Skip to comments.Kerry Outlines Strategy Against Terrorism
Posted on 09/24/2004 1:12:08 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty
PHILADELPHIA - John Kerry (news - web sites), intensifying his assault on President Bush (news - web sites)'s record fighting terrorism, is outlining a detailed strategy to contain terrorists and bolster national security.
In a speech for delivery at Temple University, Kerry sought to describe a path that would improve America's prestige in the world and reduce the country's vulnerability to terrorists.
"Our goal is that at the end of that, people will say, 'This guy will seek and defeat the terrorist,'" said spokesman Mike McCurry.
Kerry planned to outline his strategy against terrorism on Friday, a day after telling The Columbus Dispatch that the president's actions in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere show Bush masquerading as a mainstream conservative while pursuing extremist policies.
"I don't view these people as conservatives," Kerry said. "I actually view them as extreme, and I think their policies have been extreme, and that extends all the way to Iraq, where this president, in my judgment, diverted the real war on terror which was Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and al-Qaida and almost obsessively moved to deal with Iraq in a way that weakened our nation, overextended our armed forces, cost us $200 billion and created a breach in our oldest alliances."
Kerry also mentioned a blurring line between the separation of church and state and the growth of federal budget deficits.
To douse the spread of terrorism, Kerry proposes policies aimed at denying individuals and groups the ability to organize and attack. Kerry would build a better military and intelligence apparatus to go after enemies, deny terrorists weapons and financing, move against worldwide terrorist havens and recruitment centers, and promote freedom and democracy in Muslim nations.
Kerry has repeatedly argued that the war in Iraq has distracted attention and resources from the pursuit of terrorists, including Osama bin Laden.
The Bush-Cheney campaign said that Kerry has held conflicting positions on that point. They point to instances where Kerry said the former Iraqi leader acted like a terrorist and said that the war on terrorism should be seen as an operation bigger than the conflict in Afghanistan (news - web sites).
Kerry visits the Pennsylvania battleground before a quick trip home to Boston and then several days spent preparing for the presidential debates. Kerry told The Columbus Dispatch that he has to present himself "clearly, forcefully to the American people with a clear set of priorities."
Kerry added: "I think a lot of people will tune in. There are undecideds. A lot of folks will try to measure our character and our vision, so I think it's an important moment."
Try more lip tint, that'll convince me.
In other words, his plan is Bush's plan, but he'll take twice as long to say it.
He'll also put a chicken in every pot, find a cure for cancer, and end poverty. You know, what he wants to accomplish is all good and well, but how about the HOW he plans to accomplish it. Liberals, they always state the obvious but never follow it up with anything of value.
And Kerry's record of supporting military spending is??
Again, Zell Miller's ring true... FIGHT THEM WITH WHAT SPITBALLS?
So... what is different in his plan from what Gee Dubya is doing??? And more importantly; if he is gonna do what Bush is doing already, why should I dump Bush and vote for him?
What a maroon.
um...some details plz mr kerry. The i will do it better thing aint washing. Put some meat on the plate, some substance. The vague generalities are not believable.
Kerry has adopted Bush's plan.
Last week, he said that was a mistake.
Dang... I know this independent is inspired - really !!! >kawf<
"Kerry would build a better military and intelligence apparatus to go after enemies, deny terrorists weapons and financing, move against worldwide terrorist havens and recruitment centers, and promote freedom and democracy in Muslim nations."
Kerry's record indicates he has NEVER supported a "better military and intelligence apparatus."
His record is the OPPOSITE.
Kerry is good at telling us what he plans to tell us without ever really telling us. Then, he calls that a plan. DOOFUS!
Re: "oldest alliances"
What's good of an alliance when they profit at our misfortune?
Yadda yadda yadda. He sounds like Miss Massachusetts answering in the "Question Segment." Please don't do the swimsuit competition again, either.
Famous last words.
"And Kerry's record of supporting military spending is??"
This too is what I don't even get. How can the man actually stand there and say these words?? Theres no way he's credible on this subject. But you know and I know and everyone knows he's playing to the least informed voting populace that there is. They honestly don't know his record. He and the DNC have done a fine job saying that Zell Miller was over the top and mean-spirited and spreading lies, but they arent lies! They're the truth.
My biggest question to Kerry would be to tell us a weapon system he DID support (and can prove on record).
Another thing is why in the world would people trust the man on the economy? What has he done to deserve THAT credibility? Absolutely nothing...not...one...damn...thing
Maybe Kerry is just gonna stand up and tell those nasty insurgents to 'skeedaddle'...g'wone now.. git! And POOF, the old Kerry magic Jihad-B-Gone plan will receive a French-tickler tape parade..
