« Kerry Was For Freedom Of Speech Before He Was Against | Home | Bush Haters Wrapping Themselves In The Flag »
John Kerry’s “Sensitive” War On Terror
By Matt Margolis | August 6, 2004
John Kerry in speech today at the 2004 UNITY Conference gave us a picture of what kind of a war on terror he would “fight.”
“I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
Sensitive? Does Kerry not want to offend our enemies? The same enemies that want to destroy us? Does Kerry want to be more mindful of the desires of France, Germany and Russia before we consider our national security? What kind of a war on terror is that? John Kerry may want to fight a politically correct war on terror, but I want to win the war on terror, and so does George W. Bush. You don’t defeat your enemies by appeasing them. You can’t defend your country only after getting a permission slip from your “allies.”
George W. Bush understands that. John Kerry doesn’t.
Support the war on terror and donate to the Bush campaign today.
Topics: John Kerry Watch |
Related Posts:
August 6th, 2004 at 11:00 am
sensitive is not a bad thing. you DO want to think about your enemies. the last thing we want to do is piss them off, which is what bush has done. he has significantly increased the al queda membership, because other people are so afraid of him. people in europe actually think bush is a worse man than bin ladan and saddam (the hungary story from a couple months ago). is that a good thing?!?!
you don’t want to make these people your friends, but you also don’t want to anger them too much (and give them more drive to hurt us). therefore, a “sensitive” approach is definitely needed.
but don’t overanalyze the word sensitive. it does not mean asking for permission before fighting the war on terror. it just means not taking the “bully” approach.
August 6th, 2004 at 11:01 am
btw, just in case anyone tries to use this, I don’t think that bush is worse than saddam or bin ladan. there is obviously no comparison. saddam and bin ladan are horribly evil! i’m just saying what others think…
August 6th, 2004 at 11:09 am
Kerry isn’t saying be sensitive to our enemies. He is saying he would conduct the war in a more careful way which would create more allies in the war, thus helping us to win it with less risk. Can you EVER post without distorting?
August 6th, 2004 at 11:14 am
Actually, the reason the terrorists hit us on 9/11 is PRECISELY because we had used the ’sensitive’ approach up until that point. We had pussy footed around them and treated them like criminals instead of enemies. You do not worry about angering your enemy by your approach in a time of war. What a completely idiotic statement! The reason they are angry is because they are not getting the response from Bush that they got from Spain, which is to bow down to them and do what they want. May I quote the current governor of CA from one of his more memorable movies when asked what are the best things in life ‘To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentation of their women!’ I don’t care if these complete rejects of society are pissed off when they die…as long as they do. Maybe next time a tyrannical despot or regime (Hitler, Stalin, et al) invades and crushes the limp, self hating, European ‘allies’; maybe we should let them twist longer in the wind before pulling their smelly asses out of the fire!
August 6th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
I disagree with you qt only in that it doesn’t matter how angry our actual enemy is, what does matter is the disposition majority of the population in the Middle East. We’re not at war with them, there’s no reason to make enemies out of the average people there.
I completely disagree with you Ed, the terrorists want us to engage them and invade countries. Bin Laden seriously thought that by defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan he caused it to collapse. They want to convert people to their fundamentalism and start an international jihad to slowly wear us down. And they do this by pointing out policies of ours that piss normal people off. If an American bomb kills civilians they’ll call it terrorism and use it to justify their twisted actions in the eyes of others. I highly doubt they would even exist if they had no policies of ours to tirade about. Unrelenting force in and of itself won’t defeat the terrorists, its not possible and its not effective to search and destroy in every country where terrorists of their kind might exist.
August 6th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
Miles and qt is completely correct on this aspect. We’ve lost all support we had after 9/11 by going after Iraq-which wasn’t even connected to 9/11 OR Al Queda!
Furthermore, Matt, I honestly hope that you don’t really believe that, and that you’re purposefully distorting things.
