Kerry on Terrorists: I'd crush 'em

[Freddie Stubbs]

May 28, 2004 --

WASHINGTON — John Kerry yesterday rapped President Bush's handling of a dangerous world, as the Democratic contender put international terrorists on notice that he would "crush" al Qaeda's networks if he wins the White House.

In what his campaign billed as a major foreign-policy address, Kerry said that despite the fierce election-year politics, the country is standing together when it comes to preventing future attacks.

"This country is united in its determination to destroy you," said Kerry of the terrorists, in the first of a series of foreign-policy speeches timed to coincide with Memorial Day and President Bush's trip to Europe for D-Day ceremonies.

"As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks. We will use every available resource to destroy you," Kerry said in Seattle.

more: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/21836.htm

[JohnnyFianna1]

1. I must admit-the prospect of killing terrorists rather than Iraqi's sounds

intriguing to me........

[jpgray]

3. LOL. I like the 'law-enforcement, not military' approach

How it will be applied in practice remains to be seen, but it's good that we have a candidate who at least recognizes invading countries and stealing their resources isn't an effective way to combat terrorists.

[Cassandra]

8. It's what Clinton was doing...

including some aspects in which the repuke Congress thwarted him; monitoring of money laundering and other currency transactions, getting information from the Yemenis and Saudis. Law enforcement works by targeting those we can prove are guilty without inflaming innocent bystanders.
Personally, I like a leader who could "crush" our enemies, but has other options available than only the military one. Someone who knows the value of diplomacy and international cooperation.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Dupe n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. LOL. I spit my coffee

It is a novel thought isn't it? And I like this attitude of Kerry's.

[Beetwasher]

13. LOL! Indeed, I Must Ponder This Novel Concept!

Hmmmmm!

Welcome!

[latebloomer]

2. Well, that sounds really enlightened.

How about erasing the CAUSES of terrorism?

How about saying something DIFFERENT from Bush and the PNACers?

:eyes:

[jpgray]

4. There's a big difference there

Bush is interested in using terrorists as a reason to occupy countries and steal their resources, whereas Kerry wants to crush the terrorist network--that has nothing to do with invading and occupying Middle Eastern nations. What we need to do is change our imperialist policies, but going after actual terrorist networks (not innocent civilians and secular dictators) sounds fine to me. Note also that Kerry says we should be doing law enforcement, not military invasion, in the so-called 'war on terror.' Those are some big differences right there.

[latebloomer]

6. He said "use every available resource"

and the 'full force of our nation's power."

Sure sounds like the military to me.

[jpgray]

7. Similar to Clinton's bombing of Al Qaeda camps, etc.

Not similar to this war, which had absolutely zero to do with terrorists. There are differences between Bush and Kerry on this, and while he doesn't advocate the approach I think you and I both prefer, which is altering US policy to create fewer reasons for countries to hate us, a law enforcement rather than military policy is a step in the right direction. The statement you mention is campaign rhetoric, meant to say "I'm every bit as tough as Bush." But the left will continue to say he is too militaristic and similar to Bush, while the right will continue to say he is weak on national security, and a flowerchild lefty pinko. :D

[Kid_A]

5. If Kerry has any hope of winning this thing

then he has to talk tough like this, even if it means sounding a little like Bush. But unlike Bush, Kerry knows that Al Qaeda hates America for much more than just our freedom. He realizes that the War on Terror is mostly gray, not the black and white that Bush and the neocons would have us believe.

[phillybri]

12. There's nothing wrong with eliminating terrorism...

...and Kerry has already spoken about working w/ the rest of the world to eliminate the appeal of terrorism.

[sandnsea]

18. How enlightened of you

To go popping off at the mouth when you've obviously never read or listened to a word the man has said. This was the first of several national security speeches, he will address issues separately over the next week.

But I'd think by now you would know his terrorism policy, I don't see how else you could have made a decision how to vote.

"But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs”

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

[latebloomer]

53. Your snottiness

is unappreciated.

Those words you quote do sound good, however. I wish I would hear them more often, and less of the rhetoric in the original message.

[Bombtrack]

21. How about doing both. Of course that would be impossible if you've

got a whacked out fringe-think worldview that muslim terrorism is all the US and Israel's fault, and it has nothing to do with the theofascist gangsters that call themselves muslim governments fucking their citizens every second of every day, while simultaneously scapegoating the US and the jews for all of their problems.

We can set international policies that helps to drive down terrorism such as dismantaling the Madrassas while killing the people training to kill us. It's not a mutually exclusive set of ideas

[Zhade]

77. Just who do you think props up those "theofascist gangsters"?

The United States is the cause of terrorism when it aids and abets oppressive regimes.

And you wonder why people recognize the fact that the U.S. is such a major cause of terrorism?

Sounds like you're the one with the "whacked out fringe-think worldview". You're denying the very real fact that our government is responsible for terrorism through its actions in the world, including allowing "muslim governments" (nice broad brush you're painting with there) to continue "fucking their citizens every second of every day".

