I keep hearing this line about the "law enforcement" strategy vs. a military strategy. What's the difference? I mean, Clinton did lob a few cruise missiles at bin Laden, if to no great effect. That's not exactly cops and robbers level stuff - hell, that's over and above even LAPD operations (as far as I know).

And what's so great about declaring "War" on stuff anyway? It didn't exactly turn the tide on poverty or illegal drug use.

"because dems are known to be 'soft on terror'."

Now that's pure tripe.

Does anyone actually believe that sort of propaganda? I mean besides the knee-jerk right?

If you want to b a Bush supporter, that is cool, David... But you excerpt for this post is equating John Kerry in the same group as Al Quida. That is no better than the Bush- Hitler scenario.

No, I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying they have the same goal. And I think it is very fair to make this argument considering that in the so-called "peace" marches this weekend there were many people who were holding up signs that had Bush's head pasted onto a Hitler's body.

Thanks.

David

remember ms. tek, the terrorists want kerry elected because dems are known to be 'soft on terror'.

Well, to your point, what did the Clinton Administration do in the years as al Qaeda began a series of attacks against the US and US interests which grew bolder with each passing year? Oh yes, thats right, they "warned" the Bush administration. ;-)

Thanks.

David

Do they make a Burka in lepoard print?

You might want to ask the Taliban. You can find them hiding in fear of their lives somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan. Oh yeah, and you can't wear socks, sorry, Allah says no.

David

If you want to b a Bush supporter, that is cool, David... But you excerpt for this post is equating John Kerry in the same group as Al Quida. That is no better than the Bush- Hitler scenario.

No, I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying they have the same goal.


John Kerry and al Queda have the same goal?

David, can you please tell me in simple words what the goals of John Kerry and al Queda are?

Are you for real David? Do you seriously believe this?

You might want to ask the Taliban. You can find them hiding in fear of their lives somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Actually, if you can find them anywhere, you might want to let the authorities know. The Bush administration is having no such luck.

^^ LOL

so since clinton 'failed' in his dealings with terrorism, kerry will continue on that path. guilt by association. bad logic (actually, no logic).

really, you've gotta lay off that talk radio.

David, can you please tell me in simple words what the goals of John Kerry and al Queda are?

Victoria,

Did you read my post above? If you did, then you would know that what they both have in common is that they want Bush out of the White House.

Thanks.

David

victoria, did you read my post above?....

geezuz dude, your condescension and smugosity appears to be limitless.

you wearin' your slippers and smoking jacket while you type that stuff in?

gawd.

Actually, if you can find them anywhere, you might want to let the authorities know. The Bush administration is having no such luck.

I think your comment goes to the point that liberals care nothing about anything unless it might hurt President Bush (an extension of the ABB philosophy). You've probably heard that Pakistani forces, with American intelligence officers (AKA, Special Forces) are working to root out al Qaeda and Taliban forces hiding in the mountains. What you do not seem to have heard is the fact that Afghani and US forces are conducting a joint operation to root out al Qaeda and Taliban forces as well. Here is an article link discussing some of their successes to date.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114731,00.html

This weekend, hundreds of terrorists have been captured or killed by Pakistani forces. As well, Afghani and US forces in Iraq have kept the Taliban in dissaray and are actively pursuing them so as to prevent any kind of future reorganization.

Thanks.

David

So...

Saddam Invades Kuwait.
Bush Invades Iraq.

So I guess that with that logic, both art tyrants.

Or...

My neighbor hates jews (but never killed one)

Hitler hates jews (and killed many)

My neighbor wants the same thing or is in the same class as Hitler?

so since clinton 'failed' in his dealings with terrorism, kerry will continue on that path. guilt by association. bad logic (actually, no logic).

Mark,

Do you even KNOW what it is your candidate is saying in his public speeches? He has said that he believes we should go back to treating terrorist attacks as "law enforcement" issues!

Now, you can argue whether or not we've gone too far in removing Saddam from power, but to go back to the pre 9/11 strategy of handling a global terrorist organization like al Qaeda is a ridiculous notion. Its exactly that kind of rhetoric which has gotten Kerry into trouble; and please do not doubt that, if Kerry is perceived as soft on national security, he will never be elected president.