August 6th, 2004 at 6:26 pm
The niavete being expressed here is dumb founding. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Believing that Islamist extremism in the form of terrorism will disappear if we simply ignore it is indicative that you have no understanding of these people at all. They literally hate you and want to see you gone from the face of the earth because of the very freedoms you are exhibiting in this forum and the lifestyle I am sure you lead. They respect nothing but strength; if you back down or play nicey, nicey it is an indication that you are weak and they can strike at will. They proved this over and over with Lebanon, the first Trade Towers bombing, the Kovart Towers bombing, the African Embassies, the USS Cole and finally 9/11. We were not invading and bombing them, we were not in any other countries, so what made them attack us time and again? It is because they hate us and want us dead. The reason the Soviet Union was unsuccessful in Afganistan was because they were being financially bled dry by the nuclear build up they were forced to finance because of the brilliant actions of Reagan. That was the only reason…they couldn’t support their troops in the field. And I do not know how much more you need in the way of proof of the financial, material and intelligence support that was being provided by Iraq to terrorist organizations including Al Queda. Just because they were not operationally involved with 9/11 does not absolve them from all of the on going support they provided. They were a safe harbor for terrorism and we made it clear the not only terrorists, but the countries that support them are considered combatants in this war. Again, the amount of blindness exhibited here is truly startling and quite frankly scary.
August 6th, 2004 at 6:34 pm
Have you even READ the 9/11 Comession report?
THERE WERE NO CONNECTIONS. PERIOD.
Secondly, you’re obvious ignorant to NOT see what’s been said. Nobody has said “we should attack the terrorists, we should be nice to them.” What’s being said, is that we should NOT just randomly attack places and piss off our allies. We should conduct a sensative war-not in the sense of “terrorists have feelings too,” but in the sense of “let’s NOT just hammer all over the place.”
August 6th, 2004 at 6:49 pm
‘you’re obvious ignorant’ ? Nice grammar. Yes I have read it and it states that Iraq had no involvement with 9/11, this administration never claimed they did. They went in to Iraq to enforce the over 100 violations of U.N. resolutions and did so with 100% backing of every Representative on both sides of the aisle. In case everyone has forgotten, the on going Gulf War was simply in a conditional cease fire pending Hussein’s compliance with the conditions of his surrender. He never did meet those conditions in over 10 YEARS! The inspectors had gotten so fed up that they had completely withdrawn from the country due to the futility of it all. The Iraq war was a culmination of over 10 years of continuing hostilities including shooting at coalition planes in the no fly zones almost daily. Other great results of our actions in Iraq, other than freeing millions of people from tyranny, is Libya has turned over all of their illegal nuclear bomb making materials that literally fill several warehouses in TN. The danger that was represented by them cannot be overstated and the ONLY WAY we found out about them is from documents found in Iraq of the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist that was shopping it around.
August 6th, 2004 at 7:31 pm
Well, now that it’s America’s job to disarm and get rid of dictators, when do we go to North Korea? And I’m glad we saved all those people form tyranny, but when do we go to Africa? Plenty to do over there.
And I meant “obviously ignorant.” You’re seriously not going to hold a TYPO against me, are you?
And the inspectors left because WE were invading, not because they were “fed up.”
August 6th, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Nah, I just thought the typo was funny in conjunction with the word ignorant.
I was referring to when the inspectors left the first time under Clinton’s watch. They did finally go back in under extreme pressure from both the UN and US, but were unable to accomplish anything prior to the invasion and there was no indication that cooperation was forthcoming.
I believe North Korea, the Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc will have to either do as Libya and Pakistan and begin to cooperate and fix their own issues with terrorism or we will have to take a stronger role there as well. We just simply cannot sit idly by and hope that it will eventually go away.
We tried that with North Korea under Clinton and due to the pact we made with them and trusted them on, they were able to aquire technology sufficient to complete their first two nuclear weapons as well as develop the capacity to deliver them long range thanks to US technology that was allowed to fall into the hands of the Chinese.
Again, Iraq was first on the list since they were already in violation of International law including UN resolutions and the agreements of the first Gulf War.
August 6th, 2004 at 9:53 pm
“Have you even READ the 9/11 Comession report?”-Kyle
Well, we know you haven’t - cuz that’s not what it says.
August 7th, 2004 at 1:52 am
Hey, Matt? Instead of standing at the side and throwing insults, why not prove me wrong? I’ll bet it’ll have a much more significant impact.