Do you think Muslim and Arab peoples are too stupid to see past their governments to the Big Bully that enables them?

[LoZoccolo]

22. Depends on what the causes are.

But the ones who are terrorists now...we'll crush 'em.

I like this stand by Kerry.

[no name no slogan]

33. SHHHH!!! NOT SO LOUD!!!!

D'you wanna piss off the DLCers around here? ;)

Yeah, imagine that, our candidates standing for something that's COMPLETELY different from what the Repubs stand for, as opposed to "not quite as much as" what the Repubs stand for.

We used to have a party like that, back in the day. It was called the DEMOCRATS. I wonder what ever happened to them?

I hate to think that the Repubs have SCARED them into thinking just like them?

[latebloomer]

54. Thank you for your support

On the few occasions I've posted something negative about Kerry, i feel like I've needed a bulletproof vest.

[no name no slogan]

56. No problemo. He's the nominee, not the messiah

And since I'll be voting for him come November, I have every right to know what exactly his plans are for fighting this so-called "war on terra"-- especially if they involve making it even LESS safe for Americans.

It's like they never learn. If Dubya was saying this kinda shit, every one of these people would be hogpiling on him, calling him out for the imperialist pig he really is. But since it's "our man" spewing tripe like this, we have to rush to DEFEND him.

They did the same crap with Clinton. Every time he said some sort of right-wing bullshit, his defenders would jump to his aid, praising him to the hills, unquestionably, because since he was a Democrat, he was ALWAYS RIGHT. Now, the same shit's happenning with Kerry.

I'm sorry, but if our candidate starts talking like a Repug it is our RIGHT, no, our DUTY, to jump on his ass and call him on it.

I sure as hell do NOT want to vote for someone who's "not quite as bad" as Dubya. I want to vote for somebody who is AS DIFFERENT AS POSSIBLE from that neoCon fascist chowderhead.

John Kerry, you KNOW this bullshit stance is wrong. THIS is not what you were like in the Senate. STOP listening to Terry McAuliffe and the moneymen from the DLC. You KNOW that more violence will NOT solve the problem. You KNOW what's right. Now just grow the balls to DO IT.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. Perhaps it's just how MOST AMERICANS think

Democrats and Republicans. With the exception of the radical fringes.

[no name no slogan]

61. Like I said, MOST AMERICANS believe there's a 9/11--Saddam connection

Does that make it true? :eyes:

Or how about the "other" millions of people, all across the world, who didn't buy Bush's dog-n-pony show about WMD in Iraq, or the testemony of people like Scott Ritter-- did the American people somehow know something that these experts did not?

Not too long ago, most people thought racial segregation was the right thing to do once, too. Does that make segregation "right"?

Sorry Freddie, just because a mob believes a turd is a diamond does not necessarily make it a diamond.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. But opposing the death penalty for terrorists is a sure loser

in the election. Even in the primaries.

[no name no slogan]

96. That's just speculation Freddy, you have no proof

You said that opposing the death penalty for terrorists was "a sure loser" in the primaries, but that statement doesn't add up.

First of all, among Democratic primary voters, how many ranked the death penalty for terrorists as their first concern-- as opposed to the economy, the misguided war, etc. Statistically, I'd be suprised if it was above 2%. I think finding the terrorists FIRST is a much more important issue than how to "dispose" of them is.

And second, Clark was in favor of the death penalty for terrorists. So was Dean. Kerry, too. Are you telling me that somehow Clark and Dean won the primaries and will be our nominees? It makes no sense.

If you have a poll or some research that backs up your claims that opposing the death penalty for terrorists is a key issue for voters, please post it here. Otherwise, you're using the same old right-wing radio method of spinning: repeat it often enough, and it becomes truth.

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. Look at the guys who were opposed to the death penalty

Kucinich and sharpton failed to win one primary. Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry all won primaries.

[no name no slogan]

101. You neglect to mention it WAS NOT an issue in the primaries

Once again, show me ANY poll, or any kind of proof, that showed that the death penalty for terrorists (or even the death penalty itself) was a major issue with Democratic primary voters. Like I said before, it WAS NOT, and had little bearing on how the primaries came out.

By your standards, Howard Dean should have been the nominee, because he's the most in favor of the death penalty of all the candidates. However, that's not the case.

Once again, show me PROOF that the death penalty was a major issue in this year's primaries. I'm waiting...

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. So it must have been all of the other issue that caused Kucinich to fail?

Take you pick. Perhaps it was an aggegrate of all of his unpopular stands on isues that caused his campaign to be a miserable failure.

[no name no slogan]

105. Mmmkay, WTF does Kucinich have to do with this thread?

Who gives a shit why more voters didn't choose Kucinich. Obviously, you have some sort of fixation on this man, or else you'd post some evidence that shows that the death penalty for terrorists was a deciding issue in this year's primaries.

