3
   

Kerry can not be trusted with our security.

 
 
woiyo
 
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 06:54 am
http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Bush+campaign+to+base+ad+on+Kerry+terror+quote+-+Oct+10%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11907880&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FALLPOLITICS%2F10%2F10%2Fbush.kerry.terror%2Findex.html&partnerID=2001

"''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply."


Yep, what a NUISANCE national security is. I am not concerned about the "context" of the statement. It stands by itself. How can anyone trust this man with their lives.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 817 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 07:00 am
A NUISANCE?

The election is still 22 days away, but John Kerry may have just put another nail in his own coffin. The Poodle gave an interview to the New York Times Magazine, and in it he was asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." sKerry's astonishing reply? ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

A nuisance? Get back to where we were? This is a stunning admission. Just when was terrorism merely a nuisance to Americans? Before 9/11? Evidently that's Kerry's perception. Kerry has publicly stated that he wants to return to the pre-911 Clinton policies whereby Islamic terrorism was treated like a law enforcement problem. He wants to go back to the time where America was repeatedly attacked over a 20-year period, yet we did virtually nothing to retaliate. After all, we treated the terrorists like they were a nuisance.

Will Kerry tell the families of the American sailors killed on the USS Cole that the Islamic murderers who killed them were just a mere nuisance? How about the families of the Marines killed in the Khobar towers in 1996? Kerry was in the Senate on that terrible day ... and we heard no call for firm action from him.

How about the Israeli families who lost children when Palestinian terrorists attacked Israeli schools? What a nuisance that was! Do you know how long it takes to clean up all that blood and stuff?

Well, as we found out on September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists are not a nuisance. They are a threat to freedom and an evil menace that has to be crushed. But it's Bush who wants to destroy them, not Kerry. Once the Islamic terrorists have been reduced to a mere nuisance level, Kerry will be able to turn his attention to other matters, like raising taxes on the evil rich (apparently another nuisance) and expanding the reach of the Imperial Federal Government with trillions more in federal spending.

Wait! There's more! Listen to what else Kerry had to say:

"As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Oh really? We're going to compare Islamic jihadists flying airplanes into buildings and slaughtering 3,000 innocent people with prostitutes or someone taking a bet on a football game? Unbelievable. He is comparing terrorism to a victimless crime that society tolerates. In other words, he's saying that we should just learn to live with the terrorism, as long as there's just not too much of it. Maybe we ought to establish terror districts in major cities. If we can just limit the killings to certain neighborhoods everything will be hunky dory.

The Bush camp is jumping on this big-time, and they should. The ads will start rolling soon on this one. The United States is engaged in a struggle against terrorism and the Democratic nominee for president of the United States is calling it a nuisance.

Like the TV ads are going to say...how can Kerry fight the war on terror when he doesn't even understand the threat?
-Boortz
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 07:01 am
woiyo, you should move to place where they have a local police force or sheriff's department!
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 07:11 am
How can you tell...one day Kerry says the threat has been exaggerated and the next he says we're not taking it serious enough. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 07:45 am
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-campaign-bush.html?

[if the link don't work just go to nyt.com]
Quote:
Bush, Kerry Camps Battle Over War on Terror
By REUTERS

Published: October 10, 2004


Filed at 5:26 p.m. ET
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush and Democrat John Kerry battled over who can best make the United States safer on Sunday, the Bush camp accusing Kerry of wanting to treat terrorists like gamblers and the Kerry side saying his Republican opponent was soft on homeland security.
The Bush campaign, in a new television ad, accused Kerry of comparing terrorism to a law enforcement problem like gambling and prostitution, seizing on a comment Kerry made to The New York Times Magazine.
``Terrorism ... a nuisance? How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?'' the ad script asked.


Kerry had told the magazine: ``We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise.''

