You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Kerry outlines anti-terrorism plan
2004-02-28
Democrat John Kerry, widely assailed by Republican critics, said Friday that President Bush has failed in his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and faulted the Republican for breaking promises on the economy, education and health care.
In other news, dog bites man ...

The front-runner used a campaign speech to outline his plan to combat terrorism that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances - proposals that Kerry has been touting for more than a year.
The problem that Kerry and others seem to have forgotten is that it was that same approach during the 1990s that brought us 9/11. Take a look at the stories about the CIA's involvement with the Northern Alliance - our intel was solid, but we were so concerned about the particulars of international law or that the Guardian might say mean things about us that we kept holding back, even after the 1993 WTC bombing which was an attempted mass murder of over 50,000 New Yorkers or Oplan Bojinka. Sorry, we aren't going to make that mistake again.

In a somber speech at the University of California at Los Angeles, Kerry said it was Bush who has failed in his response to the Sept. 11 attacks and railed against ``his armchair hawks'' for failing to provide proper equipment for the military.

``We cannot win the war on terror through military power alone,'' said the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He's actually right on this, but we're not. If we were in terms of strictly military force and raw power, Riyadh and Tehran would long ago been reduced to radioactive debris, along with a fair number of other prominent cities in the Muslim world. Or maybe we could have just carpet-bombed them like the Russians did Grozny. And if we're trying to win through military might alone, then why exactly did the good colonel over in Tripoli surrender his toybox without a shot being fired?

Kerry said Iraq is in disarray with U.S. troops bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. He said outlying areas of Afghanistan are sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.
Zarqawi, meanwhile, has a different take altogether on Iraq ...

The Bush administration, he argued, has shown disdain for the Mideast peace process and allowed Iran and North Korea to continue their quest for nuclear weapons that could get into the hands of terrorists.
So does this mean that you're willing to lead us against Iran, which is pretty much doing everything the Taliban was pre-9/11? Or the People's Looney Bin of North Korea, which would sell al-Qaeda the bomb for hard cash in a Hollywood minute. But the Euros all want to "engage" Iran through negotiations and Rowhani is trying become best friends with France, while nobody anywhere near Kimmy's target scope wants to slug it out with him. So which are you more concerned about here, Senator Kerry?

``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, more effective strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned,'' Kerry said.
But you still haven't told us what that strategy is ...
Posted by:Dan Darling

#15  If the Tin Man keeps it up, not even chainey will be able to get him enough oil to help him out.
Posted by: tu3031   2004-2-28 7:54:34 PM  

#14  New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said this week that America would be safer if the Bush administration followed the path of previous administrations and relied on international cooperation to fight terrorism, which, she insisted, had foiled attacks on U.S. targets during the 1990s.


The top Democrat said that America's "detachment" from the world, caused by President Bush's go-it-alone strategy, had undermined the war on terrorism.

From Newsmax. Hitlary is now in the act. After reading Losing Bin Laden I wouldn't vote for a liberal if someone paid me a lot of money to do so. Hitlary seems to forget the Trade tower attack of 93, the 2 embassy attacks later in the 90s and the Cole and many more under her hubbies watch. And she thinks he was doing the right thing!! Give me Bush any day!
Posted by: AF Lady   2004-2-28 4:59:23 PM  

#13  Dave D - I'm also afraid it will take another attack on american soil for the "loyal opposition" to get serious. Kerry is a windbag with no message, as is Edwards. Joe Lieberman had the necessary seriousness, and you can see where that got him....
Posted by: Frank G   2004-2-28 12:23:22 PM  

#12  
"Its becoming sadder and sadder for this country that such craven power-hungry panderers and liars like Kerry are considered seriously for our highest elected office."
Sometimes I wonder if we're going to make it. I really do. Are we smart enough to continue electing leaders who will take effective action against the menace of totalitarian Islam? Do we even have the attention span required to see the fight through to its conclusion? I'm not too sure.

I do know this, though: anyone ignorant and gullible enough to vote for this jerk Kerry, richly deserves to be ruled over by mullahs. This anti-terrorism "plan" of Kerry's is nothing more than platitudes and generalities.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-2-28 11:19:16 AM  

#11  Actually Kerry is simply admitting that George Bush has done a good job on the War. But he could never say so openly. Kerry knows that in a contest for the hearts and votes of 9/11 people, GW will destroy him. So the only thing he has going for him is an appeal to 9/10 folks, as in:

Q "what about the War on Terror?"
A "It's the Economy, Stupid!"

He is in UC California after all. This crowd loves ol' Willie.
Posted by: john   2004-2-28 7:57:29 AM  

#10  Regarding the Rove ad: It's going to be hard to top Grouchy Media.
Posted by: Classic_Liberal   2004-2-28 2:47:43 AM  

#9  ...and allowed Iran and North Korea to continue their quest for nuclear weapons that could get into the hands of terrorists.

As opposed to being in the hands of, say, Iran or North Korea? Loads of difference there, John, you betcha...
Posted by: mojo   2004-2-28 1:41:21 AM  

#8  OldSpook, do you think that maybe Karl Rove has an ad waiting to go that shows each and every weapon system Kerry voted against that is/was being used in Iraq and Afghanistan? It'll have to be a 60 second spot, 30 seconds won't be long enough to show all the Kerry 'no' votes on defense.
Posted by: Steve White   2004-2-28 1:35:48 AM  

#7  Kerry is a "highchair CHICKENdove".
Posted by: Garrison   2004-2-28 1:27:04 AM  

#6  Yeah OldSpook, but he does have that hair. And he hate Bush. Woo hoo!
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-28 1:19:18 AM  

#5  The front-runner used a campaign speech to outline his plan to combat terrorism that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances - proposals that Kerry has been touting for more than a year.

Good heavens, this man must have a skull made out of concrete. Law enforcement? Bubba treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and everyone knows what the end result turned out to be.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-2-28 1:17:36 AM  

#4  :Law Enfrocement"?

Friken moron. This isnt a police action. Its a WAR. Period. Making it law enforcement was what screwed the Clinton administration raw when it came to actually accomplishing things. Law enforcement = lawyers running the show.

War is war. treat it as such or it will treat you harshly.

You'd think 9/11 taught Kerry at least that.

And the gall to say we are sending in troops without proper equipment... Lets check his voting record: Vital systems for the war: JSTARS - voted against. M1 Abrhams - voted against. B1 Bombers - voted against. Increased funding - many times voted against. Expansion of CIA and other agency powers - voted against more than once.

WFT is going on here - is the press so blind as to completely ignore this guy's past 20 years while they try to skin Bush for stuff that happened 30+ years ago?

Its becoming sadder and sadder for this country that such craven power-hungry panderers and liars like Kerry are considered seriously for our highest elected office.

Things liek this make me wonder if all the years I put in service in uniform, and in plain clothes service have been wasted.

We saved this nation from the Soviets. God Help Us save it from our own within it.
Posted by: OldSpook   2004-2-28 1:13:58 AM  

#3  Tommorow he'll be saying his words were taken out of context.
Posted by: Charles   2004-2-28 12:44:43 AM  

#2  Kerry cuts a good figure. But only his hair dresser knows.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-28 12:42:47 AM  

#1  The Kerryites are angry because we "allowed Iran and N Korea to continue their quest for nuclear weapons". But they castigated us for going after Sammy even as we knew he was lusting after nukes as well. If we can't take these guys out before they get nukes, and we dare not touch them after, then when do we deal with ... oh, right, we don't.
Posted by: Steve White   2004-2-28 12:38:51 AM  

00:00