The latest GOP ad depicts John Kerry as a man who underestimates the significance of the threat of terrorism. The ad is based on an interview by Matt Bai of the NYT. The quote the GOP used is on page 6.



According to Republicans:



The new GOP commercial asks: "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"

Democrats were quick to respond.



And:



Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?

No matter the spin...Kerry shouldn't have said it. Its pretty obvious that the GOP would jump all over it and i wonder if anyone can blame him. The entire campaign is run off the premise that Kerry would not be a strong commander-in-chief and fight the terrorists with the strength that Bush has. The quote was probably taken out of context to what Kerry actually meant...but if Kerry did mean that we should not have terrorism play a major part of our lives he is half right and half wrong. Its just the way he said it thats the problem.

Well, I for one, long for the same day that Kerry does. A day where terrorism is NOT my first fear as I walk down the street.

Based from the reaction from the GOP, Bush, and some in this room, it appears that this day is NOT welcomed by all.

Does Bush really imply or want terrorism to hold this country hostage from now to eternity? His reaction to Kerry's statement suggests that.

Without terrorism, the Republicans will not be able to scare the american public into voting for them.

I hope this constant fear of terrorism goes away. It will NOT go away by ignoring it. It will not go away by inflaming it. It will go away by dealing with it WISELY and decisively.

I, like Kerry, envision a day that terrorism will be a nothing more than an occasional fly that we swat away. The Republicans do not and therefore are not prepared to deal with the threat in a way that satisfies this American.

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?


Or as Rob Corddry on The Daily Show puts it: "...therein lies the fundamental problem with the Kerry campaign. The enormous gap between what John Kerry means and what the Republicans say he means". It's easy to take statements out of context and insert whatever context you want around it so that you may imply whatever you want. Such tactics would never be acceptable here on America's Debate. Why should it be acceptable with our political campaigns? If on the other hand a candidate didn't house a given statement in a context or was unable to elucidate his/her position, then I would find it acceptable for the other side to ask: "What did he mean?" But, just inserting meaning, particularly in a self-serving manner, is both fallacious and dishonest.

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?

What is so naive about realizing that we can reduce terrorism, but we'll never be able to eradicate it completely? It's a realistic stance, and I'm certain that many republicans feel the same way.

We have to manage terrorism, which I believe that John Kerry fully understands, but we don't have to eat, sleep, and breath it. We have other issues that need to be dealt with in addition to the war on terrorism, and that's what Kerry is getting at.

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?

Absolutely not. I think what Kerry was referring to was the constant jerking of the American people around though the color coded alert system and then offering stuff like duct tapin windows as a way to protect personal safety.

In contexdt Kerry's word make sense, but I have no doubt that Karl Rove will slice them up to Bush's advantage.

We can't let trerrorists reduce our every day lives to a state or terror. Many have let Bush do just that.

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?

As the author points out in the article:





I think Kerry has a more rosy outlook. But what is the timeline? Kerry, if elected, would be in charge in January. The facts on the ground right now are what he needs to be addressing.

He uses an analogy about organized crime, indicating that he feels that terrorism is a law enforcement dilemma. Track them down, find their financial backers, prosecute them.

Unfortunately, terrorism has a deeper goal than simply money laundering or making money through illegal operations.

Terrorism is a political tool. It is a tool which is used by those that do not value the human life that they destroy. It is backed by an ideology that is unafraid of dying for the cause. It is deadly serious.

Kerry has already said that he wanted to fight a more "sensitive" war on terror. Now he says he that he longs for a day that terrorism will simply be a nuisance...as if suicide bombers will ever be simply be a nuisance.

Frankly, it is yet another idiotic statement by Kerry.

If terrorists exist, if they are plotting against us, then they are not, by definition, a nuisance. They are a huge problem. They are killers with a political agenda. An organized group of killers will never be simply a "nuisance".

That is simply the type of air-headed, pie-in-the-sky statement that makes me wonder what the heck this guy named John Kerry really thinks...

The facts are there, but people aren't interested in looking at them. Sound bytes and out of context quotes are far more interesting.

The timeline is impossible to set because you aren't talking about something like an exit strategy in Iraq where you can set specific goals and focus on obtaining them. Both sides have agreed that this fight is not going to be won in classic terms. Nor will you see a clear demarcations of victory.

There are areas of focus, and the article outlines them. SOME are in fact related to law enforcement activitys, BUT...

...this an oversimplification of Kerry's approach. Law enforcement is not being used in the classic sense, but more as a singular weapon in the arsenal to combat terrorism. To deny such methods are effective is more naive than the quotes being attacked.

And he knows that, but unquestionably terrorists without funding are far less lethal, would you agree?

