No, what you see are our jobs that have been going ashore in China, and India, and Mexico, etc., the result of free trade gone wrong and too much outsourcing. But that's the subject of another thread.

The point I was making is that in the absence of conflicting opinions, any system of government is going to be unbalanced. Another comparison: If you row a boat continuously using only one oar on one side, you'll only go in circles.

Right-wingers seem to forget that liberal thought is needed to provide balance, and vice versa.

When you post a one-liner like that, it makes me wonder if you read or considered anything else in my post. No lecture here, but I'm just curious to know if you thought about anything else I had written in that posting.

Whether John Kerry is farther to the left than some would like, he is still an American who values American lives above those of suicidal/homicidal terrorists. And voting down a tax cut for the wealthy that is too expensive for the country to do at this time of record deficits and incidentally having to vote down defense spending because it was attached to an egregiously expensive bill does not constitute disloyalty to our country or a cavalier attitude toward the welfare of our fighting men and women.

Actually, that is not true. Kerry voted against the same appropriations bill that both Bush 41 and Cheney at the time were against because it contained too much pork. Both Bush 41 and Cheney were trying to reduce military spending.

So, that appropriations bill contained funds for 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, the F-15 fighter jet, 18 other misc programs, and $2.85 billion in intelligence spending.

At that time, Cheney went to name the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters-- all of which were in that appropriations bill, as "great systems" that "we have enough of."

16 senators, including 5 republicans voted against that bill.

You are framing the votes as if this were an individual vote against each program, and that is false. That 1991 Pentagon appropriations bill was paying for the $750 toilet seats we heard so much about (well, at least us older folks did) and Kerry voted against the package - not against any particular item in the bill.

In your defense, you are simply repeating rhetoric you hear from Hannity, Newt, et al. But it is not true. And the reason McCain has come to Kerry's defense on this.

Oops - I've transferred my follow-up to this to a more appropriate thread.

This question seems very irrelevant. The election will be decided not by voters or opinion polls from around the world, but by registered voters in America. The only terrorist group the current administration has identified, which is likely to have registered American voters, is the NEA.

I really don't see that any of my child's fifth grade teachers are going around armed, although they usually leave their cars parked near the school for the entire school day... None of her teachers have tried to influence how she is going to vote next November, but at ten, she is unlikely to be able to register anyway.

My gut reaction? If I were a member of a group that the Current Presidential Administration identified as a threat to national security, I would vote for "a regime change." Therefore, I voted that I thought the "terrorists" would support Kerry in this election. I'm certain that will somehow skew the results of this unscientific poll, but the only group of people that I can see supporting Bush's re-election are the Rabid Republicans; those conservative voters who are so proud of his belt tightening efforts to reduce Federal Spending, reduce their taxes. and subsidize their industries...

It seems to me that Kerry's votes are more political in nature than a conscious decision to do what is best for the country. Look at his Iraq votes. Hevoted for the invasion when he perceived the American people were behind the president. Later, falling behind Dean in the primary polls, Kerry flips and votes against funding the troops he has sent into combat. IMO, this is a blatant effort to appear further to the left and draw base support away from Dean. His I "I voted for it, before I voted against it" personna is just what the terrorists want in an American President.

Were I the avowed enemy of the United States, I would have to prefer the apparently indecisive Kerry over GWB.

1SG

First you have to ask yourself- what does Al-Quaida hope to accomplish, and what are thier lists of priorities.

1) REally, thier overwhelming goal is to get infidels out of Saudi Arabia- correct?

2) Force the US to be an oppressive occupier of muslim areas, so it radicalizes the population

3) Force further appearence of linkage between Isreal and US- so they become even more percieved to be one and the same enemy.

4) Create divisions in thier "enemies" country.

5) Create divisions in traditional allies of thier "enemies".

Does anybody agree with this? Or some other set of priorties, maybe minor changes to that list?

So far, GW has pretty much completed that list for OBL and company!

Poeple that respond that Kerry would somehow be less hawkish militarily against terrorists miss the point of terrorism completely- they don't care if the US wipes out cells here or there, or wins some battles against an inferior opponent. They are playing to thier fans, just as GW plays to his.

The war in Iraq has specifically played right into the hands of OBL- now a great place for Al Quaida to thrive and be prosperous, plus get to kill alot of US troops! There were no Al-quaida in Iraq, prior to our invasion, now it is a veritable breeding ground for new combat proven Al-Quaida bad guys.

GW has been the bes thing that has ever happened to Al-Quaida or thier movement.

Heck, they should erect a monument to him LOL

Oh, I don't think he will be indecisive once he gets into office. Kerry more political than Bush!!! Isn't that sort of like the pot calling the kettle black?

G.W. Bush panders to his supporters, pure and simple, from his belief in unrestrained free-trading, rampant corporatism and cronyism to his religiosity and its appeal to the Religious Rightists. He seems oblivious to those who might not be able to afford to make a campaign contribution. And in the past, he got down and dirty with the campaign commercials; no, Bush is not respectably above it all, either.

