The Boston Herald has an excellent article on John Kerry’s problems with preemption. Kerry’s doctrine is that the US will hit back hard – but only after the terrorists have attacked. That doctrine alone could lose the election for Kerry. The argument that we should wait until a US city is a smouldering cinder or thousands are stricken with inhalation anthrax before removing the terrorist threat is an argument that should have been left on September 10.
Kerry’s entire concept of homeland security is based on reactive rather than proactive grounds – remove the PATRIOT Act, fund emergency response on the federal level, end the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. All these weaken our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks in favor of an emphasis of cleaning up afterwards.
Either Kerry will have to flip-flop on preemption again (which he undoubtedly will) or he’ll have to stand on a policy position that confirms that he’s incapable of leading in the post-September 11 world. In either case, it shows how Kerry is fundamentally unable to lead.
Kerry would be an utter disaster for this country…our very lives may depend on defeating him.
If we take Kerry at his word, then Kerry would undoubtedly leave us vulnerable to another catastrophic terrorist attack…he basically said that he would only fight after another attack.
Add to this Kerry’s tendency during his entire career to downplay and avoid confronting national security threats, and his excruciatingly slow and indecisive leadership style, and you have a recipe that makes the terrorists smile.
It’s funny that Kerry always talks about building more firehouses…because more firehouses are only useful after the terrorists strike again.
There is no doubt…Kerry does not want to fight the War on Terror…he doesn’t even really want to acknowledge it.
More proof that Kerry doesn’t take the war on terror seriously…as reported in the WaPo, an exchange in an interview with Kerry:
On domestic issues, Kerry gave a “rock hard” pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though he said a national emergency or war could change that.
Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, “We’re going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we’re going to grow the tax base of our country.”
As Glenn Reynolds comments, I wish the Democrats had nominated a guy who didn’t need to be reminded.
This is also the same Kerry that said in an interview with the NY Times, when asked about the war on terror:
“And the war – not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology.”
Deep down, Kerry doesn’t believe we are at war…it’s that simple.
“Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition” defines the word “terrorism” as “the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion”.
Compare that definition to the opening sentence of Another Thought’s latest rant. “Kerry would be an utter disaster for this country…our very lives may depend on defeating him.”
Republicans realize that their vicious, cold-blooded and strategically inept domestic policy is a guaranteed loser in the 2004 election, particularly with the much-ballyhooed “economic recovery” heading back to the toilet. Thus, George Bush and his blogosphere groupies have co-opted the terrorists’ message with the realization that the only way they hang onto power is instill terror into the hearts of voters.
There’s a fine line between requesting a higher level of vigilance by the public and proclaiming that the opposition candidate in a democratic election will have you killed. The former is fighting terrorism, the latter is creating terrorism. If this country is indeed waging a war against terror, I sure hope that enough cells at Gitmo are being reserved for the soft terrorists at home using rhetorical terror for domestic political advantage.
Mark, you can’t stand to hear the truth, can you?
I just cite the facts…everything Kerry has said or done in his political career indicates he won’t fight the war on terror…and this would leave us horribly vulnerable…which might indeed cost us our lives…
The Kerry doctrine of “Once we get clobbered, I’ll try and figure out how to strike back” just doesn’t inspire much confidence…
So I repeat…our very lives may depend on defeating Kerry…
AT, repeating terroristic rants doesn’t make them any less despicable.
Kerry is sooooo Sept 10…he is stuck in the past…he understands nothing about the terrorist threat, and his own ignorance and weakness in this area could very well lead to more terror attacks in this country, which could get us killed…
That is a fact, Mark….and your protestations to the contrary does not change that…
AT, you should wear a rag on your head and quote Allah when you spout your terrorist propaganda.
Mark, it’s interesting how when I exercise freedom of speech you call it terrorism…hmmm…
It’s interesting how you accuse conservatives of trying to stifle free speech by labeling some of the liberal statements as un-American or unpatriotic, etc…
Yet by the same reasoning you try to stifle my free speech by calling it terrorism…hmmm…I see a double standard here….
Pointing out a legitimate danger is not terrorism…it is simply speaking the truth. If I shout “fire” and there really is a fire, that’s not terrorism that’s attempting to save lives…
I really do believe a Kerry presidency would place American lives at great risk…you may disagree with that, but to label it terrorism is both foolish and avoiding the issue…
Bottom line: Kerry signals every intention of abandoning the war on terror…of going back on the defensive…of being appeasement minded…of being weak and vacillating and indecisive…
That kind of leadership can get Americans killed…and that is a real danger of a Kerry presidency…
One more comment like that and you’re gone.
