Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

George Bush is right. John Edwards is wrong.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:02 PM
Original message
George Bush is right. John Edwards is wrong.
When George Bush responded to a question on winning the "war" in terror by saying "I don't think you can win it. (this was Bush's emphasis when he spoke) But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world," he made the first accurate statement I've heard from him in a long time.

You can't "win" a war on a weapon. Just like you can't win the war against bazookas, but you can work to create an environment where it is less likely someone will use a bazooka. Throughout all of history, guerrilla attacks against powerful Establishments or against the innocent have taken place. You could kill every single terrorist and take over every country in the world, and that still will not "win" a war on terrorism for you, because at any point a person who sees things another way and is fanatical enough in that belief can rise up and kill innocents to advance that cause.

What's more, for the past four years I have been consistently outraged by the attempt to exploit the tragedy of September 11th or the resistance of our enemies for the sake of war-mongering. The administration for years fed of the publics devastation and fear to create a permanent war mindset in the nation, and whenever that was questioned, the administration was right there to remind everyone that "we are a nation at war" and "I am a wartime president" and "you shouldn't ask questions in a time of war." The trouble with calling this a war (aside from the fact that it isn't one) is that there are no fixed and realistic objectives for winning. And even if George Bush is not the right man to lead our nation, that doesn't change the fact that today, through a gaff to the press, he spoke the truth, and was dead right.

You cannot permanently eradicate the threat of terrorism from the globe, and even if you did for one day, tomorrow a new individual may choose to use the tool of terrorism to advance an agenda. What you can do however, is make terrorism less palatable, with less safe harbors, less ease of movement, less freedom in communication and planning, greater risks, and less likelihood of success, so that terrorism becomes a more and more inefficient means of achieving goals. So for once I strongly agree with a statement of the Presidents.

But then, John Edwards responded.

And his response was everything I despise in thinking about this issue. I felt as though John Edwards wanted nothing more than to produce a sound bite for the masses and to capitalize on what some might consider a "gaff" of the President, rather than actually speak the truth. John Edwards came out criticizing the President for proclaiming "defeat" in the "war" - which is just as stupid as proclaiming you can win it - then when on to proclaim that he and John Kerry would "win the war on terrorism." Give me a break! I'm sick to death of the permanent state of war that has been manufactured in this country against a fake and undestroyable enemy for the purpose of political gain. I'm tired of the militaristic garbage. It was stupid and wrong with the Bush Administration did it, it is stupid and wrong when Democrats do it.

We do need to be concerned about security, and we do need to focus on making the world a place where terrorism is almost always unsuccessful and infrequently attempted. And there are a lot of good ways to work on doing that. And Democrats have better plans for doing that than Republicans do. But I was still extremely disappointed that in the rush to beat up the President, John Edwards ended up sounding exactly like the neo-conservative administration that I deplore with my whole heart.

You cannot win it as though it is some entity your can force to surrender. But you can continue to work toward a world that is more safe, wherein terrorism is rare an largely unsuccessful. We start doing that by removing the neoconservative administration from office and then thwapping Edwards upside the head teaching him that its not good to use the rhetoric of perpetual endless war just to win elections.

Sel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sad but true
one should treat the causes, not the symptoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. exactly, like the war on drugs
not winnable because roots of discontent are never addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. The two are even connected
witness Afganistan and the opium trade...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Indeed it is not a "war" - there is no "other side" that can give up or be
defeated.

It is exactly the same as the "war" on crime.

And that means it is a police action. And one does not win in police work.

But Edwards is correct that we can do better than Bush and get this crime rate reduced drastically. Terror has increased in the past year worldwide - once again Bush is failing -

and our media lets him call his failure a success!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coloradodem2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Funny because Bush talked so tough about winning it.
Especially during his infamus publicity stunt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cat Atomic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yeah, Bush is a flip-flopper .
:p
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. So Bush* was technically right...
We can still spin it that BUSH* SURRENDERS IN THE W.O.T. - and therefore HE'S THE WEAKER CANDIDATE.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Ooo ooo! Or, I know! Or...we could stand up for what's right.
Yes, I like that.

There's plenty of ways to make the case that Bush is the weaker candidate without saying things that are dead wrong and betray the right values. I don't believe in saying anything to win, or anything to get elected. Are Edwards and Kerry nothing more than poll watchers who will say whatever they think will make them most popular? I don't think so, at least I hope not. And if that's the case, then they need to be better than this.

It just so happens that Bush made a truthful statement. Attack him for inconsistency, attack his previous comments assuring America we would "win the war." But don't come out and say, "oh John Kerry and I will win the war on terrorism." That is a statement as bad and wrong-headed as anything this administration as said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Fine, play the integrity card!
Okay, okay, but the poster below makes a good point. It is a soundbite war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Hehehe, yes I concede he makes a good point..... dammit.. sigh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
68. Integrity sounds nice
It also doesn't win elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phish420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Agreed
Plus, for once, this campaign is actually answering questions like they want to win the thing. Their answers were giving Bush ammo for the past month. I think Edwards answer was the ONLY answer that is acceptable to any swing voters. Good Job John, now teach this rebuttal skill to Kerry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nyhuskyfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. I agree with you...
But two months before the election, I guess I can live with some sound-byte type rhetoric that helps erode some of the Bush support amongst people who ONLY plan to vote for him because they perceive he's strong on terrorism.

That's what aggravates me about our political system and our society. Quotes and rhetoric mean more than substance. Long explanations get tuned out, and a silly sound vyte gets played over and over. Your entire economic plan is ignored, but a fabricated statement that you invented the internet gets driven home over and over.

This society dumbs itself down on purpose all the time. Kids poke fun at smart kids, then adults thumb their noses at the intellectual elite, where being a lawyer or a professor makes you un-American, but fixing cars or driving a tractor makes you a shining example of the red, white, and blue (note: I have nothing against those jobs at all -- some people love fixing cars, and they should be encouraged to pursue that for a living, the same way everybody should be encouraged to succeed at their chosen endeavors).

When was the last time a presidential candidate decided he would "boost" his image by purchasing a fake chemistry lab in Texas to tinker around with on weekends?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. Bush caught on his own rhetorical device
of declaring war on a despicable method. Edwards just took him at the meaning Bush had been using to pound domestic opposition, and used it on him. I don't have a problem with that. When Kerry is in charge, he'll work on security, not rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. it would be like winning the war on "crime" or domestic violence
You would have to stop anyone from committing a crime.



I was sad also to hear that Edwards was trying to jump on that bandwagon of non-reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michigandem2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. they have to show everyone that he has said he CAN win it
and now he is saying he can't win...not that anyone can but he has said it so many freaking times and he totally FLIP FLOPPED today and Judy Woodruff wanted to say..."flip flop" but refrained...

its not that we have to say WE can win it..but he said he CAN'T so what is his whole campaign...This is how it should start sounding for the dems "GWB based his whole campaign on winning the war on terror..and the day the convention starts he admits in an interview that he can't win the war on terror-George Bush has a real problem here"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
15. What should Kerry's response be?
I can think of a lot of responses, and none of them will require him to pay lip service to this ridiculous and destructive notion that this is a winnable war against an actual entity, not a permanent commitment to security and against threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Kerry should pick up were Bush's Freudian slip left off and for once
start telling the American people the ugly truth about the war on terror: it is our own foreign policy that creates terrorism.

And while Kerry is at it, he should continue by saying another truth: the war on drugs is unwinnable because it is our demand for narcotics that creates the narco-trafficking.

After that, Kerry should say that pot should be legalized!

All the stupid talking heads and the strategists of both parties will freak out totally, but Kerry will win by a landslide!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. obviously it is not a conventional war
The only reason Bush got away with saying winning the war on terror in the first place is that winning can mean different things when you have left the definition of the final objective out.

There is plenty of winning that can be done if there are actual goals set other than bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a lot of work to do to curb Islamic terrorism in the world and encourage the governments to change in the ME. All that Kerry and Edwards are saying is they know how to go after it, and not dubyas way.

I agree that in a literal sense Bush's recent statement was correct, you can't win the War on Terror, its just as stupid as saying you can win the War on Drugs. But we do need to highlight Bushes flip flop, its an absolute necessity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michigandem2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
17. depends on how you define "it" then?
I mean COME ON!!! for 2 years he has been talking the war on terror bullshit..he has said on NUMEROUS occasions he CAN win the war on terror..who is best to win the war on terror, I can keep you safe from terror...yada yada yada...

and today BOOM....we can't win the war on terror...whether he said "it" or not...we can run with this..and we better....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
20.  Then call him out on his flip flop, but don't buy into the Rhetoric
Point out how it underscores the fact that Bush was ill equipped and unprepared for what it would really take to respond to terrorist threats in the 21st century, USE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT WHY THE RHETORIC OF PERPETUAL WAR IS WRONG, how it is simply a smoke screen to increase spending, drive our nation toward militaristic imperialism, and cruise all over the globe in an hegimonistic crusade under the banner of a "war."

Use it as a change to talk about how to win the SAFETY and SECURITY of our nation, and how to make the world a place in which terrorism becomes more RARE, not the HIGHEST its been in 32 years! USE IT AS A CHANCE TO PROVIDE A CLEAR ALTERNATIVE TO THIS WAR MONGERING REGIME!

I can't make it plainer than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michigandem2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. point taken but
if Kerry would of said this..how would it have been spun??? we need to spin it..ya know? they wouldn't of let this go if Kerry said it...they would of ran with that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
18. It was a quicky throwaway message du jour
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 08:39 PM by zulchzulu
C'mon. Edwards knew what he was saying. He's chiming in. His graphic is back in TV News graphics department rotation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Doesn't make it right, it was also a missed opportunity for substance..
..see my post above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. I didn't read or his statement...no need to...
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 09:03 PM by zulchzulu
It was an obvious opening that Edwards wanted to use to get back in the dialogue.

We all think the war sucks and the quote-unquote War on Terror is a bunch of bullshit. Edwards has said so in past statements.

Edwards needs to go for the DUMB LAZY SOUTHERN MALE AND FEMALE VOTE and the rural dumbasses too. This was the only card he had today.

Watch and learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indie_voter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
24. Yes, but we have to beat these guys at their own game
They framed the debate and now they gave us a stick. I hope the campaign uses it to the full extent. Unfortunately our discourse has fallen to has the best soundbite (read:simplistic meme)

When Kerry wins he can go about fixing the mess the neocons have gotten us in to.