August 7th, 2004 at 2:40 am
Kyle,
32 countries are assisting our ‘unilateral’ liberation of Iraq. France and Russia were paid off by Saddam to veto any UN action.
http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/oil4food_un.html
The 911 commission report states that there were ties between AQ and Saddam, but that Saddam didn’t help plan the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Two wrong statements out of three in one sentence.
Okay, you’ve been proven wrong. I’ll take that bet - the only impact this [i]might[/i] have is goalpost moving.
tweell
August 7th, 2004 at 4:09 am
First of all, tell me what page in the 9′11 commission report it says Saddam and Al-Queda are linked. I expect you to completely cite your sources.
Secondly, as for all the countries that support us, how many of their citizens support us?
Thirdly, if you know how often the US uses it’s veto-ing ability, you should not criticize others.
Fourthly, why are we in Iraq? I was told weapons, but they don’t exist. I was told a connection to 9/11, but that doesn’t exist. So why are we there?
YOu gotta PROVE me wrong, bud
August 7th, 2004 at 4:41 am
Ok Kyle, page 470 note 75 to chapter 2.
Hmmm that was just from looking at the notes section. Going to find the paragraph in the main report.
Kyle you are really going to hate this: (from page 66)
That was from three or four minutes of hitting control-f Iraq on the .pdf file. Need any further citation?
You are right Kyle. NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER! We are wrong.
August 7th, 2004 at 4:52 am
Ohhh sooooo sorry Kyle I just noticed the next paragraph: (Still on page 66, please do try to keep up Kyle)
Ouchie… Yes again NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER, right? It is all a “reported connection”, correct eh Kyle?
Oh to throw you a bone the paragraph continues with the following:
Iraq *HAD* contacts with Bin Ladin. The contacts did not result in any action against the US. And no one here ever claimed otherwise.
Is that good enough for you Kyle or should I give you more citations?
August 7th, 2004 at 7:53 am
Also in regards to ‘Fourthly, why are we in Iraq? I was told weapons, but they don’t exist. I was told a connection to 9/11, but that doesn’t exist. So why are we there?’
While the intelligence communities of the ENTIRE world indicated Irag did have and would use WMD and it was cited as another reason that the invasion was necessary, it was by far NOT the only reason. The MAIN reason that was listed for going to war with Sadaam was the final violation of resolution 1444 after multiple other violations and continued defiance of the world community. WMD were listed along with violations of human rights involving wood chippers, etc to try and get all of the fence sitters to get on board, I still do not believe that was necessary, but apparently Bush was concerned about your feelings. And ONCE AGAIN 9/11 was not cited as a reason for the invasion of Iraq! Quit saying that, because it is not true!
August 7th, 2004 at 4:41 pm
So you admit that nothing happened between the two? Please, don’t get me wrong. They met. But nothing CAME of it. There’s a difference between meeting someone and having a connection to them. In this case, there is no actual ties between Iraq and OBL.
There’s a lot of debate going around about him breaking 1444. To be honest, I’ll admit that I don’t know too much about international law. However, if it was such a clear cut case, then he should have simply used that from the beginning. Instead we got:
1) WMDs. They don’t exist.
2) Terrorist connections. Over 50% of the populace believes that 9/11 and Iraq were connected, despite proof that they were not. I’m not harping on 9/11 again, I’m just stating what surveys have shown.
3) “For the good of the people.” So why aren’t we in Sudan right now?
August 7th, 2004 at 5:10 pm
Ed I am having doubts if you understand the enemy. Have you ever read anything Bin Laden has said? Well hes a fucking nut job, but you will not hear him tirading about our freedoms or our lifestyle. He complains about specific policies, our support for Israel, the bombing of Libya, stationing troops in “Holy Lands” like Saudi Arabia, invading Iraq the first time and bombing it for 10 years afterwards, supporting secular dictatorships, etc. That doesn’t mean our policies are wrong by any means, but it indicates that fanatics can exaggerate and contort our actions so they can gain greater support for their cause. I’m not advocating ignoring the problem as you apparently would like to think of me, but it has to be taken into consideration what motivates the terrorists and what they use to grow their numbers. If the War on Terror’s main strategy is to democratize Middle East countries one by one then the terrorists will not be eliminated. Kill the terrorists, of course because the lunatics themselves don’t care about what we do and will still attack us. But also work to change our perception in the Middle East and look at our policies to see which ones are important to protect our interests and which ones are detrimental to our interests. Even the Cato Institute is calling for us get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, something that deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz has suggested doing as well.
