I was a bit unarmed. He of course twisted the statement out of context and I couldn't let that lie. After he left I did some research on the comment to see what was actually said. After reading the NYT article, I sent it to him to read, telling him that the article in question only furthered my resolve to vote for JK and suggested that he read the whole article rather than quoting one line out of context.

Here was his reply to me:

The comment illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terror.
I understand what he was trying to say but it shows a severe lack of
conviction. He would like to deal with the problem as we used to which is
basically to ignore it.

A few terrorist attacks you may remember that our previous prez did nothing
about...

The bombing of the USS Cole

The World Trade Center Bombing (first one)

Several Embassy Bombings

There are more I cant think of

Hundreds of people died in these attacks and he calls terrorism a nuisance.
A pre 9/11 mentality is no longer viable. We can not consider terrorism a
nuisance as we used to. 3000 people dead changed all of that.

My problem is the way he plans to deal with the problem... Or at least how
he claims to want to deal with it now. He thinks police actions are a better
way. Guess how we used to deal with terrorism... Police actions. Guess what
didn't work...

Anyway , it really isn't worth talking about. It wouldn't matter if I showed
you dead-solid infallible proof that Kerry was unfit for command. You would
call it spin from the religious right (a characterization I found quite
offensive by the way)

Vote how you will, but I really think you should take a longer look at
Kerry. A look without leaping to his every defense. I will admit that GW has
made myriad mistakes and has many policies I don’t agree with. When you
defend Kerry even as far as partial-birth abortions it is obvious that you
are not keeping an open mind about the possibility of his fallibility.

Anyway, have a good night kiddo! let me know if you need any help on
anything and please keep me up to date on your progress.

>>>>>>

So here's the thing, I am a really terrible debater. I have all of the facts in my head, but when I try to recall them during an argument they get all jumbled up. Does anyone want to comment on this letter and help me debunk it?

Cole bombing happened four years ago today. Any immediate response would've been met with howls of "wag the dog!" by republicans.

This same "wag the dog" response was used when he struck back after the 1998 embassy bombings.

Those responsible for the 93 attack on the WTC were captured and imprisoned.

Two millenium plots were foiled under Clinton's watch.

Clinton warned Bush that Al Queda would be his biggest problem. Bush ignored this advice. Bush got a memo on 8/6/2001 titled "bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S." and did nothing about it.

How's that?

It's one of the most damning aspect of the events leading up to 911. The specter of a president more consumed with having fun and takin' it easy than doing his Fricken Job.

From day one Shrub has proven to be the most lazy, brazen, disconnected, petulent, imcompetent, corrupt president in U.S. History. 4 more years of Shrub and America is finished.

bush said it would be swatting flies and why he he he did nothing though clinton clarke and everyone else told him to do something

The cole happened near the very end of clinton's term, so while they try to say that 9-11 was not bush's fault because he was only in office a year, they blame clinton for "not doing anything" about the cole when he had a couple months to do something about it.

Otherwise, don't waste too much time on him. My snap judgement is that he is secure in his position and wants to lead you, the lost sheep, to the side of the righteous.

Tell him to "have a nice day" and go to work on someone who actually is undecided.

My $.02.

They Said It: Gen. Scowcroft on Making Terrorism a Nuisance
Gen. Brent Scowcroft (ret.): "Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies."

General Scowcroft served as the National Security Advisor to both Presidents Ford and the first President Bush. Born in Utah, he graduated from West Point and served in the Air Force in a number of capacities including Assistant Air Attache in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Military Assistant to President Nixon. From 1978 to 1987, General Scowcroft remained actively engaged in national security affairs, serving on the President's Advisory Committee on Arms Control, the Commission on Strategic Forces and the President's Special Review Board, also known as the Tower Board. He earned a Doctorate in International Relations from Columbia University.

along with Zbig and Kissinger, they are all bad people.

former National Security Advisor, who worked in the first Bush admin. He said this in the fall of 2002.

http://www.usip.org/peacewatch/2002/12/scowcroft.html

After September 11, there was a great coming together in the United States and in the world. However, this response is waning: beyond the East Coast, "9/11" no longer has its previous galvanizing effect, trans-Atlantic drift is again apparent, and friction over ongoing problems in such regions as South Asia, Korea, and the Middle East is growing.

