Kerry would not rule out preemptive strikes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by freeandfun1, Jul 16, 2004.

  1. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    The only difference I see is that one clearly says they support it and the other says he supports it, but "please keep it quiet."

    Once again Kerry is trying to have it both ways on an issue. Why should we be surprised?
     
  2. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
    OR...

    de-emphasize could mean he is leaving himself a way out of making a decision so he can defer to the UN.
     
  3. JERWALT
    Offline

    JERWALT Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Might Kerry Need To Check With Chirac Before Making Such A Bold Move? In Fact, Why Ask This Question In Reference To Kerry When We Already Know Chirac's Position.
     
  4. TTTiger20
    Offline

    TTTiger20 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Kerry does support and does'nt support the same issue, What an idiot he is
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    All you anti-war peaceniks listen up! You only credible candidate this year is Nader!!!

    Please, oh please, vote for Nader...
     
  6. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    De-emphasis and kept quiet are 2 different things.
     
  7. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    not really. when you "de-emphasize" something, you don't bring attention to it or you "keep it quiet". Pretty much the same thing in my book.

    The only way I know how "to decrease the emphasis on or to minimalize the importance of" something is to keep it quiet or to just not talk about it. His point it that he would not change anything, he would only "de-emphasize" the policy. So, he would just not talk about it as much. Woopie!

    Wow, NYC, get a clue would ya?
     
  8. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    johnkerry.com

    “The gravest threat we face is terrorists or hostile states getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. Since that dark day in September, have we reached out to our allies and forged an urgent global effort to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials are secured? Have we taken every step we should to stop North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs? Have we restructured our intelligence agencies and given them the resources they need to keep our country safe?”

    “The honest answer, in each of these areas, is that we have done too little, often too late, and even cut back our efforts. It’s not enough to give speeches – America will only be safer when we achieve results. The facts speak for themselves -- there was less nuclear weapons materials secured in the two years after 9/11 than in the two years before. North Korea has reportedly quadrupled its nuclear weapons capability in the past year. Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability. Afghanistan has become a forgotten front in the war on terror.

    “As president, my number one security goal will be to prevent terrorists from gaining weapons of mass murder. I have proposed an ambitious and aggressive plan for dramatically reducing the threats from nuclear terrorism -- we will greatly accelerate work to secure nuclear materials at risk and invest the time and leadership needed to address the nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran. I will appoint a National Director of Intelligence so that there is one individual with responsibility and accountability for intelligence operations.”
     
  9. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157

    Screw Nader. I wouldnt want that guy to get any more legitimacy. besides the GOP can win without him.
     
  10. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    Damn, for a guy who has made a career out of advising the general public... Nader sure gets no love.
     

Share This Page