August 7th, 2004 at 6:54 pm
Miles, great comments. I think it is probably some of both. The terrorist leadership does in fact site ‘American aggression’ as their reason because they are trying to at least buy some semblance of legitamacy with the more liberal components of the western democracies. But the rank and file of the terrorist camps are invariable drawn from the poor, the disenfranchised, etc. They are fueled by blind hatred and resentment. I know this is painting with a broad brush, but I have seen both sides presented.
I think you have hit on the real crux of the difference in parties…what is the correct approach. All I will say on this is we tried the over cautious approach under Clinton for 8 years, we tried legal discourse, negotiations, inspectors, etc. The result was the worse attack on American soil since WW2. I just see no eveidence that trying to reason with these guys is going to work. Sometimes you have to use the big stick and it seems that is all they respect. It will be rough in the short term, but as long as there is a good carrot (ala Libya and Pakistan) behind the big stick, I think we will find them more compliant than you might think.
August 7th, 2004 at 6:57 pm
And Kyle….you sound like a broken record. See my responses above. The reason we aren’t in Sudan is it would be the height of military idiocy to stretch us any thinner. Hopefully NATO and some of our ‘allies’ that are sitting around bitching about all the incriminating oil for food documents we are finding in Iraq, might be persuaded to help out this time?
August 7th, 2004 at 7:32 pm
Looks like I won the bet, Kyle. Aww, are those goalposts heavy? Poor baby. I recommend a brain transplant - but your body would probably reject it [b]again[/b].
tweell
August 7th, 2004 at 11:34 pm
Jesus Kyle. Our side has freaking claimed contacts. I take it what I posted doesn’t rise to the levels of contacts in your universe.
1) Mustard gas and sarin. You are right Kyle. Those are not chemical weapons, right.
2) Ok surveys show that many people believe Iraq was connected to 9/11. Yet no one here nor in the the administration ever made that freaking claim.
On the other hand. John Kerry freaking admitted to committing war crimes is sworn testimony. Yet surveys of people who listen to NPR or CNN say he didn’t.
No I am not going to cite “those surveys” because it wouldn’t matter to you anyway. Oh btw where are your surveys on people believing Iraq was connection to 9-11. Even if you give me something like an official bipartisan report it won’t mean a freaking thing. After all I am just applying your level of consideration.
No one has ever claim an Iraq/9-11 connection. We have looked at the evidence and realized that it wasn’t the case. Oh but that’s right we are open minded to information whereas you are “No matter what you offer it will not good enough! I am the Great Kyle I am 100% right!”
3) Why aren’t we in Sudan? We are trying to do something. But once again the damn frogs keep blocking us. Not only that, but what kind of fit would your freaking two faced side throw if we did anything more than talk. After all we must be sensitive.
4) Did you ride the short bus to school?
Since you like citations, even though they are never good enough for you, check out this from dictionary.com
“Contact -
“2.a.# Connection or interaction; communication: still in contact with my former employer.”
“Offered safe haven…” That’s not contact?
“Well gee Fred. though luck at home. Tell ya what why don’tcha stay at my place a while until your wife cools down.”
I gave you the citiation we were talking about. Do I need to spell it out again? Iraq and Bin Ladin *did* meet. I guess in your universe meetings aren’t contacts. Fine.
Everybody Kyle is right. After all it *does* matter what the definition of is is. “There’s a difference between meeting someone and having a connection to them.” There is a difference between contacts and the “real meaning” of contacts according to Kyle.
—
Look Kyle I went into this giving you the information you requested we provide. I extended a small respect to you by treating you as someone who would take some new knowledge and apply it to your worldview.
“They met but that’s not contact.”
What the hell do you freaking call it?
“You gotta PROVE me wrong bud.”
