Rescuer passes inconvenienced workers after the nuisance raid on the Pentagon, September 11, 2001
Posted on 10/10/2004 1:44:44 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
In an interview with Matt Bai published in today’s New York Times Magazine, Kerry made a very, very, very significant statement about how he would fight the war on terror. Kerry compared the war on terrorism with eradicating prostitution or illegal gambling.
''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 said. ''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 continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
Terrorism, a nuisance?
This is the latest in a series of statements where Kerry views the war on terror more as a law enforcement operation than as a war. The article also has some other revealing tidbits about how Kerry’s closest advisers don’t believe we are in a war, and Kerry’s lack of a clear vision.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
These are great add ons to my comments:
Or drove a truck bomb to a Federal office? Or set fire to Russian schoolchildren? Or blew up a busy pizzeria?
Another example of why Kerry and the elite lunatic libs are so locked into 9/10/01.
Don't you have some great art work re Kerry being so 9/10 in a post 9/11 world.
Vice President Cheney - right again...
You make a great point. I wonder how often Kerry makes this statement to the September 11 families he uses as campaign props.
Rescuer passes inconvenienced workers after the nuisance raid on the Pentagon, September 11, 2001
This is all the evidence any sane person should need as proof for why the man has no business being anywhere near the White House.
The next debate is supposed to be about domestic issues. If this fool gets in, no one will be around to do any debating at all!
The tone of the article really surprised me. It seemed to be written by a genuinely fair reporter who was trying to tell an accurate story and get the differences between Kerry and Bush right. I give the NYT a single kudo for this.
A mosquito is a nuisance, so a more "sensitive" approach will be required.
This is the second Times article in a week to accurately portray Kerry as a dangerous *ssh*le. What's going on over there?
This guy is so nuts I can't believe they let him wander around without keepers. The mere thought of him winning this election gives me hives.
I think whats going on is NYT is subtley clicking into Clintonista mode. I think they are looking at Kerry and knowing that this guy will set DNC back for years and years and they are doing what they can to cut and run and Jus Wait for Zero Eight"
**Terrorism, a nuisance?**
Unbelievable!
When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be. He may well have understood the threat from Al Qaeda long before the rest of us. And he may well be right, despite the ridicule from Cheney and others, when he says that a multinational, law-enforcement-like approach can be more effective in fighting terrorists. But his less lofty vision might have seemed more satisfying -- and would have been easier to talk about in a political campaign -- in a world where the twin towers still stood.
I think he's sitting on it!!
It fits in with his whole political career.
His solution to the cold war was unilateral disarmament (can anyone say "France before WWII")
His solution to terrorism is not taking the threat as a declaration of war
His solution to nuclear proliferation is:
1. giving Iran nuclear fuel, and
2.not developing our defenses against ICBM's, or our bunker buster technology.
This guy doesn't deserve to be an american. I hope the FBI still has a file active on him. WHo knows who he is in a conspiracy with this time.
He truely is UNFIT to head this nation. We really do know who he is.
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.