Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards: "John Kerry and I believe this war is winnable".

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:02 PM
Original message
Edwards: "John Kerry and I believe this war is winnable".
Fuck me running! :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'm saying "quagmire"...
More people dying for years to come....just like Viet Nam....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lancdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Edwards is exploiting Bush's politically stupid statement
as he should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. War on Terror
not Iraq.

Sure it's winable if we start acting in a just way. Withuot justice there can be no peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Yes. I agree he should have exploited the stupid statement but....
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 04:28 PM by kentuck
Did he have to say, "John Kerry and I think the war is winnable"? Does that mean both Parties are now double-dog daring the other they can send more troops and munitions to Iraq than the other? why was it necessary to make such a statement? Couldn't he have found another way to exploit the statement? Now we are stuck? We have to win George Bush's war at whatever cost? Is that what he means? I think it was necessary to exploit this stupid remark by Bush but I don't think it is being handled properly. Well, By God, we can win the war!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. No, that's not what it means
Bush screwed the pooch. Kerry and Edwards are now hammering on the weak knee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Thanks Walt...
But where does it stop? I hope the Democrats don't talk themselves into a hole where we have to send in reinforcements for this debacle and more people end up dying...and that appears to be the direction we are headed and it's not necessary...

How many times has Bush said we are winning the "war on terrorism? A huundred times? More? And today, he does the biggest Flip-Flop of all time! Why could we not point out the flip-flop without commiting ourselves to seeing the war to George Bush's end? That's my concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apple Smoothie Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Definitely!
I second every thing you said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
50. War on Terror could mean covering our asses and
honing up security at home..which is what the busheads have neglected to do if I'm not mistaken.

Taken us over to Iraq when Osama should have stayed in their sites.

No plan B for Iraq..ergo the Quagmire..Snubbing Iran's offer to give up terrorists..the list goes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Bush's said the war on terror will never end. Edwards says it will.

The Iraqi opposition is a separate issue.

Bush wants and needs endless war. Kerry and Edwards are the alternative to endless war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. That's the way I got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sub.theory Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. I think the War on Terror is winnable
..and I'm glad to hear John Edwards say so. The War on Terror, however, is not winnable through violence, at least not exclusively, which is the mistake Shrub has made over and over again. Shrub thinks he can bomb people into putting aside their hate, but violence will only beget more violence. There is a certain hardcore element of Al Qaeda which certainly DOES need to be extreminated with violence, but most of the hatred in the Arab world must be met with peace, understanding, and social justice. That's the case that Kerry and Edwards have got to make. They have to show how the war in Iraq has only hurt us. As A. Whitney Griswold once said "The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas". He was talking about censorship, but I think the message also applies to the War on Terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #32
48. Welcome to DU! Yours is a welcome voice, and...
I will buy YOU a beer.

:toast:

I've severely cut back my beer purchasing lately as I've been buying for a lot of trolls!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lottie244 Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. I believe they are full of sh*t. It is not a "winnable war" and Dems
should not fall for this. It's an unwinnable war and all Dems need to do is say we told Bush that in the first place. Shut the hell up Edwards. Stop saying stupid things just because it's the opposite of what Bush says. WTF is the Kerry campaign thinking?!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Of course it's winnable.
Not the way Bush is waging it, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apple Smoothie Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
41. Are you saying it's winnable by military might...
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 05:37 PM by Apple Smoothie
or by negotiation, etc...????

On Edit: because it CAN'T be won by using the former!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Agreed, partially
The Dems -- especially Kerry and Edwards -- need to be wary of simply taking an opposing viewpoint. Especially in this case, since Bush is right.

So long as there is poverty and oppression, there will be terrorism. You cannot "win" a "war" against "terrorism." Much like you cannot do the same against drugs. All you can do is to minimize; work toward conditions that cut off the blood supply to the tumor that is terrorism.

Some physical force will be necessary, but a majority of the gains will be made through humanitarian, diplomatic, investigative and prosecutorial means.

Edwards' position sounds strong, but is weak. Of course, it all depends on how you define a "win."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Yep. Speaking of poverty....
who won LBJ's "War on Poverty"? Does poverty still exist in this country?