With the situation in Iraq, it seems like a date rape scenario. He built up to invading Iraq, and when Saddam finally relented, saying okay--let the inspectors back in, I don't want a war, G.W. Bush said, too late! We've gone too far. Now there is only one thing we can do. He was askin' for it anyway...

We need a President who can analyze situations himself, not be told what to think by the power(s) behind the throne. We need a President who can say, this is the wrong course of action, and then act upon it, not someone who is hell-bent for leather and doesn't count the cost to the American people.

Kerry is much more likely to be that kind of man. He has the capability of addressing more than one issue, and he will not forget the domestic problems of the country while working to rout the terrorists.

Oh well, in that case why bother even having an election this year at all? Seeing as how we don't want to send the wrong message to bin Laden and the rest of his rat pack cowering in their caves somewhere.

I can see it now:

Al Qaeda lackey: "Osama! The accursed American infidels have gotten wise to our evil plans. They have cancelled the November elections and Bush will remain in power for another four years!"

Osama: "Aw, darn it all!"

I really don't give a hang what message a terrorist gets from the ongoing debate. In a democracy that's what we DO and to stop doing so is giving those who hate America exactly what they want. The opinion of Al Qaeda is NOT more important than that of American citizens and as such we have the right to freely debate the present Administration's policies and practices in the war against terrorism.

The idea that the greater danger comes from what terrorists think and how they may react and that should carry greater weight that than of Americans is absurd. By that way of thinking, America would never have invaded Iraq in the first place because it might annoy our enemies.

Oh, and almost 580 dead American soldiers later it WAS a bad idea.

nighttimer Posted on Mar 21 2004, 06:47 AM

"Oh well, in that case why bother even having an election this year at all? Seeing as how we don't want to send the wrong message to bin Laden and the rest of his rat pack cowering in their caves somewhere."

Because we live in a Representative Republic and the views of one individual are not the required views for all. If enough Americans agree with my POV then Bush will be re-elected. It is my opinion the terrorists would rather see Kerry in the White House. It is my opinion that voting for Kerry is playing into the terrorist's hands. It is my view that a Kerry presidency would increase the threat of terrorism against the United States (just as the Clinton years did). but, these are not necessarily the opinons of the majority of the country. Although I certainly hope so.

We shall see in November.

1SG

Not one of the anti-kerry group have addressed the priorities of the terrorists, or thier goals, only that somehow Kerry will be "softer" on them- when they don't probably even care too much what the US does militarily, as long as they sew terror, wreak havoc, and cause long term discomfort to US citizens.

We have jettisoned our behavior of living to a higher standard of behavior than our opponents, and in this OBL has done quite well with GW.

I have no idea how killing terrorists could possibly be a BAD thing...I'm sure Osama is saying right now..."Well, I'm on dialysis [spelling], on the run, living in a cave, my top comrades are being systimatically hunted down or killed, life is good."CR, that doesn't make any sense. How can terrorists "thrive" in a country being essentially run by the US military? They don't want to engage in a war against our troops, they want to kill civilians who can't defend themselves.We don't know if there were Al-Quaida in Iraq before or not, you say that as if it is a proven fact.There are more than a few dead terrorists who might take issue with that.

CP

I guess that is why Bush broke with the "conservatives" in his party to pass the Farm bill, Immigration amnesty, steel tariffs and a departure from anything resembling a balanced budget.

Bush isn't a true blue Conservative, but he is much closer than Kerry.

Why would "terrorists" want Kerry rather than Bush?

Three Words: The United Nations.

Putting US foreign policy in the hands of the UN would be disastrous. A classic "do-nothing" organization when it comes to security, the UN is filled with such worthies as Cuba, China, and Libya (the Chair) on the Human Rights Committee,

U.N. Human Rights Commission is a joke

Iraq and Iran co-chaired the UN Disarmament committee last year...Iraq and Iran to co-chair U.N. disarmament conference. Seriously.

Charles Krauthammer sums it up perfectly:
U.N., R.I.P.







This is the organization that Kerry places above the interests of the United States. That alone is enough reason not to vote for him.

By acting more unilaterally and turning away from an organization (the UN) that works to avoid peace, President Bush has helped unleash a climate that is more divided not more united.

Terrorists don't want either candidate to win the election, they want the American system, political and economic, to be destroyed.

Our war on terror is simply not working to pull the world together in a way to really deal with this threat effectively.

Our war in Iraq allowed Al-Qaeda to regroup and our presence in Iraq and other arab countries I believe has heightened anti-Americanism abroad. From anti-Americanism comes future terrorist attacks.

The UN is one tool with which to work more cooperatively in the international community, and as we are finding out in Iraq, it is a valuable one.

The system is democratic, and all members in good standing get their rotation through committees. At times this creates situations like Libya chairing the Human Rights Committee.