The Kerry campaign called the Bush ad a distortion and put out a rapid response ad, entitled ``Can't Win.'' It said 95 percent of shipping containers coming into the United States go uninspected -- ``$200 billion for Iraq, but to inspect containers, secure bridges. tunnels, and chemical plants -- Bush says we can't afford it.''
THIRD DEBATE AHEAD
``And on the war on terror, Bush said: 'I don't think you can win it.' Not with his failed leadership. It's time for a new direction,'' the ad script said.
Bush, in a recent television interview, expressed doubt the war on terror could ever be won but quickly reversed himself.
The ad war erupted as both candidates looked ahead to their third presidential debate, in Tempe, Arizona, on Wednesday, a session to be devoted to domestic policy.
Top Bush aides said Bush would be prepared to accuse Kerry of shifting positions for political purposes and portray him as an out-of-the-mainstream Massachusetts liberal.
The liberal bashing strategy is one the Bush campaign used last spring to try to undermine a Kerry jump in the polls after he won the Democratic nomination for president.
But Bush aides predicted the Iraq war and the war on terrorism would reappear as well with Bush hoping to score points by pointing out what his campaign called varied and conflicting Kerry positions.
The attack strategy against Kerry is reminiscent of how the president's father, George Bush, ran in 1988 when he painted former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis as an out-of-touch liberal. The elder Bush was able to erase a double-digit summer lead in the polls for Dukakis with sharp attacks portraying him as soft on crime.
KERRY'S VOTING RECORD QUESTIONED
Bush campaign aides said Kerry has shown a tendency to gloss over aspects of his 20-year congressional record, one they say shows the Massachusetts Democrat is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.
``You can run, but you can't hide,'' Bush said during the second debate on Friday night in St. Louis. ``He voted 98 times to raise taxes. ... It's just not credible to say he's going to keep taxes down and balance budgets.''
Kerry dismissed Bush's charges and said, ``Labels don't mean anything.''
Said senior Bush adviser Karl Rove: ``There's a reason that he wants to ignore it, because it shows that he is a typical Massachusetts, out-of-the-mainstream liberal, and that's not what he wants people to recognize.''
The Kerry campaign insisted the decorated Vietnam veteran has a moderate record, citing his support of a balanced budget and for putting more police on the streets.
``They've been trying to do this the entire campaign and they've been unsuccessful because they are running into something called facts,'' said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer. ``The fact of the matter is John Kerry is very much in the mainstream.''


Kerry may have phrased his words in a way that it could be easily be spinned if taken out of context. But all he meant was that we are never going to get rid of terrorism so are we going to spend all our waking moments stressing about it? It is just another way of saying be on the alert but go on about your lives.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:04 am
Walter - Sorry, where I live keeps my feet firmly plated on the ground moving forward.

You have most of the acherage taken in the land of de-nile!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:11 am
So, woiyo and McG, you are basically buying the Bush campaign's twisted interpretation of his quote then? Somehow they've made terrorism = security and declared that he called it a nuisance. Doesn't all this make you tired?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:17 am
Freeduck, how many times have we had to listen to the twisted interpretations of what Bush has said?

It's our turn.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:17 am
Oh okay. Enjoy yourself then.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:38 am
McGentrix wrote:
Freeduck, how many times have we had to listen to the twisted interpretations of what Bush has said?

It's our turn.


Just so we understand then. You agree that it is a twisted interpretation of what John Kerry said?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:42 am
"``We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise.''


There is the quote. In english so you can understand it. Which part do you not understand?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 08:45 am
It makes sense to me. What part do you not agree with? Do you believe we can eliminate terrorism the way we eliminated drugs and poverty?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:00 am
woiyo

Even Bush said that the war on terror can't be won.

Terror can't be completely won, but it can be reduced so that it won't be on the rise, like kerry said.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:01 am
Duck - Kerry compare terrorism to harmless vice's such as prostitution and gambling.

Any reasonable person should be able to see that the comparison is fundementally wrong. What Kerry is saying to me with this quote is that it is OK to tolerate a little terrorism, it would be OK for terrorists to blow up some Army base somewhere, blow up a ship at Sea, knock down a building or two.

Sorry, can not support someone who thinks that way.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:05 am
woiyo wrote:
Duck - Kerry compare terrorism to harmless vice's such as prostitution and gambling.



...and organized crime. While I agree with you that, in small measure, prostitution and gambling are harmless vices, I seriously doubt that most of us would enjoy living in a society where these things ran rampant. I think you get his drift but are enjoying seizing on his words in order to paint him into some sort of extreme political freakshow. We could do this all day long with Bush quotes but choose not to because it gets boring after a while.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:09 am
woiyo

Obviously you have no real idea about the worldwide terrorism - a look at this site could give some help.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:10 am
woiyo wrote:
Duck - Kerry compare terrorism to harmless vice's such as prostitution and gambling.

Any reasonable person should be able to see that the comparison is fundementally wrong. What Kerry is saying to me with this quote is that it is OK to tolerate a little terrorism, it would be OK for terrorists to blow up some Army base somewhere, blow up a ship at Sea, knock down a building or two.

Sorry, can not support someone who thinks that way.


You was not supporting kerry in the first place.

Anyway, we do not tolerate illegal gambling and prostiution. We prosecute when and where it happens to the fullest extent possible. However we know we can't stomp it out completely because for every illegal gambling ring or prositition ring that they prosecute another one takes it place. It is the same with terorism and it always will be. There will never be a day where we can, "there is no more terrorism in the land, we have prevailed." That was all Kerry was saying and I think you know it, like freeduck said.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:36 am
FreeDuck wrote:
It makes sense to me. What part do you not agree with? Do you believe we can eliminate terrorism the way we eliminated drugs and poverty?


I'm shocked....since when have we eliminated drugs and poverty?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:41 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
It makes sense to me. What part do you not agree with? Do you believe we can eliminate terrorism the way we eliminated drugs and poverty?


I'm shocked....since when have we eliminated drugs and poverty?

of course we did, we priced them out of reach for the common man
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Oct, 2004 09:59 am
Hah!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kerry can not be trusted with our security.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 10:07:02