Thanks.

David

As well, Afghani and US forces in Iraq have kept the Taliban in dissaray

Sorry, correction here. Not in Iraq, in Afghanista of course. :-)

David

liberals care nothing about anything unless it might hurt President Bush

this is pure bunk.

you paint 'liberal' with your easy-to-handle broad brush and the 'discussion' is over.

it's talk radio poison, i tell ya.

Saddam Invades Kuwait.
Bush Invades Iraq.

So I guess that with that logic, both art tyrants.


Oh, I don't know. You might want to ask the Iraqi people about that one. A recent poll finds that the vast majority say they are better off now than they were a year ago.

In June Iraqis will have the power of self-rule for the first time in 35 years. The rape rooms are closed, their children are no longer murdered just to gain information from the parents, and there will be no more secret mass graves to bury the hundreds of thousands murdered by one of the world's greatest tyrants.

If I were to follow your philosophy, then we would have to call President Lincoln a tyrant, and FDR, and Clinton for invading Haiti.

But, if thats how you want to simplify the issue for yourself, then go for it. :-)

Thanks.

David

I think your comment goes to the point that liberals care nothing about anything unless it might hurt President Bush (an extension of the ABB philosophy).

I want lots of things: open, representative government; a healthy environment; social justice; economic opportunity; security; promotion of the sciences in education and public policy; etc.

The problem is that George Bush Jr., perhaps more than any person in America, stands in the way of these goals. That's why I want him out of office. I don't care whether or not it hurts him.

it's talk radio poison, i tell ya.

And yet, noone wants to answer my point directly. Someone claimed that we were doing nothing to route out al Qaeda and the Taliban, I provided proof of the opposite and... crickets chirping, then... Nahhhh!

Hardly a convincing argument. And I'm not being smug here, I'm defending my argument against five or six people who have chosen to disagree. I respect your right to disagree and I take each question and challenge to heart and try to answer as completely as possible. With that said, it is annoying when people ask me questions or make points which have already been answered in my post.

Thanks.

David

yes, daddy.

we'll try to sit up straight and pay attention better next time.

and you provided no proof, just statements that prop up your creaky set of conjecture.

and you provided no proof, just statements that prop up your creaky set of conjecture.

To which points do you refer? I made several in my original post and have answered several in posted replies.

Thanks.

David

Actually David, that is following YOUR logic.

Once again, you just proved you're one of thos "Cons" who sucks up the media and doesn't look at the bigger picture.

Once again, the stupid mass graves and "rape rooms" come up as they did in another discussion on here.

Who cares? This isn't new or unique. It's not any worse that what happens in Africa, Eastern Europe and parts of South America and Asia every day.

As for all the "happy iraqis"

Why aren't all the "happy iraqis" doing more to take care of their own country? You're telling me that the thousands that march against the US are more organized and intelligent than the ones who support the US? Where are the mass marches in support of the US? What are the everyday Iraqis doing to help the troops? How many insurgents get turned in everyday by "happy iraqis".

If this were in fact happening, we'd hear about it. Bush would be the first to blow that out of his ass because it would support him. But it isn't happening, that isn't how it went down or is going down, and shoving your head in the sand and repeating what your heros tell you isn't going to make it true.

Why aren't all the "happy iraqis" doing more to take care of their own country?

As a matter of fact, many of our recent gains against insurgents have come with the help of Iraqi citizens. And if you want to find out what they are doing to take care of their own country, just read the news. Iraqis are dying now too in defense of their country against both Saddam loyalists as well as foreign terrorists who are deathly afraid of Iraq becoming a democratic nation.

Iraqi police and military forces are now targeted more often that US forces, and terrorists have begun to actively target civilians in Iraq in hopes of deterring upcoming elections. I think you are too eager to discount their sacrifices in order to score points against a President that you hate.

If it were Clinton who had liberated Iraqis, we wouldn't have any of this bunk about Iraq, instead, Clinton would have been handed the Nobel Peace Prize. Clinton might have lacked the courage, or he might just have been a saavy enough politician to know that he could never get the international support for such an act, though it did not stop him from bombing Kosovo. But, after 9/11, we couldn't afford to wait and see what Saddam might or might no do. He was the known threat, the obvious one.

