Kerry: Terrorists Just Nuisance
Find a Conversation
Kerry: Terrorists Just Nuisance
| Sun, 10-10-2004 - 5:46pm |
We now know why Kerry has such a difficult time formulating a policy regarding terrorism. For him. . .what's the big deal?. . .they're just a nuisance! In a New York Times interview published today, Kerry said: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.'' I'd like to see him explain to 3,000 9/11 families that terrorists are "just a nuisance". . .I'd like to see him explain to 350 Beslan Russian families that terrorists are "just a nuisance". . .I'd like to see him explain to the Israeli families attacked by suicide bombers that terrorists are "just a nuisance". Kerry is living in LaLa land: a universe where the French and Russians didn't really sell arms to Saddam, where UN officials didn't corrupt the food for oil program, where by sheer personal "charm" he is going to convince our allies to join him in "the wrong war, at the wrong place, in the wrong time". Right!

Pages
Bev
The UN turned the Oil for Food Program into the biggest scam in history and the security council was being bribed by Saddam.
Renee ~~~
The context is that John Kerry does not have a realistic view of the world. People who blow up school children, who behead civilians (or anyone else for that matter) and post films of the beheading on the internet, who encourage children to be suicide bombers, etc. etc. etc. are not and never will be just a "nuisance". Kerry would be just about as effective in dealing with the terrorists as Neville Chamberlain was in dealing with Hitler - for all our sakes I hope he never gets the chance!
--
You can read it plainly and still not get the context? How is this possible? You must hate Kerry, that's how.
Drug lords use terror, Drug lords kill innocents, Drug lords blow up children. Drug Cartels hold governments and people hostage.
You posted this thread by saying: Kerry said they're just a nuisance. Wrong.
Where to begin?
A president in your lifetime had courage to not attack and saved me, yet a president in my lifetime ("Mr. Chicken") didn't? The only Mr. Chicken I know twice lobbed cruise missiles into Iraq to distract the media from Monica and the impeachment, rather than attacking, so you must mean Clinton. Or perhaps Carter, who gave up after "Desert One".
"Has no clue" This President has outwitted the Democrat machine time and again since December 18, 2000. Simply repeating Bush doesn't have a clue is becoming less effective of a tactic this late in the race -- as is calling his supporters worse than stupid while trying to win their vote.
"Has no clue": With "apologies" to 'Inigo Montoya': You keep using those words. I do not think you know what they mean.
Edited 10/12/2004 7:42 pm ET ET by frvt
Clinton said he was against the war, and didn't go. I admire that. Others were for it and went. I admire that. Kerry went, came back against and spoke against it. I admire that. George was for the war, yet said he would not go to Vietnam. That is not someone standing for what they believe. Chicken. If he was for the war, why not go? He was able. Heck, all he was doing was hanging around campaigns, coming in late and leaving early. Is only tough when someone else is doing the fighting, or when he has the best military in the world at his disposal.
>>"Has no clue" This President has outwitted the Democrat machine time and again since December 18, 2000. Simply repeating Bush doesn't have a clue is becoming less effective of a tactic this late in the race -- as is calling his supporters worse than stupid while trying to win their vote.<<
He indeed has no clue. He had no idea how to answer Kerry in the first debate until his staff told him what to say afterward. He doesn't listen to other opinion, and hates criticism. I feared for this country under one other president. This president scares me more.
Ever since I was a child and the Vietnam war raged, people have made comments along the lines of "love it or leave it," as if we are supposed to blindly follow our leaders as when they propose sending our soldiers off to die. Yeah, there are times we must... but there are also times a president gets it wrong. This is a democracy, and in a democracy, we speak when we feel the need to do so. If enough agree, then policy is changed. Over time in the 1960's, the anti-war movement bounced a president, as he chose not to run again. And it ultimately led to another resigning.
Yes, the US has put itself and our young on the line. Yet I no longer can believe that we only do what is right, that we only fight when attacked, because someone in the White House now changed that, and as mentioned elsewhere, the significant was not lost on me.
For most of my life, there was a reason for us to behave... another country was opposing us, and we had to tread carefully. Now... there is no one who can stop the shear power of our military, and unfortunately we are fast being viewed as a bully. Do you like bullies? Would you like me to impose my opinion upon you? That is how much of the world now views us. They do not see altruism, they see greed and self interest. They do not see desire for community, they see desire to rule.
You forget that we had Allies in WWII that also treated defeated nations reasonably. Such was not the case after the first world war, and it helped trigger the second. And out of the second world war, we dumped an ally and made him an enemy (Ho Chi Minh.) You also forget that this country owes it's independence in part to the French, without whom you would be curtsying to Queen Elizabeth.
I love my country... and wish to have the ideals back. Wish to be seen as a country that reasons, not fights, unless it has to. I've said it many times, we could learn a lot from our Canadian friends. Imagine what we could do settle disputes, etc. This warrior nation stuff has got to go.
Pages