Rhetorical question, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apple Smoothie Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
38. Sort of agree...
You can't ever "win" a war of hate by spreading more hate, i.e., fighting. The single thing that turns me off to Kerry is his stance about the war in Iraq. I don't like how Kerry voted for the resolution giving Bush the invasion power or how he plans to send more troops to Iraq, but what am I gunna do? I do like most of his other policies. I guess I'm just too far left. There is no way in h**l I'd support the chimp.

Also (not directed against the person I'm replying to), there is no "war on terror" - it's a creation of the media and conservative neo-cons. Afganastan = War to get pipeline of OIL through!Iraq = War to pump OIL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. I am happy that they are jumping all over Bush's slip up!
"The war on terror can't be won." Not the way you're waging it georgie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. It can't be "won" -- because it's not really a "war" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Did you read 1984? Bush needs this war to be endless, unwinnable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
9. EDWARDS AND KERRY ARE BRILLIANT!!!
Bush screwed the pooch by saying that we could never win teh war on terror. That is absolutely the LAST THING the average American wanted to hear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abburdlen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. exactly.
We gave up a budget surplus, our freedoms and too many lives for a war you now think we'll never win? Thanks chimp.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lottie244 Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. What Kedwards and Kerry should be saying is the we lost 1,000 soldiers
starting what the President has said is an unwinnable war. It is not only unwinnable now, it was unnecessary when we invaded a sovereign nation that was not a threat to us. It's not only unwinnable it is unwisely fought. No one seems to be accountable to anyone and everyone seems to be responsible...including the American people. How can you elect such a man who, at a time when our soldiers are in harm's way, is saying that they can't win? WTF??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
52. Hehhehe!
Where did he spout these words and whose advice was that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
10. It can't be won with tanks, and unilateral invasions.
But it can be won with diplomacy, with smarts, with zig zagging, with carefully thought out and ruthless "flip flops." In other words, it can be won with John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A_Possum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. 'Xactly!
About time we had a war on terror with some "nuance" and "sensitivity" instead of ham-handed loser tactics that just make us look like fools.

Bush might as well have painted big red targets on all our backs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apple Smoothie Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
45. Yep, but...
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 05:40 PM by Apple Smoothie
John Kerry doesn't seem to be heading that direction, unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. hey kentuck, gonna say it again, on war i am really gonna trust
kerry to be able to see what is going on. out of everyone, i mean everyone, he went to war, saw it came back, pointed finger at admin, and called it like it was. he could have saved 10k lives if they had pulled out like he said he thought they should

i am going to say to self, along with exploiting bush's mess, that he will be able to look and see if he does need to pull out and will.......what say you. dont you think this is too much who he is

i am gonna wait and see with kerry.

i know he is above and beyond on me with this one. i just dont see him missing with soldiers lives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. Kerry didn't say it. Edwards did.
But I guess he committed him to "winning the war"? when people talk of wars, they usually mean militarily. Bombs and loss of lives, etc., not diplomacy..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. that is what it means to a repug, crotch grabbin male
but ultimately to win the war on terror is going to be thru peace.

i would still rather have kerry in there to access the situation. and go from there. lordy, lol lol would i rather have kerry. and then.......if his pride is too big and he cant see.............then kentuck, will meet you in washington. got any medals to throw over the wall. i have some swimming ribbons and medals, wink

if we get bush out, the whole world vision will change, literally. there will be great opportunity of hope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Of course, Kerry will be better than Bush with this present predicament..
I probably over-reacted. Being a Viet Nam veteran, I do not wish to see any president , Democrat or Republican, commit our troops to something that is unnecessary. Bush already has done that.

I apologize if I offended anyone....It just struck me the wrong way...as somehow unfeeling towards the troops that will have to "win" the war...