Terrorism continues throughout the world in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Indonesia, and Spain. Our worldwide war on terror is more like the world series. We look after our own interest and call it an global event.

We need to lead with more democracy and more good will. There are times to use force and there have been appropriate uses of force. But Iraq was not one of those times. It has created a world with more hate, more fear, and more reasons for fanatics to turn to terrorism against the systems they hate.

Where are the international conventions to deal with this issue? Where is the worldwide consensus to drive these forces out? What we have is "bring it on" and "you are either with us or against us"

Other than some conservative columnists words, do you have ANY evidence that Kerry would turn over control of our foreign policy to the UN? Please reference links to the Kerry site or to articles containing Kerry's words for an answer.

And, also, please answer if it's such a "do nothing" organization, why was our very own Paul Bremmer recently twisting the arms of the Iraqi Governing Council to invite the UN back into Iraq to help out?

Exactly right Eeyore. If some nutcase had the chance to set off a bomb during a Bush/Kerry debate and kill both of them he would do so willingly and happily.

Without actually polling terrorists it is pure speculation as to whom they would want to win. I have no doubts however as to whom they would want to kill.

George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. Or do you think Kerry now has the protection of the Secret Service extended to him simply for a courtesy?

Maybe not our entire foreign policy, but...



I'm not sure his voting record contradicts this quote.

Or if you'd prefer something recent:

CP

CruisingRam Posted on Mar 21 2004, 07:58 AM

"Not one of the anti-kerry group have addressed the priorities of the terrorists, or thier goals, only that somehow Kerry will be "softer" on them- when they don't probably even care too much what the US does militarily, as long as they sew terror, wreak havoc, and cause long term discomfort to US citizens."

It is pretty apparent from the words of the terrorist themselves that they want the destruction of the godless, decadent west and the conversion or death of all western people. So, the question is, which candidate for president would these same terrorists see as giving them the best chance of achiving their goals. The man who has fought them for three years, killing, capturing and driving many of them and their leaders into hiding, or the man who has not?

Eeyore Posted on Mar 21 2004, 05:10 PM

"By acting more unilaterally and turning away from an organization (the UN) that works to avoid peace, President Bush has helped unleash a climate that is more divided not more united."

Please name three European nations which do not support the WOT. Please name three Pacific Rim Nations which do not support the WOT. Tonight on a FOX News interview, the President of the European Council stated that the people of Europe and America must understand the WOT and the War in Iraq are two completely and separate things in the minds of Europes leaders. He said Europe would continue the fight against terrorism in alliance with the United States.

"Our war in Iraq allowed Al-Qaeda to regroup and our presence in Iraq and other arab countries I believe has heightened anti-Americanism abroad. From anti-Americanism comes future terrorist attacks."

Regroup? Where? Where are the tens of thousands of trained fighters al-Qaeda claimed to have. Where are the thousands of skilled terrorists they claim to have trained? They are not in Iraq. They are not out making hundreds of terrorist attacks around the world every week, or month, or year. Where are they???

Although our presence in Iraq may have heightned anti-Americanism in other parts of the World, right now 22 million Iraqis are darn glad we are there and Saddam is not. If the rest of the world cannot understand that, then shame on them.

"Where are the international conventions to deal with this issue? Where is the worldwide consensus to drive these forces out? What we have is "bring it on" and "you are either with us or against us"

And who will bring those international conventions together? The ineffectual United Nations? Or, do you believed America should once against step in? What we have is an international organization that is frozen in the muck and mire of its own inability to act. There will be no such conventions for the foreseeable future.

So, to the original question, IMO the man least wanted as president of the United States by world terrorism, is the man currently in office.

1SG

I think the AQ leadership wants Bush to stay in, while the "average Joe" (I doubt many of them are actually named Joe) terrorist likely wants to see Bush dead, and would be happy to see him lose the election as a compromise. This is fairy simple: Bush is a recruiting tool for bin Laden. He expanded our war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorists with global reach to include a secular Middle Eastern nation incapable of doing much militarily (proof: the post-war fight with imported terrorists arriving after the invasion has been tougher than conquering the place), giving credibility to the pan-Arab, pan-Islam jihad idea. So the borderline-madrassah student that may have turned out moderate instead believes bin Laden's doggerel about a culture war, especially when we have generals spinning it into a religious war and the President calling it a "crusade". They hate Bush, but the leadership likely sees him as their meal ticket to sustained operations.

I think it's a bit silly to think that Kerry would not continue to actively pursue terrorists. The "rationale", if it could be called such, seems to be just that Democrats are dovish. Sure, we were in the Oval during WWI, WWII, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we didn't support Iran-Contra, so we must be with the terrorists! Unfortuantely, I don't think the AQ leadership is dumb enough to believe this line of thought, so I don't think they'll be particularly happy with the election either way it comes out. They want the U.S. to be more like the Taliban's Afghanistan, with a theocracy oppressing gays, women, and ethnic minorities. Bush/Cheney are too liberal for them.