Again, an oversimplification. I realize two-dimensional problems are a favorite of this administration, but it is far more naive to view terrorism in these terms. I highly recommend anyone who wants to understand Kerry's worldview to read this article in its entirety. It contains the greatest depth I've seen in both understanding and explaining Kerry's experience and acumen in addressing foreign policy. A depth, I would argue, that the administration completely lacks.

The author of the article explains this further:


Note, this understanding was way ahead of 9/11, dating back to the early 90's. While some my decry Richard Clarke's timing and possible partisanship related to the book, there is no questioning his credentials as one of the top experts on counter-terrorism. He characterizes Kerry's understanding further in the article:



Hardly, the idiotic statements are being uttered by the ones trying to make hay out of a sound byte by taking one paragraph from a 11 page in-depth article on Kerry out of context. Sadly, this kind of tripe gets more play than the truth. Another sign of the failing of the media to separate facts from hype (on both sides).


By saying this I'm guessing you agree that the war on terror then can never be won? I'd call em a nuisance if they can't rub two nickels together to buy RPG's, much less obtain weapons of a more destructive order. I'd call em a nuisance if our intel gets strong enough that we are one step ahead of them, stopping them before they can finish their acts most of the time (I'm not naive enough we will stop them all of the time).

Perhaps Kerry's view is overly optimistic, but I find his approach far more realistic and potentially effective than that of the current administration. In spite of the sound byte being used, the author seems to agree:


This article hardly reveals an "airhead". It reveals someone with a far better understanding of the world and terrorism than arguably any single person in the current administration, save for maybe Dick Armitage and Colin Powell.

Doc

Doc,

If Kerry were so far ahead of the curve, as is being suggested, why did he vote to slash funding to the Intelligence agencies in the months after the first World Trade Center bombing?

The 1994 Kerry amendment


If he had such a vision regarding intelligence being the key to solving terrorist threats, why did he propose an amendment to cut the intelligence budget, after it had already been cut once?

Most of the Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, could not support that amendment:


The same article reference Mr. Kerry's actions in 2001 regarding North Korea:


Senator Inouye's comments on the Senate Floor about this bill:


I can't believe that such a visionary would propose slashing the very intelligence budgets that he felt were so important.

Sure, we can dissect Kerry's words and give him the benefit of the doubt about what he will do in the future. Too bad for Mr. Kerry he has a track record on these issues. And the track he has taken is not the same one that he is advocating now. He simply cannot be believed.

I find Kerry's view far more realistic and optimistic than Bush.
Bush wants to use a hammer where a sclapel is needed. With each smash of Bush's hammer he will only create more who are sympathetic to terrorists as innocents are caught in his cross fire and shattered.
The view Bush offers is one of constant fear and pessimism. You cannot use Cold War tactics against an enemy that has no solid core. They are random and do not stand out in the open. Too many Americans assume the War on terror will be like the war on iraq.
It more resembles what law enforcement does than the military. better those experienced with hunting down criminals than troops.
As for the cuts in defense spending at the end of the cold war, it was generally supported by both sides. The massive increases engineered during the reagan years where not justifiable any longer.
Were kerry's choices at the time extreme, probably. However I believe Kerry is adaptable. Bush follows one track and is incapable of reacting to change. flexibilty and thinking outside the box will be required to fight terrorism.

I think Christopher hit it right on the head here- I believe GW is completely incapable of seeing both sides of any problem- and in fact, as the Duelfer report shows- pretty much ignores any evidence that might contradict what he wishes a situation to be. GW has mostly surrounded himself with yes men or men with a single minded purpose for US global domination that has no interest in seeing anything but what jives with thier world view. This lack of flexibility plays right into the terrorist hands.

Kerry is making a fundamental assumption, though, by thinking that foreign countries will support our efforts to track these people down.

What do you do if countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan play lip service to cooperating, but use their connections to thwart us?

Bush's approach is to put pressure on countries that support terrorism. It started with his "Axis of Evil" speech. We see now that he was accurate on who the problem nations of the world were. Iraq (check) Iran (simmering) North Korea (in talks).

Terrorists do not need extensive resources to kill people. If they ever succeed, they become by definition, more than a "nuisance". They will never be simply a "nuisance". We cannot go back to September 10th.

Probably the one line that everyone repeats constantly and never really means is: "Everything changed on 9/11"


As shown above, you like many people subscribe to that philosophy Amlord.

The problem here is that people only invoke those words when it suits their political purposes. The implication of those words is much larger however. If you really believed those words, that would imply policy decisions, votes, statements, etc before 9/11 don't really matter because it so drastically changed our thinking and worldview.

Therefore, trying to show that Kerry cut intelligence funding after the first WTC bombing is fairly irrelevant and contradictory to the philosophy you subscribe to. Did you expect him to be prescient in 1993 and foresee 9/11 or something? Why should our current acting president be given a pass for certain things he did in the years leading up to 9/11, but you are unwilling to let Kerry slide on something done in 1993? The more plausible explanation here is that the 1993 bombing wasn't recognized by people as a problem we'd face extensively in the future and these budget cuts were really done to bring defense spending in line after the end of the cold war. I think that if you look at the bigger picture of history, that is what you'll see.

So, if you want to look upon Kerry and say he isn't a visionary then fine, but atleast stop toeing the party line and realize that our defense budget was excessive at the time and the cuts could be justified.

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?
This is of course a distortion of the position, and honestly I would expect no less from the Bush/Cheny team at this point.

Bush himself has been quoted as saying that "we can't win the war on terror", but then he chastises Kerry for saying that we hope to one day have terrorism under control even if we can't stamp it out.

Does anyone here really believe that we can stamp out terrorism completely in 4, 8 or even 12 years? I know that I certainly don't, and I think that if you do, then your position is a bit naive. Terrorism isn't some "war" that can be won, it isn't territory to be conquered, and you can't win it with a huge and mighty army - it is an idea and it is intangible. The only way we can ever "win" is to destroy the idea which as history proves is very difficult if not impossible to do. In the meantime, the best we can hope to do is put in place long term strategies and do our best to meet the threat by using our resources and the resources of our allies and constantly thinking of new ideas.

I would say that Bush is the one that is out of touch with reality if he thinks we'll beat the terrorists with a large army, invasions and wars. Military force is certainly a component of the fight, but far more important is intelligence, following and stopping the money, police work and international cooperation. Kerry has a firm grasp on those concepts, Bush thinks we can just wield the broadsword that is our army and crush terrorism alone. He is wrong.

Edited to add: Just found this little quote, but it proves that Bush is not only out of touch with reality if he believes this, but he is also hypocritical:

It was not I that claimed Kerry was visionary, that was other people.

What I wanted to examine was that if Kerry knew that intelligence was such a big part of national security in the early 1990s, why the heck did he vote to slash it?

I am talking about what he was saying then and what he did then. This was pre-9/11.

Kerry cannot be trusted to do what he says because he is very revisionist when it comes to what he meant.

"Saddam was a threat" really meant "Saddam wasn't a threat"

"Saddam has WMDs" really means "Saddam never had WMDs"

"Here's the authority to go to war with Iraq" really means "Here's the authority to go talk about Iraq"

He has done this literally dozens of times. Direct quotes are always out of context, or he misspoke, or he was tired .

I expect when a guy says something, he means it. That the meaning that is obvious at the time is the real meaning, not that some spin machine's later parsing and interpretation of it. I want a guy who talks straight and means what he says and doesn't qualify every statement with the word "but...".

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?

Well, I think there is some validity to it. But it's a bit like one blind man accusing another blind man of being, well, blind.

While Democrats may have a slightly more reasonable approach to the problem of terrorism than do Republicans, they are still stuck in the same old paradigm - that violent action (or reaction) can somehow bring about real peace. Never was there a more false idol worshipped than this, yet it seems so unthinkable to look outside this mode of thought!

Even if I divorce myself from my personal pacifism, I can say that treating terrorism as a worldview to be warred against is an inherently flawed vision which affords terrorists a legitimacy they do not deserve. In this sense, Bush is exacerbating a wrongheaded approach which Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan also pursued; that is, accepting and using extralegal attacks and showing a willingness to subvert our civil liberties, refusing to see terrorists as the criminals they are, and undermining the "rule of law" which differentiates democracy from totalitarianism.

When the Clinton White House proposed an earlier version of the USA PATRIOT Act, Republican Senators (led by then Senator John Ashcroft) were rightfully outraged at the proposed infringements on our citizens' liberties. From a certain standpoint, if an apologist for GW Bush is to say that 9-11 changed everything, then I suppose one could say that it perhaps finally woke up the Republicans from their slumber regarding the increase of anti-American terrorism in the 1990s.

I personally find little appeal in the WOT as envisioned by either Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush. It's like two boys arguing over whether to kill a bird with a .22 rifle or a bazooka. But, if we are to approach this question from within the paradigm of current policy thought, then yes, the Republicans are distorting Kerry's words - just as the reverse is also undoubtably true.



Here we can see what could be called typical distortional politicking - and yet I am sure that Amlord feels sincere in the sense that he does not see his interpretation as a willful distortion. Rather, the distortion is more subconscious, arising from thinking within a particular framework.

Bush, Kerry, and anyone else arguing over the best way to attack and kill all the terrorists, seem fundamentally unable to step outside their conceptual framework and take a look at history. War can sometimes halt or even eliminate a specific threat, but the engagement of violence always fosters further emnity between the peoples of the world. Terrorism is the use of violence for political ends, and we can never defeat it if we are engaging in it. It is the political and miltary arrogance of power politics which directly fosters and legitimizes terrorism. It is a common belief of most religions that peace without can only be achieved by finding peace within. I must confess to subscribing to this view, which sadly so many so-called religious people tend to ignore.