Scowcroft pointed out that the second phase of the war on terrorism requires dramatically up-scaled intelligence—in both technology and human intelligence. It can only be won on the offensive, says Scowcroft. "Homeland security can reduce the impact of terrorism, but winning requires us to take the war to the terrorists."

Scowcroft is confident that the war on terrorism can be won, in the same way the war on organized crime can be won. "There will not be a treaty signed aboard the battleship Missouri, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies."

But winning the war is not enough. We have to try to find new ways to reach out to those people who have not benefited from globalization. "We must learn to walk and chew gum at the same time."

took office.

Apparently boosh doesnt understand how to fight a war on terrior. He got recruitment confused with eradication.

Why in the world would people hate this country so much that they need to bomb us?

And then I would go through the entire history of the U.S. involvement of the middle east. If you don't know this history I suggest you learn it, beginning with the British and French efforts to destroy the Ottoman Empire and take over Arab lands. The CIA backed both Saddam and Bin Laden. If you're not willing to dig deep and find real answers that are non-partisan, don't take my advice on this. Also this tactic is for long term discussion not suitable for an email squabble.

But on another note, Clinton jailed the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing. Bush used the second to justify a genocidal rape of Iraq for his oil buddies. That is the fundamental difference.

their answer is that they (terrorists) HATE liberty and freedom!
(whatever that's supposed to mean)!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=882615

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37385

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2378123

When John Kerry said that he was imp ling that instead of having 'terrorism' at the focus of the American People, it should be perceived as nothing more than a nuisance.

It is W and his partners that have brought terrorism in the spotlight in this nation. He has done this to keep the people of this nation in fear and that only W. can protect them from the forces of evil. He created the 5 color code warning system which amounted to nothing. There are terror bulletins posted, like the one a few months ago about the buildings in NY and NJ being targeted. What does this accomplish? Does it make it easier for law enforcement to do their job with 2500 reporters near by? Just last week, we heard that schools were being targeted. All this does is cause panic of the people.

There are many other counties that deal with terrorism every day. They do not publish reports about what is being targeted and what is not. England is a great example of this. Their anti-terrorism forces work covertly and deal with the threats that come up. Israel as well. They have been dealing with terrorism a lot longer than we have and the people in both those countries just go about their business every day. Maybe its time we did too.

That was Kerry's term on how the war on terror can eventually be won -- when the threat of terrorism is reduced to that of a simple nuisance and not anything that is ruling our lives every day. That should be what we hope for.

The problem is that Iraq was not a threat. It was a pre-conceived war that the Bush administration tried to find an excuse for. The war in Afghanistan was well supported by both sides of the aisle. Going into Iraq did nothing to make us safer -- it did just the opposite. It made more people hate us, gave terrorists what they wanted, caused our allies to stop trusting us, and ruined world opinion of this nation. The 3,000 deaths have nothing to do with Iraq. We've killed an estimated 15,000 Iraqi civilians to invade a country that didn't attack us and didn't threaten to attack us and didn't even have the capabliity to attack us if it wanted to.

The people responsible for the first WTC bombing were captured and convicted. Clinton then tripled counter-terrorism funding over his second term, but found many of his initiatives rejected by Republicans, who didn't want to spend the money. While the world was watching Clinton give a deposition on Monica Lewinsky on tape, Clinton was actually speaking before the Eurpoean Union on the importance of uniting to fight the global threat of terrorism. When he knew he faced a serious threat on this soil (the Millennium plot), he had daily meetings every day for a month.