I have a modicum of hope, his foriegn policy people (including my favorite Wes Clark) are bright not to mention sane.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
25. Actually if we get our ass out of Saudi Arabia/The MidE we might win *it*
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. That would be a giant step forward, but...
we will also have to stop supporting the dictators and the oligarchies in Latin America, Asia, Africa, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Indeed we will. And I see this as far more likely under K then B.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
26. You know what?
If John Kerry had said something like that, they would be all over him. I mean, they were giving him hell for using a word "sensitive".
But it's fine when Bush says that we can not win the war on terror?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. So what? That's why I don't VOTE FOR THEM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Please!
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 10:29 PM by lizzy
If Kerry had said something like that, wouldn't you be all over him?
I am sure republicans would be having a field day. We would never hear the end of it.
And here is their "fearless" leader saying we can't win war on terror. I wonder if the republicans agree with that? LOL.
If you can't win the war, why even fight it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Because its not a war.
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 10:39 PM by Selwynn
It's an never ending commitment to the safety of our citizens and peace around the world. Declaring it a "war" as an excuse to "get the country on a war footing" so it will blindly accept the stunning destruction of civil liberties, the massive evisceration of social spending, funneled into massive, huge military spending, record deficits, and a policy of global militarism that is murdering boys and girls by the wagonful is WRONG.

It's wrong when Republicans do it. It's wrong when Democrats agree to play by those semantics and do it to. It's wrong.

The issue is Security, international (i.e. the security of our allies) and domestic. It is not a war. We should not suspend certain civil liberties because "we're at war." We should not refrain from questioning our President or our government because "we at war." We should not allow the executive branch to ascribe all kinds of special powers to itself because "we're at war." We should not allow massive imperialistic aggression for the sake of profit and power because "we're at war." We should not allow massive tax cuts to the wealthy because "we're at war."

What we have is not a war, but a never ending national commitment to SECURITY. And we need to figure out a way to honor that responsibility while at the same time BEING A NATION AT PEACE!

That is what's right, that is what should be the agenda of a candidate opposing this president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. And in answer to your first question: no, I would think even better of him
When Bush made that statement I thought, "that's the first intelligent thing I've heard him say in two years - I bet his handlers are pissed!"

If Kerry had said it, I would have admired him greatly. You don't "win" Security. And that's what the actual issue is, its just been perverted into the "war on terror" as code for neo-conservative hegemony. What you do, is you maintain the best plan for enduring Security in a nation in peacetime - which is what we are.

I absolutely refuse, and will continue to do so with my last dying breath, this absurd and despicable notion that since 9/11 happened we can never be a nation of peace again - and that's what a "war on terror" means. It is a perpetual war, there is no possible way to "win" a war against a tool of aggression. There will always, always, always, always be people willing to use it. For every one you kill, more will come.

I refuse to accept an ideology that says American is now a nation at perpetual war against its nameless, faceless potential enemies. Instead, I choose to consider the issue domestic and international SECURITY, which is a LONG TERM and ONGOING COMMITMENT of a nation in PEACETIME as well as wartime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstateblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
29. Sorry- If You're Gonna Call It a A War - You Can Either Win It Or You Can
Lose It-We can start over and call it something else, but that won't work in the soundbite era. Running a well thought out ten minute ad explaining the nuances of the issue is a prescription for permanent minority status. This is hand to hand combat, and when the dirty fighting opponent leaves you an opening you can't just let Kerry start rambling about the complexities of this. Nobody will pay attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
airron Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. EXACTLY-it's time to punish Bush with this quote. No hand-wringing, please
I am sorry, but this thread is way off. True, this is not a war on terror, but if it is, you explain as if it can be won, otherwise we're talking about a one hundred year war of civilizations and an Orwellian permanent war.

Bush is tripping over himself to move to the center (the quadrennial migration) and the awkwardness is telling. If you are going to talk sense in the WoT, for God's sake, talk sense. You should define victory as an isolation of your enemies and an alliance among reasonable powers - you DO NOT say it is unwinnable because we will never have Muslims signing surrender papers on the deck of the Enterprise. For that, Edwards should skewer him, and he can define victory while he is at it (and point out that Kerry has been way ahead of Bush on this.)

Look, from a purely political standpoint, this is a moment when you PUNISH the enemy for being so impolitic. Can you imagine if Kerry had said this? You would have legions of hand-wringing liberals bellyacheing about how he wasn't looking tough enough. (Yes, I am a liberal).

It is time to twist the knife. It is too late for this president, after dumping us into a quagmire and alienating the rest of humanity, to start talking about isolating terrorists from the league of nations. He has made his bed. It is time to punish him with this quote. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstateblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. I just sent MoveOn some more $ and wrote "Hit Hard"on the form
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
30. Of course Kerry & Edwards can win the War on Terror!
In my opinion we will have won the W.O.T. on the day that Kerry & Edwards take office! Their inaugeration will be V-day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
33. You Completely Fail To Understand Politics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Yeah that's me... just a big political noob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
35. bush is right like a broken clock is right twice a day
his secret is that he takes both sides at various times on any given issue.