Just answer the question Freddie. I know you're not stupid. No more bullshit about Kucinich, or Dean, or whoever, just show some proof that the death penalty for terrorists was an important issue in the primaries.

If you don't have any evidence, just say so. Don't post all this distracting BS about who's a miserable failure and who isn't, because quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass what you think about Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, or even Mother Theresa for that matter.

It's go time. Either sh!t, or get off the pot.
:hurts:

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. Only two candidates opposed the death penalty in all cases

Is it just a coincidence that they finished at the bottom? Perhaps their stance on the death penalty was just symptomatic of an agenda that was too far to left of most Democrat voters.

[no name no slogan]

109. Still avoiding the question, eh Freddie?

Once again, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE DEATH PENALTY FOR TERRORISTS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE 2004 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES?.

You have still not answered my question-- you've only cited tangental evidence that states that the two most anti-death penalty candidates in the primaries did not win the nomination.

It's like I'm asking you, "how's the weather?", and you keep answering with "yes, it sure is".

Obviously you can't produce any proof of your position-- you just keep citing things that are (at best) tangentally related to what I'm asking you.

If you want to make it a debate about how opposing the death penalty is "too far left" as you put it, then just say so. I could tell you to look at Illinois, where a sitting conservative Republican governor called a moratorium on capital punishment because the system is unreliable. I could tell you about public defenders in Texas literally sleeping through capital murder trials of their clients. I could also cite statistics that show the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime. You could probably produce some USA TODAY poll that shows most Americans like killing the killers to show that killing people is wrong.

Either way, you've had you chances. You don't appear to have a leg to stand on. Hence I see no point in furthering this discussion.

Good luck with smearing the leftist/human rights/anti-war crowd, as that seems to be your latest m.o. Apparently the lessons of 2000 were lost on you, and you feel that an easy 6% in your pocket is not worth as much as a tough 3% in your hand.
:eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

111. The sitting Republican Governor of Illinois?

You mean the lame duck governor who knew that he was going to jail himself?

http://www.pjstar.com/services/news/indictment/ourview.html

[no name no slogan]

112. Yes, I'm quite sure that's why he put the moratorium in place

Keep avoind my question Freddie. I'm quite done with you. Buh-bye.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. He knew that he had no future political career ahead of him

So he had the freedom to take an extremal unpopular stand.

[Nederland]

50. Erasing the Causes?

Pray tell, what are the causes of terrorism? Before answering, keep in mind that terrorists are overwhelmingly middle class.

[latebloomer]

52. Excuse me

but there are excellent REASONS why most of the world despises us.

[Nederland]

57. I'm sure there are

I'm just wondering why you are so reluctant to list them...

[latebloomer]

59. Who says I'm reluctant to list them?

Let's see, off the top of my head-- Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Iran, Iraq, Israel, the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and many more examples of how this country and the greedy cutthroat bastards in power rape, plunder, and align with the most brutal factions all over the world for the benefit of the super-rich.

And I'm not convinced that Kerry is not being put in place to serve those interests.

(Duck and cover)

[Nederland]

60. Two Points

1) Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the items in your list.
2) Those that hate us have long lists of despicable acts of their own to answer for.

[no name no slogan]

63. So their "despicable acts" somehow make ours acceptable?

Sorry, two wrongs don't make us right.

The US (Reps/Dems/Whigs/whatever) have a long sordid history of promoting "democracy" abroad by propping up some of the worst dictators in history-- especially if these dictators are willing to do the dirty work of the corporatocracy. No amount of "despicable acts" on the part of the citizens of these countries can erase that.

And maybe, just maybe, their "despicable acts" came in response to the "despicable acts" our country (or its proxies) performed against them? Maybe the citizens of Iraq are revolting against our occupation because they remember the decade and a half of sanctions against their country that killed half a million innocent children and destroyed their infrastructure-- even AFTER they fulfilled the terms of lifting the embargo.

History does not happen in a vacuum. Hatred doesn't spring up from nowhere-- it has its origins.

Killing "them" off does not stop the hatred-- it only spreads to others, further out. By "taking them out", we only create ten more enemies in their place.

This is not the world people want to live in-- Iraqi, Arab, Muslim, Israeli OR American. If violence is such a great problem-solver, than why do we still have wars, so many thousands of years since the dawn of civilization?

[Nederland]

65. Response

If violence is such a great problem-solver, than why do we still have wars, so many thousands of years since the dawn of civilization?

We have wars because, unfortunately, some groups cannot be dealt with in any other way. The obvious example of this is Adoph Hitler and Nazi Germany. I suppose though, if you lived back then you'd be one of those people that opposed FDR and Winston Churchhill and believed that appeasement was the answer.

[no name no slogan]

72. No, not quite

War is a LAST RESORT. Not the first one.

We have wars because, unfortunately, some groups cannot be dealt with in any other way. The obvious example of this is Adoph Hitler and Nazi Germany. I suppose though, if you lived back then you'd be one of those people that opposed FDR and Winston Churchhill and believed that appeasement was the answer.