As long as Bush and Kerry argue over how to best use big guns, the problem won't even begin to be solved. And as long as the partisan narrow-thinkers can't see beyond "another idiotic statement by" so-and-so, the problem of terrorism and global division won't begin to be solved.

Thank you Amlord. You managed to prove two points for me in one post. The article you cite fails to provide context, which is consistent for the editorial staff of the Washington Times. It also proves clearly the differences in leadership between Kerry & Bush (more on that below).

Now, before I give the impression that I think your facts are entirely false, they are not. Kerry did, in fact, propose the amendment discussed in the article. But lets examine the facts of the time (queues up the wayback machine for 1994).

First, just 5 days before Kerry's infamous amendment, the NRO reported it had 1 to 1.7 billion in unspent funds from previous budgets:

Kerry's amendment was simply recapturing funds that the NRO failed to spend. For the readers at home, that's typically referred to as "Congressional Oversight", which they are supposed to do as it relates to our defense and intelligence expenditures.

Second, the reason Kerry's amendment failed so lopsidedly was due to the fact that other legistlation had already been in process:

Third, as a matter of record, legislation remarkably similar to Kerry's passed by voice vote:

Facts can be stubborn things. The reality of the time is that Congress was fairly busy trying to reduce the budget (a foreign concept these days, I realize) and this was but one measure that never saw the light of day (Kaplan continues):

Finally, FactCheck.org adds some interesting context to the review of intelligence in general during the mid 90's.


The Aspin Report is actually a pretty interesting read in confirming most of the findings above (pdf format).

Senator Inouye's comments seem to be debunked by both the Aspin report as well as the subsequent investigations into NRO spending practices.

And this brings me to the commentary about leadership. Without understanding what took place during that time, the supporters of this administration continue to give life to the child-parent support of our government. Bush, as the "father" of our government, can do no wrong in their eyes it would seem. Given that our government has zero legitimacy without the people, a parent-child relationship should rule the day, not the opposite.

Kerry provides just such a model of leadership. He supports the government in principle, like giving Bush the authority to call Saddam to task over compliance, but expects more from it, like asking for fiscal responsibility in a secondary appropriation measure for the war. Kerry's position in 1994 was consistent at the time and hardly the contradiction of the vision you posit. One of his primary roles as a member of the Senate is to provide Congressional Oversight to our intelligence agencies. In a time of trying to be fiscally responsible, I see nothing wrong with trying to recapture funds that the NRO simply wasn't using at best, and may have been misappropriating at worst. Under your view of support for intelligence, we should just throw them a slush fund and grant every whim. That, quite simply, isn't responsible or effective use of our tax dollars.


You don't have to believe it, because it isn't true. Facts are a stubborn thing, especially when context is added.

Yeah, too bad. Unfortunately for you, the facts and the history don't seem to be supporting you on this, Amlord. I don't say this under any delusion of changing your mind, but if you wade a little further into the research waters and make an effort to understand what was taking place at the time vs. what has happened in the past 4 years, you'll realize that time does change things and heaven forbid someone be permitted to modify their worldview to take into account the developments of the last 10 years. If Bush & Cheney had done that, they might be in a lot less of a pickle over their failed foreign policy.

Doc

A pretty cogent response to Kerry's remarks was posed by Rudy Giuliani.



I think Rudy is right on. You can spin whatever Kerry 'meant' in his heart of hearts, but what he said is what he said. And to amplify on Amlord's point, not only is it unrealistic given Kerry's past anti-defense stance, there are new considerations. If somehow he were to win on Nov. 2, it will be due to the largest special-interest mobilization in history. Once elected with the efforts of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, George Soros, etc., does anyone really believe that John Kerry and John Edwards are going to make job #1 to go hunt down and kill terrorists? That is not credible.

And speaking of the election...


Since JFK, we have elected 6 Republican presidents and 4 Democrats. Of these, other than Carter (50.1%) in 1976, no Democratic candidate has won more than 50% of the popular vote, while 4 of the Republican presidents carried a majority of greater than 50%. The House and Senate and a majority of state governors are Republicans. While terrorism is on most of our minds this election, and rightly so, your view of the Republican voter is overly simplistic.

Respectfully Carlito, I hardly think that the President was thinking of terrorism in any way shape or form either before he came into office or even for the first year of his term. Terrorists don't often attack Texas and the facts prove that Bush wasn't doing anything revolutionary before 9/11 and in fact was ignoring the advice that had been policy for years for the most part.

I'd ask you to actually go back and re-read some of the posts in this thread, specifically Doc's excellent post and my post with the quote from General Brent Scowcroft and tell me this isn't spin and taking things out of context?

Yet it is also true that, since the end of WW2, every Democratic president has increased defense spending, while with the exception of Reagan (and now Bush), every Republican has cut it. Your view of the Democratic politicians' views on defense and security is indeed likewise overly simplistic.