I think the only reason the bush admin started calling Kerry a flip-flopper was for the sake of first mover advantage. bush is among the blackest of pots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstateblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
37. This is a sham of a response to Edwards as you have replaced his words
with your own cynical view.

This is bullshit. Here's the Kerry plan to fight and win the war on terror. Note that it includes a myriad of actions that bear no resemblence to Bush's bumbling blunder. Try using our candidate's actual statements as you attack.

Winning The War On Terror Without Losing The Values Of Freedom And Justice


The Kerry-Edwards Plan for Homeland Security

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/homeland_plan.html

America needs a new strategy for homeland security that takes steps as big as the threats we face. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan that addresses five major challenges:

(1) improving our ability to gather, analyze, and share information so we can track down terrorists and stop them before they cause us harm,

(2) better securing our airports, seaports, and borders,

(3) hardening likely terrorist targets,

(4) improving domestic readiness, and

(5) winning the war on terror without losing the values of freedom and justice for all that make us proud to be Americans.


Track and Stop Terrorists

The war on terror requires good intelligence, yet many of the problems with information-sharing and databases that allowed terrorists to slip into our country before 9/11 have not been addressed.

As part of a reform of our intelligence services, John Kerry will establish a true Director of National Intelligence to coordinate the nation's intelligence efforts, and he will establish a separate service within the Federal Bureau of Investigation dedicated to intelligence work. He will accelerate the improvement and integration of key watchlists and databases so they operate quickly and seamlessly. And he will give more security clearances to state and local officials and ensure that they get critical information quickly when they need it.


Protect our Borders and Shores

At our ports, the Kerry-Edwards plan will improve loading facility security while improving the accuracy and timing of transmitted and shared data about contents, location, and chain of control regarding a container shipment. At our airports, the Kerry-Edwards plan will ensure adequate security for air cargo, tons of which goes uninspected today, and ensure that screenings at airports continue to become more effective. At our borders, the Kerry-Edwards plan will use technology and work with Canada and Mexico to improve border security while speeding up legal and secure passages across our border.


Harden Vulnerable Targets

We must do more to reduce risks at likely targets of terrorist attack, including nuclear plants and chemical plants. For example, even though an attack on a chemical plant could endanger 1 million Americans, the current administration has failed to require better security at chemical plants because of lobbying from the chemical industry. The Kerry-Edwards plan will require these plants to adopt adequate plans to improve security, including measures to reduce dangers to the public if an attack occurs. It will also improve security at nuclear plants and strengthen security on railways and subways by more chemical and biological detectors and taking other key steps to prevent terrorists from striking our trains.


Improve Domestic Readiness

Our first defenders will respond to any attack with courage and heroism-but they also need the equipment and manpower to do the job. The Kerry-Edwards plan will provide direct assistance to our police officers and firefighters to ensure that they have the communications systems, protective gear, and manpower they need to protect our communities. It will also modernize our emergency warning system to provide localized warnings, treat the fighters on the frontlines as partners, and provide all Americans with the information they need. To improve our ability to respond to a biological attack, John Kerry will put one individual in charge of our anti-bioterror efforts, set national benchmarks for state and local preparedness, and harness America's bioscience genius to increase drug and vaccine development. Finally, John Kerry will enable all Americans to do their part by creating a new community defense service comprised of ordinary Americans that serves as a 21st century neighborhood watch. And he will expand national service opportunities for young people who want to help defend our nation.


Guard Liberty at Home

John Kerry and John Edwards believe in an America that is safe and free. They believe we must always remember that terrorists do not just target our lives - they target our way of life. As president, John Kerry will defend our liberty and our security at home. He will appoint an Attorney General who values and protects civil liberties.

Like eight Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Kerry has rejected this administration's policy of detaining American citizens indefinitely, without access to a lawyer or chance to prove their innocence.

He believes some provisions of the Patriot Act - like the money laundering provisions - must be made stronger. Others - like the library and "sneak-and-peek" search provisions - must be made smarter, to better protect privacy and freedom while allowing our government to do everything necessary to track down terrorists and defend America.

As president, John Kerry will ensure that the American government is open and responsive to the needs and inquiries of Congress and the public, offering enough information to hold the government accountable without compromising our security.
______________________________________


Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism
Remarks of John Kerry


Los Angeles, CA - It’s an honor to be here today at the Burkle Center – named in honor of a good friend and one of America’s outstanding business leaders.

Day in and day out, George W. Bush reminds us that he is a war President and that he wants to make national security the central issue of this election. I am ready to have this debate. I welcome it.

I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure – with a stronger, more comprehensive, and more effective strategy for winning the War on Terror than the Bush Administration has ever envisioned.

As we speak, night has settled on the mountains of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Osama bin Laden is sleeping, it is the restless slumber of someone who knows his days are numbered. I don’t know if the latest reports – saying that he is surrounded – are true or not. We’ve heard this news before.

We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead, called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time and we all know America cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed.

And when that day comes, it will be a great step forward but we will still have far more to do. It will be a victory in the War on Terror, but it will not be the end of the War on Terror.

This war isn’t just a manhunt – a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.

As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

Like all Americans, I responded to President Bush’s reassuring words in the days after September 11th. But since then, his actions have fallen short.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment. The President’s budget for the National Endowment for Democracy’s efforts around the world, including the entire Islamic world, is less than three percent of what this Administration gives Halliburton – hardly a way to win the contest of ideas.

