Kerry drops bombshell ! He doesn't believe war on terrorism should be...

[kentuck]

primarily a military operation. He said it should be fought as an intelligence and law enforcement issue. Although he would not rule out using some special forces in needed situations. This is a 180 degree difference from the Bush "war on terrorism".

Kerry made his remarks on the Meet the Press program on NBC with host Tim Russert. Although Russert did not seem to grasp the gravity of the Senator's remarks, it was obvious to many viewers. This would indicate a totally different strategy for fighting terrorism if John Kerry is elected President in November.

Whether or not the Bush regime will use these remarks to distinguish between the two candidates is still to be determined. No recent polls are available to indicate where Americans stand on this question. Do they think terrorism should be fought by our military around the world or do they think it could be better fought with our intelligence and law enforcement through diplomatic channels with our allies around the world?

[Political_Junkie]

1. Awesome!

I like this guy more and more everyday!

[Gman]

2. They will no doubt use it to attack Kerry but

Kerry needs to use it to attack Bush first.

[0007]

3. I agree with Kerry, and I thought he explained "War on Terrorism"

beautifully.

Watch the freepers spin this statement to make Kerry look like a dirty rotten stinking communist, LOL!!

[koopie57]

7. war on terrorism......

is that the same as war on terra? What did he say about the thugs, evil doers and those who hate our freedoms? *LOL* It feels so good to listen to an intelligent person talk about those things that frighten me. Everytime Bush opens his mouth, I get more gray hair.

[LandOLincoln]

4. Clearly Kerry is listening to his chief military strategist,

one Wesley K. Clark.

Correct me if I'm wrong, fellow Clarkies, but hasn't Wes been saying this all along? That terrorism is essentially a law enforcement problem, and if the military is used it should be special ops like Delta Force etc. rather than conventional military?

That conventional military is for state-to-state fighting, whereas terrorism is essentially stateless?

[Submariner]

6. They have been on the same page all along

Kerry didn't need Clark to bring this to his attention. This has been a no brainer for the democrats....except for Lieberman and Zell of course.

[aquart]

8. Yes. Bush was totally wrong to declare "war."

But it was necessary in order to get the war he wanted.

Could we trade George for our soldiers? Would the Iraqis like that?

[belle]

29. I know *I* would! So would plenty of parents and S.O's, God love 'em.

[Spazito]

11. Yep, Wes was saying those exact things from the very beginning...

I can only hope that Kerry is wise enough not only to use what Wes has said but to incorporate Wes into his administration.

[acmavm]

14. Yep, sounds like a lot like what Clark's been saying, at least to me.

.

[Selwynn]

18. Good, becuase I strongly supported Clarks stance on this.

[IronLionZion]

23. maybe our next Vice President Clark?

or Secretary of State perhaps. Yeah Clark is awesome about this. He also talked about the "unfinished business" in Afghanistan.

[belle]

28. EVERYONE has been saying that all along...

even Rummy, pre-Iraq, if you recall. Well, not in those terms, admittedly. But there was all that hoo-ha about this being a "new kind of war" and preceding cautiously and working with our friends and so on. It was why I was at least guardedly giving Rumsfeld a chance in those first awful days after 9/11.

[NNN0LHI]

5. I have been saying this since 9/11

Glad to see Kerry coming around on this.

Don

[polmaven]

9. Kerry has been saying this very thing for some time now.

I can't tell you when he said it for the first time, but it was certainly before Super Tuesday, and maybe before Iowa. I'm sure it was during one of the debates. This is not the first time, and the Bush campaign has already tried to turn it into an unpatriotic statement.

[sandnsea]

26. Since forever

It's stunning to me people made choices on Presidential candidates when they never even knew what each of their policies were. This is exactly what the Bushie's have been talking about when they've been saying Kerry isn't going to appease the terrorists and not fight the war on terrorism agressively. And it's all "news" around here. Some days, I just don't know.

[kentuck]

27. You are right, sandnsea but......

it's only news if the media reports it. Kerry has been saying this since forever. However, it was not reported other than as passing comments in a talkshow, or some such rot. We aim to change that.

We will report the news that they miss. If people read it and it is the first time they have heard about it, then we have done our job. If the media people decide that indeed they did overlook this and it is indeed a worthy story, then so much the better. Think BIG!

[LEW]

10. my brother-in-law made an interesting and good comment

today. Said, in one way whether shrub deceived us into war or did not get much needed support from other countries, the "Plan" he has is not working!!

Great point, he is a repub and will not be voting for B*sh. If this is what gets through to repubs, and it is a good point, maybe this is how Kerry and dems should be talking.