That's the argument the the pro-war crowd have always made, and it is remarkable only for its disregard (or ignorance) of what caused Nazi Germany to exist in the first place.

If the WWI allies had not dictated such severe terms at Versailles, it's quite likely that Hitler NEVER would have rose to power in Germany-- and therefore, WWII (in Europe) may well not have happened.

The Treaty of Versailles was a humiliation to Germany. It effectively emasculated the country, placing its industrial region under French occupation, took away a large part of the Prussian motherland, and imposed monetary penalties on Germany that plunged the country into a severe depression-- circumstances so terrible that it made fascism an option for the people of Germany.

Did Hitler need to be stopped? Yes. But why did we wait until 1939 to stop him? We knew he was bad news in 1933, when he took power. He provided financial AND military support to Franco in Spain in 1936, when Franco tried to overthrow the democratically-elected government (the US and UK, btw, declared neutrality in theory-- they allowed aid to go to Franco's Nationalists, but actively blocked aid to the Spanish Republicans). Why didn't we try to stop him then?

Had we tried to stop the spread of fascism before 1939 (instead of encouraging it in our business dealings with fascist regimes), we may have very well avoided WWII. Instead, we aided and abetted them when it was convenient for us and them, and only turned against the fascists when they started making larger demands.

[MajorFlaw]

98. Why do you cite 1939 as the year that we decided to

stop Hitler. We didn't officially enter the war until we were attacked on 12/7/41, which led to a declaration of war against Japan. Hitler then, stupidly, declared war on us. If it had been left up to Joe Kennedy, Charles Lindbergh and the "America First" clubs, we might not have joined the European war at all.

[no name no slogan]

110. I cited 1939 for a couple reasons

1) It was the year that the war became "official" in Europe. Even though the US was technically neutral until 1941, the US did supply material aid and loans to the allies, particularly the UK, previous to 1941.

2) It was the year Hitler invaded Poland, having declared it an "imminent threat" to the safety of Germany. Highly ironic, given that part of Poland's first-line defenders against the Blitzkrieg were horse-mounted cavalry, using circa-WWI weapons.

Hitler, stupidly, declared war on us.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. Japan attacked us, then we declared war on Japan AND Germany, as a favor to Britain and the Free French government-in-exile in London. German U-Boats had already been attacking US merchant ships in the North Atlantic, so I believe that was FDR's excuse for declaring war on Germany, too.

[MajorFlaw]

115. It seems to me that 1940 would be a more appropriate choice

for the "official" start of the war in Europe. France fell rather quickly, as its dependence on the Maginot Line proved illusory. And unlike Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland and other occupied territory, we considered France an important ally. One which we knew we would have to bail out. The fall of France (Marc Bloch, "Strange Defeat") removed any doubt that Hitler would have to be dealt with. In hindsight, we probably should have officially joined that war much sooner and openly sided with Britain.

I guess both of us are too busy/lazy to Googleize the question, but I'm pretty sure that Roosevelt asked Congress for a declaration of war against Japan only. Hitler honored his agreement with Japan and promptly declared war on us. Then, as a pro forma matter, we declared war on Germany. These sort of strategic alliances were commonplace; Our deal with the Soviets provided that they would open a second front against Japan after we all defeated Germany.

If my memory hasn't served me well, please feel free to correct me, preferably with a link to a source.

[lastliberalintexas]

118. September 1, 1939

Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39, and IIRC, the UK and France officially declared war on Germany two days later.

[Nederland]

103. Simple

Did Hitler need to be stopped? Yes. But why did we wait until 1939 to stop him? We knew he was bad news in 1933, when he took power. He provided financial AND military support to Franco in Spain in 1936, when Franco tried to overthrow the democratically-elected government (the US and UK, btw, declared neutrality in theory-- they allowed aid to go to Franco's Nationalists, but actively blocked aid to the Spanish Republicans). Why didn't we try to stop him then?

Because if FDR had suggested that we stop Hitler in 1933 a large number of people would have said that he should wait until Hitler represented an "imminent threat" to the US. Sound familiar? That's the fundamental problem here. With the benefit of hindsight everyone agrees that Hitler should have been stopped earlier. The problem lies with determining who will end up being the next Hitler.

[no name no slogan]

113. I didn't say 1933, I said 1936-- BIG difference

1936 was a very big year for Hitler and the Nazis.

In that one year, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland and kicked out the French, violating the terms of the Versailles treaty. He also actively supported (with money, arms and troops) the Spanish fascists led by Franco. In fact, it was his elite Condor Legion of the German Luftwaffe who were responsible for the destruction of Guernica, which was the first use of airborne carpet-bombing on a civilian target.

Even before 1936, Hitler began to re-arm Germany. He increased the size of its army and was expending vast sums on making weapons-- yet another violation of Versailles. He was also persecuting Jews, Gypsies, and other "undesirables", but apparently that was not enough of an "imminent threat", either.