Finally, by virtually every measure, we still have a homeland security strategy that falls far short of the vulnerabilities we have and the threats we face.

George Bush has no comprehensive strategy for victory in the War on Terror – only an ad hoc strategy to keep our enemies at bay. If I am Commander-in-Chief, I would wage that war by putting in place a strategy to win it.

We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs. We can’t wipe out terrorist cells in places like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines, or Italy just by dropping in Green Berets.

It was local law enforcement working with our intelligence services which caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Bin al Shibh in Pakistan and the murderer known as Hambali in Thailand. Joining with local police forces didn’t mean serving these terrorists with legal papers; it meant throwing them behind bars. None of the progress we have made would have been possible without cooperation – and much more would be possible if we had a President who didn’t alienate long-time friends and fuel anti-American anger around the world.

We need a comprehensive approach for prevailing against terror – an approach that recognizes the many facets of this mortal challenge and relies on all the tools at our disposal to do it.

First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world – and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.

America’s greatest military strength has always been the courageous, talented men and women whose love of country and devotion to service lead them to attempt and achieve the impossible everyday.

But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely. National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.

And families across America have had to collect funds from their neighbors to buy body armor for their loved ones in uniform because George Bush failed to provide it

The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.

And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade. (edit: He doesn't mean Iraq. He has said that the 40,000 does not mean a draft or more U.S. troops to Iraq.)

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

But the challenge for us is not to cooperate abroad; it is to coordinate here at home. Whether it was September 11th or Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, we have endured unprecedented intelligence failures. We must do what George Bush has refused to do – reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets. We must train more analysts in languages like Arabic. And we must break down the old barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement.

In the months leading up to September 11th, two of the hijackers were arrested for drunk driving – and another was stopped for speeding and then let go, although he was already the subject of an arrest warrant in a neighboring county and was on a federal terrorist watch list. We need to simplify and streamline the multiple national terrorist watch lists and make sure the right information is available to the right people on the frontlines of preventing the next attack.

But we can’t take any of those steps effectively if we are stuck with an Administration that continues to stonewall those who are trying to get to the bottom of our September 11th intelligence failures. Two days ago, the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert refused the request of the bipartisan 9-11 commission for just a little more time just to complete their mission. This after the Commission has had to deal with an Administration that opposed its very creation and has stonewalled its efforts.

He didn’t hesitate to pick up the phone and call Denny Hastert to ram through his Medicare drug company benefit or to replace a real Patients' Bill of Rights with an HMO Bill of Goods. This President told a Republican fundraiser that it was in the “nation’s interest” that Denny Hastert remain Speaker of the House. I believe it’s in America’s interest to know the truth about 9-11. Mr. President, stop stonewalling the commission and stop hiding behind excuses. Pick up the phone, call your friend Denny Hastert and tell him to let the commission finish its job so we can make America safer.

Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.

Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.

And our safety at home may someday soon be endangered as Iraq becomes a training ground for the next generation of terrorists.

It is time to return to the United Nations and return America to the community of nations to share both authority and responsibility in Iraq, and take the target off the back of our troops. This also requires a genuine Iraqi security force. The Bush Administration simply signs up recruits and gives them rudimentary training. In a Kerry Administration, we will create and train an Iraqi security force equal to the task of safeguarding itself and the people it is supposed to protect.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

In Afghanistan, we have some NATO involvement, but the training of the Afghan Army is insufficient to disarm the warlord militias or to bring the billion dollar drug trade under control. This Administration has all but turned away from Afghanistan. Two years ago, President Bush promised a Marshall Plan to rebuild that country. His latest budget scorns that commitment.

We must – and if I am President, I will – apply the wisdom Franklin Roosevelt shared with the American people in a fireside chat in 1942, “it is useless to win battles if the cause for which we fight these battles is lost. It is useless to win a war unless it stays won.” This Administration has not met that challenge; a Kerry Administration will.

But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs”

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

Finally, if we are going to be serious about the War on Terror, we need to be much more serious about homeland security. Today, fire departments only have enough radios for half their firefighters and almost two-thirds of firehouses are short-staffed. We should not be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in New York City. We need to put 100,000 more firefighters on duty and we need to restore the 100,000 police on our streets which I fought for and won in 1994 but which the Bush Administration has cut in budget after budget.

We need to provide public health labs with the basic expertise they need but now lack to respond to chemical or biological attack. We need new safeguards for our chemical and nuclear facilities.

And our ports – like the Port of Los Angeles – need new technology to screen the 95 percent of containers that now enter this country without any inspection at all. And we should accelerate the action plans agreed to in US-Canada and US-Mexico “smart border” accords while implementing new security measures for cross border bridges. President Bush says we can’t afford to fund homeland security. I say we can’t afford not to.

The safety of our people, the security of our country, the memory of our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, neighbors and heroes we lost on September 11th call on us to win this war we did not seek.

And our children’s future demands that we also do everything in our power to prevent the creation of tomorrow’s terrorists today. Maybe there’s no going back to the days before baggage checks and orange alerts. Maybe they’re with us forever. But I don’t believe they have to be. I grew up at a time of bomb shelters and air raid drills. But America had leaders of vision and courage in both parties. And today, the Cold War is memory, not reality.