Source: Center for Defense Information

You would have to ask Rudy Giuliani. I just agreed with him. Those were his words that I posted (from a transcript found here) Rudy is saying that both he and George W Bush, along with the American people, were 'fooling ourselves' about the danger of terrorism. I think that Rudy is agreeing with you - they were not doing anything revolutionary, we were more like treating it as a 'nuisance' or law enforcement problem. I'm not trying to spin; that's really what he is saying - pre 9/11, we weren't on the ball, now we have to step it up. Kerry's law enforcement program sounds more like the old way of thinking.


quarkhead, maybe you misunderstood my post. I posted some facts about elections over the past 40 years that indicate, just perhaps, the American people would elect Republicans to represent them at the state and federal level, even without terrorism. I was responding to this one-liner:


I never said anything about Democratic politicians' view on defense or defense spending levels. I was only referring to John Kerry. If I wanted to be simplistic and show some example of "Kerry is a flip-flopper" or whatever, I'd post something like this, from what Kerry said this in the last debate.

...and then not 5 minutes later said this:

First, I'm assuming you mean since LBJ. Otherwise you would have to make it 2-4 with LBJ getting over 61% of the popular vote.

Second, man that sticky context thing really gets in the way of a good story. Lets look at 2 of the Democratic elections, shall we? In 1992, Ross Perot was arguably the strongest 3rd party candidate in history (George Wallace being a close 2nd in 1968). In 1996 he ran again and still managed to garner a higher percentage of the vote than John Anderson in 1980. SOURCE

Also note that only Reagan's victory in 1980 did a Republican President have a serious 3rd party challenger and manage to get more than 50% of the vote and that was a whopping 50.75.

That makes your point about the plurality of Democratic presidents statistically irrelevant.

Doc

Whoops, missed the count on LBJ. But what exactly is "statistically irrelevant" about the American people electing Republicans somewhat more often than Democrats, even without the evil 'terrorism' to use in their Republican fear mongering? Gov't Mule made a ridiculous assertion, which I politely refuted, and you're talking to me about John Anderson? How am I supposed to respond, by pointing out that Wallace got most of his support from racist Democrats in the South? I think that we should start a new debate topic for that.

My point is - desperately trying to stay on topic - The following is the type of comment that should not have a place in a debate about John Kerry's law-enforcement credentials. Obviously, the American people have in the past voted for Republicans, just as they will in the future, even if terrorism is only a nuisance.

I want to emphasize my point here: If Kerry was so "ahead of the curve" on this emerging new threat, why oh why didn't he do ANYTHING about it. Is this the kind of leadership we need?

"Oh yeah, I knew in 1992/93 that this was a problem. But, ah, you see I had other things on my agenda and the opportunity to raise awareness or introduce a bill or any other course of action just never came up. That 8 years before 9/11 just whipped by so fast. But I knew they were a problem..."

Complete Mularkey. If you knew about a problem and did absolutely nothing about it, would you be considered a leader? ahead of the curve?

No, you would be a failure, a disgrace. Which are two words I would use to describe Kerry's Senate career. 20 years of opportunities and nothing to show for it.

You might see it as ridiculous, but I think that your unacceptance of it is even more so.

Tell me, why does the Bush group continue to run by saying that Kerry would not defeat the terrorists?

Why is the title of this thread "Naive and DANGEROUS"?

Because they are SCARE tactics. This administration wants you to think that we are going to be destroyed by terrorists unless THEY, the Bush administration, is in charge. Your interpretation of the facts is what is Naive and Dangerous.

Hicks got it right a decade ago.

This is the FIRST election where terrorism on American soil is a major issue, so go ahead and bring up all the dead presidents that you want.

Actually you are right. I accept that the Republicans use fear of terrorism, if and only if, you agree that Democrats use fear of Jim Crow, school lunch program cancellation, and re-instatement of the draft. Both sides use scare tactics to some extent.


How can you run for president if you can't say that you'll do a better job? We are under threat. Bush says he'll go after and kill terrorists. Him saying that he will do a better job is no different than Kerry saying "I have a plan" and that he will do a better job. This whole law-enforcement approach is what led up to 9/11 in a lot of people's opinion, and that's why Bush et al are contrasting themselves.


Here is why the thread is titled as it is... boston herald



I really don't see this as a scare tactic, any more than Kerry saying "four more years of Bush won't make us safer." The whole point of a campaign is to say what you will do, and how it's better than the other guy. Why is terrorism a taboo subject?

Cheney's comments originate from the paragraph Republicans plucked from the 11-page NYT article. To answer my own question in simplest terms, Kerry is basically parroting what Bush has said all along, that we can't completely eliminate terrorism, whether you prefer utilizing men in blue or taking a sledgehammer (military) to an anthill (Iraq). I think Kerry was referring to the Clinton administration's handling of terrorist threats, where the threat on U.S. soil was relatively in check despite the so called "wall" between intelligence agencies and a proposed bill that would freeze financial assets of organizations suspected of aiding AQ, only to see it killed by Republicans on behalf of big banks.