Kyle with absolutely no due respect, we can’t prove you wrong because you are a closed minded two brain cell waste of oxygen. Now go slither off to your womb like moonbat cave with all the other “Kosovo is ok but Iraq is wrong” liberals.
August 8th, 2004 at 5:45 am
Settle down folks, no need to throw insults here. I’m sure we can debate like rational human beings, and not children.
**sticks flag in the moral high ground** Mine :p
Now, first of all, twell, I haven’t actually see you post something since my last post, so please don’t comment unless you have something intelligeble to add.
Now, I can see you haven’t been doing your research. The sarin shell has uneffective, the people who rigged it up didn’t even know what it was-it might even be a leftover from mid-1990’s. In fact, David Kay has outright said that it isn’t evidence of Saddam making WMDs.
As for the mustard gas, it’s believed to have been buried for about 10 years. Furthermore, it’s believed that around 136 of these shells exist. Even coalition military spokesmen have commented that they’re likily to be leftovers from the Iraq-Iran war from the eighties.
As for the 9/11-Iraq connection, I was simply stating that a large number of people put the two together. Why? I have my own thoughts-mainly, the timing and circumstance between Afghanistan and Iraq-but those are unproven and are, simply enough, my thoughts on the matter.
As for Sudan, I was showing how liberating the people is not reason enough. This is one of the many reasons stated by the Bush administration, and I was refuting it. There’s no need to get testy and to hurl insults.
I find it amusing that you even pull out the definition of “contact.” You see, I just re-read every post I’ve made in this section, and I never used the word ONCE. Go ahead, look at all my comments. Find where I used the word.
Furthermore, I said there were no connections. Yes, they had contact. Yes, they met. But did anything COME of it? I can go over to my friends house and make wild escapades about robing banks and whatnot and never act on it. If he then goes to rob a bank, is there a viable and legal connection to me? And more so, is there one to the point where I can be persecuted for it?
Humourously enough, I also don’t recall ever saying Kosovo was ok. Might you show me where I made that claim? It’s probebly right next to when I said “contact.”
(Oh, and before someone blasts me about it, the whole “flag in the moral high ground” thing was a JOKE)
August 8th, 2004 at 11:42 am
Kyle is so right…nothing ever became of the link between al Qaeda and Saddam. And you know why nothing ever became of it? Because we took Saddam out before anything ever could come of it.
Kyle is an absolute f**king moron. “There was contact, but nothing ever came of it.” What the f**k??? Hey…moron…kindly explain to us what the point of any contact would be? Building a hospital together? Exactly what purpose could Iraqi officials have had in meeting with al Qaeda? Planning a home and away soccer exchange? You absolute and utter fool.
August 8th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
Hmmm it seems my longish reply to Kyle is munched by the net. *shrug*
“*Flag in the moral high ground*”
Kyle your moral high ground is nothing more than an ant hill in Death Vally California.
August 8th, 2004 at 3:20 pm
Actually, Kyle if you and your friend discuss ways to rob a bank and lay out schemes to do so, and then your friend goes and robs the bank, you can in fact be prosecuted as an accessory to the crime with almost as harsh a penalty. And since you were letting him stay at your house while ya’ll discussed the plans that would also be aiding and abeting. The cops would come to your house on a warrant and arrest you. If youresisted with a weapon they could use deadly force. How do you believe this is any different than what we did in I raq other than the scale?
August 8th, 2004 at 6:09 pm
Robert, really, the animosity is not neccisary. Calm down. We can have a debate like adults, and not have to resort to attacking each other personally.
Cannon, as I said, the flag thing was a joke. I noticed you haven’t shown where I said either “Kosovo was right” or the word “contact.”
Ed, the problem you have here is that you don’t know what my friend and I were talking about. let’s say that we were talking about robbing a bank. However, the police would not know this, because the only evidence as such is his word and my word. For all they knew, we could’ve been talking about building a hospital, or planning various soccer activities.
In fact, that same could have gone to three other people’s houses, and every single one of these meetings could have been about evidence. Now, naturally the police would investigate-but in the end, it would come down to his word and my word.