True, and the ABB crowd.. They don't care what the truth is anyway. I think the debates will make a huge difference. I'm hoping so anyway.
Yep, and shave those teeth a bit further.
What no Bag Balm? Seriously this from a man who turns tail and runs when the rest of the men in the Swift Boats stayed to rescue the men of boat #3? The man who cut and run after 3 baby boo, boos?
He's a day late and a dollar short. Dubya's already doing all this. Gee, senator if you maybe spent some time actually DOING your job as senator you would know all this.
What an ignorant Baffoon. does he really believe this BS they write for him. he is a pathetic spineless elitist.
"..move against worldwide terrorist havens and recruitment centers"
Then why is he against the war in Iraq ?..Did he mention he will impliment this all only if Franch says 'it's ok ?
HAHAHAHHAHAHA ..Just spit out my morning coffee....
The one thing that J-Effin-K is good at is telling other people what they should be doing.
Bottom line: Kerry has no record to show he can lead the nation on any issue, especially fighting terrorism.
Kerry isn't a team player. He shirks from "duty" (look at his Senate & Vietnam record).
He's his own puppet master with one odd string attached...and that string belongs to Tereeza...the lady who wants a Senator for a husband...no matter the cost.
Did he say he already gave his detailed plan in New York?
So what's this plan?
Dang. Why didn't WE think of all that? And it's sheer brilliant nuance to dump all over the only Muslim leader that is promoting freedom and democracy in the Mideast. It'll make our enemies all confused about his double-secret plan to promote freedom and democracy in muslim nations.
"To douse the spread of terrorism, Kerry proposes policies aimed at denying individuals and groups the ability to organize and attack. Kerry would build a better military and intelligence apparatus to go after enemies, deny terrorists weapons and financing, move against worldwide terrorist havens and recruitment centers, and promote freedom and democracy in Muslim nations. "
Been there, doing that, want a t-shirt Mr. Kerry?
We know Bush's policy to deal with terrorists. It can be stated in plain English. It has serious consequences and reasonable people can disagree about whether it is the right approach, but everyone knows what it is, and that it is directed at its goal.
Bush's policy is
(1) do not distinguish between terrorists and states that harbor them
(2) demand cessation of WMD projects in states that support terrorism
(3) use conventional military force, pre-emptively, to destroy terrorist states pursuing WMDs
(4) remove governments that support terrorism by all means available
(5) support any government that cracks down on terrorists within its borders, politically and with military cooperation and economic aid
(6) centralize domestic security and counterintelligence, federalize security functions
(7) form coalitions of the willing on each anti-terror policy, allowing no one to veto any US action
(8) modernize the DoD and recast deployments world wide to focus on deployability, flexibility, and the WoT
(9) increase the defense budget to 5% of GDP, fully funding next generation technologies
(10) promote the spread of democratic regimes in place of terror states, by direct military support and substantial economic aid
Every aspect of this program has been criticized by Kerry and his fellow Democrats. He wants to say "me too" to the goals but "no way" to the means. So he must name his means. He has not remotely done so.
He has suggested he will remove US troops from Iraq within his first term or perhaps within six months, denigrated allies supporting us there, denigrated the present government of Iraq, voted against funding pretty much any of it, implied he would give the UN a veto over US military actions, and to this day, less than 2 months before he wants to be named president, has failed to state with specificity even approaching that above, a single alterate policy he would pursue.
He has in fact claimed that he cannot name such policies before he is president. You can look it up, he has said so. He is a sitting US senator, and his official duties require him to advise on such matters and have for years. In that capacity he has taken multiple sides on successive major US security matters depending entirely on the party controling the White House, while also voting against essentially every improvement in US defense capabilities he has ever been presented.
He is asking us to support a blank "anything but the present policy" check, issued to a demonstratively unprincipled dove. Which is not a serious policy proposal. It isn't a policy proposal. It isn't serious either, it is transparently ducking the question, employed by a self important prima donna who can't be bothered to advise his own country to hide from his atrocious record on national security issues.
Actually, he doesn't, but that's AP's story, and they are sticking by it.
If Bush wanted to impliment Kerry's policies on Iraq or the WoT generally, he could not do so. He couldn't find them, and Kerry would instantly shift his policies so they did not coincide with Bush's actions. Everyone knows this. It has even played out that way several times, on minor matters (commission recommendations, setting handover or election dates, visits to the UN, etc).
No clearer demonstration is possible that he does not care what is done, only that he isn't the one doing it. He is not running for president to get something different done. He is saying he would do something different in order to run from president. That is why he can't specify what that difference would actually be.
Oh, I see now. He's going to deny weapons to the terriorist. That is a great idea. Why hasn't anyone in the Bush adminstration thought of that???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.