In regards to downplaying Government Mule's assertion that Cheney is using a scare tactic, do you think the administration did not resort to scare tactics when it laced descriptive language of "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" into war stump speeches and press conferences two years ago, or was the administration simply saying their way was safer than Clinton's/the U.N.'s then as well?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say he did nothing about it. Are you familiar with Kerry's voting record in the US Senate? He was voting through the nineties for Clinton's increases in antiterrorism spending, he voted for the 1996 Antiterrorism bill which broadened the scope of law enforcement regarding investigating terrorists and their funding channels.

You're using strong words, like mularkey, failure, disgrace, but you are providing only rhetoric, no data. Are you saying that because Kerry did not specifically author any of these bills, but only voted for them, means he is a failure and a disgrace?

Here are a few facts. Even after the first attacks on the WTC, Osama bin Laden's name was scarcely known in Washington - to this day there is very little hard evidence linking him to the crime. However, soon after this, Clinton started to become concerned with bin Laden and his network. Over his tenure as president, Clinton increased federal spending on counterterrorism dramatically. For the FBI's counterterrorism budget, spending increased from 78 million in 1996 to 609 million in 2000. When Clinton saw an opportunity to go after bin Laden in 1998, Republicans derided his effort as a 'wag the dog' scenario. If you want to play these partisan games, and draw such fantastical conclusions (that he is a failure and a disgrace because he didn't author antiterrorist legislation personally), then surely you must loudly condemn Congressional Republicans like Ashcroft, or David McIntosh (R-IN), who fought against Clinton's attempt to broaden and loosen wiretapping authority for antiterrorist work. What about Cheney, who worked to cut defense spending way back then? Are these men all failures and disgraces? What about GWB, who in 2000 stated clearly he was opposed to nation-building? It seems to me that your criteria for what it takes to be 'mularkey,' a 'failure,' a 'disgrace,' is poorly thought-out and completely one-sided.

Senator Kerry voted for the antiterrorist legislation that came to the Senate in the 1990s. Please be more specific in your charges.

Yes, when your arguments have been refuted, its always helpful just to repeat the original point. Bush did that well in the first debate.

I can lead you to the water Amlord, but I know I can't make you drink. The answers are there. I couldn't include it in the full original post without inundating folks and pushing copyright rules. The article specifically talks about some of the things he did as part of this understanding. But, since you insist:


Finally, this probably bears repeating.


To be clear, I'm not painting an image of Kerry as the perfect Senator, riding in on his white horse and rallying Congress to enact policies that jive with his worldview. Certainly no sweeping legislation was enacted by him or anyone else that would indicate otherwise. However, he did manage to do some things via the committee (not represented by legislation) that DID slow things down for several of those organizations. And, had the Republican congress not blocked him, possibly even more.

The focus of this article, and this topic, is whether Kerry views terrorism in a construct that weakens him as a potential Commander-in-Chief. The answer to that question is an emphatic no. Both Bush AND Giuliani clearly don't get it. Kerry does, and that is why he will be a far more effective leader than George W. Bush.

Doc

I would say that the administration was illustrating why this threat could not be left to chance in the hands of an unpredictable, murderous dictator. The onus was on Mr. Hussein to prove that he was complying, and he chose not to. The only way to discover there was nothing there was to go there and discover. I side with George Bush, when he said that, when given the choice of leaving our safety in the hands of a mad dictator, or disarming him even if unpopular, we choose the latter. And, given this article, Kerry shares a slightly different view in how to fight the war on terror. I disagree with it, but more importantly, if it takes 13 pages in the NY Times to get your point across, I'm not sure that you should be president.

More fear-mongering from Sr. Kerry

If you're looking for colorful language used by a candidate to demagogue a complex issue, look no further than my signature line, courtesy of Senator Edwards.

One more question that someone should ask Kerry. If Al-Zarqawi were not in Iraq cutting off heads, what would he be doing and where? This is the whole point in moving the front to the enemy, vs. pursuing law-enforcement.

Bush Backtracks on Terrorism Remark

Well it looks like Bush and Kerry agree on something. There have been foolish candid moments when these politicians have talked about the war on terror not as a sound byte but with some candor and reflection.

I wonder how many people debating this thread envision a world when terror will be eradicated. I guess this assertion looks fairly bizarre to many people outside the United States who have dealt with terrorism at home and wonder why it only seems to have been discovered in September of 2001 by Americans

Can the war on terror be won? No. Can America be made impervious to terrorist attacks? No. So a world where terrorism returns to being a nuisance or where the use of terror as a tool becomes less acceptable in parts of the world or universally unacceptable, would be a nice place.

Terrorism has a long history. It has not only recently emerged. It was in NYC in 1993 it was in Beirut in 1983, in Munich in 1972, in Saigon, in the United States Weathermen, in Sarajevo in 1914, in Buffalo New York in 1896, in Haymarket Square in 1886? in Russia assassinating Alexander II.

Kerry's quote was not spoken very effectively. But the process is more the problem here than the statements. Candidates statements are broken down to pieces of comments and their intent is presented in a misleading way in order to discredit the politician and/or frighten people away from voting for them.

Somewhat bizarrely, in the attack mode, one's candidate's own failings or similar statements have nothing to do with the process. When Bush makes the mistake of talking about this issue candidly again he will be assailed for being defeatist.

Spin, span, spun. Both sides emerge with a more pungent aroma but closer to power as a result of this type of politics.

And that's the thing, Eeyore. Bush's people knew exactly what Kerry meant, but it didn't stop them from spinning it into a negative soundbite. That "nuisance" was probably what Bush actually meant when he said, "You can't win it."

Terrorism cannot be eradicated from the face of the earth any more than termites can. It was not the most eloquent of Kerry's remarks, but Kerry's remarks on a bad day are still better than Bush's remarks. Remember (I am paraphrasing) "I am shaking the hand of an Iraqi who lost his hand"...?

But Kerry is acknowledging that people have lives apart from the war against radical Islamists, at least many of us do. But to bring that up during an election?
Horrors! After the smoke is cleared from the streets of Baghdad and Fallujah, there will be soldiers coming home. Will there be jobs waiting for them, or will the outsourcing have depleted the job market to the point where there will be an overabundance of assistant manager trainees at McDonald's? Will our children still be far behind the rest of the world in math, science and geography?

As far as the WOT is concerned, Bush seems to be in a state of denial that his great victory and subsequent fumbling of the occupation in Iraq continues to produce more terrorists, even though Dubya crows about getting 75% of known al Qaeda people. Now why would young Islamists be flocking to train on how to kill themselves while taking out civilian or military targets? What is their motivation?
Has our invasion of Iraq helped one iota in discouraging suicide attacks?

Whose policy has been naive and dangerous?

In order to credibly make this argument, you have to believe the following, because terrorists in Iraq can only be coming from a few places.

1 - Terrorists from other parts of the middle east are coming to Iraq to fight the American occupiers.

2 - Other Arabs and Iraqis who were previously peaceful, have now suddenly taken up terror as a weapon. These 'new terrorists' are flocking into Iraq to learn how to be suicide bombers. Years of Palestinian-Israeli intifada did not make them go blow themselves up there, nor did the invasion of Afghanistan cause them to go to Kabul and help the Taliban. None of them went to Russia to fight alongside the Chechens, none have gone to SE Asia to fight the evil Indonesian and Phillipino secular governments. It is only Iraq where they saw the light and said "I want to be a suicide bomber." They have dropped dentristy and gone into road-side bombs.

For #2, I have seen not a shred of evidence of this, other than Islamic terrorist propaganda, but feel free to prove me wrong. It sure seems far-fetched.

For #1, this is so far the only clearly-proven enemy, and I'd rather they die in Iraq, thanks. As I mentioned above, if Al-Zarqawi was not in Iraq beheading infidels, is someone here suggesting that he'd be living a peaceful life somewhere else?

In response to your post, carlitoswhey, I would call your attention to the astonishing increase in military enlistments after the 9/11/2001 attacks. Could it be the radical Islamists view the pre-emptive attack on Iraq and the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in the same way? Nah, that's too far-fetched.

I think it's time we took into consideration that the losses of the lives of non-Americans matter, too. Maybe you think that it's better that they make targets of Americans and other foreigners "over there," but loss of life is still loss of life.

Are you guys claiming that Bob Dole, a Republican, helped Kerry pass his organized crime bill in 1988? Dole was Majority Leader then.

Or are you claiming that George Mitchell, as Senate Majority Leader from 1989 to 1995 blocked Kerry's efforts?

Are you saying that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, could not have helped Kerry advance this critical issue?

Are you agreeing with Dick Morris when he says that John Kerry was never mentioned in the Clinton White House as a force to reckon with in the US Senate?

I'm confused because you seem to be attributing Kerry's lack of success on others.

I judge people by their deeds, not their words. I see nothing in Kerry's record that indicates a leader. If you claim that Kerry was ahead of the curve on terrorism, then I ask why he didn't do more about it.

Certainly minority members of Congress are still members of Congress?

Certainly Kerry was not in the minority for a large chunk of the 1990s.

If he wants to claim to a reporter that he knew in the early 1990s that terrorism was the "next big thing", then I would ask Kerry: "What on God's green earth did you do about it?"