In some retrospect, I would say to attack Bush in whatever manner possible and we can change the policies later, if necessary. I was probably a little too harsh on Edwards. Uh-oh, I flip-flopped. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. lol lol you flip flopper you
i thought you were a vet

i agree. you know what is sticking with me his speech from 71. i do like that kerry.

bush admitted we cannot win this war. we have been saying it for over a year. sittin and watching the looting i knew we were doing it wrong, can even go back to going in. but every step, we were saying, wrong, wrong. adn bushco never admitted it, we were called traitors adn unpatriot.

what if he had admitted to wrong over a year ago. how many lives would that have saved.

adn then they have audacity to call us not supporting soldier. we were doing the ultimate in supporting soldier, and bush and his follwers were letting the soldiers down

i say use it

he lost lives all those many months back when everyOne knew, even them, even the soldiers. every life since is on his soldiers, beyond starting a war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. btw, i always want to hear what you feel, and all vets
a lesson for me. i dont have a clue, female too young to remember vietnam. it is your voice, anger sadness calm reason, whatever.

i want to hear you all

not oneil though, lol lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. at least youre honest kentuck
I think you did overreact on Edwards, tell you what though when the people find out that Bush doesnt think the war on terra is winnable, they are gonna be shocked and pissed at him even more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
15. This is the issue that can win this election
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 04:29 PM by PurityOfEssence
What an opening!

How much human energy has to be spent trying to figure out what the "plainspoken" and "clear" President says at any one time? What kind of message does muddled idiocy like this send to our enemies?

It can be won. By engaging Muslim countries and addressing the grievances, we can dry up the well of discontent and end the "war". There will always be fringy elements, but we can certainly curtail the broad enmity. By attacking the terrorists themselves instead of settling old scores with completely unrelated regimes like Iraq, we can stop them in their tracks.

George Bush has just shot himself in the foot bigtime, and this can destroy him. If he wants to back out of it, he's incompetent. If he wants to stand by it, he's unimaginative and defeatist.

Campaigns are won and lost on simplistic statements. At the very least, the reckless misspeaking of this adolescent is too dangerous to have around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
47. I agree
This is it, don't hesitate...move in for the kill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. It shows that they're confused and defeatist
It shows that they're slobbering ninnies. It shows that they habitually say dangerous things that can have horrible repercussions. It shows that they lack focus and confidence.

Just repeat it over and over again; that's what the conservatives do...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DieboldMustDie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. '"I don't think you can win it,"
Bush said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."'
.
.
.
'"This is no time to declare defeat. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive long-term plan to make America safer. And that's a difference," Edwards said.'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/conventions/rnc/chi-040830bushadmits.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. use terror as a tool
i think this one gets him too. he uses terror as a tool to get his way, run roughshod over people, get them to vote for him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. Where's the link to the Bush quote where he says it isnt?

Do the American People really want an America-hating, wimpy, mealy mouthed flip flopping president who hates the troops so much he thinks they're not capable enough of winning the war on terror?

I mean, I realize Bush needs an open-ended Orwellian war to justify all his other crap, but that's not the same thing as admitting it in public.

I'm with the "This is a political goldmine" camp, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. And think what this statement does for the morale...
... of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Thanks for the effort, troops, too bad it will all be for naught."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sub.theory Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
26. I think Bush just lost the election
Man, this is great news. They just have to keep it up. Even Bush doesn't think he can win the War on Terror. Bush killed nearly 1,000 brave US soldiers, with no plan to win. Just a little "miscalculation", right Chimpy? Bush just lost the election. What a miserable failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. They've probably figured out that they've crippled the economy...
... and so they'll intentionally take a dive -- and let Kerry and the Dems take the fall when the economy goes tits-up, and we get hit with another attack.

</tinfoil>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sleipnir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
27. By "winnable" I hope he means pulling out of Iraq and autonomy for Iraq.
It's "winnable" that the US will stay the fuck out of the MidEast and let the people their decide their own future.

I hope that's what he means, because if not, God help us all, Nader might be proven right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. Sounds like you misunderstood the context of the statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
34. This is what the opposition does
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 05:16 PM by bigtree
Takes statements out of context and proceeds to criticize based on their piecemeal parsing of the words. Here is a more comprehensive outline of Kerry's plan to fight and win the war on terror:

Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism
Remarks of John Kerry


Los Angeles, CA - It’s an honor to be here today at the Burkle Center – named in honor of a good friend and one of America’s outstanding business leaders.

Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure – with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.

As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush’s reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror – only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Bin al Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn’t mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation – and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn’t alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror – an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.

First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world – and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.

America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday.

But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.

And families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor for their loved ones in uniform because George Bush failed to provide it

The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.

And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade. (edit: He doesn't mean Iraq. He has said that the 40,000 does not mean a draft or more U.S. troops to Iraq.)

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

But the challenge for us is not to cooperate abroad; it is to coordinate here at home. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured unprecedented intelligence failures. We must do what George Bush has refused to do – reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. And we must break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement.

In the months leading up to September 11th, two of the hijackers were arrested for drunk driving – and another was stopped for speeding and then let go, although he was already the subject of an arrest warrant in a neighboring county and was on a federal terrorist watch list. We need to simplify and streamline the multiple national terrorist watch lists and make sure the right information is available to the right people on the frontlines of preventing the next attack.

But we can’t take any of those steps effectively if we are stuck with an Administration that continues to stonewall those who are trying to get to the bottom of our September 11th intelligence failures. Two days ago, the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert refused the request of the bipartisan 9-11 commission for just a little more time just to complete their mission. This after the Commission has had to deal with an Administration that opposed its very creation and has stonewalled its efforts.

He didn’t hesitate to pick up the phone and call Denny Hastert to ram through his Medicare drug company benefit or to replace a real Patients' Bill of Rights with an HMO Bill of Goods. This President told a Republican fundraiser that it was in the “nation’s interest” that Denny Hastert remain Speaker of the House. I believe it’s in America’s interest to know the truth about 9-11. Mr. President, stop stonewalling the commission and stop hiding behind excuses. Pick up the phone, call your friend Denny Hastert and tell him to let the commission finish its job so we can make America safer.

Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

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.

And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops. This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

In Afghanistan, we have some NATO involvement, but the training of the Afghan Army is insufficient to disarm the warlord militias or to bring the billion dollar drug trade under control. This Administration has all but turned away from Afghanistan. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. His latest budget scorns that commitment.

We must – and if I am President, I will – apply the wisdom Franklin Roosevelt shared with the American people in a fireside chat in 1942, “it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. It is useless to win a war unless it stays won.” This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry Administration will.

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.

Finally, if we are going to be serious about the War on Terror, we need to be much more serious about homeland security. Today, fire departments only have enough radios for half their firefighters and almost two-thirds of firehouses are short-staffed. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in New York City. We need to put 100,000 more firefighters on duty and we need to restore the 100,000 police on our streets which I fought for and won in 1994 but which the Bush Administration has cut in budget after budget.

We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.

And our ports – like the Port of Los Angeles – need new technology to screen the 95 percent of containers that now enter this country without any inspection at all. And we should accelerate the action plans agreed to in US-Canada and US-Mexico “smart border” accords while implementing new security measures for cross border bridges. President Bush says we can’t afford to fund homeland security. I say we can’t afford not to.

The safety of our people, the security of our country, the memory of our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and heroes we lost on September 11th call on us to win this war we did not seek.

And our children’s future demands that we also do everything in our power to prevent the creation of tomorrow’s terrorists today. Maybe there’s no going back to the days before baggage checks and orange alerts. Maybe they’re with us forever. But I don’t believe they have to be. I grew up at a time of bomb shelters and air raid drills. But America had leaders of vision and courage in both parties. And today, the Cold War is memory, not reality.

I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as “the last best hope of earth.” I believe we can meet that ideal – and that’s why I’m running for President.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Thanks for the post, bigtree...
I probably over-reacted to Edwards comments. They should pin whatever they can on Bush and they can change the positions later if necessary. But they should take full advantage of this in whatever way they can, at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. John Kerry has been strong and consistent on anti-terrorism
The only folks I am against worse than Bushco are these desperate murderers who have been driven to these violent expressions of resistance and opposition to the internationalism and expansionism of our government. There is that line where we have to accept that this is our country (some of us) and we have to defend it against folks who would harm us, for whatever reason. Terrorism has a dynamic that mocks pacifism, and challenges our sensibilities as we are determined to survive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christof Donating Member (469 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
46. WTF?
This war will never end. It will be a waste...just like the war on drugs. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevCheesehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. War on Terror? Or Iraq?
To which war is W referring to? He's duped most people that the war on terror was best waged on Saddam and Iraq.

Where is Osama bin Laden?
(personally, I think he will be conveniently located and captured sometime in mid- to late-October.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC