| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"TR" |
| Date: |
29 Oct 2004 11:50:46 PM |
| Object: |
Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200410291046.asp
October 29, 2004, 10:46 a.m.
Protect America First
Is Kerry's foreign policy his undoing?
Let's make this simple. John Kerry is the candidate for those who wish we
hadn't gone to war in Iraq. But John Kerry can't admit that, even though
everyone knows it is true.
Kerry has been at such pains to keep this basic point as fuzzy as possible
because an honestly antiwar candidate couldn't win the presidency in 2004.
Sometimes he offers arcane explanations containing paragraphs like Rube
Goldberg contraptions. Sometimes he speaks in a unique Kerry grammar one
could call the future-past perfect. When asked if we were right to invade
Iraq, he has responded that it depends on what happens in the future. And
other times he's said we were right. And other times he's said we were
wrong.
But my favorite response was when he was asked if we'd have gone to war with
Iraq if he'd been president, and he shot back confidently, "You bet we might
have."
Kerry cannot be honest about the most elemental issue of the election
because he will lose the election if he does, and rightly so.
I don't mean to say that a supermajority of Americans think the Iraq war was
the right decision in retrospect, or that they think Bush has done a
wonderful job since Saddam's downfall. But I do think that a supermajority
of Americans really do want a president who will err on the side of
protecting the American people first and worry about what the New York
Times, the French, or the United Nations think second. Americans have rarely
punished presidents for prosecuting wars too aggressively; they've often
punished them for the reverse.
That's the central explanation for Bush's huge advantage over Kerry on the
issue of fighting the war on terrorism. It's amazing when you think about
it. The media, the United Nations, the French, and the Democrats have thrown
everything imaginable, fair and unfair, at Bush, and he still leads by
double digits on the issue of who's better at fighting the war on terrorism
and winning in Iraq.
All of these pro-war pundits and bloggers who've defected to Kerry because
of Bush's alleged "incompetence" need to explain why the candidate they now
prefer is not the undisputed preference of the American people when it comes
to national security. Surely all of these people can't be morons.
The answer, I think, lies in the lessons of 9/11. If you live in a house
infested by rats, you may think it's okay to tolerate them for a while.
They're just a "nuisance," as John Kerry might say. You might, if you're
Bill Clinton, tolerate a series of "minor" rat attacks. But when one of your
children dies from a bite, you do everything you can to kill the rats and
plug up all the rat holes to protect your family. You don't care which
specific rat was responsible for the death. You simply do everything
necessary to make sure nothing like that ever happens again. Post-9/11,
George Bush faced a world with a lot of rat holes. The most obvious, urgent,
and "doable" rat hole was in Baghdad.
Those who opposed the war insisted there was no link between Saddam and
9/11. There probably wasn't in the sense they meant. But there was an
ironclad link in the minds of many of us. In the world ushered in by 9/11,
in a world where threats need to be taken seriously and terrorism cannot be
seen as a mere nuisance, letting Saddam Hussein - the only world leader to
praise the 9/11 attacks - stay in Baghdad simply made no sense.
It would be silly to reargue the whole war again. But the salient point is
that Kerry is the candidate of those who disagree with all that. He's the
candidate for those who think America was wrong in Iraq and too gung-ho on
the war on terror. Indeed, in a recent New York Times profile, Kerry
admitted that 9/11 hadn't changed his thinking about foreign policy "much at
all." And that his aim was to return to the way it was in the 1990s, when
terrorism was a "nuisance." The problem is that many Americans believe that
treating terrorism like a nuisance is precisely why 9/11 happened. For all
the talk about Bush's denial, a vote for Kerry is a vote for an even
deadlier denial.
Some of this analysis is probably unfair to millions of Americans who have
other reasons for voting for Kerry. But who can doubt that if Kerry wins, it
will be seen at home and abroad, by friend and foe alike, as a negative
referendum on the war on terror in general and on Iraq in particular?
Whatever Bush's faults, the one thing a majority of Americans are confident
of is that he wants to win the war on terror in Iraq and around the world,
no matter what. About John Kerry they just can't be too sure. That's why I
think Bush will win, and why I think he should.
- (c) 2004 Tribune Media Services.