Thanks.

David

Oh boy...

Now you brought up Clinton.

Do you have a boner for Clinton?

CLINTON ISN'T PRESIDENT. HE CANNOT BE PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN.

Iraqi police and military forces are now targeted more often that US forces, and terrorists have begun to actively target civilians in Iraq in hopes of deterring upcoming elections. I think you are too eager to discount their sacrifices in order to score points against a President that you hate.

Wrong. Logic and truth is in the numbers.

What is the population of the whole of Iraq. What is the number of actual people in the police forces there. Then, lets take how many "everyday" people we hear TURING PEOPLE IN.

If the happy iraqis were so focused on being happy as opposed to trying to get the US out and start a civil war, it wouldn't take two tries for the governing councel to sign a statement of government.

The US fought for its own freedom from the UK. So have countless other counties. The Iraqis aren't and have not done enough to warrent our boys and girls dying for them. I want to hear about more people in the street running to help our troops. You don't really hear about that do you? You don't ever hear about them ratting out an enclave of insurgents and turning them over.

If it was important enough, it would be done. Human nature is Human nature.

Now we have former counter-terrorism aid, Richard Clarke, who served for two years under President Clinton and then another two years under President Bush -- a fact which most of the media seems to be conveniently ignoring --

You seem to be "conveniently ignoring" the fact that Clarke actually spent 30 years in government, and in counter-terrorism under Ronald Reagan (right wing icon) and George H. W. Bush, Clinton then kept him on as did the current George Bush.

If anything, he is a creature of the right.

Do you even KNOW what it is your candidate is saying in his public speeches? He has said that he believes we should go back to treating terrorist attacks as "law enforcement" issues!

Do you even KNOW what you're saying?

I'd like to see the quote where Kerry says that (not some twisted illogical-logic misrepresentation) before I'll accept it as anything more than neocon propaganda that you and far too many others seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

JR, on the "law enforcement" thing; I've noticed that too, it's the parrot brigade trotting out the season's new bulleted mantras.

Talking points, y'know... Clinton, law enforcement.... zzzzzz..

Todays' key phrase from the White Hose Press lackey, Scott "Deer in a headlight", was "roll-back"

Clinton wanted to 'roll-back' the terrorists... Bush wanted to eliminate them.

The Eliminator...

Donuts....

Donuts...

Doh!

"Iraqi police and military forces are now targeted more often that US forces"

Part of that may be because US forces are pulling in their horns, in a new occupation policy of staying in their bunkers more, doing fewer patrols, etc.

It's starting to remind me of Afghanistan, where President Karzai is rarely seen in public, requires passing through three checkpoints to see him, and doesn't dare leave Kabul, and where the warlords are battling each other over the opium industry (source of 75% of the world's supply now).

The US fought for its own freedom from the UK. So have countless other counties.

And countless nations have been liberated with the help of other nations. For example, all of Europe and most of Africa from the Nazis.

Your point is?

David

I'd like to see the quote where Kerry says that

As requested:

Sunday, Jan. 31, 2004 11:45 p.m. EST
Kerry Pledges Return to Clinton Terrorism Policies

Democratic presidential front-runner John F. Kerry pledged on Saturday that if he becomes president he'll treat terrorist acts against the U.S. as a law enforcement problem rather than as acts of war - the approach favored by President Clinton throughout the 1990s as Osama bin Laden repeatedly struck U.S. targets with impunity.

Speaking before a group of Oklahoma City firefighters, Kerry complained that the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror."

Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation."

"It's a great big manhunt," Kerry explained. "[The Bush] administration has translated that legitimate threat into a completely wrongheaded kind of full-fledged military response."

Since 9/11, U.S. terrorism experts have said that the Clinton administration's legalistic approach to fighting al-Qaeda not only proved ineffective - it actually emboldened bin Laden to the point where he thought he could launch an attack on U.S. soil without prompting a serious military response.

Indeed, in a 2002 speech to New York business leaders, Mr. Clinton himself cited legal concerns as an excuse for his decision not to have bin Laden arrested five years before the 9/11 attacks.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America," said Clinton. "So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/1/02522.shtml

And countless nations have been liberated with the help of other nations. For example, all of Europe and most of Africa from the Nazis.

And there has always been a core resistance activily fighting in all those cases before other came into help. No one said that the US should not help, but the US should not do the job for them. Freedom earned for yourself is far more valueable than that which is handed to you on a golden plate.

Thanks, Dave.

The complete quote makes sense, where your selective, out-of-context clip does not:

the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror." Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation."

Dave, you need to call the Marketing Boys at the Newt Gingrich Memorial NewSpeak Think Tank and tell them the 'law enforcement' thing is DOA with the public.

[Kerry said] ...the Bush administration "doesn't understand the war on terror." Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation."

---Which is what most 'experts' on terrorism recommend.

In case the boys at the Think Tank haven't noticed, We're fighting a 'war' against an enemy THAT HAS NO STATE. 'kay?

Army invasions don't do much good when you're trying to track down a crop duster filled with Anthrax.

Send in the Marines?

Ever heard of "Terrorist Cells" Dave? They live next door.

19 guys took flying lessons, lived in American apartments, drove Hondas, partied in Florida titty bars, and killed 3000 people in NY City using BOX CUTTERS and American Airlines tickets.

A military action couldn't have stopped that.

A handful of FBI spooks could/should have.

HAL: I'd like to see the quote where Kerry says that (not some twisted illogical-logic misrepresentation) before I'll accept it as anything more than neocon propaganda that you and far too many others seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

By the way, Hal, good call.

Wait, I hear those crickets again... and they're coming from Dave's campground.

chirp~chirp~chirp...

Shark, there aren't too many links to the term on Google and those are right wing sites, like the one Dave provided.

One exception is MSNBC, but it's part of a 'Scarborough Country' session where we find Christine Iverson, Press Secretary of the Republican National Committee saying: "It is shocking to me that John Kerry can say that 9/11 is a law enforcement operation, that the war on terror is a law enforcement operation."

Spin, spin, little spider.

Freedom earned for yourself is far more valueable than that which is handed to you on a golden plate.

I agree with you 100%. At the same time, standing by and watching mass murders is not always a good idea either. You can't solve the problems of the world, but you can try to keep the fire from growing into an inferno.

Thanks.

David

In a "War": Our government opposes another government. Each side's troops kill or capture the other side's troops until the two governments come to terms. Once that is accomplished, maybe some punishment is meted out to the leaders of the losing side; the soldiers who did the actual fighting are not held responsible for their government's policies and they get to go home.

In "Law Enforcement": Individuals commit criminal acts. An attempt is made to track down and prosecute every individual involved. When that is accomplished, none of the criminals get to go home.

I prefer treating the terrorists like criminals. I don't want some guy who set off a bomb in a train to eventually go free because he was "just following orders". Nor do I want terrorists to be given the distinction of being called "soldiers" or "warriors".

Army invasions don't do much good when you're trying to track down a crop duster filled with Anthrax.

Shark,

The new model for defeating terrorism is superior by far over Clinton's model, which is the model that Kerry has stated he would follow.

As Bill Clinton pointed out in the very same article above, he was unable to arrest bin Laden in 1996 because, under the stricter rules they had to follow, they did not have enough evidence. But we know that by this time bin Laden had already engineered the first bombing of the World Trade Centers.

You might not understand this, but making the global response to terrorism gives us more options than we would otherwise have, most of which you and I will never hear about. The police cannot fight a war, the military can.

David

David: "You can't solve the problems of the world, but you can try to keep the fire from growing into an inferno. "

But neither should you say "Gosh, this fire in Afghanistan is too tough, let's go start our own in Iraq."

That's what happened when Rumsefled said there weren't any good targets in Afghanistan, but plenty in Iraq. Ditto a few days later on the 15th of September, 2001:

[9/15/01] "Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan, the nemesis of the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th. Rice was wondering whether it might be the same for the United States in the 21st.

