Article

2004-02-29

What Kerry Actually Said On Winning The WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Traveller 2004-02-29 7:55:51 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Fine words by a man whose entire career has been to cut the very military and intelligence agencies he says he will now support even more strongly than Bush has. Yeah.

And I love his cracks about our troops not having all the equipment they needed. So now Kerry is all for the military? He's going to support full funding for them?

He's also awfully worried about how Bush has "alienated" our "long-time friends," after giving the example of how the Pakistanis caught KSM and Ramzi. Obviously they weren't alienated so who was? France and Germany? Germany is making nice with us now, so obviously he's talking about France. What price, exactly, have we paid for France being mad at us? And do we care?

Kerry has a track record. He is anti-military, anti-intelligence agencies, anti-aggressive response to terror.

But now, suddenly, he's a tough guy.

This man has no core principles. Zero. It's obvious to anyone who has even briefly scanned his record.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-2-29 9:21:41 PM|| 2004-2-29 9:21:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I could excuse Kerry's earlier missteps on intelligence and the military if he would acknowledge them and explain why he feels differently now. In addition, his post 911 record is not much better. Most of the steps taken that he voted for he now disavows (Patriot Act, Iraq war resolution). He complains the administration is not giving the troops the support they need but a good part of the $87 billion Kerry voted against was for the troops.

His complaints about fire departments is just bizarre as this is a local issue. If I remember correctly (I'm being lazy and not looking it up.
Sue me!), the federal government has sent money to the states for homeland security needs, so what would he do differently and how much more would he send them?

Overall, his approach sounds much like the approach Bush outlined in his speech before Congress after September 11. We were warned this would take years and we would not see everything that was being done to wage this battle. We would be going after the funding, infrastructure and supporting states of international terrorism, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly.

So, bottom line, I don't trust this man to wage this battle. Everything I agree with in this speech is already being done by the current administration. Not perfectly, and not always the way I think it should be done, but we have to live in this world, not the perfect planning, perfect outcome world of John Kerry.

Posted by Karen 2004-2-29 11:09:59 PM|| 2004-2-29 11:09:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Bush lite = Bud lite

Posted by True German Ally 2004-2-29 11:41:18 PM|| 2004-2-29 11:41:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't know who did the Fisking on this Speech by Kerry, but whoever it was....did a pretty fine job.

I'm kind of sorry that this thread went away so fast.

Posted by Traveller 2004-3-1 12:39:39 AM|| 2004-3-1 12:39:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I will try and keep it substantive per your request:

re: "live and learn...it was the first time we conquered Afghanistan" - I'm hard pressed to think of a more unconditional acceptance. That's just license to make whatever mistakes you want. If we operate under the principle that we are allowed to blunder our primary strategic objective (in Afghanistan - kill or capture bin laden) the "first time" we are wasting a lot of resources.

Re: our unilateral action and the suggestion that maybe France et al were never going to come on board with our policies - maybe that should tell you something about our policies, particularly when your primary (public) rationale is discredited (WMD, links to al qaeda)

Re: arguing the point that Afghanistan is slipping into the hands of the Taliban - the truth is, it isn't slipping into their hands, though really only Kabul is in Karzi's hands at this point. The rest of the country is more or less locked in anarchy. I don't necessarily fault bush here though, as this was by design. Given that it wasn't exactly the cub scouts in line to succeed the Taliban in power, the next best model is to promote instability among brutal factions.

Re: Madeline Albright and North Korea - Bush undermined the food - oil agreement that Albright had in place. The North Koreans were not manufacturing Nuclear weapons (and we were not just taking their word for it). Bush withdrew from the agreement based on "principle", called them an "axis of evil" and now they are building bombs. Nice.

What would Kerry do differently? Seriously? Not much. He'd further stuff the police force - catering to his union constituents much like bush does to the defense lobby (national missile defense...really?). Despite my considerable disdain for Bush, the administration should be commended, at least insofar as it has managed to stave off any considerable terrorist activity since the anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11. There is a lot more that could be done. But results should always be judged before actions.

Posted by mike 2004-08-17 5:05:15 PM|| [http://ad_hominem.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 5:05:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 ...and please stop calling it a "war" on terror. War on terror = war on drugs = inapprorpiate metaphor. A war represents a campaign waged after the exhaustion of all other means. Here, its critical that economic policy, diplomacy, etc are all in locked step.

Posted by mike 2004-08-17 5:09:09 PM|| [http://ad_hominem.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 5:09:09 PM|| Front Page Top

17:09 mike
17:05 mike
17:39 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
00:39 Traveller
23:42 mojo
23:41 True German Ally
23:38 mojo
23:20 Jennie Taliaferro
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Alaska Paul
23:13 Stephen
23:09 Karen
23:02 whitecollar redneck
22:55 B
22:49 B
22:48 B
22:43 Robert Crawford
22:43 Robert Crawford
22:42 B
22:40 B
22:39 Robert Crawford
22:38 Robert Crawford
22:36 Robert Crawford
22:32 Robert Crawford