--
http://thereactionary.home.mindspring.com
.
|
|
| User: "js" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 12:52:47 AM |
|
|
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TR" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 09:32:13 PM |
|
|
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
--
http://thereactionary.home.mindspring.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "js" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 10:24:15 PM |
|
|
"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message
news:N8Ygd.13456$KJ6.3998@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Even if that assertion were true, which it's certainly not, does that
justify Bush's letting Osama get away, in your delusional pea brain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TR" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 11:15:39 PM |
|
|
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:zVYgd.13483$KJ6.707@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message
news:N8Ygd.13456$KJ6.3998@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we
can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Even if that assertion were true, which it's certainly not, does that
justify Bush's letting Osama get away, in your delusional pea brain?
Bush didn't "let him get away". Any military person will tell you that
the Tora Bora area is so big that even if we had 20 times the troops
there we couldn't cover everything. The local Iraqis knew the area
much better than our troops and they had just as much chance if not
more to catch him. The Russians have spent 8 years trying to catch
Shamil Basayev in a country one quarter the size of Afghanistan and
they are still trying. Until you know how difficult such a thing is you
are just blowing it out your *****.
--
http://thereactionary.home.mindspring.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "js" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 11:51:57 PM |
|
|
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we
can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our
social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Even if that assertion were true, which it's certainly not, does that
justify Bush's letting Osama get away, in your delusional pea brain?
Bush didn't "let him get away".
Oh, I guess you think that just someone impersonating OBL on TV yesterday,
huh?
Any military person will tell you that
the Tora Bora area is so big that even if we had 20 times the troops
there we couldn't cover everything. The local Iraqis knew the area
much better than our troops and they had just as much chance if not
more to catch him. The Russians have spent 8 years trying to catch
Shamil Basayev in a country one quarter the size of Afghanistan and
they are still trying. Until you know how difficult such a thing is you
are just blowing it out your *****.
Spin as you may, but all the resources dumped into Iraq would only have
increased the odds of catching OBL if they hadn't been needlessly and
recklessly misdirected away from the real target.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Cumference" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
31 Oct 2004 09:12:55 PM |
|
|
js wrote:
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Even if that assertion were true, which it's certainly
You want to post something that proves it isn't true?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arthur T. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
31 Oct 2004 09:31:50 PM |
|
|
In article <cMudnZs4VatPNxjcRVn-1w@gbronline.com>, Sir Cumference
<me@this.moc> wrote:
You want to post something that proves it isn't true?
Here:
http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rbbomber" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
31 Oct 2004 08:23:08 AM |
|
|
"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message news:<N8Ygd.13456$KJ6.3998@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Re the title of this thread "Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our
Security," five radical members of the Supreme Court trusted Mr. Bush
with our security, and we lost about 3,000 Americans to 9/11, over
1100 to a war of Bush's choice in Iraq, and stand to lose about 30,000
to flu this season.
Prior to 9/11, Mr. Bush gave terror a low priority. After 9/11,
despite vowing to track down and bring to justice those who financed
and directed 9/11, he has failed to prosecute anyone. Our 10th
Mountain Division came close to capturing Mr. bin Laden and the
al-Qaida leadership at Tora Bora until Mr. Bush, for political
reasons, called them off and outsourced the job to three Afghan
warlords. They fought among themselves and Mr. bin Laden got away,
dialysis machine and all. When does the "War on Terror" start? Or was
that just another empty political slogan?
--Russ
.
|
|
|
| User: "thereactionary" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
01 Nov 2004 05:07:49 PM |
|
|
(rbbomber) wrote in message news:<7e483417.0410310623.63604f30@posting.google.com>...
"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message news:<N8Ygd.13456$KJ6.3998@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Re the title of this thread "Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our
Security," five radical members of the Supreme Court trusted Mr. Bush
with our security, and we lost about 3,000 Americans to 9/11,
Those were lost to Bill Clinton and his presidential directive
which made it impossible for our foreign and domestic intelligence
services to share data.
over
1100 to a war of Bush's choice in Iraq,
WWII was also our choice. We were not under attack
from Hitler. And we lost 400,000 for that choice.
The 1100 that we have lost in Iraq is about the same
number that we loose to crime in Detroit every year.
But while I've heard about Iraq a gillion times, I
have never heard a lefty complaign about Detroit. And
why is that? Because the leftist scum are only using
the body count of our troops for political propaganda.
and stand to lose about 30,000
to flu this season.
Total horseshit.
Prior to 9/11, Mr. Bush gave terror a low priority. After 9/11,
despite vowing to track down and bring to justice those who financed
and directed 9/11, he has failed to prosecute anyone.
You are an absolute moron. He has already killed three fourth
of the Al Quida leadership. And over 3000 Al Quida have been
killed in 107 different nations.