I believe we can bring a real victory in the War on Terror. I believe we must, not only for ourselves but for all who look to America as “the last best hope of earth.” I believe we can meet that ideal – and that’s why I’m running for President.

Pick these apart.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. None of this is relevant.
I'm not attacking the ticket, I'm criticizing a comment that cuts to the very heart of the problem.

Kerry/Edwards shouldn't PLAY BY BUSH'S TERMS. It's nothing more than wing wing propaganda to keep spinning the "our nation is at war" bullshit yarn as an excuse to continue to militarize our nation and push forward with our imperialism.

I don't want them to play on that playing field. I want them to say, in the spirit of Jules from Pulp Fiction, "it aint in the same fucking ball park, it aint even the same fucking sport!"

Our policy toward global threads doesn't need small tweaks, it needs total rejection and replacement. I loathe continuing to support this same "war" ideology which does absolutely NOTHING but serve the interests of neo-conservatives.

You are freaking out and over-reacting because you think I'm making some huge sweeping attack against the candidates. I'm not. But I think two people make gaffs today. Bush, because he accidentally told the truth, and Edwards because instead of using an opportunity to really show a clear alternative that Americans are absolutely dying to hear, he instead continued to sell the bill of goods handed down by this neoconservative administration. It's time to REJECT THE RHETORIC OF TYRANNY.

Just because Kerry and Edwards are the correct choice for the election of 2004, doesn't mean we shouldn't still care about how they articulate and express their message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Bush didn't invent any approach to foriegn policy
He's just dishing out whatever suits his oligarchy. John Kerry has work extensively to address these concerns. Big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
58. the neo-conservative regime did indeed create an approach
and yes, there is *some* difference between that approach and the approach of Kerry. Part of the reason why I'll vote for him. Well that and the fact that Bush is the worst president ever. However, none of this is relevant to the point, which is that the war on terror is a meaningless and hollow tool concocted by this neo-conservative regime to justify perpetual aggression and perpetual undermining of democracy in the name of "war."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
41. Yeah, but that's not what he said.
He answered the question as if it were legitimate. You're saying it's not. So he doesn't believe what you're saying.

In any case, that's not the position we're going to take. That IS a soft position on terror. Whether or not we CAN win a war against terrorists, that's exactly what we're going to do under a Kerry administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. That's a sad shame.
Because its total bullshit, and it keeps us from doing the things we would actually need to do to have a safer america and a more secure globe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Whatever it takes.
We're on the same page, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
46. THIS is what I mean!
Edited on Mon Aug-30-04 10:41 PM by demwing2
In my thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x683630

There is no "fair fight." Edwards isn't lying, he's just playing hardball.

The media will ignore our well reasoned debates, and edit it all down to a soundbite. So what do we do?

We give them soundbite, and let them choke on it.

This is beautiful ammunition for Kerry, and if he and Edwards had let the ball drop I would have been extremely disappointed. Two thumbs way up for Edwards' response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
55. You don't get what I'm saying.
Look, this goes to the other person who had the brilliant one liner accusing me of not knowing anything about politics:

I understand the concept of the sound bite. I really do.

You are acting like I'm saying Edwards should not have responded. I don't think that. I think what he did was BLOW A HUGE CHANCE for an EVER BETTER SOUND BITE.

We can disagree on that, and that's fine, but its not because I'm stupid or don't know something about politics. I believe Edwards miss a huge change for an extremely memorable "sound bite " with substance, instead of a largely forgettable one simply because it was so painfully predictable and devoid of substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. I don't think your stupid!
Did I say that, or anythink like that?

I'm very sorry if that was the impression that I gave. Not my intent. Not in the least...

But I still disagree :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Yeah ok. :)
We can disagree then. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
47. The War on Terror is winnable
The war is retaliation for those responsbile for 911 and those who help them. Bush has said this many times. Why else would Cheney have tried to make the Iraq connection to Al Quaida?

The war on terror is the war on Al Quaida and those who supplied them in the 911 act.

We are not at war with everyone who commit terrorist acts. We are not at war with the Chechens, or Hezbolah. We are at war with radical Isamlic extremists who attacked our country.

This is the war on terror that Bush has often referred to. And when limited to THAT it is winnable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Then what is the "Axis of Evil" about? Iran? Syria? N. Korea?
All the places were are preparing to go kick ass in the name of the "war on terrorism?"

The fact that you believe we are only at war with the radicals who attacked this country is about the most naive thing I've ever read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. What about the doctrine of preemption, justified as part of the WOT..
..which says we reserve the right to attack any country we think might at some future time commit terror against us. This was justified in the name of waging the "war on terror." That's not limited to just getting the guys of 9/11.

Neither are all the people we are torturing and detaining illegally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. What about "we reserve the right to attack countries harboring terrorists"
Not.. "terrorists connected to 9/11." Not "Terrorist that are part of Al Queda. But anyone the US deems a terrorist, we now reserve the right to attack countries we accuse of harboring them. How is that related to your narrow scope?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. What about "either your with us or with the terrorists"
The war on terror is exactly what it says: a vague, catch all phrase designed to keep the nation on a "war footing" to continue to allow the PNAC neoconservative agenda of global aggression to continue unabated. It has no clear end, but is used to justify whatever action the neoconservative administration chooses to take. It is designed to keep the publics willingness to ask questions or criticize under control, and to make any and all who might raise critical question about the plans of neo-conservators look "weak" on terror.

We are not at war with the Chenchens because right now they have nothing we want. But when they do, we will be. One step at a time. First Iraq, then Iran, then Syria. The Lybia, then with that region secure we may find new "terrorists" in South America, we can get Chavez while we're at it. Then we'll probably clean out "terrorists" in Africa so we can tap more oil. Who knows! The sky's the limit!

There is nothing about the Bush administration nor their documented plans and beliefs that indicates they ever had any intention of fighting a real short term, targeted "war" against Al Queda. It is clear however, that they were more than eager to USE THE EXCUSE of AQ to justify all of their militaristic expansion and will continue to do so until they are removed from power.

The last thing I want is for the guy who replaces that to pick up all the same manipulative distorted, neo-conservative spin language. Instead, I want someone who can finally focus on the issues as they really are, the long term issue of our SECURITY during PEACE TIME.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
54. War on Terror CAN be won, just by taking up the fight.
Its a moral victory, but its more than a moral victory. Its a psychological victory, but its more than a psychological victory.

It's saying you CAN NOT TERRORIZE the US! You can bomb us, gas us, capture us and torture us, but you will not scare us into inaction!

You can deliver death, but you will not hold a country captive and in terror. We WILL come looking for you, and we WILL find you, and then GOD help you, because no one else will.

The onlyway Terrorists win is if they make us give up the fight, or if they make us give upour freedom.

George Bush may be technically correct, but his statement shows no leadership. I heard that the Repukes will try to compare him to Churchill, and I dare them to try, because itgives us the PERFECT opportunity to contrast the two ideologies.

"Can we win? I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
George W. Bush

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender."
Winston Churchill

"We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom."
John Kerry

Who sounds like a leader?

Hint: His name aint George.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. A "war on terrorism" is like a "war on violence."
Number one, its meaningless. Number two, its impossible. Psychological victory? I don't consider a meaningless phrase and the justification of endless aggression in the name of something that cannot be done to be either a moral or a psychological victory.

Now, a fundamental and ongoing commitment to security during PEACE TIME, and the rejection of mass militarization and a country with "war footing" simply as justification for a neo-conservative agenda, that would be both a moral and a psychological victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #56
65. Thats NOT accurate, Selwynn. Terrorism is UNLIKE violence
Violence is physical, with perhaps a pschological byproduct.

Terrorism is psychological. Terrorists may use violence as a catylist, but the desired result is a psychological state, not a physical state.

And btw, you are right - violence can not be stopped. Violence is selfish. One person can create violence. But terrorism is a relationship. It requires a target, like violence, but it also requires that that target cooperate to some degree.

If you hit me, you've created violence. If, as a result, I cringe whenever I see you, you've created terror.

We can win a fight against terror. The victims on flight 93 won their war on terrorism, because they fought back. They died, but they won a victory. We can win a similar, but far greater victory. As a country, we can refuse to give in to the terror.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. That's interesting.
I'll have to think about that a little more.

I don't think "refusing to give into terror" is the same thing as saying we're in a perpetual "war on terrorism."

Refusing to give into has ALWAYS been a bed rock principle of our security policy. I'd refer you to posts #45 and #48 for more on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Here's Another - Terrorism is like Spousal Abuse
It's violent, but intensely psychological. If you believe that terrorism can not be defeated, do you also agree that spousal abuse can not be defeated?

I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. No, I don't agree that spousal abuse can be "defeated."
As though there will exist some period in time where the possibility of spousal abuse no longer exists.

There will always be the potential for one human being to abuse another. We can do things to help make those instances less, and provide better resources for escape and protection for the spouse, but that falls under the category of general domestic policy, not the label of a "war on spousal abuse," concocted for the purpose of ramming through an unrelated agenda of increased militarization, curtailment of domestic liberty, quashing of dissent, the exploitation of the middle class and the using of the "war" as an excuse to justify a neo-conservative agenda.

That is what I am reacting too, that is my objection to the false label of a "war" on "terrorism," and that is what I believe the democratic candidates should provide an alternative to. Again, post #45 and #48 shed more light on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
63. War on Terror = War on Drugs = Fraud
Neither of which is a real war that can be won! The War on Drugs was lost a long time ago.

What these two wars really are is a pretext for maintaining American hegemony and expanding militarism abroad, while carrying out a frontal assault on civil liberties at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
59. If by winning the war on terror we win the war against Al-Quida
which it should be called, as that should be #1 goal then it is winnable. Even winning the war on all Islamic terrorists can be won, I agree with Edwards. It's going to take time and it doesn't involve invading countries but to think that America will face terrorism forever is pestimistic at it's highest imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. there has never been a time in history where "terrorism" was not.
I think to imagine a time when the world will not face those who would use terror to achieve its aims is optimistic at its highest.

Just about the time we mop up the rest of the world at the cost of millions of lives, another Tim McViegh will drive a truck through a federal building...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
62. of course Bush had it right, but that is not the point
If Kerry said it they would be out calling him a traitor and defeatist. I say Bush has pushed this "war time president" thing and we should hit him for raising the white flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-30-04 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Well said, WI_Dem! I agree.
shove back in his flip flop, Kerry bashing face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
69. Flippity Floppity
"We have taken unprecedented, effective measures to protect this homeland, yet our nation has more to do," the president said. "We will never be complacent. We will defend our people and we will win this war."

George Bush, September 10, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/10/politics/main572554.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
70. You're not that naive
You can't possibly be. Here he's been bullying the entire world with his war on terrorism, then when he flip-flops to play the diplomat for election purposes, you lap it right up. Then wonder why Dems don't win elections. Gads.

Yes we can win the war on terror and terrorism. We may win it by doing exactly what Bush said, but WE will actually DO THAT. Bush won't, it's political bullshit. John Edwards was exactly right. Don't give Bush's little electioneering ploy any credence, it's just another centrist lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. Read some of my other posts
especially #45 and #48.

I'm not lapping anything up. I believe we should hit the president and hit the president hard for his accidental telling of the TRUTH. But I don't believe the way we hit him "hard" is by playing his game. This is the opportunity to point out to Americans the truth - that you've been lied to for four years, kept in a state of fear and panic so that you will justify civil losses, economic insanity, mass militarization and an agenda of global imperialism all because "we're at war" and "this is a war time president."

The idea that you can actually win a war on terrorism is about as stupid as the idea that you can win a war on drugs - and its little more than code for the same crap that the war on drugs is code for - raking in profit while keeping people shut up. If you eliminated every living terrorist on earth and took over every country you though was your enemy, that still wouldn't stop the next Tim McVeigh from driving a truck through a federal building. You can't "beat" terror, because terror is a tool - something anyone can choose to use at any time, not matter what you do.

What you can do, is remove the war-mongering administration, undo the culture of fear, tear down the doctrine of perpetual war, and instead make the issue our enduring and long term SECURITY - the security of a nation in PEACE TIME. Of course the security of our citizens at home and abroad is always important, and we've been shocked out of our complacency about how important it is after 9/11. The security of our citizens and our allies is paramount. But it always has been, this is nothing new, we just haven't always done the best job we could.

We need to point out that the administration has abused the idea of "war" to justify his crusade of aggression, his secret government, his power grab for the executive branch, his undoing of legal protection after legal protection, his militarization of the nation and his exploitation of the working class for profit and power. All of this has been justified under the blanket of a country "on a war footing" and a "war time president" and it is all bullshit. Our security is a permanent commitment of this country in peace time - every bit as much as in actual war time. And I absolutely refuse to give into this idea of endless war as an excuse for American hegemony.

John Edwards could have come out and said,

"this is another example of the Presidents failure to keep America safe and focus on the security of our citizens. By exploiting the idea of "war" in order to ram through (all of the things I just mentioned above) while people are kept to afraid to ask questions, he has abandoned the security of a nation in peace time, he has generated an atmosphere of perpetual war and all the while he has made the US and the world less safe.

It is clear by his "flip-flopping" now that he has never had a competent plan for the security of America. We do. We have a plan for a long term commitment to the international and domestic security of the United States and the protection of our friends during PEACE TIME.

And when we do go to war, John Kerry and I make an oath to America that it will not be a political smokescreen for ramming home an oppressive domestic policy and an aggressive international agenda while keeping Americans afraid enough to stay silent. We will never do that. We believe in American more than that."


That is the answer. And there are plenty of "sound bites" in there. Instead the answer was so ridiculously generic and utterly predictable while at the same time being devoid of any substance and playing right into the same bullshit ideology of popular control created by Noe-conservatives that it was a disappointment. And the only one being naive here, is a person too blindly fixated on getting Bush out to understand that this was a mistake.

Sel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
72. So?
What does this have to do with anything we should or shouldn't do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrewerJohn Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
73. I agree 100% on principle
But what I worry about is whether the numbers we will need to win this election so conclusively that it can't be stolen are ready to get the real story in the two months that are left to us.

I remember those times not so long ago when Bush was getting those fantastic approval ratings with all his war rhetoric. As we've seen tonight, the Pubs are still hitting it for all it's worth, thinking with some justification that it's still their strongest card. (Yeah, OK, their *only* card.)

So I can't get too upset about Edwards grabbing the stick Bush handed him (I'm sure I stole that metaphor from someone after reading the entire thread) and beating the freak about the head and shoulders with it. That's what winning is about. The really important question is whether K/E are *actually* understanding of our real situation with respect to terrorism, as opposed to the neocon disaster of a position, and will follow or can be persuaded to follow effective policies that don't rely on militarism. That's to be seen, but then, K/E are what we have to run with now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
75. Never ever have we heard that the war is not winable
Never ever from Bush.l They carried along that Orwellian speak until now--they propagandized a war that was winnable. They had the ramboes all heated up, while saying that this war can go on for ten years or more.

Bush may have been right, but that is NOT what they were selling all along and that is the point.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. I agree - I've offered up an alternate response for Edwards many times
.. in this thread.

My problem is not that Edwards responded. It's that he responded wrong. He could have really nailed the president in a way that would really meet Americans where they are at. But instead, he went for the painfully obvious substance-less response which paid lip service to the bullshit smokescreen ideology impaled on us by this administration.

It was a missed opportunity. We'll pick up and move on, but it was a missed opportunity just the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC