Words fail me. Arggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

If people would stop yelling that Iraq 'sidetracked' us from the WoT they'd see that, to the contrary, Iraq sidetracked AQ who switched their focus off our shores and squandered THEIR resources on fighting us in IRAQ!

Kerry, who sees himself as quite an intellectual, just nuanced himself out of a job.

The problem with continually playing defense is that the guys on offense are unlikely to give up. They will always be probing for weaknesses, if not actively trying to create them, and will take advantage when they do find/make one.

One would think that a former naval officer would have a better grasp of the problems of offense vs. defense!

Yes, by all means let's let the enemy pick the next time and place of attack. But boyo, we'll be ready to clean up afterward!

Let's follow Spain, let's pull everyone back to the continent and bury our heads in the sand. We'll be safe then, right?????

It's terrifying simple: Al Qaeda wins if Bush loses.

Kerry forgot to mention his plan to strengthen the casing on flight data recorders.

(rolling eyes) No, I'm not going to live the rest of my life donning gas masks while dem folks just keep coming ashore. Had this defense plan been implemented when WWII was raging on we'd all be speaking German and a good number of us would never have been born because our grandparents were gassed.

If the purported al Qaeda documents are real, those are the only argument needed against a Kerry presidency. If I were the man just elected in Spain, I would resign in disgrace, not wanting to give the terrorists who killed my fellow countrymen a victory. But, then again, I'm not a power-hungry Socialist.

Who said that the best defense is a good offense? I mean come on, defense is not what won World War II. With Kerry's philisophy we'd all be speaking Deutsch!

In all fairness, this was a speach to a bunch of firefighters. Of course the focus will be on first responder.
Also, he's highlighting all of the tactical weaknesses in the WOT. Since Bush focuses on offense, the defensive measure get second priority (as they should).
"Fortress America" is very un-American.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no Kerry supporter...just putting it into context.

You people don't seem to get it. Dems love victims. There is no status more morally pure than victimhood. Kerry just wants to give more of us a chance to play that role :-)

He just lost my vote.

Great post, Bill. Kerry would make a terrible president and even worse football coach.

Why does concern over domestic security equal "language of defeatism and cowardice?

This is not a press release about fighting terror abroad, but about building a secure infrastructure here, and addressing the Bush administration's "broken promises" on THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES.

however you feel about either of these two men or their policies, you must be able to see that there is a clear line of delineation here.

Excellent article Bill...

Dead on.

Reggie, this isn't just a case of critisizing just a part of Kerry's response to terror, the problem is that apparently thats it!

I haven't heard how Kerry is going to take the fight to the enemy. Yeah he's said he's going to focus entirely on Osama, but the question is "and then what?" I think I know what the Bush doctrine is, but what is the Kerry Doctrine? My worry is that there is nothing after Osama, because he sees it as a legal response to 911 and not war.

If this was only a case of him highlighting only the parts of a broader policy to pander to a specific group (like his speeches on the Israeli wall and his letters during Gulf I) I would not complain as much.

Reggie, then he should remove the last two words in the title on the press release:

"Kerry Offers Agenda to Support Front Lines in America’s War on Terror at Home and Abroad"

Whooopie.

So, the Kerry plan boils down to:

1. Retreat into a bunker mentality at home;
2. Give France, Russia and China a veto over the use of our military overseas; and
3. Improve 911 call response times, for when the airliners start slamming into buildings again.

A basic military axiom is that you can only win by taking the offensive. The best you can hope for on defense is to avoid being defeated. Bush learned this; Kerry evidently didn't, or he's forgotten if he did.

Another basic military axiom is that "He who defends everything, defends nothing." Again, something Mr. War Hero Kerry doesn't seem to understand. With so much vital infrastructure to defend inside the US, there's no way to safeguard it all. If by abandoning the offense we let the terrorists take the initiative, then resurrecting the COPS program won't make any difference.

I don't question Kerry's "patriotism;" it's his defeatism, his refusal to learn from history and his astonishing ignorance of what a commander-in-chief should know about warfighting that dismay me.

What's interesting to me is how the Vietnam Vet, who then took sides against the Vietnam War, now wants to emulate The Vietnam War. For years I was incensed that we lost in Vietnam because we fought a strictly defensive war. Robert McNamara confessed in his book, that they didn't take the offense for fear of starting World War III. One could understand that and maybe even forgive him. But what would be Kerry's excuse? Could there possibly be understanding or forgiveness for losing the War on Terror?

What we don't need is another UN butt-kissing liberal in the White House. I bet he's got his kneepads all packed and ready for his grand "America Apologizes" tour of the world. In times like this we need an ass-kicker not an ass-kisser.

If this is the platform of the Democrats, then Kerry must lose, for all our sakes. Where are the Democrats who will stand up for America, where are the liberals who have red, white, and blue running in their veins? Where are the citizens of this nation on the side of the 'loyal' opposition who will draw the line in the sand, not at our borders, but across the sea. Who among those apologist will finally realize that these glorious UNITED STATES are worth fighting for? Give me a rifle, give me a post where I might stand guard, provide these aged hands and heart one final time to stand for LADY LIBERTY. If Kerry is too afraid to walk a picket, then muster him out and give to a patriot that place of honor onthe FRONT LINE!

Great piece! Our enemies have already declared war on us, our only remaining choice is where that war will be fought.

Choose Peace.mpg

Once again one of the Democrats is preparing to fight the last WAR.
We need someone to lead the fight for this WAR!!!!!!
John ( Effin) Kerry is not the Real Deal,
he proved that many times over in the Senate.

The only thing that's missing is a public works program to ensure that we have more buildings or points of interest than commercial airliners to crash into them.

Kerry's taking the Stalingrad approach to the WOT. Perhaps this was suggested by a "foreign leader", but that's none of my business.

How nuanced.

Hobbs is right on the money. Here are the three things that I've been saying since 9-11-01:

(1) "America, play OFFENSE!"

(2) "I don't want to bring the terrorists to justice. I want to destroy them."

(The following one, #3, I call my "Mantra of Freedom".)

(3) "I am a free man. I live in a free country. And I will not let the terrorists, the tyrants and the enemies of freedom determine my destiny."

Tragically odd how the Spanish seem to be granting the terrorists a say in their destiny.

---Tom Nally, New Orleans

You do a great job of making the case against Kerry on the issue of terrorism. Isn't it great that he makes such a great case against himself with his own words? Bush could literally run ads from now 'til Nov. consisting of nothing but Kerry's own words.

Playing defense is fine -- just play good defense rather than bad defense. Look at how a good football team plays defense: they don't just hang back and hope to knock the ball down. They knock down the receivers. Bully the offensive line. Take out (or at least harass) the quarterback.

It's defense, but it looks a lot like offense.

You are right on. I was in England in 1938 and 1939 when we did nothing but wait. Both grandparents, then in the US, often said that what was happening in Europe was none of our business nor our problem. I respected and loved them but they were wrong then. And obviously many are wrong now.
We must keep always in mind that while "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

Kerry must not wacth a lot of Pro Football. Else he would know that "Prevent Defense" rarely works and much of the time allows the other team to win.

Kerry says he'll do reduce the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Be interesting to know the specifics of his plans. His heroes at the U.N. haven't distinguished themselves in this area.

It's not even defense (except for the port security). Police, fire & first responders. It's cleaning up after the next attack.

As an aside, Hillary Clinton has made funding for First Responders a big part of her pitch, which was pretty smart - first, there is the obvious New York connection; second, having given her pro-war speech, and cast her pro-war vote, it was a safe issue for a Senator to focus on.

However, it is only part of the story, as we seem to agree.

That said, is Kerry stealing her thunder? Or trying to enlist her for 2004, maybe as a VP?

Don't forget the first rule of Dem-watching - how does it help Hillary?

Great post! Enjoyed (and linked). My summation:

If I'm John Kerry and my family and I are attacked, I want to have a cell phone handy so the police will know where to go to pick up my children's lifeless corpses. If I'm George Bush, I want to have a firearm handy so the police can come and collect my attacker's remains.

This is not the first time Kerry has outlined his defensive approach to terrorism. This is from February 27:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/federal/20040227-1053-ca-democrats.html

"Democrat John Kerry outlined his plan to combat terrorism Friday that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances, rebutting increasing criticism of his national security credentials from President Bush's campaign. ...

"Kerry said he would address the root causes of terrorism by protecting chemical and nuclear facilities, increasing security at ports and airports, restoring federal funding for 100,000 police officers and adding 100,000 firefighters across the country."

Get it? The "root cause" of terrorism can be "addressed" by playing defense.

Excellent post.

I hope Kerry will also boost the nation's Departments of Sanitation, and designate some federal land for landfill use.

Fresh Kills on Staten Island is already full of demolished skyscrapers.

The Democrats are actively encouraging a pre-election attack. A Madrid-style bombing is on Kerry's Xmas wish list. I know the most rabid Bush-haters would openly cheer at such an event. I just hope most voters would not consider an attack, designed specifically to sway the election, to be a good reason to vote against Bush.

Are you all nuts? Read the post -- Kerry is only talking about the role of first responders.

I guess you'd probably think he would disband the military while we are at it.

It's because of morons like you that we elect a president who, except for rightly reminding terrorists that if they attack us, they are in for a world of pain, has otherwise bungled our foreign policy needlessly.

Way to go and have fun keeping your little heads in the sand.

Everyone keeps saying its defense, offense, etc. Everyone is missing the big picture. The important thing to realize is the Socialist/Communists lie about everything. John Kerry is a communist, who is not yet out of the closet, who tells you what the democratic propaganda machine thinks you want to hear. Don't believe that Liberal Democrats aren't Commies. How would you have voted in the Senate for the last 20 years if you were a Communist. Yep, that's right, the same way John Kerry did. It just shows you how much they(communist/socialist/democrats) are in touch with Reality in the USA.

Duck and Cover all over again, but this time without the deterrent backup

Bull chips, Texmex!

This is not just "part" of his plan to "fight" terror. This is the whole of it.

Kerry flat out refuses to even call what we're in now a war. He insists it's a "law-enforcement" operation, and has stated this many times. He has also professed the philosophy that the intelligence agencies should be all but eliminated. The gutting of the CIA in the 90s is what allowed Al Qaeda to come in under our radar. We should have had flesh and blood on the ground infiltrating these groups a long time ago.

But it's so much more UN-friendly to rely instead on funding cleanup operations after the next "inevitable" attack. More hoses for the firefighters. More orphanages, too, I suppose. Free coffins for anybody making less than $150,000. See? It doesn't upset the French!

This is all why Kim Jong Il, Syria and Iran are cheering for Kerry. They will find him a lot more "multilateral."

Great essay! Kerry can't play offense because he doesn't want to divert attention from the real threat: W.

I see...Because Mr. Kerry wants to commit resources to first responders he is too timid to be president. What a load of hogwash. Look, I live in NYC which is a prime target for any terrorist event. I also know that whoever we elect as president, it will not make a damn bit of difference to the terrorists. They are out there as we speak, planning and training for another terror attack. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool. Anyone who believes they all rushed to Baghdad is also fooling themselves. No, they are out there and even the Bush Administration admits another event equal to or greater than 9/11 is highly probable. Now, isn't it prudent to plan for that? Isn't it foolish not to? It has nothing to do with defensive vs offense. The man was only promising to follow through on a promise this adminstration made shortly after 9/11 to fully fund and train first responders. This administration has a faith based foriegn policy. Their faith is obviously shared by many of you, judging from the comments but faith alone isn't going to make us any safer and it's not going to ultimately defeat Al Qaeda. John Kerry may or may not be the next president but he most certainly NOT a communist. You're all so caught up in the beautification of Bush that you can't see this emperor has no clothes. We are over three years in to the Bush presidency and there is nothing to show for it other than war and tax cuts. His record is indefensible so instead you attack John Kerry as some liberal boggyman that's going to force us all to wear gasmasks. You can believe whatever you like but ask yourselves this question. If Al Qaeda succeeds in launching a terrorist attack tomorrow in NY or Los Angeles, wouldn't you want the people who will have to respond to have the tools to do so?

I am inches... centimeters... from joining Blogs 4 Bush.

I normally never do this. For a long, long time it's been important to me to wait until both national conventions are over, really look at the message both candidates shape, before making my choice. Yes I've been leaning Bush, and I did vote for him in 2000 (for very different reasons). But I've wanted to give the Democrat a chance, a fair honest serious chance.

Every single day that gets harder.

We lost in Vietnam because McNamara allowed the enemy to choose the time, place, manner, and scale of action. As a stategy it negated most of our military superiority.

Republicans concluded that we should never again fight a war unless we were prepared to deploy military superiority in order to win it.

Democrats learned that we should feel guilty for taking on militarily inferior foes.

Kerry exemplifies the Democrats' stuck-in-the-sixties defense philosophy. They have not altered their strategic thinking from McNamara's disastrous approach.

By the way, Kerry is lying . . . again.

Bush has already increased money to firefighters, etc. The Democrats are spreading fear-uncertainty-doubt again. It's the only thing they have left to fight with.

Here's what Kerry doesn't want you to know:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02012415.htm

>President Bush proposes to spend $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2003 to
dramatically enhance the homeland security response capabilities of
America's first responders -- a greater than 10-fold increase in
Federal resources. This initiative will:

>-- Give the first responder community critically needed funds to
purchase equipment, train their personnel, and plan.

>-- Provide states and localities with the flexibility they require to
ensure that the funds are used in the local areas where they are
needed most.

>-- Establish a consolidated, simple, and quick method for dispersing
federal assistance to states and localities.

>-- Foster mutual aid across the nation so that the entire local,
state, federal, and volunteer network can operate seamlessly together.

>-- Create an evaluation process to make sure that all programs are
producing results and to direct the allocation of future resources.

>-- Involve all Americans in programs to make their homes, communities,
states, and nation safer and stronger.

Isn't there something about 'bearing false witness' in those 10 commandments, Mr. Hobbs? Or do they only pertain to Democrats?

Nice of you to inform us our troops in Iraq are 'bait' for our 'trap.'

Mick McMick,

The keep word there is "proposed". Check how much of that program was actually funded in his latest budget. It's easy to propose funding this proposal or that proposal. Actually doing it is another thing. Typical though. There has always been a very large gap between what this administration says and what it does.

John "Zapatero" Kerry. The best reason for voting republican I can think of, and I've never voted for a republican presidential candidate in my life.

Retreat is the word.

JadeGold,

Ah, the old "Bush lied" routine. I still haven't read 1 thing that has let me to believe he lied. Please enlighten all of us.

As a former Marine, we are PAID to take the fight TO the ENEMY, not pick your burning carcass out of a bombed-out building. Our troops are doing their job, and I personally prefer the fighting to be in the "backyard" of those who initiated hostilities.

Nick Foresta exemplifies the kind of liberal tunnel vision that comes with having your head up your ass. If you can say with a straight face that after 3 years of the Bush presidency there is nothing to show for it other than war and tax cuts then might I suggest you take your crayons and confine yourself to coloring between the lines and leave the political discourse to the adults.

>It's easy to propose funding this proposal or that proposal. Actually doing it is another thing.

Yes, because that's what President's do. It's up to Congress to actually do it. You do understand the powers of the Executive and Legislative Branches, don't you?

The President proposed it. Congress needs to pass it. Those that choose to lie about what the President is doing, and who play politics with our safety, all to make cheap political gains, are traitors and scoundrels.

That means YOU, Mr. Kerry! Did you help pass the President's PROPOSAL? Or is that too much for your nuanced position to withstand?

foresta, you said:

"The keep word there is "proposed". Check how much of that program was actually funded in his latest budget."

And yet Lurch and his minions (like you)are gadding about speaking of Bush's squandering of the (imaginary) surplus. Is Bush to spend money, or not? Where would the money for this funding come from? Education? Medicare? Social Security? You tell me- you're the budget genius here.

" It's easy to propose funding this proposal or that proposal. Actually doing it is another thing. Typical though."

And voting repeatedly against any and all military and intelligence gathering spending is yet another thing- given this track record, I'm now supposed to believe Kerry will back up his "proposal" for first responders?

" There has always been a very large gap between what this administration says and what it does."

Right. In similar news, I still await my middle class tax cut promised by Clinton during the first four years of what he promised would be "the most ethical administration in history". Admittedly off topic, but the point is your perceived failings of Bush's admin re: failing to live up to promises are hardly unprecedented.

Further, given that Kerry has sat on both sides of virtually every issue for the last 20 years, were he to take office he'd fail roughly half the time in following through with his promises...... so I'll still take Mumbles over Lurch, thank you very much.

Mick McMick,

Gee, thanks for the lesson in Government. It would appear you need a lesson in how to read. What I said was this...

" Check how much of that program was actually funded in his latest budget".

Now, please turn off Rush and pay attention. If the president proposes spending money, shouldn't it be included in the budget he submits to congress? We aren't talking about what actually passed the house and senate, you simple-minded wingnut, we are talking about backing up your talk with real action. Other than tax cuts and a needless war of choice, this administration has no backbone. From Steel Tarriffs to Education to Homeland Security, they talk alot but don't do a damn thing.

Zubby,

" If you can say with a straight face that after 3 years of the Bush presidency there is nothing to show for it other than war and tax cuts then might I suggest you take your crayons and confine yourself to coloring between the lines and leave the political discourse to the adults."

Alrighty then, let's hear it. Exactly how are better off now then three years ago? We've lost over two million jobs, we went from suplus to deficits, and we have done a great deal of harm to our free trade reputation because of steel tarriffs and other trade policies this administration has championed. We are headed down a road that eventually leads to the disintegration of NATO, we have managed to weaken the UN to the point where it is now all but useless to us.
We are more divided as a nation than at anytime in my lifetime and we have let fear and intimidation erode our civil and civic liberties.

Now it's your turn. Tell us all about the great accomplishments this administration has achieved in the last three years.

I'll check back tomorrow. I'm sure you'll need to consult with Rush or Hannity so they can tell you what to think....

Here are a few questions for Coach Bush:

1. Might the enormous resources devoted to finding non-existent WMDs and terrorist links in Iraq have been better spent hunting down and killing the leadership of al-Qaeda where we knew they were hiding, in Eastern Afghanistan/Western Pakistan?

2. Might a disruption of the leadership of al-Qaeda and the death of its figurehead, Osama bin Laden, have disrupted subsequent terrorist attacks around the world and reduced al-Qaeda's ability to recruit? (Rather than deposing Saddam Hussein, which has constributed little to nothing in weakening al-Qaeda.)

3. Is there any threshold of failure for the Bush administration economically or militarily? How bad would things have to get for you to admit failure.

Judging by the fact that people here think Vietnam was in some way winnable (by blowing it up, I suppose) I'm guessing no.

Please answer honestly.

sincerely,
curiouos

PS I also live in New York and saw the Towers fall, so spare me that BS about how the damn liberals don't know what's at stake here. I suspect we have more invested in our safety than knee-jerk partisans in Tennesee. All we want is effective leadership.

Jim G: None of the Marines I know would consider themselves 'bait.'

Tell you what, though; why don't you visit the wards at Walter Reed and thank those brave servicemen for being 'bait?'

The fact is Bush--and his handlers--have lied about, exaggerated about, or otherwise misrepresented many things. The only real question is on what subject you'd like an example of this appointed admin's prevarications.

Personally, my favorite is the 'we know he has WMDs and we know where they are' lie.

Of course, the 'Saddam is connected to Al Qaeda' lie is pretty good in an evil sort of way.

nick foresta sez:

>Now, please turn off Rush and pay attention. If the president proposes spending money, shouldn't it be included in the budget he submits to congress?

You are talking out of your ass, pal. This is the actual budget we're talking about:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/

>President Bush’s FY 2005 budget includes $401.7 billion for the Department of Defense, a 35% increase over FY 2001 levels and a 7% increase over the FY 2004 enacted level.

>The President’s budget for FY 2005 proposes a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels – even when homeland security funding for the Department of Defense and Project BioShield are excluded.

[snip]

>The President’s budget includes a 10% increase over FY 2004 for the Department of Homeland Security, a doubling of funding for DHS programs since FY 2001. These funds include a $900 million (20%) increase over last year for aviation security and transportation security; a $450 million (5%) increase for border security; $1.9 billion for port security efforts and a $490 million (9%) increase for the Coast Guard; and a $65 million (123%) increase for the BioWatch network of sensors to detect a terrorist release of biological pathogens.

> The budget includes $2.6 billion for Department of Justice counterterrorism operations, a 19% increase over FY 2004 levels, including a $1.9 billion (60%) increase over FY 2001 levels for FBI counterterrorism operations.

> Since 2001, the Federal government has provided more than $13 billion to help state and local governments prepare to respond to potential terrorist threats. The President’s budget proposes an additional $3.6 billion for first-responder grants and $1.3 billion for state, local, and hospital bioterrorism preparedness grants.

>The budget includes $568 million (190% increase) to improve America’s food and agriculture security by increasing detection capabilities and developing counter-measures against potential attacks.

So where is the lack of funding that your "war hero" is whining about?

He is lying . . . again. So, what is it with you Al Franken Democrats? You seem obsessed with calling people "liars," but liars are the people you put on pedestals.

>I also live in New York and saw the Towers fall, so spare me that BS about how the damn liberals don't know what's at stake here.

Yes, I imagine you watched from your window at the UN.

And after an hour or two, you asked "Is that it?!"

Then you called your friends and organized an "Honor Them with Peace" rally.

Then you picked up a copy of "Where Are the Wings?" on Amazon.

Then you put up signs bemoaning "The Richest Country in the World is Bombing the Poorest Country in the World!"

Then you protested the detainment of Taliban and Al Qaeda in Cuba.

Then you organized a rally against the Patriot Act.

Yeah, you watched the towers fall. But that vital switch never clicked in your brain. The one that told most Americans "This is War." You are still of the mindset that we should just wait for the attacks to come, and then file a complaint with the UN bureaucracy.

I watched those buildings fall, too, but you and I saw two totally different things.

You don't go far enough. It's also the language of creating a police state.

Intended or not.

That, in brief, is the stark choice America faces in November. Do we keep the coach who is playing offense in the War on Terror, taking the battle to where the enemy lives and breeds, smashing their stronghold in Afghanistan, setting a trap for them in Iraq, and confronting Islamist terrorists by planting that which they loathe the most - freedom and democracy for Muslims - in the heart of their territory. Or do we hire a new coach who will switch to defense and focus on preparing the firefighters and police and "first responders' to douse the flames and dig the bodies from under the rubble of the next attack?

It's always entertaining to see folks without a shred of military service opine on military strategy. Because, invariably, these folks will start to talk about war in terms of a game.

All that's missing is some really jazzy uniforms.

But war isn't a game. You see, in a game, when the final whistle blows--the opposing teams shake hands and go home to their loved ones and friends. There are referees and umpires to make sure the rules are observed. Wars aren't so neat. A lot of folks won't be going home and some will live shattered and shortened lives. There aren't many rules.

I wish I could claim credit for it but James Webb (author, fmr SECNAV, USMC Platoon Commander in VN) said it best 2 days after 9/11, describing what the US should do in response to 9/11:

Where Do We Go From Here?

Do not occupy territory.

The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent bases, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend - the United States and our outposts overseas - and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets.

I used the terms of a game as a way to quickly describe the difference in Kerry's approach (play defense and prepare to clean up the rubble a little faster) with Bush's approach (take the fight into the heartland of the enemy).

But of course it's not a "game," Jade. It's war. Winning it is important. And Kerry doesn't want to fight it the right way.

Mick McMick-

I can only speak for myself, but I think one thing that distinguishes most liberals from conservatives is that liberals--since they are sceptical, generally secular, and able to hold two opposing ideas in their heads at the same time--don't put people on pedestals. I don't have to love a John Kerry to support him for President because frankly, for the reasons others here have stated (and many others) virtually *anyone* else would do against this president and his ruinous administration.

I'll admit that the vicissitudes of office often force politicians to backtrack or change their positions. But if you raise the spectre of Kerry's "lies" remember you have to address those of the man *you* put on a pedestal--from his administration's dissembling about WMDs and the "link" between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (Cheney still spreads these lies on national tv, even after he was told to stop), to the many instances of broken promises (to both his base and the middle)--I'm thinking everything from "Leave no Child Behind" to a consitutional amendment against gay marriage.

Clearheaded people will evaluate the policies and positions of these men--what they stand for, what direction they want to take this country, what kind of people they choose to surround themselves with, etc.-- and will judge from that.

Oh, and Mick McMick, I just read your response. You're a piece of work--instead of engaging with any of my questions, you spewed off a revealing fantasy of who you think I am and what you thought I did.

Actually I attempted to give blood. Then I tried frantically to get a hold of my girlfriend who worked at the World Trade Center. Oh yes, and only then did I conspire to undermine America's security and give succor to terrorists because, frankly, I didn't care that people I knew were dead. You should be ashamed of yourself.

> Alrighty then, let's hear it. Exactly how are better off now then three years ago?

You won't actually give a shit, but here it is any way.

> We've lost over two million jobs, we went from suplus to deficits, . . .

You know the recession started before Bush took office. The fact that we are already out of it is a testament to Bush's tax policies' effectiveness. Especially considering the dot-com bust, the corporate scandals, the terrorist attacks, and the dramatic but expensive accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say that is quite a feat. The unemployment rate, by normal standards, is still quite low. Look to your European friends for comparison: Germany? France? Ha!

>...and we have done a great deal of harm to our free trade reputation because of steel tarriffs and other trade policies this administration has championed.

It takes two to tango. Unfairness is in the eye of the beholder. In any case, the steel tarriffs were dropped. And your hero Kerry is CHAMPIONING protectionist tarriffs and other trade barriers! So what the hell DO you want?

> We are headed down a road that eventually leads to the disintegration of NATO, we have managed to weaken the UN to the point where it is now all but useless to us.

NATO lost its teeth, and its mission, after the USSR broke up (Thanks, Mr. Reagan!). But we are keeping it cobbled together as a political nicety, despite the efforts of France and Germany to undermine NATO with their own EU army.

And it is the UN that has made itself totally irrelevant. They have relegated themselves to the same dustbin of history that the League of Nations fell into. So once again, you are quite, quite wrong in blaming Bush.

If we disbanded the UN today, and kicked their sorry asses out of New York, I would consider it the best act of the century. That corrupt society exists now solely to protect the sovereignty of dictators and murderers. Oh, and to line their own pockets with Oil-for-Food programs.

>We are more divided as a nation than at anytime in my lifetime and we have let fear and intimidation erode our civil and civic liberties.

Name ONE, just ONE civil liberty that you have lost. That anybody you know has lost. You can't. It's a lie.

This nonsense about the Patriot Act (although the name is not appropriate) is sickening fear mongering at its worst. This act is one of the bricks in the wall that has kept us attack free for two-plus years.

Your arguments are hollow. Your anybody-but-Bush philosophy is worthless and dangerous. And your "anger" is phony.

P.S. Iraq and Afghanistan are becoming Constitutional Democracies. What can you brag about re: Clinton's wars in the Balkans and Haiti. Nothing there but despair.

>liberals--since they are sceptical,

That's as far as I could read before barfing.

Sorry, you don't buy any credibility by claiming to have lost "loved ones" in the WTC. I don't buy it.

And even if you did, it's irrelevant to those of us who want to continue staying alive.

We have to do whatever's necessary to prevent those who wish to destroy us from doing so. You apparently don't think so. You think we should rely on foreign powers, who have their own conflicting motives.

The war in Iraq was necessary. You may disagree, but the whole "Bush Lied" mantra is crap. You people are more mad at Bush for winning in 2000 than you EVER were at Al Qaeda for killing my neighbors and spewing their ashes over Brooklyn.

When that second plane tilted with a last second waggle as it slid into the second tower, the first thing that was destroyed was the illusion that we could leave shitholes like Saddam in power and trust that they would make nice.

But all that matters to you is that Bush is defeated. I never voted for the guy. I'm not religious. I don't like a lot of his policy decisions. But I will vote for him this time, because I have made a rational decision that defending this country is more important than making European dinner party guests hate us less.

For you, hating Bush is a religion. It is regardless of facts or reason.

Leftists and democrats muct get a woodie from the thought of crushing bones and splattering blood of Iraqis thrown feet first into industrial plastic grinders. Ot the other horrors at "Mass graves testify to Saddam's atrocities"

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040312-074010-1766r.htm

C'mon Dems 'n Leftists. be honest with yourselves. Don't you get a Woodie when you think of little nekkid Iraqi kids being stung by scorpions and tarantulas in front of their parents as a means of political expression?

I used the terms of a game as a way to quickly describe the difference in Kerry's approach (play defense and prepare to clean up the rubble a little faster) with Bush's approach (take the fight into the heartland of the enemy).

The problem is, with terrorism, there is no 'heartland.' The Webb link I posted makes that very clear.

If you wish to conquer the Middle East--know this: we'll be there for decades and it will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of US lives. It will also eat up a significant chunk of our economy for decades.

Basically, you're advocating a war on a civilization.

Not in my name.

I can recognize that this is an election year, and each candidate is going to do his best to tear down the other's credibility in order to get elected. But, when I receive e-mails from the Kerry campaign that tell me nothing about his policies and everything about what Bush hasn't done, and 95% of that is a lie, the decision suddenly got a whole hell of a lot easier to make.

I'm not in favor of rolling up America's sidewalks and closing our doors to the world. I'm not in favor of being told more lies and seeing more campaign promises broken. I look at Bush's track record, and I see a track record of a man who has given me everything that he promised he would in the election, and when he didn't, it was not for lack of trying. I look at Kerry's and I see a lot of promises for things he's voted against as a senator. The man says one thing, and does something else, and I won't vote for a man that's in the habit of going back on his word.

My .02 cents.

Name ONE, just ONE civil liberty that you have lost. That anybody you know has lost. You can't. It's a lie.

I can name many more than one.

For the sake of brevity, I'll name a few. Right now, you or I could be detained indefinitely, with no charges filed and without the ability to consult an attorney.

You and I could have the records of what materials we borrow from the public library obtained by the feds. Same goes for any electronic transaction such as student records, travel, banking, etc.

Should you or I be arrested, our conversations with our attornies may not be confidential.

Those are a couple. There are many others.

Kind of gives lie to the notion the rightwing believes in freedoms, huh?

look at Bush's track record, and I see a track record of a man who has given me everything that he promised he would in the election, and when he didn't, it was not for lack of trying.

In the campaign of 2000, Bush made a number of claims that either didn't pan out or were unquestionably false.

I'd remind you Bush made a rather strong statement against nation-building and getting involved in other countries. Yet, we know invading Iraq was high on his list of priorities prior to 9/11.

Bush told us his tax cuts wouldn't cause deficits even in a bad economy. Further, he told us he would pay down the debt. Neither have happened.

Bush promised MediCare presciption drug coverage for all senior citizens.

Bush also criticized the Dems for having guests stay overnight at the WH (""I believe they've moved that sign, 'The Buck Stops Here,' from the Oval Office desk to the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not right.")

Yet, Bush has been allowing campaign donors free access to both the WH and Camp David.

I cannot think about a subject on which Bush has not lied.

"The problem is, with terrorism, there is no 'heartland.' The Webb link I posted makes that very clear."

The organizations against whom we are fighting a war (not a police action) do have a heartland. It is the Mideast, specifically Saudi Arabia. If you read what Osama has said, his goal is to overthrough the House of Said and install himself as dictator. From there he will re-establish the Arabic empire as it existed at the height of its power about a thousand years ago.

In order to counter the terrorist we need to deprive them of bases where they can train and arm. The Coalition has taken two of their bases, Afganistan and Iraq. The two campaigns have shown that we have the strength to impose our will upon our enemies. This gives us much needed credibility.

By having Coalition forces in the heart of the Mideast, in Iraq, we can influence the governments in the area so as to stop them from supporting terrorist organizations. We also can build a better society that will give people hope, keeping them from becoming terrorists.

"I'd remind you Bush made a rather strong statement against nation-building and getting involved in other countries. Yet, we know invading Iraq was high on his list of priorities prior to 9/11."

We do not know that this was a priority. We know that the WH took the threat that Saddam posed seriously and planned accordingly.

The attack of 9/11 changed everything. The islamists had declared war on the US a decade earlier, but we did nothing. They attacked us and our allies repeatedly, but we ignored them. But after they struck the US a second time, we had to respond.

President Bush has pursued an excellent strategy that is winning the war. The nation building that President Bush is pursuing was forced upon us. If followed to its conclusion it will leave the world a much better place.

>For the sake of brevity, I'll name a few. Right now, you or I could be detained indefinitely, with no charges filed and without the ability to consult an attorney.

No, neither you nor I qualify, unless you are in fact an enemy combatant. Are you? Gee, that would explain a lot. If you are a citizen, and you have not decided to wage war on the US, then you will not be detained without the usual Miranda, etc. That is simply not true.

>You and I could have the records of what materials we borrow from the public library obtained by the feds. Same goes for any electronic transaction such as student records, travel, banking, etc.

This is only true when it is shown that your activities may be related to terrorism. Should we NOT have such access when we suspect terrorism. This access was already available in cases of organized crime or child pornography. Should terrorists have more rights than the Mafia? Personally, I don't think so. But somehow you feel this takes your rights away.

They're not looking to see if you read Chomsky's shitty writing; you're safe.

> Should you or I be arrested, our conversations with our attornies may not be confidential.

Again, only if such conversations are shown to be a threat to national security. It turned out that the blind Sheik who led the first WTC bombing was passing info to Bin Laden through his "lawyer." Should this be allowed? You think so, apparently.

Again, the Patriot Act does have judicial oversight. And not one single abuse has yet been shown. Nobody's rights are being trampled here, except the terrorists' right to use our open society to their advantage.

And, by the way, you have yet to point out ONE single actual instance of somebody's rights being taken away. Everything you cite is theoretical and vague. It has never happened.

Wanna try again? An actual instance this time?

> Not in my name.

Hey, I just donated a Pizza in memory of Rachel Corrie to the IDF.

In your name!

"Our best line of defense is in the enemy's ports." -- Admiral Horatio Nelson

Kerry's first responder promises are BS. Clinton pulled the same shuck and jive and as soon as the federal funding sunsetted local communities were left holding the bill and most of the cops were let go.

Fire and police services are funded by property taxes. Want more firefighters or trucks? Do what we did in Oakland, we raised the per-parcel tax by to cover firehouses in the fire-prone hills that were slated to close by the Dems state budget mess.

Saving your own ass with your own money locally makes a lot more sense than sending it to DC to be skimmed and dribbled back as campaign largess.

JadeGold: Are you living in the real world? Clinton's Omnibus Crime Act of 1993 gave the feds the power to tap data and finanical transactions. I don't recall a big hue and cry from the left at the time.

You can't name one person who had their library records examined, because it hasn't happened...even the ACLU admitted that they couldn't find a single example.

Jade, you are nothing BUT a liar, and you have proven it time and time again. If you want to have even a SHRED of credibility, I want to see proof and facts, because your word isn't worth two squirts of piss into the wind. You have done nothing but lie and slander Bush from day one on every blog that you could. You've been banned from more blogs than I can count because you only lie and slander people. You never provide any kind of real proof or facts, and ignore anything that contradicts you. I want hard facts, because every word that comes out of your mouth is worthless.

Nick foresta, are you Tony's brother? Meh, it doesn't matter. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics There wre 137.8 million people employeed in the USA in January of 2001. There were 138.3 million people employeed in the USA in January of 2003. 500,000 more people working NOW than when Bush was first elected. Please tell me how that can be considered a 2 million job loss.

>500,000 more people working NOW than when Bush was first elected. Please tell me how that can be considered a 2 million job loss.

Easy:

Since Clinton left the White House, there have been 2 million fewer blow jobs in the Oval Office.

The Democrats cannot diss Bush without dissing Bill Clinton, whom by the way has made comments whereby he himself all but officially denies any responsibility for America's prosperous 1990's "Clinton economy", including the Democrat hallowed "Clinton balanced budget" and "Clinton surplus"! As a Republican and an Army vet I am prepared to support a national draft and a "blank check" for the USDOD if it means destroying Radical Islam as a force for terror and if it means destroying them "over there" instead of on American soil! The Left wants the [Confederatist]UNO to be the basis for future, alleged Confederatist, GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, but then harshly criticizes the USA and Bush-GOP for upholding the myriad of UN resolutions authorizing military force and action against Saddam to force him to comply! The Left after 9-11 wanted Bush to protect America but without busting the surreal, hallowed "Clinton" balanced budget or surplus, the same bb and surplus which Democrat Bill himself now SUBTLEDLY-QUIETLY ORALLY DENIES BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR! Now documents have been found, post-MADRID, allegedly strongly indicating that Al-Qaeda enabled and carried out the MADRID BLASTS as a way of inducing a SOCIALIST PARTY VICTORY and anti-US agenda in Spanish elections - these indicias/evidencias support my personal deep belief that Radical Islam is nothing more that a post-COLD WAR PROXY for Cold War COMMUNIST [SOCIALIST] ARMIES! Free and Capitalist America is by any definition a [GLOBAL]HYPERPOWER whose economy is still growing, slowly but surely upwards potentially towards [GLOBAL] MEGAPOWER+ status - hyperpower capitalist America and the capitalist WEST IS TOO BIG, TOO WEALTHY, and TOO INTRINSICALLY POWERFUL for STILL regressed and backward Communist-controlled/managed Fascist RUSSIA and still-Communist China, etal. Communist Bloc remnants, TO UNILATERALLY OR COMPETITIVELY CHALLENGE OUTSIDE OF THE PARAMETERS OF A POTENTIAL PAN-SOCIALIST OR PRO-COMMUNIST GLOBAL GOVERNMENT! Clinton-led national and global ANTI-AMERICANISM is NOT about Bush or GOP-led "unAMerican", militarized IMPERIALISM or EMPIRE - its about intolerant and FAILED Leftism-Socialism-Liberalism, especially COMMUNISM, FORCING SOCIALISM upon America and INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONTROL upon America's hyperpower and mega-power ascending ECONOMY, for the economic benefit of non-American and anti-American, allied or hostile or neutral, predominantly SOCIALIST [any form], WORLD STATES! WHere the Clintons are concerned, SOCIALISM, RIGHT-LEANING "CENTRISM", FEDERALISM, GLOBAL INTEGRATED CONFEDERATISMand GLOBAL GOVERNMENT is PCspeak/ynonymously = COMMUNISM, COMMUNIST-CONTROLLED SOCIALIST AMERICA, AND A COMMUNIST-CONTROLLED WORLD ORDER! As the new MADRID docs infer,if there's anything IMPERIALISTIC about the War On Terror, its the Failed Left's power-mad desire to use FORCE, DECEPTION, ALTERIORISM, and VIOLENCE to force their knowingly failed ideology on America and the world, as a means of VALIDATION, INSTEAD OF FAIR COMPETITION - BETTER FOR FAILED COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM TO RULE OVER A POOR AND REGRESSED WORLD, THAN TO NOT RULE THE WORLD AT ALL! You the know the Left and their self-proclaimed CLASSLESS CLASS-BASED, ANTI-PROPERTY MATERIALIST, PRO-CONFEDERATE INTEGRATIONIST-CENTRALIST, ANTI-ELITIST ELITIST.........................WORLD -
the answer to failed local, state, and regional Welfarism-Subsidist Socialism is NOT IDEOLOGICAL OR DOGMATIC SELF-REFORM, BUT TO GO GLOBAL [ha-ha]! Should we Americans really be surprised that Democrat Bill Clinton, the Democrats anti-Reagan, anti-Republicanism pro-forma antithesis, is a DEMOCRAT ANTI-DEMOCRAT, a PRO-REAGAN ANTI-REAGANIST, an ANTI-REPUBLICAN REPUBLICAN, a RIGHT-LEANING, CENTER-RIGHT "CENTRIST" OR CENTER-LEFTIST, a PRO-CAPITALISM ANTI-CAPITALIST, a FREE-MARKET STATE-IST,................................................................................................................., etc., besides being over and above AN EDUCATED LAWYER WHO CLAIMS TO DOESN'T KNOW OR COMPREHEND WHAT FELONIOUS PERJURY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE, ABUSE OF PROCESS BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE /OFFICIAL MEANS!? Under Global Government, Global, Regional, and State Government affairs is to be COMMUNIST, but ECONOMICS IS TO BE FASCIST-RIGHTIST
SOCIALIST - take away FASCISM's ethnic hatreds, militarizations, and hyperpatriotisms/nationalisms. all one gets is DEREGULATED or COMPETITIVE COMMUNISM, aka FEDERALISM or SUPER/COMMAND FEDERALISM in PC Clintons-speak! According to the LeftNet, American Socialism and Socialist America under Socialist GG is gen desired by 2015-2020 -2004 ergo for the Clintons is covertly more about MANDATE - US/Global Capitalism vs US/Global SOCIALISM - as dedicated Asia-centric Communists they lose nothing by working for either a Leftmedia-Leftpert verified NARROW Bush-GOP election victory, or by wilfully undermining any non-Clinton DEMOCRAT POTUS adminstration, ie "Bush-style" controversial or failed, nationally destructive, DEMOCRAT POTUS ONE-TERMERS! IFF by 2015-2020, ergo any and all US Republican or Democrat POTUS Admins is likely EXPENDABLE btwn 2004-2015/2020 for the cause of COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM! THE FAILED LEFT NO LONGER CARES ABOUT COMPETITION - WHAT IT WANTS IS POWER, POWER FOR THE SAKE OF POWER, EMPIRE FOR THE SAKE OF EMPIRE, STATE-PROTECTED, STATE GUARANTEED, UNDENIABLE, UNCONDITIONAL, UNCHALLENGEABLE - THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY UNKNOWING, UNBELIEVING, OR EVEN UNCARING THOUSANDS, MILLIONS, OR SCORES OF TENS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS AND WORLD INNOCENTS HAVE TO DIE BEFORE 2015-2020!

Whoa, dude! You're freakin' me out!

JadeGold wrote:

Basically, you're advocating a war on a civilization.

Well, I never considered the Taliban, the Islamists and the backward, pre-Enlightenment Middle East to be all that "civilized."

Did Kerry mention that he was a hero in an immoral war ?

If you wish to conquer the Middle East--know this: we'll be there for decades and it will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of US lives. It will also eat up a significant chunk of our economy for decades.
******************************************
At our present casualty rate we would have taken by that time between 10 and 100 different nations over?

The present cost of Iraq is 1/25 of our National Income compared to Vietnam. One half of one percent actually.
******************************************
*****************************************

Basically, you're advocating a war on a civilization.
*****************************************
Not so we are recognising that there already is a War on Civilization, and responding to it
******************************************
Not in my name.

Posted by: JadeGold at March 16, 2004 05:51 PM
******************************************
I am AMAZED we are in total agreement on you last statement very definitely NOT in YOUR name.

I feel about the same on this issue as Samuel Adams did, so I will use his words to convey my feelings about your political agendas.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen.
—Samuel Adams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes NOT in your name, no truer words could be uttered.

Spain reminded me of Kipling's poem Cleared; will the US follow?

"If print is print or words are words, the learned Court perpends: --
We are not ruled by murderers, but only -- by their friends."

No one ask the simple question just HOW many fire departments are there in the US. Clinton's 100,000 new teachers had to be spread out over 90,000 school districts. Same goes for the COPS program. HOW many fire, school and police departments and districts are there.

John's Terror Ploy
New York Post ^ | 3-16-04 | Brian Blomquist

WASHINGTON - John Kerry yesterday charged that President Bush failed to win the "war of ideas" against Osama bin Laden and isn't doing enough the safeguard America.

Kerry - who seldom speaks out on terrorism, which is considered a winning issue for Bush - said the White House "hasn't pursued a strategy to win the hearts and minds of people around the world and win the war of ideas against the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden."

On the home front, Kerry also claimed that Bush hasn't done enough to simplify terrorist watch lists, protect cargo ports and nuclear plants, and fund first responders to emergencies.

The Bush campaign responded that Kerry's speech was more about labor-union politics than fighting terror and emphasized that Bush's budget request for next year calls for $500 million in grants for firefighters, a 400 percent increase since 2001.

"When John Kerry shows up to meet with union bosses today, he should explain why he didn't show up for the vote on last year's $29.3 billion Homeland Security appropriations bill," said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt.

Kerry is aware than Bush intends to make the fight against terrorism, along with boosting the economy, the focal point of his re-election campaign.

Bush talks about terrorism and protecting America in just about every speech he makes, and Kerry yesterday accused him of politicizing the issue.

"America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9/11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue," Kerry said.

"Our nation's safety is too important. And if I am president, we will work toward victory in the war on terror, knowing that those on the front lines of this battle are heroes, not political props," Kerry added.

"When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this administration is big on bluster and they're short on action," Kerry told the International Association of Firefighters, a union that supports him, in Washington, D.C.

"As we saw again last week in Spain, real action is what we need. The Bush administration is tinkering while the clock on homeland security is ticking, and we really don't have a moment of time to waste," Kerry said.

"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror, I believe he's done too little. I think this administration has it backward.

"President Bush says we can't afford to fund homeland security. I say we can't afford not to," Kerry said.

We're not ultimately going to adequately protect ourselves with homeland security. Any serious attempt to do so would constitute a full-blown police state.

Using volunteer troops to disrupt and destroy the terror conspiracies on the other side of the planet enables us to keep our (relatively) free society at home and protect our citizens reasonably well.

The Democrats could have avoided "politicizing" the war against terror, but instead chose to make their stand against Bush by siding with the islamofascists on almost every single topic.

For Kerry to now think that it should not even be an issue in the campaign is laughable. It is _the_ issue. And he has painted himself into the wrong corner in this debate, by securing the terrorist-supporting radicals of his party, and now he's stuck there.

The thing with playing devil's advocate is that nobody is literally supposed to be on the devil's side. The Democrats should have chosen different issues to fight over.

We keep hearing about the Patroit Act being a BAD civil rights abuser. Here is what I was able to dig up from the Manhattan Inst. Patroit Act HOOEY

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-times_abuse_hooey.htm

"Our best line of defense is in the enemy's ports." -- Admiral Horatio Nelson

Are you seriously advocating a return to the tactics of the Napoleonic Wars?

Well, I never considered the Taliban, the Islamists and the backward, pre-Enlightenment Middle East to be all that "civilized.

The problem with this tactic is in prosecuting the 'bad guys'--you're also advocating killing, wounding, or otherwise displacing an awful lot of folks who just want to make a life for themselves and their loved ones.

In the end, you'll be creating more terrorists.

Mr. Kauffman:

One of the neat things about the Founding Fathers (like the Bible) is that one can generally find a quote or a passage which supports whatever viewpoint.

"America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

--John Quincy Adams

Not in my name.

"The problem with this tactic is in prosecuting the 'bad guys'--you're also advocating killing, wounding, or otherwise displacing an awful lot of folks who just want to make a life for themselves and their loved ones."

They won't be harmed if they don't support terrorists.

"In the end, you'll be creating more terrorists."

Not if we act with sufficient force and accuracy to get the job done quickly. And act wisely, with they types of weapon systems that the US now fields. You know, the ones that Kerry voted against.

"Not in my name."

What is your name?

It's ok, free people will band together and do what's right anyway.

They won't be harmed if they don't support terrorists.

Sure. I guess we have super-secret munitions that only kill bad guys and protect the innocent.

Are you telling us, MattS, that everyone killed in Iraq was a terrorist or terrorist-supporter? Even the small children?

A little less naivete, please.

I'm sure Al Qaeda had every one of the 3000 people at the WTC listed by name, and certified as some kind of military threat. They don't have qualms about killing the innocent, and in fact, relish it.

Just admit you think Al Qaeda are heroes and the US are villains, and we can just avoid the whole illusion of an actual debate.

In the meantime, we will defend ourselves. Not what Bin Laden expected. Not what the Democrats support. But unlike Europe, if attackers insist on war, it will be war. And they will lose.

As you highlighted, ""America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." But when the monsters come here, and attack us in our beds, we will pursue them back to the ends of hell and slay them.

And people like you, who wish to protect these heartless murderers behind the human shields they surround themselves with, are scum.

May you find yourself in a crater.

I'm sure Al Qaeda had every one of the 3000 people at the WTC listed by name, and certified as some kind of military threat. They don't have qualms about killing the innocent, and in fact, relish it.

Nobody considers 9/11 to be anything but a terrorist attack.

You seem to be arguing that because Al Qaeda did it--so can we. You can only make such an argument if you're prepared to have the United States associated with terrorists like Al Qaeda.

Not in my name.

Hey Jade: Air France is ready when you are.

Sure. I guess we have super-secret munitions that only kill bad guys and protect the innocent.

Are you telling us, MattS, that everyone killed in Iraq was a terrorist or terrorist-supporter? Even the small children?

We have precision weapons that limit colateral damage.

I am telling you that a vast majority of the people killed in Iraq were fighting against the Coalition. The Baathist regime supported terrorists and was a threat to the region.

Remember, the state before the invasion last year was not peace, it was a low intensity war. President Bush wisely took action to end it.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

Not in your name?

Of course not in your name. Why would it be done in the name of the enemy?

We might as well do it in the name of Bin Laden or Saddam, or that "statesman" Arafat.

Can I just say, by the way, that "Not in My Name" is one of the dumbest slogans ever devised? It has the bumper sticker about the Pentagon bake sale beat by a mile.

Ah, the lowest of the low arguments, moral equivocation. "Our attacks against terrorists and their supporters are exactly the same as terrorist attacks against us."

Nonsense.

We go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties; their attacks specifically target civilians. Our goal is to make the world safe for freedom; their goal is to make it more dangerous to live in a free society. We put on uniforms and fight like men, they hide in civilian clothes and fight like cowards. And the most important difference of all: we're winning, and they're losing. Try again, JG. Your BS and propaganda have worn very thin.

We have precision weapons that limit colateral damage.

Not really. If you had any military experience, you'd realize how foolish this statement is. The "precision" in precision weaponry refers to the capability to strike an intended target; the munitions--ever more powerful, unfortunately, are highly indiscriminate.

Many of the weapons used aren't 'precision;' they're intended to project devastation over wide areas. Like cluster bombs.

I am telling you that a vast majority of the people killed in Iraq were fighting against the Coalition.

Highly doubtful. The fact remains, you don't bomb or launch missiles into a city and not get a high percentage of civilian casualties. Depending on which group you talk to--Iraqi civilian dead range from 3500 to over 10,000.

$5000 and 'I'm Sorry'

Remember, the state before the invasion last year was not peace, it was a low intensity war.

Patently false. It was containment--a separate concept. Essentially, Iraq was denied access to certain airspace and territory. As such, the only confrontations involved military personnel.

Not in my name.

But when the monsters come here, and attack us in our beds, we will pursue them back to the ends of hell and slay them.

Who is 'we,' Mick? It ain't you.

Better you should revise this to read: But when the monsters come here, and attack us in our beds, Mick will vigorously and manfully punch the buttons on his remote control, bravely watch Fox News, remaining patriotically on duty in his recliner (save for head calls and trips to the ice box) and demand that others go into harm's way.

The "precision" in precision weaponry refers to the capability to strike an intended target; the munitions--ever more powerful, unfortunately, are highly indiscriminate.

Many of the weapons used aren't 'precision;' they're intended to project devastation over wide areas. Like cluster bombs.

You know not of which you speak.

Precision weaponry is exactly what it says, it strikes where it is pointed, limiting unintened damage.

Non-precision bombs are used where appropriate. They were not used in the cities.

There were civilian casualities, there always is in a war. However, mass graves are no longer being filled and people are no longer being tortured. There are thousands of Iraqis alive today that Saddam would have killed. And the Iraqis are free to live their lives as they see fit.

For all the good the Coalition has done, you'd think you'd want to support it.

Patently false. It was containment--a separate concept. Essentially, Iraq was denied access to certain airspace and territory. As such, the only confrontations involved military personnel.

My statement was/is true. The state before the invasion was a truce that involved continual aerial skirmishing. In order to keep it up, we were based in Saudi Arabia, which was one of Al Qaeda's main beefs. By ridding the world of Saddam, we were able to move out of SA.

One would think a smart person would want to support liberty.

Precision weaponry is exactly what it says, it strikes where it is pointed, limiting unintened damage.

I going to claim a bit of authority on this issue; you really, really don't know what you're talking about.

When you launch a SLCM, with a 1000 lb warhead, at the second floor of Building X--you're going to take out the second floor of Building X. You're also going to take out the first, third, fourth, fifth floors. You're probably going to severely damage the buildings around Building X.

There's also Murphy's Law; sometimes precision weapons don't function as advertised. Also there's GIGO: your targetting coordinates are only as good as your G2.

Non-precision bombs are used where appropriate. They were not used in the cities.

Cluster bombs were used on Iraqi cities.

Cluster Bombs Iraq

There were civilian casualities, there always is in a war. However, mass graves are no longer being filled and people are no longer being tortured.

When those graves were being filled at an alarming rate--why were people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush the Smarter defending Saddam?

My statement was/is true. The state before the invasion was a truce that involved continual aerial skirmishing.

No. Since 1991, the US and her allies had air dominance over Iraq. Not just air superiority but dominance. Please look up that term, it means something.

When you launch a SLCM, with a 1000 lb warhead, at the second floor of Building X--you're going to take out the second floor of Building X. You're also going to take out the first, third, fourth, fifth floors. You're probably going to severely damage the buildings around Building X.

True, that is why I said limits unintended damage. The option is to use WWII tactics and saturate the area, causing a tremendous amount of damage over a wide area.

Cluster bombs were used on Iraqi cities

I stand corrected. However, the article you linked to mentions they used cluster munitions only when better weapons were not available. The Coalition went out of its way to limit civilian casualties.

When those graves were being filled at an alarming rate--why were people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush the Smarter defending Saddam?

What are you talking about?

No. Since 1991, the US and her allies had air dominance over Iraq.

Yes. The Iraqis fired on our planes repeatedly. Every one of the missions flown was flown under hostile conditions.

We did not transition from a state of peace when the invasion began. We were cleaning up a festering shit blister. And yes, it was created by a Republican president.

I am so tired of the liberal views of still helping those who nearly destroyed our whole Country by the actions of 9/11. When will the denial stop? When will the madness stop. Will California or some other major U.S. State have to be blown off the continent before we will actually do something? In addition, I am so disturbed by the pooring of hundreds of millions of dollars into 3rd world countries. I really don't what else to say right now.
DJT