Bush took office and acted like terrorism wasn't even worth worrying about. Recommendations from the Clinton administration? Ignore them! Let's put Dick Cheney in charge of a commission that never meets. August 6 PDB? Bah - not worth worrying about. Let's stay on vacation and never discuss the threat over the next 36 days. A plane has hit the World Trade Center? Gee - must be a really bad pilot. I'll worry about it after this photo op.

If it was September 11, 2000 when the WTC was hit, and Clinton had spent the previous month on vacation and ignored all the PDB's and the Hart/Rudman report and the intelligence warnings all summer about the system blinking red, what do you think the right would have done to him?

I would remind your freep friend that 3000 dead, in the grand scheme of things, isn't a lot.

6000 people die of communicable disease in Africa, EVERY DAY. This creates many times that number of orphans, unbelieveable poverty, and yes, more terrorists.

I would also remind him that freeps for years had been painting New York as some kind of "Soddom and Gamoorah", and several of their leadership suggested that it was 'permissive lifestyles' that brought 9/11 upon us.

Further, I'd point him at Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies", which outlines in some great detail Clinton's agressive actions against terrorism world-wide.

He should also be reminded that it was the current adminstration that didn't regard terrorism as a threat until it was too late. They were on vacation, remember?

Report from TheJaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_terrorism

A few terrorist attacks you may remember that our previous prez did nothing
about...

The bombing of the USS Cole

Came late in Clinton's term. It was left for GWB to "do something about it" and he did... nothing

The World Trade Center Bombing (first one)

We caught those guys and sent them to prison. Maybe your freeper friend would be happier if we beheaded them?

Several Embassy Bombings

Missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan. I wouldn't call that doing nothing. Of course, the rethugs called it "wagging the dog".

My problem is the way he plans to deal with the problem... Or at least how
he claims to want to deal with it now. He thinks police actions are a better
way. Guess how we used to deal with terrorism... Police actions. Guess what
didn't work...

Police action? We called the Korean War a "police action". WTF is he talking about?

When you
defend Kerry even as far as partial-birth abortions it is obvious that you
are not keeping an open mind about the possibility of his fallibility.

What does "partial birth abortion" have to do with terrorism? And Kerry admits he makes mistakes. Busholini is the one who thinks he's infallible.

but since it seems that this person already has their mind made up and this is not a REAL debate, let me just say that I'm sick to death of arguing with these thick=headed, ignorant types. My best advice? Tell him to piss up a rope and suck on the wet end. Sometimes, it's just not worth wasting your breath.

I have never been much into politics until this administration pissed me off enough to learn more about what they are doing. When people start bringing up Clinton to me, I go numb because I never cared much before. Now I am a political junkie and I can't learn enough. So... thank you everyone for giving me the resources to better arm myself in this debate.

I know I will never change his mind and it is pointless for me to try, but I would just for once like to stump him. I would love to get him to the point in which he was no response. I suppose that is my goal in all of this.

Sharpen your claws on him, then use what you've learned on others who may be more easily swayed.

Poppy's pal. But I strongly suspect nothing will shut your freeper co-worker up completely. They tend to leak and hiss a lot. ;)

Every anti-abortion voter in the USA will be voting for Booosh,
because Booosh will appoint a Supreme Court that will ban it.

There is nothing we can say or do that will change their minds
because it has become an article of faith for them.

Even though a substantial majority of Americans support the right
to choose, very few will vote for Kerry on that issue alone, but
millions will vote against him on that issue alone. And they always
vote, and their votes are always counted at least once.

Between the churches and faux, a significant portion of our population
is hopelessly brainwashed.

We need to turn out enough of our voters to offset all the anti-abortion
voters who will turn out for Booosh.

When you
defend Kerry even as far as partial-birth abortions it is obvious that you
are not keeping an open mind about the possibility of his fallibility.

..This REALLY pisses me off, and I'll tell ya' why. How is this not keeping an open mind? This person is assuming, first off, that you consider partial-birth abortion to be wrong. Maybe you don't. Explain to this mush-brain, that, unlike his beloved Monkey King, John Kerry is not willing to subject the entire country, large portions of which DO NOT agree with his personal views, to his version of morality. Again, tell this guy to shove it, he ain't worth your time or effort.

"...a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terror." is a Bush quote. I love how the only arguments Freepers respond with are sound bites.

I think a proper response would be to remind him that the Kerry comment was a minor slip. Not smart, but not as bad as the President not knowing who the actual 9/11 hijackers were.

It probably isn't worth debating though. Based on your coworkers sound bite filled response, I'd say he's already among the brainwashed.

Look, if you think we need more war and more violence and more alienation in the world, vote for Bush. If you think we need a leader who is willing to negotiate to resolve conflict and use other means besides brute force to solve problems, vote for Kerry.

Your coworker has the mindset of a member of the mafia. Kill anyone for any reason as long as it benefits me. Of course, in the end, the mafia story ends in a huge shootout where everybody gets killed.

P.S. - My RW coworker used the exact same talking points yesterday.

"Because there's tv pictures of the military killing Arabs, you think Bush is fighting a war on terror??? Pakistan just did another test on nuclear weapons and they were directly connected with the Taliban and terrorists. And we're in Iraq? And that's your idea of fighting terrorism? Besides being in the wrong country, what's Bush doing about terrorism?"

That's what I'd say.

"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" --
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm - was
issued in December 2003 by the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the
Army War College. The SSI is the U.S. Army's think tank for the
analysis of national security policy and military strategy. SSI
provides direct analysis for Army and Department of Defense leadership,
and serves as a bridge to the wider strategic community. The report was
written by Dr. Jeffrey Record, professor at the Air War College and
long-time defense expert who is a visiting research professor at SSI.
In his summary of the report, Dr. Record writes:

"Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat. This was
a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical
differences between the two in character, threat level, and
susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has
been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq
that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism
and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American
homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war
against Iraq was not integral to the , but rather
a detour from it."

--

SUMMARY

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently
defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the
terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and
(3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He
believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against
al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and
may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the
scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security
interests and the limits of American military power.




And show him this flyer. I use it all the time with people who think * has made us safer:




also:




Go to http://somnamblst.tripod.com to dowload flyers to print.

http://blog.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/archives/002488.html

From Rapid Response on Missile Defense, this article shows what Kerry was talking about just before 9/11 vs. what the Bush Admin was talking about just before 9/11. One of them was talking about terrorism, the other missile defense. One was on point in this issue, the other had taken a trip in the Wayback Machine and was essentially dredging up Star Wars.

Which one is stuck in a time warp, I ask you.

Also, I repeat, "A New War" is excellent.

My choice for the "Eerie Prophesy Award" goes to this quote:

"Though this country will continue to face danger from religious extremeists, homegrown anarchists, and perennial lone-bomber types, they are all in some sense “old news.” The terrorists of tomorrow will be better armed and organized. It will take only one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day. As we shall see, that event could be nuclear or could just as easily occur on the Internet, but whether our sense of secure well-being ends with a bang or a whimper will not be the cause of debate. "

Personally, I feel safer with the guy who's been on the case of terrorism since 1997 and before if you count Iran/Contra and the BCCI.

That's my response.

We've been told that Al Quida is in 60 countries. Are we going to bomb them all? We have to do it with intelligence and small covert operations. It's the only thing that makes sense.

he hasnt caught obl or the person with the anthrax, he is 0-2 on our soil

Clinton to retaliate. Guess why? Monica's blue dress was going public the next day.

Republicans all cried: "No war for Monica".

Because of the 'sex' scandal, Osama was not punished. Republicans have had their chance, and we go hit - HARD.

Clinton partially stopped the 1st trade center bombing, and LAX bombing as well.

No terrorist attacks Y2k - 4+ stopped.