The answer, apparently, is that he voted for other people's bills. He voted for money for this or money for that. All fine and well. I applaud Senator Kerry for doing his job and casting votes. However, that is not leadership, especially given Kerry's claim that he was onto terrorism in the early 1990s.

Kerry's efforts in the 1990s seem to be focused on global organized crime, not terrorism. Now, though, we see him spin it into "look, these same provisions are being used against terrorists via the Patriot Act". Since the Patriot Act is largely a simple extension of law enforcement techniques used against organized crime into the terrorism realm, that statement is hardly surprising.

There is no evidence at all that Kerry's intention when he mentions "global crime" was really "terrorism".

Kerry has a remarkable talent for revisionist history. Truly remarkable.

I don't ask for much, but I ask for the guy who wants to be the leader of the free world to be a leader. Governors are leaders of their states. Senators, unfortunately, are for the most part not leaders. Some select Senators do show leadership. Their party recognizes that by electing them Minority leader or Majority leader or Party Whip. They recognize that by naming you Chairman of a committee when the opportunity arises.

Kerry has had neither a record of leadership within his Party, nor a history of leadership when it comes to legislation. Kerry's record is wholly unremarkable. Now he comes out with an interview claiming that he knew all along that terrorism was the next big thing.

Excuse me, Senator, but if you were incapable of leadership then, what is there to make us believe that you will be a leader now?

I think Kerry is right on the money with a realistic approach.

I'll be the first to admit that when we got attacked on 9/11, I wanted to declare war on whoever did this (assuming it was not a domestic attack).

But then, after Afganistan, we had this "war" on terror - a method of violence. How do you declare war on a tactic? Ok, we can declare war on terrorists, but how do we spread out all over the world to find them without everybody's help?

But because of the loss of over 3000 innocent people, as tragic as it was, it should not strip away our freedoms, our liberty, and our resources.

If we had a 9/11 every month of the year, it would barely outnumber the amount of homicides in the country. But are we pouring $200 billion dollars into fighting violent crime?

If we had a 9/11 every month of the year, it would equal the same amount of people who will die from Chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, or suicide. Are we taking alcohol off the market?

If we had a 9/11 every month of the year, it would only be half those who will die from Alzheimer's, the flu, or diabetes. Are we pouring all our resources into these causes of death?

When you start looking at heart disease (700K/yr), cancer (550K/yr), and accidents (100K/yr), the effects of terrorism - from a big picture standpoint - is negligible. Statistically, it IS a more of a nuisance. But we are invading countries, alienating the world, and killing our economy to take care of a problem that statistically speaking, should never make it on our radar screens in terms of corrective actions.

Should we fight terror? Of course...vigorously. But we shouldn't be led by fear or lose more of our civil liberties at it's expense. That just justifies actions this tactic does not deserve.

This is a very strange argument coming from someone who identifies themselves as a "Republican". Following this line of reasoning would lead the Federal Government into becoming involved in darn near every aspect of our lives, even moreso than they are already. There is a big difference between a person who ends up killing themselves through the abuse of alcohol and one who is killed by a terrorist simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is there validity to Republican claims that Kerry doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, or does the ad distort Kerry's position like Democrats say?


It sure seems to me that Kerry says a whole lot of things where his supporters end up having to explain what "he really meant" wasn't what he really said. They often tell us "it's more complicated" or it's "not black and white" and sometimes that may well be true. However when it comes to the war against the terrorists it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between Kerry and President Bush when it comes to fighting that war. Kerry would "attack back" and/or use law enforcement techniques in response to terrorism. Bush seeks to interdict terrorism with whatever means are at his disposal, including military pre-emption against states who sponsor terrorism.

I don't think the ads distort Kerry's position, because like most things, he doesn't really seem to HAVE a position. He's all over the map, saying one thing to one group one day, then another thing to another group another day and meanwhile his people are busy explaining why he didn't really mean what he said either time. I would dearly love to be able to directly contradict his position on something, but I have to hand it to him, he's a moving target. He's in favor of pre-emption, but he wants a "global test" first. What the hell does that mean? Perhaps his "plan" that he keeps talking about is to confuse the daylights out of the terrorists. I dunno, might work I suppose. I'm not a terrorist, but he's sure as hell confused the dickens out of me.

No, you saw the argument you wanted to see.

I never even hinted at us pouring resources into the statistics I provided. I just made the comparison. What is worse, 1 million preventable deaths per year or 3000 deaths from terrorist attacks every 10 years? Sure, we haven't had a domestic terrorist attack since 9/11, but we didn't have any the 10 years before 9/11 - and we weren't searching my 5 year old daughter's Biddy Baby for contraband either.

In a perfect world, I'd like to eliminate all preventable deaths. But that's not the way the world works (although maybe it should).

Fighting terrorism IS a police action and it's ridiculous to think that we fight unconventional tactics with conventional warfare. Terrorism is not an enemy. Terrorism is a tactic used by our enemy. But our enemy is in 60