Oh, and ConservPat, isn't it abit of an exagerration to suggest handing over the DOMESTIC, POLITICAL formation of Iraq's democracy over to the UN is paramount to handing over U.S. foreign policy? I didn't buy all the accusations of empire leveled at Bush, but if Iraq's elections are a part of our sovereign foreign policy now, not to be influenced by non-Americans, I must have missed something.

Beladonna:


Umm, except he did vote for the Iraq Resolution, not wanting to tie the President's hands. So the last vote on such a matter DID show he's changed his mind, although he has faulted the President on how he used the granted authority. Shame on him for wanting to defray the cost in blood and treasure! I'm sure the terrorists do support our continued deficit spending, if they're inclined to consider it.

Heh, and bush has never dipped into politics just to gain a few votes...hehe.

The list of things Bush has reversed himself on is considerable and even Rush Limbaugh wrote last week that hes been one of the administrations biggest critics for turning "compassionate conservatism into mainstream liberalism". Few of the issues Bush campaigned on have remained intact and you cant blame *everything* on 9/11....

Politicians playing politics? Im shocked, shocked.

Wow. That's ... that's... weak!

A 34-year-old quote -- made while we were still in Vietnam! -- and you didn't do the homework to see if he voted on anything or made any statements since about who should run our military and our foreign policy?

Weak.

Edited to add:

And, CP:



Hello? This is turning over nation building to the UN, not our foreign policy or even our military. What's so wrong with that? Since when did we WANT to occupy Iraq indefinitely? Or do you like having us spending billions on Iraq while No Child Left Behind goes underfunded, etc. (insert the rest of the things Bush is underfunding or ignoring here)?

I guess when the leadership are all killed or captured, the second rung guys will be happy...

This statement makes about as much sense as saying that Hitler preferred Churchill over Chamberlain because it gave him a focus for his attention

Bush is much more likely to aggressively go after both terrorists and regional dictators. He has proven that.

I can virtually guarantee you that if Kerry is elected, Kim Jong Il will breath a sigh of relief knowing that the US military will not move against him.

That is not to say that Bush is thinking about moving against North Korea, but Kerry would certainly take that card out of the US's strategic hand if he is elected.

The same can be said of terrorists.

Kerry will not necessarily be soft on terrorists, but Bush is the proven commodity here. We can only guess what Kerry will do based on his voting record and his statements.

Statements that Iraq distracted us from the WOT are pretty laughable to me, given what has actually happened: no bombings against US interests outside of Iraq since 9/11. Many, many arrests and killings of top Al Qaida operatives. If you think the US is responsible for stopping bombings in Bali or Spain, then I guess the whole thing is a failure.

I guess this is all depends on how you define the War on Terrorism. It is not really a war, in that way it is more akin to the war on drugs.

This is an issue that European nations have had to deal with for decades. They are not pro-terror. But many of the key players have issues with the way the United States has handled things in Iraq.

To name three nations (Germany, France, Russia)

Pacific Rim nations?? By support, do you mean actively helping this effort?

(North Korea, China, Vietnam)

As far as your Fox interview, I think that supports my perspective completely.

The war on terror was separate from the war in Iraq, but we were sold a connection.

There was perhaps going to be a connection between terrorist organizations and rogue states that sponsor terrorism. We went to war with Iraq while Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan engaged in nuclear proliferation.

I guess one way to justify this and defend Bush's foreign policy is to change the language of the debate. Now we are in a war on terror AND a war against regional dictators.

Are we now going to launch wars against all world dictatorships and wage an international campaign against terrorism? I think the terrorist organizations prefer being in the spotlight. Those slain are seen as martyrs living a happy afterlife with the jihadist version of the Swedish bikini team. The more things that are being destroyed by both sides, the better, is how is see the terrorist viewpoint here.

pennDerek Posted on Mar 22 2004, 02:26 AM

"I think the AQ leadership wants Bush to stay in,........This is fairy simple: Bush is a recruiting tool for bin Laden. "

I think not. For the past year the www has been reporting the decrease in al-Qaeda recruitment. It really started when ObL promised to fight for Iraq, but with the fall of Iraq few al-Qaeda fighters had been seen. It has been much reported how this left the Arab Muslim world dismayed that al-Qaeda was not able to live up to its pledge. Recruitment dropped like a hot rock.

We know the Mid East penchant for turning their backs on those who show any sign of weakness. New methods of recruitment had to be sought . The internet has played a major role, also we saw the begining of major recruiting efforts in Europe as Mid East recruitment dropped.

Slow recruitment and lack of training show in the number and type of attacks attributted to "foreign fighters" in Iraq. Where are the thousands of al-Qaeda Fighters that were trained in Afgfhanistan in the past ten years???

If they exist, then why aren't they in Iraq fighting? The average Mid East Arab thought the full force of al-Qaeda would be brought to bare in Iraq. He was amazed and disheartened to find it didn't happen. Why??? Maybe it is because ObL's al-Qaeda was never the force ObL convinced the world it was. Maybe the Bush led WOT has so reduced al-Qaeda that all they are really capable of, are intermittent terrorist attacks. Maybe both.

In any event, another four years of a Bush led WOT is, IMO, not what any terrorist is looking forward to.

1SG

What's relevant to me is that our own military says it's stretched thin, Iraq had no link plausible link to 9/11 (Bush admits as much), and we apparently have the need to redouble our efforts to find bin Laden. Even absent questions about whether Tommy Franks suggested a more certain strategy to get bin Laden and decapitate AQ than the route Bush initially took, we can ask why the resources put into Iraq wouldn't have been better used in securing Afghanistan and intensifying the continuing hunt there. If we get bin Laden in June because of increased focus, it's going to look like we tried much harder to get Saddam.

The presumption seems to be whatever AQ forces are in Iraq are representative of AQ's total strength. It's more plausible to see Iraq as opening up a branch office than the be all, end all of AQ strength. Spain's security isn't our direct responsibility, but the argument for Iraq is that we have them so tied up that their global operations are crippled. Spain does tend to throw the efficacy of creating second front wars as a method of weakening AQ into doubt. Maybe Spain got hit, and not us, because the message AQ wanted to send was that they could hit our allies in a big way, too, while bleeding us in Iraq. Note we're suddenly concerned with train security here.

What we can "infer" from John Kerry's statements and record is that he wanted to go into Iraq with allies (based on the assurances of WMD and Iraq's non-compliance), and keep our main military and financial might focused on hunting AQ where they actually were, wherever they might expand to. I missed where his Kim Jong Il policy could be any more uneven than the Admin.'s, which allegedly suppressed evidence of North Korea's real nuclear activities so as not to distract from Iraq's pretend ones. It's been ignore-play nice-antagonize, depending largely on what the message of the week was.

GDan204: Where is your evidence suggesting AQ recruitment is down? Further, what makes you think it's linked to Iraq, and not the destruction of training camps and infrastructure in Afghanistan? If that's the case, a more stable Afghanistan and intensified raids could have damaged recruitment even more. I'm not seeing the linkage between us giving credibility to bin Laden's claims of jihad (and I'm not claiming that Kerry would have not done the same, just that Bush is the one blamed right now) by going into Iraq, and recruitment falling off. It's a non sequitur. I suppose you have AQ's official online registry, with dates and rates of recruitment, as your www proof?

Essentially, I think we're seeing 2 issues emerge here: is Iraq, as executed, a beneficial part of the WOT, and would John Kerry be soft on terrorism? The Iraq/WOT question seems immaterial, since John Kerry is unlikely to pull out of Iraq any more than the Admin. plans to, and the semi-off-topic "what would he have done?" probably leads to us in Iraq, just maybe cheaper and with more backup. The terrorists would still be "rather peeved". The other question is kinda a joke unless you believe RNC attacks on Democrats in general as the gospel truth: that anyone who favors specificity over general declarations of war and anyone who favors diplomacy toward our allies instead of macho posturing must be "with the terrorists". The kind of madrassah education found in your average AQ foot soldier may lead to the belief that if the Admin. says JFK is good for terrorism, it must be true, but students of democracy should be somewhat wary of non-sensical slurs from election opponents.

I would love to see some proof that AQ recruitment is down and their ranks are decreasing. I also can't prove their recruitment is up and their ranks are increasing. That is only something we can quess at,unless Zogby uses his influence and calls or e-mails AQ personnel a poll

But my opinion is that the AQ leadership was pleased at Bush invading Iraq. Now they can go next door and do all the damage they want to, without traveling to the US. You might say it is like a shooting gallery. And it is our mothers,fathers,sons,daughters that they will be shooting at.

Since it is campaign/Election2004 time....that is a constructive idea!



Who would the terrorists like to see win?

Well, we know the terrorists hate Bush. So, just to be on the safe side, why don't we let him keep the keys to the White House?

pennDerek Posted on Mar 22 2004, 04:51 PM

"What's relevant to me is that our own military says it's stretched thin, Iraq had no link plausible link to 9/11 (Bush admits as much), and we apparently have the need to redouble our efforts to find bin Laden. "

IMO, you fail to grasp the larger picture of the WOT. One of the things that needs be done is to bring some kind of individual freedoms and security to the Mid East. With that some kind of Democracy and prosperity will come in time. With these four items, the reason and recruits for terrorism will wither on the vine. Iraq is the kingpin in the start of this process.

"The presumption seems to be whatever AQ forces are in Iraq are representative of AQ's total strength. It's more plausible to see Iraq as opening up a branch office than the be all, end all of AQ strength."

No, I'm afraid the presumption has been to believe ObL and al-Qaeda's claims for itself. al-Qaeda says it has trained tens of thousands of fighters. It claims it has thousands of trained terrorists. Yet, even in the Arab world questions are being raised about al-Qaeda, its strength and ability to carry out no more then a few strikes here and there. Yes some may be spectacular, but they are too few and too far apart to support the impression al-Qaeda would like us to have.

"What we can "infer" from John Kerry's statements and record is that he wanted to go into Iraq with allies (based on the assurances of WMD and Iraq's non-compliance), and keep our main military and financial might focused on hunting AQ where they actually were, wherever they might expand to."

You may infer all you want, but that is not what Kerry actually said. Besides, how many more then 40 or so countries do you expect to be with us in Iraq? What Kerry and the other United Nations appologists refuse to accept is that the United Nations as a group was going to do nothing. It had done nothing for 12 years and was more then willing to do nothing for another 12 years.

popeye47 Posted on Mar 22 2004, 11:17 PM

"I would love to see some proof that AQ recruitment is down and their ranks are decreasing. I also can't prove their recruitment is up and their ranks are increasing. That is only something we can quess at,unless Zogby uses his influence and calls or e-mails AQ personnel a poll."

Again it is out there and I will take some time out and find links. But, as of now the question is, if yours and pennD's thesis is correct, there should be thousands of al-Qaeda fighters fighting the good fight for Allah. Where are they???? If recruitment is not down or even up as some suggest, where are the fighters? If they are not in Iraq or Afghanistan, where are they and what are they waiting for??? The same for the trained terrorists. Every decent soldier from Sgt on up knows to mass his strength and bring everything he can to bear on his enemy. (leaving a reserve of course) Four Planes on 9/11. After the first two and reports of a plane in D.C., I expected a couple of dozen planes to fall out of the sky hitting every major city in the nation. Talking to my wife that night, she said she expected the same thing. In Spain they hit Madrid with more then a dozen bombs, Only ten went off. Highly trained and skilled??? Why only Madrid? Why not Madrid and Paris and London? They have thousands or maybe just hundreds of trained terrorist bombers, where are they???

Desert Resident Posted on Mar 23 2004, 12:01 AM

"Well, we know the terrorists hate Bush. So, just to be on the safe side, why don't we let him keep the keys to the White House?"

Exactly. Bush already knows his way around the place and the terrorists haven't slept well at all under his watch. I can hear them around the campfire in the back of some cave,: Boy oh boy, Ahmed is saying, "I sure hope that Bush gets re-elected, I haven't had this much fun since ....." So the thing to do is keep him in place and keep them on the run.

1SG

Nobody knows with any degree of certainty if Al Qaeda has "thousands" of members or only a committed handful of idiots ready to wreak havoc and horror upon Western-style democracies. However, it is a fatal mistake to underestimate their tenacity and commitment to spreading death and destruction around the globe.

Additionally, Al Qaeda does not conduct themselves like a standing army with troop formations, bases or even a chain of command. The Madrid bombing may have been carried out by a independent cell, acting alone, independently and without direction from Osama bin Laden.

The fact is nobody knows what a terrorist is going to do unless you infiltrate them in time to stop them. You are making a comparison with soldiers GDan204, but unfortunately these guys aren't soldiers. They are killers with a cause and a ideology and that's all.

As regards your point that the terrorists are quivering in a cave somewhere dreading the day Bush gets reelected, I wonder how much fear they are in or praying for a second term. Certainly the president's own counterrorism expert disagrees with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/politics...ND-PREX.html?hp

and:

When it entered into office in January 2001, said Clarke, the entire focus of Bush's national security team was on working on old issues, such as Iraq, Star Wars, and "not on new issues, the new threats that developed over the preceding eight years". Clarke told CBS correspondent Leslie Stahl that Bush officials were "tepid" in their response, when, before September 11, he suggested to hold a meeting to discuss threats stemming from al-Qaeda. "Frankly," he added, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for reelection on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11 ..." Clarke observed. However, he added: "There is a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame."

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, the focus of Bush's national security team, instead of remaining focused on attacking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, quickly turned on Iraq. Starting the first National Security Council (NSC) meeting, top Bush officials wanted to punish Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was saying, according to Clarke, that the US needed to bomb Iraq. Even when other participants of that meeting kept insisting that the focus should be on al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld was saying there there were not any good targets in Afghanistan, and that there were many good targets in Iraq. Clarke said at first he that thought Rumsfeld's comment about the lack of good targets in Afghanistan was a joke. The administration wanted to believe, he told "60 Minutes", that there was a connection between September 11 and Iraq.

The most damning part of Clarke's accusation is a reported conversation that he had with the president, in which Bush said: "I want to find out whether Iraq did this." He goes on to clarify that Bush never asked him to make it up; however, he notes: "... the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this." When Clarke responded that US intelligence had investigated that issue and found no connection, Bush "came back at me and said, 'Iraq, Saddam', find out if there's a connection". Bush's tone, according to Clarke, was "very intimidating".

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5778.shtml

You also wrote: Ahmed is saying, "I sure hope that Bush gets re-elected, I haven't had this much fun since ....."

...September 11, 2001?

I reckon they wouldn't like to see either of them win. What they really want is to have UBL elected in this country.

They probably see both as descendants/heirs to the Crusaders, being members of Skull and Bones and all. They believe that their path to exaltation lies in an offensive on Christianity much like the Crusaders mounted an offense on a fledgling Islam in the Middle Ages. Poor babies.

They need an example of moderation and maturity. Apparently it is not going to come from within. Right now it is not coming from us either. We need to get out of this black and white way of thinking that the current administration has led its sheep into. It is far too polarizing. Terrorists get off more on the kind of monumental attacks of 9-11, but I am sure they are perfectly happy with such peripheral garbage as the Cole, Nairobi etc.. One you tend to see under a conservative administration the other you tend to see under a liberal administration.

This is yet another question/answer ("let's kick their butts; why not, are you wimps") thread. No constructivism whatsoever.

I think this question has already been answered by the only people qualified to answer it, terrorists...



Read the full story on yahoo.

1.) What did Kerry actually "say", according to you? He voted for the war based on the President's assurances and the intel he knew of. He might have come to a different conclusion on WMD if he had access to all the intelligence (or didn't have the specter of the argument that the President "knew something" everyone else didn't). But as a Senator, he supported the war. As for the more multilateral approach, once again, with a little actual diplomacy, we didn't have to pick up the whole check on Gulf War I. Bush is a true leader- George Herbert Walker Bush. Fault him on not getting Saddam or not supporting the Shi'ites, but he could put together a coalition that provided meaningful, not nominal, support. It's less about procedure than substance: Bush made a gesture of diplomacy instead of the real effort of his father and consequentially got less out of the bargain. I guess there might be something to being a war hero with foreign policy experience that gives one an edge over a failed businessman in applying international pressure.

2.) Providing liberty isn't an assurance against religious, fundamentalist terrorism. The largest domestic terrorist movement is the Christian Identity movement- the "religious" branch of Aryan Nations. McVeigh was considered a fellow traveler, and possibly a member. England has it's IRA, Spain it's Basques, etc. I do strongly believe we should foster our ideals everywhere, but not as an alternative to efficient use of our military. We could do a great deal to improve things evenly in the Middle East through economic and other channels and not be laughed at for professing idealism while appeasing Saudi Arabia, which has actual, real, direct, proven links to terrorism.

3.) Terrorists and conventional armies are a million miles apart in infrastructure and tactics. Terrorism is a threat because it tries to remain unseen, unformed, in independent little cells everywhere they can reach. The point of 9/11 wasn't military, it was ritual, symbolic mass murder. Subsequent suspected targets like the Golden Gate bridge further the pattern. We have unprotected water supplies, crappy security in our harbors and energy plants, etc. Maybe they'll target them later because we've fretted so openly about it. But trying to transmute asymmetrical warfare into conventional warfare for a frame of reference is extremely dangerous. It makes a much better point to have a few, high-visibility attacks that show great coordination, than to try and pull off a risky, massive, all-out attack you can't try to repeat. Maybe AQ hasn't struck here again because it's not easy to pull off such attacks (witness the fact it didn't happen on American soil despite their best efforts until 9/11/01), not because the rank and file decided to quit their terrorism day jobs and go fight for Iraqi freedom.

Where is Snopes when you need them??

That quote seems so out of character, it isn't even funny.

Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps...come on, what terrorist is going to admit that ANYONE is going to destroy them?

Bush deals in force rather than wisdom....this from a guy who is a professional "let's blow up civilians" type??

I smell something...it's a garbage story.

I have seen several posts on this thread saying Kerry is soft on terrorism or soft on national defense.

Apparently there are some Republicans that feel Kerry is not weak on national defense or terrorism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar22.html



I guess these 2 are lying just like Clark and O'Neill. In fact Bush is probably the only one telling the truth.

They are so full of it....like they would care who stays or goes. And, they are blackmailers...going to delay more bombing in Spain until they see if the new President does pull out of Iraq.

The only thing scary about that article is there may be some puppet leaders who will believe and dance to their tune. Control by intimidation. Way to go terrorists (cowards).

Listen, the terrorists would most definately want Kerry to win the 2004 election. They know Bush is tough...they have seen it. Kerry is weak on issues pertaining to the war on terror...thats a fact. There has not been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 so obviously somebody is doing their job correctly. The terrorists would love to see Kerry win...then he can run to the UN for support who will then turn him down just like they did Bush before the war. Then where would that leave us? It would leave us with a president that was relying on UN support and is now stuck with a situation that has the potential to turn into something bad.

Also, lets not forget that Kerry could be heavily influenced by the far left politicans and anti-war protesters who will inevitably bring about a world of bad foreign policy. I firmly believe that the the terrorists would want nothing more than see Kerry win the elction.

Its not like we were running for cover from terrorists before George Bush became President. That has got to be the silliest argument for Bush I hear. It probably took AlQuaeda years to set up 9/11.

the flip side of the "Far Left" politicians influencing Kerry is simply countered by Bush and his connections to those who profit of the WOT. After all the military
needs equipment right? Which is better or which is more dangerous?

Terrorists will find the advantage in any result of this election. Doesn't matter who is president it can be manipulated either way.

No...Bush took the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan instead of the terrorists taking the fight to American soil. We took down the Taliban and severely hurt the resources of Al Queda. If Bush would have sat in his nice chair and done nothing but try to fight a defensive war...more attacks would have followed. Bush showed the terrorists that the United States will not be intimidated by terrorism. We killed thousands of terrorists all over the world after 9/11 and thats why there has not been another terrorist attack because we could see in Israel and in Spain, that they can attack at any time.

Hmmm, Chuck Hagel and John McCain seem to disagree. I guess they rely on something outside of RNC talking points.



Hmmm, no terrorists attacks on U.S. soil between Oklahoma City and 9/11, more than 3 years, so I guess by your "logic", Clinton was doing a much better job than Bush. Or maybe the lack of a terrorist attack on our soil for a given period doesn't have a 1:1 correlation with the quality of the President.



Assuming both that Kerry'd require a UN resolution and fail (and far as proven commodities go, Bush has proven to be far less skilled in international coalition building than the average President), where'd be is in Afghanistan and less spread thin. Oh, shnikees, the horror. Let's not skip over the fact that part of Kerry's position is that wars of choice are best fought for minimal cost in blood and treasure- thus requiring actual diplomatic effort- is different from "requiring permission", another political stance that exists mostly in the President's head.



Instead of a guarantee of something bad every week, like we have now? Personally, I think we should have been trying harder to decimate AQ, not run Wolfowitz's side pet projects.



Again, even buying into the idea that Kerry is controlled by the antiwar left- who aren't exactly his core support, they voted Dean or Kucinich- we've seen enough bad foreign policy between the influence of the the old-line conservative isolationist sentiment of the right and the neo-conservative agenda to warrant a change. Maybe Kerry'd have listened to Clarke, etc. and not to Wolfowitz, etc.



Even Dean, for cryin' out loud, would have been in Afghanistan after 9/11. Once again Kerry, not Kucinich. You have to read all the way to the second letter to see the difference.

I believe the Oklahoma city bombing was from a US citizen...not an Islamic terrorist organization so it has nothing to do with foreign policy. As to your other comments, i have but one major question...do you honestly believe that the UN would want to take over the rest of the democratic process in Iraq?

I would be outraged if countries like France, Germany, and other nations that did not support us got any type of benefit from the war in which American lives were lost. Whether it be oil or influence or whatever. America undertook the endeavor of rebuilding Iraq and it should stay that way.

That wasn't the point. and any American president would have done the same. He would have had NO choice because WE would have accepted no less. Any President would have been removed who tried for less.
As for the Taliban seems American companies [UNOCAL] were trying to work with them for quite some time.

Well, there are-prepare for a shock!- important domestic counter terrorist activities that monitor all such threats, be they AQ or Aryan Nations. But you're strengthening my point- the failed first Twin Tower bombing to the end of Clinton's Presidency, nothing on our soil by foreign terrorists. Not because Clinton was an anti-terrorism wunderkind, but likely for a myriad of reasons, some in his control to various degrees, some completely external.

Personally, I'd be happy to let any nation that isn't funneling funds to real terrorists to benefit from Iraqi reconstruction if they mitigate our cost in lives or dollars. Holding that any ally that doesn't buy our self-defense argument enough to bleed beside us should be forbidden from a post-conquest quid pro quo helping both of us is both impractical and unseemly, lending credibility to the worst accusations of policy influenced by corporations with vested interests.

hi im new(obvoius) but anyways..
terrists definitly want bush out of office, exspecially if they listen to the news they'll want to vote for kerry if they could. one of kerry's main lines is "this is a campaign to get bush out of office" (i dont remeber the correct phrasing so excuse me on that). and if they are smart enought they'll know kerry will only do a small margin of military force compared to bush

(emphasis added).

Couldn't agree more. This is not an issue in which emotion should play any part, else the US will run the risk of failing to achieve their major goals. The objective is to demonstrate that democracy can be successful in that area, and that we are not doing it for the motivations usually listed by those opposed. If we do anything that perpetuates that line of reasoning, then all the lives we have lost will be for naught. So, we shouldn't exclude anyone from participating just because they weren't with us earlier. Rather, I think we should keep things in our control only so long as that seems to be the best way to bring about a successful democracy in Iraq. If letting the UN or others in helps in achieving that end, then that is the path to take.