The core of Kerry's thinking is...
Posted on 10/12/2004 8:16:08 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani says he's wondering which terror attacks Sen. John F. Kerry would consider just a "nuisance.""Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?..."
Giuliani made the comments Monday in a conference call sponsored by the Bush-Cheney campaign.
The idea that some level of terrorism might be acceptable is "frightening," Giuliani said.
"How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we're going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we'll stop thinking about it?"
Giuliani said he believes Kerry's "extraordinary statement" (made in an interview with Sunday's New York Times Magazine) is the "core" of Kerry's thinking.
"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam," Giuliani said.
"I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we're ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?"
The Kerry campaign is on the defensive over Kerry's widely reported remark that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance."
Kerry also told the magazine, "As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise -- it isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you can continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
The Kerry campaign complains that the senator was "selectively quoted."
It notes that Sen. Kerry, in the same interview, also said he is "committed" to destroying terrorists -- but that he would do a "better job" than President Bush has done.
Kerry told the New York Times he would cut off terrorists' financing, expose terrorist groups, work cooperatively across the globe, improve intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, train and deploy the military differently, make greater use of Special Forces and special ops, and work with America's allies.
The most important thing of all, Kerry said, is "restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.""
An item entirely missed by the MSM was Kerry's claim to have a plan that both addresses the situation in Iraq as it stands today as well as a "Lebanon". Same plan. Must be to haul a$$.
It is a very complex issue. We are just too simple to understand it the way John "Shades of Gray" Kerry does.
From what I understand, the entire article has been quoted. Nothing 'selective' about it. And nothing even remotely palatable in any of the article. Jean Frenchie sKerrie views Terrorism in a fundamentally flawed manner that is entirely consistent with his views on Communism.
Thank God for the Swifties and their effort to bring sKerrie's past to light.
A "terrorism nuisance" is when your neighbor get blown to pieces.
A "terrorism problem" is when your wife and/or kids get blown to pieces.
It is all part of the 9/10 attitude.
Pretend it does not exist and it will eventually go away.
It is funny. Anytime I hear folks talking about shades of gray or gray area.
I automatically dismiss them as being full of crap.
He was committed to accepting a nuisance level of terrorism before he was committed to destroying it.
I wonder: is one death from anthrax a nuisance? How about one subway bombing, or a whif of Saran gas once in a while?
Yep. A stupid person can make anything complex. toa thinking person 90% of live is simple, black and white. 6% is gray. 4% is unknown.
To a liberal 4% is unknown and 96% is gray.
Ask a Kerry supporter to tell you why they support him without mentioning Bush directly or indirectly. Their heads explode like the Martians hearing Slim Whitman.
The core of Kerry's thinking is...
Terrorism is not a victimless crime.
I love it, he's stepped in it big time and he's on the defensive, just where Rove wants him, Bwahahahaha!
Kerry's not concerned about this. If it happens to him, he'll just go out and get another sugar mommy.
Nuisance : One that is annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious: PEST
I think having a 757 fly into your office while you're checking your e-mail, resulting in a fire that makes you decide whether you would rather burn to death or jump from the 100th floor of a skyscraper, constitutes a bit more than an annoyance....
Those pesky terrorists... they're such scamps!
God he's a bone-head...
The only time I heard this on MSM was in Kerry's defence. They said that Bush was taking Kerry's word out of context.
If Bush had said something like that we would hear about over and over again until Nov 2.
When we win this election it will be against all odd and the MSM will be given a gut check.
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
We have to get back to the place we were,
where liberals are not the focus of our lives,
but they're a nuisance.
If liberals just run for office, but never actually win anything, that would be a "nuisance". I could live with that.
Hey Kerry.
Was the Cole a nuisance?
Was Kobar Towers a nuisance?
Was Somalia a nuisance?
Was the first attack on the WTC a nuisance?
Was the second attack on the WTC a nuisance?
Was the attack on the Pentagon a nuisance?
Was Bali a nusiance?
Was Beslan a nuisance?
Shall we go on?
Exactly. Just like the idiots with the "Clinton Lied, Nobody Died" signs. I guess the first WTC victims, Branch Davidians, Khobar Towers, US Embassies in Africa, USS Cole, Chinese journalists and OKC victims don't count.
Let's read this pasage carefully. Comments are interspersed as needed.
It notes that Sen. Kerry, in the same interview, also said he is "committed" to destroying terrorists -- but that he would do a "better job" than President Bush has done.I mean, I just don't understand how we aren't whipping this guy's a$$ by 20 or 30 points. This guy is a total buffoon. I guess because the MSM is totally sold our country out, they can keep the guy "in it". Still...baffled...He "said he is committed to destroying terrorists". Yes, I have heard him say that before. But, Senator, actions speak louder than words. It is President Bush who has been DOING something about it. It is President Bush and his administration have THE people "killing the terrorists" (as you insisted on saying, just so you can sound like a tough guy).
Kerry told the New York Times he would cut off terrorists' financing, expose terrorist groups, work cooperatively across the globe, improve intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, train and deploy the military differently, make greater use of Special Forces and special ops, and work with America's allies.
Ok...hummmm. Let's take this one at a time ...
You know, it sucks coming late to a party. All of the good stuff has happened by the time you get there.
- cut off terrorists' financing. DONE.
- expose terrorist groups DONE.
- work cooperatively across the globe. DONE.. Even France and Germany have been helping with cutting off terrorist financing
- improve intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally. DONE. AND, you shouldn't have voted against intelligence funding when it was important and might have made a difference (i.e., the 80s and the 90s)
- train and deploy the military differently, make greater use of Special Forces and special ops. DONE. Don Rumsfeld, a man you have called on to resign, has been THE guy whose been "bucking the tiger" on changing what the military does. FYI...he's a member of the Bush administration
- work with America's allies. ONCE AGAIN, DONE.. And I guess Iraq is not an ally of the U.S. I mean, we are literally working with them, as in RIGHT NEXT TO THEM (elbow-to-elbow) fighting terrorsism on a daily basis in Iraq
So, Senator, much like your attendance in the Senate, looks like you are late to the party AGAIN. No kick-ass chili dip for you...guess you'll be stuck with the Beat-purree dip. Maybe you'll learn at some point.
The most important thing of all, Kerry said, is "restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.""
You know, I think I'm going to be sick to my stomach. And, there's that phrase...we need to be "sensitive". I thought that he was misquoted before. Is he being misquoted again? Maybe it's his speechwriter's fault?
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.