Or maybe it was because so many American companies were making a fortune off of trade with Germany? Henry Ford did quite well, as did Joe Kennedy and GeeDubyah's granddaddy.

Of course, the same can be said of Saddam, too. He was our ally when he committed his worst atrocities, like when he gassed the Kurds. Not only did we not do anything about it, we encouraged him to do it to Iran. Never mind the fact that big American oil and high-tech companies were raking in the dough whilst Saddam continued his dirty work.

One man's "imminent threat" is another man's business opportunity.

[Nederland]

116. Not really

NO real difference in public opinion between 1933 and 1936. A sizeable majority of Americans wanted to stay out of WWII right up until Pearl Harbor. Even after Pearl Harbor, many prominent politicians wanted to only go to war with Japan and stay out of the European theatre. Who knows what would have happened if Germany hadn't declared war on us.

[no name no slogan]

117. Yes, there is

In 1933 Hitler was largely unknown outside of Germany. He had attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government (quite clumsily, which landed him in prison), but he did not have the means to be of any danger to any other nation.

Compare that to 1936, where he was acting aggressively in Rhineland and in Spain. He was a known aggressor who supplied arms to the fascists in Spain.

As a matter of fact, without Hitler, it's quite possible the Spanish Civil War never would have happened. Hitler, through his operatives, supplied Franco with the Fokker cargo planes that ferried Moroccan troops across the Strait of Gibraltar, and essentially gave Franco the extra manpower he needed to prolong his failed coup attempt.

Hitler was an internationally known aggressor in 1936. He was not in 1933.

[Nederland]

121. Wrong Question

The question is not whether or not Hitler was a known aggressor in 1936, but what percentage of the American people felt it would have been in this countries interest to go after him in 1936. If you honestly think that in 1936 this country gave a shit about "Europe's problem" you are sadly ignorant of history. In 1936 the American people were far too absorbed with the Great Depression to care about Hitler.

[latebloomer]

64. I am not only blaming Republicans

The differences between the 2 parties are often difficult to ascertain. Both are beholden to corporate masters.

[LiberalBushFan]

102. riiiiiight

like "I won't fight terrorists but I'll stop its causes" will win more than single digits.

[kiahzero]

108. That's all well and good

But that doesn't stop the established terrorists. They're not likely to stop blowing shit up simply because the we aren't propping up dictators like the Saudi royal family.

We need to eliminate the root causes of terrorism, but that doesn't change the fact that we also need to stop the terrorists that exist now.

[Adelante]

10. I am all for

Crushing terrorists. :thumbsup:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Works for me! nt

[LoZoccolo]

29. Right on!

People are already moaning about how "uncivilized" this sounds, when really what we're trying to do is take the uncivilized tactics of terrorists off the table as far as getting political things done. Eradicating terrorism promotes civilization. If we tolerated it, people would do it all the time. Terrorists need to learn their tactics will get them nothing they want.

[troublemaker]

73. No problems here

[monkeymind]

14. So all of you are for the DEATH PENALTY huh

kill kill kill.
This is scary.

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Most Americans are in favor of killing terrorists

[no name no slogan]

36. Yeah, most believed Saddam was behind 9/11 too,

but that STILL did not make them right.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Americans wont elect a Pres who opposed the death penalty for bin Laden

Those who opposed the death penalty for terrorists didn't get much support in the primaries, and would get even less in the general election.

[no name no slogan]

62. What, you have a crystal ball then?

Please share your crystal ball with us Freddie. I'm sure we'd all like to know the results of future elections.

Unless of course you are practicing the art of "conjecture" and/or "assumption", which, unfortunately, are STILL no substitute for the real thing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

84. Those who opposed the death penalty for terrorists could'n even win

in the primary.

[no name no slogan]

120. What about Kerry, then?

He is anti-death penalty, and he WON.

BTW, what planet are you living on these days? Was the death penalty for terrorists REALLY that big an issue? Gee, I don't recall that being a major talking point. Wouldn't it have come up in the debates more often if it were? Or maybe you're just talking about the 0.1% of the Democratic primary voters for whom this was their top issue?

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. Kerry is in favor of the death penalty for terrorists

Kerry says terrorists alone merit execution

By Jill Zuckman
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 10, 2004

Though he always has opposed the death penalty, Sen. John Kerry said Tuesday that the Sept. 11 attacks made him realize that he would want to "blow Osama bin Laden's brains out."

Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, makes an exception for terrorists in his otherwise unflinching opposition to capital punishment. That exception, he said, was sealed by the realization that war had been declared against the United States that balmy autumn morning more than two years ago.

"That status of war led me to find it impossible to suggest I wouldn't want to blow Osama bin Laden's brains out and treat him as an enemy," he said in an interview with the Tribune while visiting the Chicago area for several campaign stops.

"I walked out of the Capitol and said, `We're at war."' said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran. "That was my instant reaction as I looked in the air for another airplane that was heading toward us. I think you destroy the enemy."

more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0403100290mar10,1,6132754.story?coll=chi-homepagepromo451-fea

Of course this issue wasn't raised at the debates. All of the serious candidates were already on the record as being in agreement that terrorists deserved the death penalty.