Our 10th
Mountain Division came close to capturing Mr. bin Laden and the
al-Qaida leadership at Tora Bora until Mr. Bush, for political
reasons, called them off and outsourced the job to three Afghan
warlords. They fought among themselves and Mr. bin Laden got away,
dialysis machine and all. When does the "War on Terror" start? Or was
that just another empty political slogan?
Are you such an idiot that you now think that it
all revolves around one man? Do you think that
the war on terror would be over if we had gotten
Bin Laden? Tell me, does the Kerry campaign perform
lobotomies on you guys and do they replace your
gray matter with recordings of the latest DNC talking
points? Isn't there a single leftists that can think
for himself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rbbomber" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
02 Nov 2004 01:50:29 AM |
|
|
(thereactionary) wrote in message news:<831523e4.0411011507.7f7ecfc6@posting.google.com>...
rbbomber@netzero.com (rbbomber) wrote in message news:<7e483417.0410310623.63604f30@posting.google.com>...
"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message news:<N8Ygd.13456$KJ6.3998@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Re the title of this thread "Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our
Security," five radical members of the Supreme Court trusted Mr. Bush
with our security, and we lost about 3,000 Americans to 9/11,
Those were lost to Bill Clinton and his presidential directive
which made it impossible for our foreign and domestic intelligence
services to share data.
Nonsense. It was Mr. Bush, not Mr. Clinton, who assigned a low
priority to terror in 2001, laying us open to 9/11.
over
1100 to a war of Bush's choice in Iraq,
WWII was also our choice. We were not under attack
from Hitler.
More nonsense. Germany declared war on us in 1941.
And we lost 400,000 for that choice.
The 1100 that we have lost in Iraq is about the same
number that we loose to crime in Detroit every year.
This is worse than nonsense. Those whom we lose to crime in Detroit
choose to live there. But Mr. Bush chose to send our kids to Iraq,
invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and for no reason
that has stood up to scrutiny.
But while I've heard about Iraq a gillion times, I
have never heard a lefty complaign about Detroit. And
why is that? Because the leftist scum are only using
the body count of our troops for political propaganda.
and stand to lose about 30,000
to flu this season.
Total horseshit.
Tell that to our Centers for Disease Control. The toll can be far more
than the usual average of losses to the flu.
Prior to 9/11, Mr. Bush gave terror a low priority. After 9/11,
despite vowing to track down and bring to justice those who financed
and directed 9/11, he has failed to prosecute anyone.
You are an absolute moron. He has already killed three fourth
of the Al Quida leadership. And over 3000 Al Quida have been
killed in 107 different nations.
Oh? If he knows he killed three-fourths of them, he would have to know
how many there were to start with and how many survive now. Let's see
the figures. This three-fourths nonsense is just Bush administration
smoke. Believe it if you want, but if you post it, please support it
with facts.
Our 10th
Mountain Division came close to capturing Mr. bin Laden and the
al-Qaida leadership at Tora Bora until Mr. Bush, for political
reasons, called them off and outsourced the job to three Afghan
warlords. They fought among themselves and Mr. bin Laden got away,
dialysis machine and all. When does the "War on Terror" start? Or was
that just another empty political slogan?
Are you such an idiot that you now think that it
all revolves around one man?
What we know is that Mr. bin Laden claimed credit (or, in my view,
blame) for 9/11 just this week. Why is he still on the loose? Why has
Mr. Bush broken his vow to track him down and bring him to justice?
Do you think that
the war on terror would be over if we had gotten
Bin Laden?
He is the outstanding symbol of the failure of Mr. Bush's "War on
Terror."
Tell me, does the Kerry campaign perform
lobotomies on you guys and do they replace your
gray matter with recordings of the latest DNC talking
points? Isn't there a single leftists that can think
for himself?
My post had nothing to do with Mr. Kerry. It is Mr. Bush's
administration that failed us. Perhaps Mr. Kerry will do better. He
could hardly do worse.
--Russ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
02 Nov 2004 02:38:31 AM |
|
|
"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0411012350.175e32de@posting.google.com...
thereactionary@mindspring.com (thereactionary) wrote in message
news:<831523e4.0411011507.7f7ecfc6@posting.google.com>...
rbbomber@netzero.com (rbbomber) wrote in message
news:<7e483417.0410310623.63604f30@posting.google.com>...
"TR" <TR@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<N8Ygd.13456$KJ6.3998@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means
we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our
social
security.
No, microbrain, it was Clinton who let Osama live to fight another
day. The Sudanese offered to give Osama to Clinton and he
turned them down.
Clinton isn't running for re-election otherwise I'd be glad to vote against
him.
Re the title of this thread "Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our
Security," five radical members of the Supreme Court trusted Mr. Bush
with our security, and we lost about 3,000 Americans to 9/11,
Those were lost to Bill Clinton and his presidential directive
which made it impossible for our foreign and domestic intelligence
services to share data.
Nonsense. It was Mr. Bush, not Mr. Clinton, who assigned a low
priority to terror in 2001, laying us open to 9/11.
over
1100 to a war of Bush's choice in Iraq,
WWII was also our choice. We were not under attack
from Hitler.
More nonsense. Germany declared war on us in 1941.
And we lost 400,000 for that choice.
The 1100 that we have lost in Iraq is about the same
number that we loose to crime in Detroit every year.
This is worse than nonsense. Those whom we lose to crime in Detroit
choose to live there. But Mr. Bush chose to send our kids to Iraq,
invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and for no reason
that has stood up to scrutiny.
But while I've heard about Iraq a gillion times, I
have never heard a lefty complaign about Detroit. And
why is that? Because the leftist scum are only using
the body count of our troops for political propaganda.
and stand to lose about 30,000
to flu this season.
Total horseshit.
Tell that to our Centers for Disease Control. The toll can be far more
than the usual average of losses to the flu.
Prior to 9/11, Mr. Bush gave terror a low priority. After 9/11,
despite vowing to track down and bring to justice those who financed
and directed 9/11, he has failed to prosecute anyone.
You are an absolute moron. He has already killed three fourth
of the Al Quida leadership. And over 3000 Al Quida have been
killed in 107 different nations.
Oh? If he knows he killed three-fourths of them, he would have to know
how many there were to start with and how many survive now. Let's see
the figures. This three-fourths nonsense is just Bush administration
smoke. Believe it if you want, but if you post it, please support it
with facts.
Our 10th
Mountain Division came close to capturing Mr. bin Laden and the
al-Qaida leadership at Tora Bora until Mr. Bush, for political
reasons, called them off and outsourced the job to three Afghan
warlords. They fought among themselves and Mr. bin Laden got away,
dialysis machine and all. When does the "War on Terror" start? Or was
that just another empty political slogan?
Are you such an idiot that you now think that it
all revolves around one man?
What we know is that Mr. bin Laden claimed credit (or, in my view,
blame) for 9/11 just this week. Why is he still on the loose? Why has
Mr. Bush broken his vow to track him down and bring him to justice?
Do you think that
the war on terror would be over if we had gotten
Bin Laden?
He is the outstanding symbol of the failure of Mr. Bush's "War on
Terror."
Bin Ladin is an inspiration to all people who hate America. Every day he
lives, terrorists are emboldened with confidence that they too can hurt our
country and embarrass our leaders. That makes him the most important figure
in the war on terrorism. Bush took his eye off the ball.
Tell me, does the Kerry campaign perform
lobotomies on you guys and do they replace your
gray matter with recordings of the latest DNC talking
points? Isn't there a single leftists that can think
for himself?
My post had nothing to do with Mr. Kerry. It is Mr. Bush's
administration that failed us. Perhaps Mr. Kerry will do better. He
could hardly do worse.
--Russ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FREEPME" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 09:21:57 AM |
|
|
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message news:<P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin Laden Owes Bush
Bin Laden looks healthy and does not seem to be hunted. We also know
he has access to DVD's. Looks like he is better off than before Sep.
11, 2001. I guess three years of not worrying about getting caught
works for him.
He can thank Bush for that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREEPME
.
|
|
|
| User: "TR" |
|
| Title: Re: Why We Cannot Trust Kerry With Our Security |
30 Oct 2004 09:37:49 PM |
|
|
"FREEPME" <fr3p@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7b4ef05c.0410300621.714f65de@posting.google.com...
"js" <js@js.com> wrote in message
news:<P_Fgd.6462$kM.539@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Do you think Bush's letting Osama live to fight another day means we can
trust *him* with our security? We can't even trust him with our social
security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin Laden Owes Bush
Bin Laden looks healthy and does not seem to be hunted. We also know
he has access to DVD's. Looks like he is better off than before Sep.
11, 2001. I guess three years of not worrying about getting caught
works for him.
Before September 11 he used to drive convoys of Mercedes through Kabul.
He made monthly videos and he gave interviews to western media. And he
openly ran training camps for tens of thousands. Now he is hiding like a
rat.
He looked pale and his tone was more concilliatory than it has ever been.
He can thank Bush for that.
Right!
--
http://thereactionary.home.mindspring.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
