Kerry wants terror at an acceptable level

[Avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041011/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc_21

 

[MJDuncan1982]

That is pure political spin.

Kerry said he wanted to get "back to the place...where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

The Bush campaign has taken this and said that Kerry called Terrorists a nuisance.

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

The thing is IT IS IMPOSIBLE TO REMOVE HATE FROM THE MINDS OF EVERY PERSON THEREFORE IMPOSIBLE TO REMOVE ALL TERRORIST. this is a war that can not be won in a conventional sense not that any war is realy won.

This is a battle that will never end, but i think what kerry meant is that we can reduce the terrorist threat to a point where we need not fear being tourist and where the people of our allies need not feel threatened for supporting us.

 

[Flying Duck]

When is it a "nuisance" to murder people?

Not only did Kerry pick a stupid point to try to make (the goal is to eliminate all terrorism, not reduce it to a tolerable level) but he picked the wrong word.

Of course, we can't eliminate it but by using the word "nuisance", Kerry really stepped in it.

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

the choice of one word is really petty and kinda pathetic to base a political argument on expecialy if its being repeated by people who have a biased silly opinion and probably incorect interpretation of the word.

 

[nakedemperor]

When is it a "nuisance" to murder people?

Spin spin spin. Before 9/11, that's about the effect that terrorism had on people's lives-- it was almost a non-issue in this country, a nuisance at best. Do you LIKE constantly jumping when the government says jump, ducking and rolling where there's a red-alert, and constantly fearing terrorism? John Kerry wants to succeed against terror to the point where you don't have to spend so much time worrying about it.

 

[insein]

WRONG!!

Kerry has been sited as saying he wants to return to the tactics of Bill Clinton, where terrorism was treated like a criminal act. He has stated that he wishes to return to the time where it was treated as a law enforcement issue and not a matter of war. In that article over the weekend in the NYT, he had an unguarded moment wher ehe slipped and said that he feels going to war over terrorism was the wrong idea. He truly feels this war was wrong all around. Not the timing, not the cleanup, the whole thing. If Kerry were president on 9/11, we would have never gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. We wouldnt be fighting Terror in over 100 countries worldwide, on the high seas or be leading the world in a "Proactive" effort to solve the problem.

You liberals can vote for Kerry all you like because of your hatred for Bush. Just understand that not only will your taxes be raised, but the threat of this country being attacked again will rise as well.

 

[nakedemperor]

You liberals can vote for Kerry all you like because of your hatred for Bush. Just understand that not only will your taxes be raised, but the threat of this country being attacked again will rise as well.

Thanks, Mr. Cheney. I'll take my chances.

 

[Avatar4321]

Thanks, Mr. Cheney. I'll take my chances.

No you wont cause Bush will win in a landslide.

 

[drowe]

Kerry has been sited as saying he wants to return to the tactics of Bill Clinton, where terrorism was treated like a criminal act. He has stated that he wishes to return to the time where it was treated as a law enforcement issue and not a matter of war.

Yeah that's right, he did say that.

But didn't Kerry say he wants to increase the military size by 40,000 servicemembers? Which I disagree with in the first place based upon the reason given during the last debate. If he isn't going to treat terrorist acts as a matter of war, why the increase?

John Kerry: On the issues, he's everywhere you want him to be

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah that's right, he did say that.

But didn't Kerry say he wants to increase the military size by 40,000 servicemembers? Which I disagree with in the first place based upon the reason given during the last debate. If he isn't going to treat terrorist acts as a matter of war, why the increase?

John Kerry: On the issues, he's everywhere you want him to be

Because he is pulling the number out of deep crevises of his anatomy. Tell me how does he plan to get more people to volunteer? the only way he could keep that promise is to draft.

 

[MadMax]

Because he is pulling the number out of deep crevises of his anatomy. Tell me how does he plan to get more people to volunteer? the only way he could keep that promise is to draft.

Hell I thought that was Charlie The Wrangler who threw that out to stir the political winds ( so to speak ) and then the idjet voted against it ...What a moron that makes him be. For one thing the " volunteer " military will decrease significantly under a sad excuse of a CIC like Skerry... Sorry that is truth.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

That is pure political spin.

Kerry said he wanted to get "back to the place...where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

The Bush campaign has taken this and said that Kerry called Terrorists a nuisance.

No. Actually the President quoted Kerry exactly. He then said he couldn't disagree more and that he wanted to eliminate terrorism, not reduce it to a nuisance.

Saying that terrorism was ever just a nuisance is an idiotic thing to say anyway. A nuisance is a cat that won't stay off the table or the tag in your underwear rubbing on your butt. Terrorists killing people, bombing ships, and attacking us on our own soil is considerably more than a nuisance.

 

[MadMax]

Thanks, Mr. Cheney. I'll take my chances.

Haha, yer chances are limited and your days are numbered Mr. naked man..LOL As Pink Floyd says " Welcome To Machine "

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Spin spin spin. Before 9/11, that's about the effect that terrorism had on people's lives-- it was almost a non-issue in this country, a nuisance at best. Do you LIKE constantly jumping when the government says jump, ducking and rolling where there's a red-alert, and constantly fearing terrorism? John Kerry wants to succeed against terror to the point where you don't have to spend so much time worrying about it.

The key words here are "Before 9/11". That's something some of you just don't get. One of the main reasons 9/11 even happened is because all of us, not the Bush administration or the Clinton administration but ALL of us, treated it as a non issue. We will never return to a time before September 11th, 2001. We can fight the terrorists back and weaken them, put things where Iraq and Afghanistan can let their democracy grow, but we should never have a goal of just making things like they used to be.

Did you LIKE turning a blind eye to the first attack at the WTC in '93, only to have that followed by attacks on our embassies, only to have that followed by attacks on our ships, only to have that followed by the towers at the WTC being brought to the ground? Do you want to go back to the false sense of security that we are untouchable?

This isn't about fear, this is about common sense. We are safer today because of the simple fact that we are more aware of what's going on. The only person that makes you live in fear is you, but to suggest that we try to go back to a time where we ignore the threat of terrorism is crazy.

 

[MadMax]

When is it a "nuisance" to murder people?

Not only did Kerry pick a stupid point to try to make (the goal is to eliminate all terrorism, not reduce it to a tolerable level) but he picked the wrong word.

Of course, we can't eliminate it but by using the word "nuisance", Kerry really stepped in it.

He ALWAYS picks the " wrong words ".. LOL kinda like his wife, doncha think???

 

[NATO AIR]

i think the realistic goal is to diminish terrorism... it will be impossible to eliminate it. we may eliminate al-queda, we may eliminate hamas, we may eliminate hezbollah, but there will always be groups of some sort, somewhere in the world, who bear ill will against other nations, often for nearly understandable reasons (chechens, palestinians, saudi rebels, egyptians, chinese muslims)

this does not mean that their acts of terrorism are in any way right, but it does mean that the governments usually targeted are just as, if not more, responsible for the conditions in which terrorism became an option.

thus, until all nations and peoples are free, we can expect terrorism or rebellion (some nations call it terrorism, when it is in fact a rebellion) of some sort against oppressive regimes.

 

[phadras]

we can ensure that no states are sponsoring them... Eliminate their sources of arms, munitions, and funds.. A mad man is only a danger to a few if he hasn't the resources to injure many...
And Kerry is an idiot for stating that terrorism should be lowered to nuisance.. What a FUCKING MORON..... Go ahead Dumbo's, er, Demo's and vote for this fool.. Then when the next attack comes THE GUILT"S ON YOU FOR THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS!!!!! Their blood will be on your hands as well as the terrorists...

 

[Mainframe]

^^ good luck.

terrorism has been around since the beginning of time in one fashion or another..

i dont agree with kerry's choice of words, but i understand the point and thats the main idea.

bush was right when he said you cant win the war on terror.. its like saying you can win a war on racism. its just never going to happen.

there's so much spin on both sides of each other's remarks, both these campaigns are seriously dispicable and low.

 

[eric]

i dont agree with kerry's choice of words

This is one of the problems, he does this on a consistent basis. While many will understand what he meant, it can misinterpreted by others, such as terrorists and other leaders.

Furthermore, no, you can not totally eliminate terrorism, it has been around since the beginning, BUT you can limit it's scope and effect. In order to do so one must understand the nature of the threat and have the balls to do something about it, here is were in my opinion, Kerrry WILL FAIL !!!!

All one needs to do is to look at his record, he has consistently been on the wrong side of history !