[troublemaker]

75. Yes they do, and that's why we can't extradite people from Europe

without a year long court battle. Good going terror-fighters!

[Bombtrack]

23. 100 fucking percent

Always have been. One of the reasons I didn't favor Kerry in the primaries was that he wasn't

[CWebster]

15. As opposed to ,say, addressing the underlying causes

like the I\P conflict or the looting of Muslim contry's resources?

Huh, Kerry?

[sandnsea]

19. You too huh?

I'd have thought you knew his policies. Guess not.


But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs”

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

[Bombtrack]

24. "The looting of Muslim countries resources" is done almost exclusively

by the gangsters that populate pretty much every Muslim countries government. I guess you buy into their scapegoating of the US and the jews for all of there problems though.

And yes I know Bush is giving sweetheart deals in Iraq, but terrorism existed before the Iraq war.

We can work on terrorism route causes, such as Madrassas, while simoultaneously killing those who seek to kill.

[Zhade]

78. Are you seriously that blind, or are you being willfully obtuse?

The looting of Muslim countries resources" is done almost exclusively by the gangsters that populate pretty much every Muslim countries government.

You're kidding me, right?

Saudi Arabia? Hello? We prop up the Saudis because of our unquenchable thirst for their oil, and they get a free pass to treat their citizens as they see fit, with America nary whispering a bad word against them.

So that kinda qualifies as America looting a Muslim country's resource - and enabling domestic oppression for the Saudi people, who turn around and get rightfully pissed that they're abused by their leaders thanks to "the only superpower". That leads to some of them taking up arms against us, to get at what they (not unjustly) perceive as the root of their government's actions.

Sorry if you're unwilling to see the bad that our country does. It still happens, whether you ignore it or not.

Of course, maybe if so many people didn't ignore that fact, we could actually make some progress in moving this country toward upholding the ideals we allegedly believe in.

[Cocoa]

81. a spin worthy of Rove, et al

Kerry did NOT say this was opposed to anything. And he would NOT say there is no need to address the underlying causes.

[DenverDem]

16. All JFK has to do is tell the CIA to end the Al CIAda operation.

We will just whack a few hundred middle easterners to make it look good.

They will have to come up with some new boogie man to be the Hegelian inspiration for more millitary information complex ponzi scamming, more curtailment of human rights and more economic disaster for the proles.

[Bombtrack]

25. That statement is so stupid and baseless it's laughable

You should really consider not believing everything you read the web's leftist fringe "news" world. You'd be amazed at how more seriously people would take you.

[Forkboy]

27. newsflash

not everyone takes you seriously either :shrug:

[DenverDem]

28. Its an interlocking directorate.

You need to see the bigger picture. Denial about the realities of global control is not laughable, it's tragic.

My goals do not include being taken seriously by sheeple.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Is that what you were thinking when you accused me of being a disinfo op?

One good reason to stay away from conspiracy types is they often start eating allies.

[DenverDem]

31. I stand by any statement I made.

Your comments on this thread do not change my opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

32. Insert 50's psychodrama Theremin music here.

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo woooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Alerter_]

82. should I take you seriously?

"That statement is so stupid and baseless it's laughable"

"You should really consider not believing everything you read the web's leftist fringe "news" world. You'd be amazed at how more seriously people would take you."

This is purple prose, as hateful as any Freeper's.

[greatauntoftriplets]

26. Or get the Saudi Royal family to stop funding Al-Qaida.

As suggested in Craig Unger's book "House of Bush, House of Saud".

[DenverDem]

39. CIA/Mossad are the black ops company for Saud/bushler axis of evil.

It's called the Power Elite. Any thinking that there is not co-ordinated oversight of both sides of "The war on/with terror" is naive.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

43. Part of the problem is you've already discredited yourself completely...

..when you accused me of being in league with people trying to spread a rumor. To you, it seems possible or probable. To me, however, who knows the definite answer on the question...I already know you're wrong.

Something you didn't think of is if you go say that, and if you're wrong, I'd be the first person to know it and that would be the end of it.

And the minute I saw your explanation of all that, I learned that you've a tendency toward paranoia. Cuz remember, I know for sure whether or not you were right or wrong. I'm the only one qualified to test it.

[DenverDem]

44. I'm not sure which time you were wrong you are referencing,

and I'm not sure what relevance it has to this thread.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

70. You're telling others to drink the kool aid?

Just because some of us don't subsribe to crackpot conspiracy theories doesn't mean we're neocon apoligists for this administration.

Many of us question the "official story" given out by the administration, but there is nothing to back up these silly claims that Al Qaeda is a joint CIA/Mossad operation or that neocons actually planned and executed 9/11 - though they definetely ignored the threat earlier, haven't learned the lessons since, and have proved to be another threat to world peace and stability in their own right.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

69. LOL

You have David Icke as one of your links?! Are you serious?