I know I will be repeating this!!

[welshTerrier2]

12. Not Quite Right: "intelligence and law enforcement issue"

Kerry is right to emphasize that, to the extent that force is needed to wage a "war on terrorism", bush's excessive use of the military is not going to get the job done ... i liken this to going after spies by ordering massive mobilizations of marines ... the high visibility of such public force does nothing but raise enlistment rates of those who oppose the U.S. ... use of the military makes us weaker and more at risk ... so, to that extent, Kerry's call for a more focussed use of force by using intelligence and law enforcement is a far better alternative ...

but Kerry fails to articulate, at least in this statement, our most effective weapon in the war against terrorism ... perhaps this weapon would not "sell" as a campaign issue and that's too bad ... and what is this magical weapon? it's a belief that the road to peace is built with the understanding and appreciation of other cultures ... it's the building of international relationships through dialog ... it's the opposite of the arrogance bush has shown by turning his back on the global community and the U.N. ... and yes, it's even Kucinich's Department of Peace ...

if Kerry needs to show he's tough for political reasons, then I have no problem with the pragmatism of his call for the use of intelligence and law enforcement ... but the solution to terrorism, in fact the solution to all conflict, lies in the building of relationships based on open communication and mutual trust ... these may seem like flowery words but indeed there is no alternative ...

i've heard Kerry call for the internationalizing of the conflict in Iraq ... I trust he would apply the same approach to all conflicts including the "war on terrorism" ... there will always be elements that will refuse to negotiate with us, but if we are ever to win the hearts and minds of peoples whose only viable means to resist U.S. power is terrorism, we must begin somewhere ...

[alfredo]

13. That is how Europe has dealt with terror. It has been for the most

part successful. You hear of arrests all the time in Europe. France has been fighting the good fight for decades, maybe we can learn something from them.

[DulceDecorum]

16. Somehow Haiti springs to mind

and I think the US has learned quite enough from France.
Perhaps the US should concentrate on forgetting some of those lessons, or at least, refraining from putting them into practice.

[alfredo]

19. I was talking about domestic terror. On France and

its former colonies, I have to say their dealings have been less than stellar.

[prodigal_green]

15. I never understood the idea of a conventional war with

a stateless enemy.

It has to be intelligence, both in terms of gathering information and having the presidential intelligence to make decisions based on that information.

When a cell can be identified, by all means, go in with special ops, SWAT teams or whomever else is handy. Otherwise, harrass the hell out of them to break up their plans.

It's really a difference between stopping a crime and solving it.

The one state we can put pressure on is Saudi Arabia (Baudi Ababia as Ms. Rhodes likes to say). Kerry's plan for 20% energy independence is a big step in the right direction there. He needs to tie all of these elements together in a nice, tight little snack-size package.

[Selwynn]

17. Damn, I said almost the exact same thing in that other thread -

- and I hadn't heard Kerry today.

[camero]

20. He's right

It should be fought as a law enforcement action.

[Octafish]

21. Wouldn't it be GREAT to have a real Commander-in-Chief?

One who understands war and how to prosecute one, and how to distinguish unconventional warfare, and has a clue about what to do about it, and who's fought in both for his country? Gee. Where could we find a candidate like that who's a Democrat?

This is why Karl Rove must start drinking at 9 a.m. and his "boss," the unelected crazy monkey, floods his Depends™ every night.

[Pinko Commie]

22. Yeah, I don't think Russert was paying much attention

Clearly, the "war on terrorism" really hasn't been much more than a law enforcement issue.

Outside of Afganistan, which we blew big time, it's all been policing.

I was impressed by Kerry. He actually gave straight answers this time. Maybe I will switch back to Heinz Ketchup.

EDIT: Althoough I was disappointed by his unrestricted support of Sharon.

[atre]

24. Calling it a "war" legitimizes OBL

Osama Bin Laden thinks himself a warrior, not a murderer. Calling this a "war" on terrorism legitimizes what he's done by legitimizing his view of what he's done.

A sarcastic kudos to the Bush Administration for subtly telling him he is right, for telling OBL that he is not a murderer, but rather a warrior.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Exactly, literal war on terror isn't a permenant solution...

Sure, fighting off terrorist threats in the middle east may work as a temporary solution (or may not) but there will always be more terrorists. I think the military has done it's job by splitting up Al-Quaeda so that it is less of a threat because it's not as organized. Now we need to use law enforcement and intelligence to protect the homeland and fight terror in the middle east by educating and providing humanitarian aid.