If you shout fire and there really is a fire, that’s not terrorism, that’s attempting to save lives.
True enough…..but there’s no fire. Your shouting fire based on the fact that there might possibly be fire at some point in the future…maybe. That’s not advocating increased vigilance, it’s putting an artificially-inflated sense of purpose on yourself for personal gain….which is exactly what Bush is doing by saying that nobody but him could possibly stop terrorism (and hasn’t he done a hell of a job so far!!).
And I have no problem with you committing acts of rhetorical terrorism every few minutes, but I reserve the right to point it out when you do. Ultimately, the ploy is likely to backfire since your argument basically illustrates that the Republican Party and al-Qaida depend upon each other.
Mark: Let’s avoid some ridiculous going back and forth on this…
I believe that Kerry possesses an inherant weakness on national security that would place Americans in jeopardy…and you do not. I believe that Kerry does represent a fire, and you do not. It is simple as that.
However, Jay and others on this blog, as well as myself, have offered many of Kerry’s quotes, votes, protests, etc. to back up the assertion that Kerry cannot be trusted with national security. You have just called me a terrorist.
AT, I showed the dictionary’s definition of terrorism and made a spot-on comparison to the “my political opponent will have you killed” rhetoric you and your ilk use in attempt to terrify voters into submission. Mr. Webster doesn’t lie. 😉
Mark:
Is A.T. threatening to blow you up if you don’t vote for Bush? That would be terrorism. Suggesting that terrorists will succeed in blowing you up if you put Kerry in office is a different matter completely.
Mark: If I warn you a train is about to hit you is that terrorism? No, that’s trying to save your life. If a doctor tells someone they need to stop smoking or die, is that terrorism? No, that’s trying to save their life.
Just because you may disagree with my assertion that Kerry’s weakness on national security would put our lives at risk doesn’t mean I engage in terrorism. Be real and argue points rationally, or else you have no credibility.
It’s amazing how one flamethrower like Mark can derail an entire discussion. His strategy is simple: make some incendiary remarks and get readers off track and on the defensive, instead of focusing on what they want to discuss.
So for instance on a thread about Kerry’s weakness on national security we end up discussing the meaning of the word “terrorism.”
Back on track: It is absolutely scary what Kerry represents. His opposition to the Patriot Act alone should disqualify him. Every terrorism expert around hails the Patriot Act as one of our major tools in the war against terror, and Kerry wants to tear it down and remove it from our arsenal.
He is absolutely disgusting in blathering about how we need to blindly implement the recommendations of the 9-11 commission immediately…knowing that such recommendations can never be implemented immediately, and knowing that the 9-11 commission is not God on high, and thus not likely to have made perfect recommendations. The fact that Kerry uses this as a political football shows how sick of a man he really is.
Damn that blasphemous U.S. Constitution keeping Bush and Ashcroft from unchecked use of the Patriot Act. Kind of funny how your position on the Patriot Act puts you to the right of Bob Barr, all in the name of “saving us from the bogeyman”…or more appropriately in this case, saving the Republicans from electoral defeat.
Now that the flame appears to have been extinguished and we’re back on track here …
Although I’m a Bush supporter, I listened to Kerry’s acceptance speech with a genuine hope that he might make me rethink my perception of him as squishy on the war. After all, he might win, and if he does it’d be some comfort to believe that he wouldn’t necessarily be a total disaster and add further risk to the lives of all of us.
Of comfort I found none. What I heard was a man who seems to have no grasp of the picture outside of electoral politics, no seriousness about the clash of civilizations that has been forced on us, however much we would rather not have to deal with it. I got the impression that the war on Islamic terrorism was for him simply an item to be checked off on a list, because he knows (although he can’t quite grasp why) it’s a big issue with some of us — he probably thinks of us as “the ‘war’ faction” — before he went on to offer the appropriate bait tothe next interest group.
Nothing he said suggested that he has the backbone or would surround himself with the kind of strategic thinkers needed for defeating — not “responding to” — a threat that is the most dangerous most of us have known in our lifetimes.
Rick, what COULD he have said that would have reassured you? Outside of insisting that we’re gonna send every brown-skinned person on the globe to Allah and bury them inside a giant pigskin after we slaughter them, Kerry pretty much spent the whole speech relaying his intent of spilling enough Muslim blood to flood the streets of Baghdad, Kabul and Mecca for years. Perhaps it was a mistake for Kerry to try to appeal to the crowd who are basing their votes on the candidate who plans to kill the most Arab, because he could never quench the bloodlust of that demographic the way Bush can. Please inform me of what level of hawkishness you were looking for from Kerry’s speech that 45 minutes of essentially chanting “We will kill them! We will kill them! We will kill them!” didn’t take care of.
Mark: your posts are nothing more than rabble; they offer nothing substantive to the discussion and are entirely laughable on the surface.
Rick: I agree with you…Kerry seems a kind of soulless politician who sways in the wind. Like you, I wish the Dems would have nominated someone like Lieberman, where national security would still be a top priority and dealt with properly.
But no one can really take Kerry seriously any longer…I mean, the guy has to be reminded in interviews that we are at war, for goodness sake…
Every passing day Kerry makes me more fearful of what he would do to this country…the man has no grasp of the enemy we are facing, only a deep seated obsession with his own political ambition…
AT, the post was not directed to you. It was a question for Rick.
Mark: Whether one post or another is directed at me or someone else, it does not change the thoughtless, vitriolic nature of that post, which are available for all to suffer through and read.
Back OT, notice how Kerry and his team would not outright disavow Howard Dean’s shameless comments yesterday regarding the increased terror warning in NYC. While Lieberman had the courage to call Dean’s comments “outrageous” all Kerry could do was have one of his advisors say that Howard doesn’t know all the facts. Some disavowal of a kook…this is one more indication of what a Kerry presidency would be like…it is clear he would pander to the Michael Moore/Dean looney crowd…
Kerry is indeed incapable of leadership…he shows that fact more and more everyday.
His strategy is simple: try to hype up enough Bush hatred and hope that is enough to carry him to victory. That’s why he sends out his pitbull Howard Dean and allows Michael Moore to be the unannounced star of the convention…he needs the irrational hatred they stir up…
Dean is a loose cannon and I’m very grateful he’s not the nominee. Kerry should make a point of distancing himself from Dean’s remarks, at least until a shred of evidence indicates that there’s any truth to it. With that said, Dean’s words strike me as no less irresponsible than somebody claiming a John Kerry Presidency would mean the end of American existence.
Mark: I never said that a Kerry presidency would mean the end of American existence, only that a Kerry presidency might very well mean another catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil ( or even more than one).
One of your favorite debate tactics, Mark, it to take someone else’s words and exaggerate them and then rebut that exaggeration.
This blog has offered up mounds of evidence on the weakness of Kerry on national security; the logical conclusion is that a Kerry presidency increases the odds of a terrorist attack; therefore, our lives are at stake and defeating Kerry is a good way to protect one’s life.
Cows and Chickens
Mark,
I think your “question” was more invective than a genuine query, but I’ll try to answer you.
What I had hoped for from Kerry was not a bidding war vs. President Bush to see who could turn the rhetoric up highest. (Actually, I have at times been critical of Bush for his outpourings of quasi-Churchillian speechmaking while neglecting specific actions within his power that would tilt the odds more in our favor — e.g, he should have launched a serious shakeup of all the intelligence services, including firing people who had not done their jobs; he should have unhanded DOT from Norm Mineta and placed it in the care of someone who isn’t opposed to airplane passenger profiling because he’s nursing a grudge from 1942.)
There are plenty of things Kerry could have said that would have reassured me. He could have flatly stated that Islamo-terrorist groups could not expect any less heat if he were elected. He could have clearly expressed his belief in the importance of pre-emption rather than reaction, that to the best of his ability the war on terror will be an away game and not a home game. He could have acknowledged the obvious (which, I’ll grant, Bush has been craven about as well) that our borders are defended so poorly that they offer virtually no resistance to terrorists, let alone illegal immigrants, and that this must change.
I wanted from him a spelled-out list of priorities that placed fighting the war as job no. 1, and not a promise designed to appease one segment of the electorate.
While there was nothing wrong with his paying tribute and vice versa to veterans of the Vietnam war, he could have paid equal tribute to the servicemen who have performed so outstandingly in Afghanistan and Iraq (even if he wants to be ambiguous about whether he supports the Iraq invasion).
Given Kerry’s record, I’m not sure I would have believed him if he had said and done all those things. But I wouldn’t go all hollow inside, as I currently do, when I think of him in the White House led around by cynical European politicians, opinion polls and the New York Times.