" Her fears were shared by others, which led to a different discussion: Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? ...

" Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

The police cannot fight a war, the military can.

The military is great for fighting countries, but it's only an ancillary tool for fighting terrorism.

As Shark said, the 9/11 bombers lived in the US - are you advocating the carpet bombing of Florida?

The appropriate deployment of forces is intelligence agencies and police to track terrorists down, then military force if required.

In Florida, it wouldn't have been required; in Pakistan, it is; in Iraq, it's a deadly mistake.

I think Kerry's words speak for themselves. Though, ironically, in his January 30 speech to the Oklahoma firefighters, Kerry is quoted above as saying, "'It's a great big manhunt,' Kerry explained," but in a speech made at UCLA on February 27, Kerry is quoted on his own campaign site (johnkerry.com) as saying, "This war isn't just a manhunt."

John "FF" Kerry in action again.

David

oh geezuz, this flip-flop crap is stupid.

bush instituted the steel tarifs, it didn't work for him, so he lifted 'em.

it's called changing your mind

it's called changing your mind

If thats the case then can Kerry ever make up his mind about anything? I think you are better off arguing Kerry's ability to "nuance" the issues.

David

my point is that you go on and on about kerry flipflopping and then when bush does it it's considered a reasoned response to events.

Mark,

Its true that we should expect people to change their minds, and politicians especially so perhaps, but Kerry just too consistently flip flops on one issue after another. Its as President Bush said in one of his speeches, Kerry has been in Washington long enough to have taken both sides of just about every issue.

For example, Kerry says that voting against the $87 billion dollars to fund our troops in Iraq and the rebuilding efforts there would be "foolish" and "irresponsible." Almost two months later, he votes against the funding. Then, just recently, he says, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Huh!?

Kerry opposes homosexual marriage, but also opposed legislation upholding traditional marriage. He votes for the "No Child Left Behind" act, then comes out later against it. Kerry thinks outsourcing is okay, then he vehemently opposes it, blaming Bush for this trend.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I respect the fact that you are defending your candidate, but he is well known here in the Washington area for being one who like to work both sides of an argument. It works well as a tactic on the Senatorial level, but is already hurting him intensely on national campaign level.

Thanks.

David

hurting him intensely?

it may be giving folks such as yourself fodder for more blog entries.

the rest of the nation hasn't even begun to pay attention yet.

the rest of the nation hasn't even begun to pay attention yet.

I would argue that the polls indicate otherwise, but I could be wrong on this. For sure, it is still early, but Kerry certainly seemed eager to talk about the polls while he was still ahead.

I guess we'll see.

Thanks for all your input.

David

Nah, saying he flip-flops on votes for various bills doesn't cut it.

Congress fills bills with so many amendments that most bills are bad bills one way or another (often more).

Then you get finger-pointing like "he voted against "such-and-such" when "such-and-such" was in one of the amendments, or may have been in the main part of a bill that was ruined by amendments.

This is a non-starter.

On the other hand, it once again makes me think that perhaps Democrats are, on average, much dumber than Republicans.

I base that suspicion on what I've seen on the tube on the various talk shows (Crossfire, Capital Gang, Scarborough, Bluff the Press, Fake the Nation, various Fox offerings, etc.) as well as the way Presidential candidates have responded to Republican attacks.

The Republicans almost always put the Dems "in the Trick Bag" and the Dems just seem to bumble around in the dark.

Unfortunately, the Dems are our only hope for dumping the unelected neocons and their religious fundamentalist allies so: "Go Dems." (There isn't a strong enough and big enough group in the Republican party to do it. Yet?)

David, see comment #40 and GIVE IT UP: you lost.

Thanks

David, see comment #40 and GIVE IT UP: you lost.

The only issue I have with comment #40 is the fact that your opinion is at odds with just about every terrorist expert AND the initial findings of the 9/11 commission which has so far found that Clinton's tactic of treating terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue did nothing to deter attacks and likely emboldened bin Laden to become more aggressive.

See a post I put up today with a NY Times article on the initial findings of the 9/11 commission. Here is the link:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/23/162038.php

Thanks.

David