[Nederland]

66. Putting my Conspiracy Hat on

What makes you think that if Kerry did that, the CIA wouldn't just off him like they did to Kennedy?

Not that I believe any of your conspiracy crap anyway.

[zulchzulu]

20. I want Kerry to offer terrorists free "Happy Meals"

Maybe Walgreens coupons too...

[no name no slogan]

34. Better yet, "supersize" them

and watch them get ill from the food they're eating.
www.supersizeme.com

[LoZoccolo]

35. "Would you like to super-size it?"

"I think I'm gonna have to super-size it!"

I saw that with a doctor, and he freaked when he heard how much that guy's liver enzymes shot up.

[zulchzulu]

38. Good flick

Force feeding Supersized Fries would do a couple things. Slowly kill terrorists and make money for the USA...

[Kathleen04]

37. Kerry says he will..

crush their heads!



;)

[Sean Reynolds]

58. Or the size of Bush erect?

Ok that was bad.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I'm all for crushing these two guys...

[fujiyama]

71. It sounds sort of simplistic

to just say "we'll crush them", but this had to be said. It must be made clear that Bush's percieved strength is actually his greatest weakness -- and that of course is fighting terrorism. It's something which Bush has failed at -- and greatly -- from failing to even trying to prevent 9/11, to the botched Afghanistan operation, Bush's anti terror policies have been proven to be extremely incompetant.

Terrorism has to be fought with good intelligence, cooperation with foreign law enforcement, and in certain cases, military action. Bush obviously thinks you can get a few by the last method, and the rest solves itself. The "war on terror" isn't won by awarding terrorist sponsors huge amounts of military aid, and glossing over their contributions to terrorist groups (as the US has done with Pakistan and SA).

What is obvious though is that Bush and Al Qaeda feed off of each other. That is there is little doubt Al Qaeda has been strengthened greatly over the las few years.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

74. One past problem

Is that we eschew the sound bite and dwell on the long, detailed explanation. Ever since Reagan, the Dark Side has figured out that you say the blipvert to get on the news, and then you do the dirty work of actually thinking about it behind the scenes (apparently the current administration forgot to do the last part...).

Just because we have an appreciation of the greyscale nature of reality doesn't mean we can't drop a few snappy cliches on the dinnertime news audience.

[beaumandy]

76. I don't know

<<What is obvious though is that Bush and Al Qaeda feed off of each other. That is there is little doubt Al Qaeda has been strengthened greatly over the las few years.>>

How do you figure Al Qaeda has been strenghtened when most of their leadership is dead or in custody? I know they are still out there and are very dangerous, but there is no way they are stronger.

I mean, where can they set up a terroist camp anymore without dubya sending in his military to stop them?

I'm nervous that Kerry is acting like some was hawk when his years in the Senate show otherwise. Won't the neocons accuse him of flip flopping again or just trolling for votes?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cocoa]

80. al Qaeda is strengthened in many ways

Bush has confirmed the propaganda that the U.S. is a crusading force bent on destroying Islam.

Also, the anti-terror alliance is greatly weakened because of Bush, and U.S. credibility is down to zero. Hopefully this is reversible, but who knows.

[Sparkly]

85. Most of their leadership is dead or in custody?

How do you know that? It's been widely reported that they are skirting back and forth across the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's known that they, and probably other, groups have organized in Iraq. And they certainly don't need to have big jungle-gyms or complexes to be operational. What they need can be secured in a port container or carried in a suitcase -- it takes planning and brains, and one thing these people are not is stupid.

Speaking of stupid, however, "dubya" has NOT sent in "his" military to stop them. We had forces, including many special ops, on the ground in Afghanistan who were taken OUT to go to Iraq. And when Bin Laden was in the cave complexes at Tora Bora, "dubya" decided not to commit troop strength there, but instead to rely on rebels in the area to take him out. How'd that work out?

Finally, Kerry voted for the IWR, something he's taken quite a lot of criticism for here on DU, so I don't understand your remark that he's "acting like some hawk when his years in the Senate show otherwise." He's anti-unnecessary wars, he's not anti-every war, which is obvious from his record.

[beaumandy]

86. OK

I admit Al Quada is still a huge threat, but I don't think they are stronger now than they were before 9/11.

How can they be? Besides Bin Laden and a few others it seems like they are always having their "number 2 " guy arrested or killed.

The question for Kerry as far as I am concerend is.. can he do a better job than Bush at keeping the pressure on and finishing the job by wiping out Al Quaida. If he can, he needs to spell out a plan ( and I think he will ) that proves he won't call off the dogs once we get him in the white house.

[Sparkly]

87. They're weaker because we're always arresting number 2 guys?

Here's what the Chimp has done:

Sent too few troops into Afghanistan, relying instead on Afghan rebels (it's been said that was in order to reserve power and funding for Iraq).

Allowed Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora (do you think our military couldn't have secured a 10-square mile radius around that complex?)

Taken forces AWAY from Afghanistan and Pakistan to invade Iraq.

Bungled an unnecessary war in Iraq, leaving the country in chaos which has enabled anti-American terrorist groups, including but perhaps not limited to Al Qaeda, to organize and grow there.

Inflamed hatred of the US throughout the middle east, persuading yet more people to join anti-US groups.

And you think the Chimp has put "pressure" on them? Really?

These are not groups with a finite number of people in them, such that you take out a "number two guy" and you're a step away from victory. The policies of the Chimp have ensured that for every person taken out, many more have taken their place. He's given them motive, he's given them opportunity.

John Kerry has a plan and is not about to "call off the dogs" on terrorism. Has he said or done ANYthing to make you question that? Why do you have a question about whether Kerry would do a better job than Chimp, and whether he'd "call off the dogs"?

[Sparkly]

88. P.S. - turn on the news

Al Qaeda is taking responsibility for the attack in Saudi Arabia, and have carried out other attacks around the world since 9/11. Our own government is warning us again of an attack, saying "not if but when."

Where's the evidence they're weaker?

[beaumandy]

91. Weaker?

Ok, lets say Al Quaida is not weaker and Bush has made their numbers larger and more determined than ever to destroy America.

How is Kerry going to do a better job?

Until he can give a plan that works he is not going to be taken seriously by anyone other than his base supporters.

I want to know so I can debate this issue with the repugs.

[Sparkly]

92. Read this and get back to us

One of Kerry's speeches on "Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism":
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. He must've had a breakfast of Testeronios.

So, now, he's going to have a pissing match with Bush? Crush beer cans on his forehead? Arm wrestle Osama? Show everyone his extra-large jock strap?

The country needs a stateman and we have a choice between a smirking cowboy and well dressed Rambo.

[Sparkly]

90. It's what he needs to say

because it's what voters need to hear. (Someone here just expressed concern that Kerry might "call off the dogs" on terrorism!)

This is the best counter for Kerry to make against, for example, the Rove script that Al Qaeda wants Kerry to win the election because he's weaker on terrorism.

He can eat Testosteronies all day, as far as I'm concerned :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Does that mean that he's lying?

Or, does he mean it? Does he plan to "crush" the terrorists? Or, is he merely deceiving the voters into believing that he's as "tough" as the boob-in-chief?

As for "crushing the terrorists". How? By killing more Iraqis? He's already said that intends to keep our troops in Iraq for 4 more years.

But, then, from what you're saying it's all just political BS and he doesn't really mean it. Just like the IWR vote.

Does he "have" to say it? Even in a purely political sense, I don't think so. Moving closer to Bush's politics just gives the voters a choice between TweedleDLC and TweedleDumber.

[Sparkly]

94. No, not "by killing more Iraqis"

I just posted this speech for someone else here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html
("Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism")

I think you're confusing a global effort against terrorism with the chaos in Iraq -- there's some overlap since the invasion, but these are still different things.

If you click the link in the original post, you'll see the quote is from a speech about terrorism, not Iraq, and the remark was about Al Qaeda's networks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

95. Perhaps you should read this part.

"Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday."

What "solemn obligation"? Every day we have troops in Iraq subjugating the Iraqis, we add to the resentment in the whole region. Every day that we continue to support the apartheid in Israel we fuel the support for the "terrorists".

The American people are apathetic and ignorant about world affairs. Why is that? Could it possibly be that it's because no one (in a postion to be heard - like John Kerry) bothers to tell them the truth because they may not like to hear it?

The truth is, that this country is ripping off the poorest countries of the world and there are a lot of desperate people out there who are being forced into the arms of "terrorists" because we offer them no alternative.

I'm well aware that Kerry would be a lot less destructive than Bush and the necessity of playing politics. However, I also believe that the electorate would prefer a candidate that will risk telling them at least some of the truth rather than trying to sound "tough".

[Lefty Pragmatist]

100. The solemn obligation is twofold.

1) Don't cut the legs out from under the troops. That means either bringing them home or arming them to the teeth.

2) We broke it, we bought it. Having destoyed the central authority in Iraq, it's on our head if we withdraw and they kill each other in a civil war.

[Sparkly]

114. Let's review.

This thread is about Kerry's stance on fighting terrorism, specifically Al Qaeda, and a remark he made.

It's not about the IWR vote, Israel, or the ignorance and apathy of American people. It's not about the malfeasance of the US around the world, or a discussion of how best to get out of Iraq, or a debate about whether politicians tell enough of the truth in campaigns.

I know dragging in a host of issues gives that much more fodder for attacking Kerry, but let's at least stick with one topic.

[mzmolly]

99. Good for him. What's he supposed to do ask them to lunch?!

:hi:

I have every confidence he will not have a narrow one sided approach to world affairs like * does. He will use diplomacy where ever possible.

[ngGale]

107. A Kerry supporter, but that speech has bothered...

me all day. Sounded like Bush, search and destroy. Sounds like a draft and a 100 year war to me.