Did Iraq and Al-Qaeda meet? Yes. However, that alone is not evidence enough to attack Iraq unless we know what happened at the meeting. It could be very, very likily that they were planning attacks. But you don’t see Bush citing the 9/11 Commession Report as proof of a viable connection between the two, because they have yet to find evidence of what exactly went on during the meeting.
However, and this is personal opinion that could very easily be incorrect, but to plan an attack on a foreign and overseas country is a large task; one that would take more then a few meetings to plan. Once again, I could very easily be wrong about this, but this is my opinion at the moment.
August 8th, 2004 at 7:38 pm
Kyle thank god you are not a prosecutor. There would never be any conspiracy convictions.
And NO WE CAN’T have a civil debate. Debate requires the possibility of accepting the other side’s information. You will never accept anything we have to offer.
Kyle you are right about the joke. Yes I was being humorous also. After all you have no moral backbone whatsoever and are nothing more than a mouthbreathing drooling idiot. Dude quit wasting my oxygen. (Oh btw that’s a “joke” haha. No not really.)
August 8th, 2004 at 8:16 pm
You know, you didn’t actually respond to anything there. All you did was hurl around insults.
You’re really not making your cause seem any better. I would like to commend Ed; he gave a reasonable argument without doing what you have done-resort to childish antics and the usage of derragatory comments to lessen my point.
August 8th, 2004 at 8:59 pm
Kyle, it was more than just a meeting etc. Al Queda and other terrorist groups have been using Iraq to locate training bases, there has been monetary support as well as on at least 2 occasions that I am aware, Iraq secret police met with either Al Quada operatives or their conspirators. And that is just what the public knows…there was not just one ‘Hey, how ya doin’ meeting between Sadaam and OB.
August 9th, 2004 at 1:21 pm
Look, Iraq did not cause 911, there are no WMDs, and Bush does not have the power to control time and space like you guys think he can.
August 9th, 2004 at 2:35 pm
“You know, you didn’t actually respond to anything there. All you did was hurl around insults.”
Kyle, once again you show your grasp of reality. Hmmm shall we review”
Kyle: Show me citations of Bin Ladin/Iraq. Prove me wrong bud.
Cannon: Page 66.
Kyle: They talked but didn’t have connections. I am the great Kyle
Cannon: No you are a moron.
Hmmmm I didn’t respond? I never put forth the citiation you requested we provide? Absolutely freaking correct. Gee Kyle, what color is the sky in your universe?
August 9th, 2004 at 2:47 pm
Snicker. Kyle, putting your foot in your mouth seems to have stomped on your brain. I didn’t need to post anymore, other people made the point much better. I notice you don’t have anything to say about ‘unilateral’. Nice try, but being wrong, not saying anything about it and hoping no one notices does not earn you the moral high ground. AQ and Saddam did talk, as has been proven. Now you want to move the goalposts to all-but-impossible by now wanting us to know what they were talking about. Riiight.
I don’t see any reason to treat you like an intelligent human being. Since proving you wrong didn’t have any significant impact (other than goalpost moving, which was my bet), why not amuse myself by describing you accurately?
tweell
August 14th, 2004 at 7:25 am
Hussein made overtures to Bin Laden but nothing came of it. That doesn’t make Iraq responsible for 9/11. Reagan aided Bin Laden back in the 1980s when he was a mujadeen leader in Afghanistan against the Soviets. It doesn’t make America responsible for 9/11 either. Look, the 9/11 Commission said there was no Iraq-911 connection and Bush handpicked those guys. Bush himself never came out directly and said Iraq caused 911. The only one who does is Cheney, who says these things to the right-wing media so he can please those who only get their news from Fox and talk radio.
August 14th, 2004 at 6:33 pm
Hmm. Neville Chamberlain and his cabinet tried to deal with Hitler in a sensitive way…look what happened there. And even if Kerry’s remark only applied to our “allies”, our sensitivity would only make us the laughingstock in every foriegn ministry in Europe. Kerry’s leadership would only put us under the thumbs of people we imagine to be our friends who probably would betray us as soon as they find it necessary.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:17 am
hi sir.
sir i want to work for Human .So i decide that i should work vid You.Sir i want get membership Of international Human right .So plz Sir You include me in Ur great work.
thanks