THE LETHAL DANGER OF JOHN KERRY: SPACE-TIME, TESSELLATIONS OF THE PLANET + TERRORISM (NUISANCE-GATE)

The New York Times ^ | 10.13.04 | Mia T

[Mia T]

THE LETHAL DANGER OF JOHN KERRY:
SPACE-TIME, TESSELLATIONS OF THE PLANET + TERRORISM

Kerry aims for 9/10, the good old days when terrorists were a "NUISANCE" and "not the focus of our lives"

POURQUOI JOHN KERRY EST DANGEREUX POUR L'AMÉRIQUE


by Mia T, 10.12.04

 

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT #7
CLUELESS ABOUT TERRORISM


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. 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."

John Kerry
The New York Times
October 10, 2004

''We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. ''The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor."

Richard Holbrooke
(the Clinton-era diplomat who would be Kerry's secretary of state)
ibid

 

ointy heads are confined
by their very geometry, witness John Kerry and Richard Holbrooke.

These two supercilious, self-anointed "complexities" just don't get it.

It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is, bill clinton notwithstanding.

When terrorists declare war on you, and commit acts of war against you, you are perforce at war.

At that point, you have only one decision to make:
Do you fight? Or do you surrender?

George Bush chose 'fight.'

John Kerry and bill clinton repeatedly and invariably chose 'surrender.'

DAYS OF 9/10 AND ROSES

When John Kerry says he will fight "a more effective, more sensitive war on terror," what he means is that he will return America to 9/10. What he means is that he will return America to the clinton days of denial and impeasement and infinitely greater danger. What he means is that he will fight terror not as a war but as a criminal enterprise.

"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I've wondered exactly what John Kerry's approach would be to terrorism and I've wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

"I'm wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were 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?

...The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. 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? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry's thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry's global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone's global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he'd still be controlling Kuwait.

"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that's why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. 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?

"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made -- significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we're going to face up to terrorism and we're going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There's no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there's no reason to tolerate organized crime.

"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we've talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn't understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it's just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."

Rudy Giuliani
COMPLETE STATEMENT
October 11, 2004

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

John Kerry

"Kerry's... idea of counterterrorism is simply to go around arresting all the terrorists. This is what Dick Cheney was getting at when he said last month that there was a danger, should Kerry be elected, that ''we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war.''

Rudy Giuliani

 

 

John Kerry's terrorism-is-crime-not-war construct is consistent with his fixed and feckless defensive posture, (i.e., you're not a criminal until you commit a crime), not preventive war as enunciated by the Bush Doctrine.

John Kerry's terrorism-is-crime-not-war construct is consistent with his (and George Soros') lethally dangerous Animal-Farm mentality.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it is this: we cannot afford to be defensive; we cannot afford to wait until the terrorists kill hundreds... or thousands... or millions... or are about to....

If anything requires preventive war, it is terrorism.

"A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justification for going to war."

John Kerry
acceptance speech, July 29, 2004

 

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address, The U.S. Capitol, January 28, 2003

 

SPACE-TIME, TESSELATIONS OF THE PLANET + TERRORISM

Because John Kerry and Richard Holbrooke and bill clinton and their friends at The New York Times see the terrorists as discrete, non-state actors, as nomads moving in the uncharted territory--real and virtual--of asymmetric netherworlds, and because they define war narrowly and anachronistically as conflicts between states, they conclude that the War on Terror cannot be war.

But even if we accept this narrow and anachronistic definition of war, their conclusion is false. Lack of stasis does not imply statelessness. The terrorist is a state actor simply by virtue of the tessellations of the planet and the space-time continuum. That is, at any given time, the terrorist is a point in, is harbored by, some sovereign state.

Conversely, Iraq, the state, Bush's central battlefield in the global War on Terror, is fast becoming anathema to the terrorist. What Kerry today calls "a colossal mistake" history will, I believe, call "a stroke of genius," irrespective of the disposition of that state and its WMDs. Because the terrorists derive their power precisely from their diffuseness, luring the terrorists to this single locus will prove to have been Western civilization's only winning strategy.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

Complete Statement of Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
ARLINGTON, VA
October 11, 2004

"For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I've wondered exactly what John Kerry's approach would be to terrorism and I've wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.

"I'm wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were 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?

"This is so different from the President's view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don't confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that's when you're at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days -- I'm assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he's not defining it correctly.

"As a former law enforcement person, he says 'I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it.' This is not illegal gambling; this isn't prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don't understand his confusion. Even when he says 'organized crime to a level where it isn't not on the rise,' it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. 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? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry's thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

"It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry's global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone's global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he'd still be controlling Kuwait.

"Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that's why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. 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?

"This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made -- significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we're going to face up to terrorism and we're going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There's no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there's no reason to tolerate organized crime.

"So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we've talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn't understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it's just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does."

HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)

CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

 

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 

by Mia T, 9.09.04

 

CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to Wolverine and jla for locating the audio


KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN 'SURVIVAL' DEBATE

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2^nd, we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Dick Cheney

"We were not at war in the 1990s."

John Kerry

• "I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."
  
  

• "The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."
  
  

• "The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms."
  
  

• "A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justificatiion for going to war."

John Kerry

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
The U.S. Capitol
January 28, 2003

"Dick Cheney's fear tactics crossed the line. What it says to the American people: 'If you go to the polls in November and elect anyone else but us and another terrorist attack occurs, it's your fault.' This is un-American. Except the truth is and proves once again that they'll do anything and say anything to keep their jobs. Protecting the American people from terrorist attacks and from vicious terrorists is not a Republican issue and is not a Democratic issue. It's an American issue and George Bush and Dick Cheney should know that.

John Edwards

 

 

 

et's get real, people. Universal health care schemes or abortion-friendly justices have little utility if we're blown to bits.

There is a reason lifelong liberal Democrats like the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, and the Hollywood actor, Ron Silver, who agree with George Bush on absolutely nothing domestically, are not only voting this November for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in their lives--they are, in fact, campaigning vigorously for his reelection.

Ed Koch and Ron Silver are supporting George Bush because they know what all rational, informed voters know--only one issue matters in this, the first post-9/11 presidential election: Who would better prosecute the War on Terror, George Bush or John Kerry?

The choice could not be more clear.

THE LETHAL DIFFERENCE: THE BUSH DOCTRINE v. THE NEO-NEOLIBERAL, ANIMAL FARM MENTALITY

• President Bush and Dick Cheney, as enunciated in The Bush Doctrine, advocate preemption and overwhelming military might.
  

• Kerry and Edwards, The Men From Hope, (been there, done that), advocate "a more sensitive war". . . a defensive-only war. . . the hope that tomorrow will be a better day.

 

THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX

This difference is the whole ball of wax, people.
No less than Western Civilization hangs in the balance.

When terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are perforce at war.
At that point, you have only one decision to make:
Do you fight?
Or do you surrender?

Bush chose fight.
clinton and Kerry -- repeatedly and invariably -- chose surrender.

KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN THE DEBATE

In an effort to shut down debate on this issue -- clearly a losing one for Kerry-Edwards -- John Edwards labeled Cheney's warning "un-American."

I have news for the two Johns. Nothing is more American than acting to preserve, protect and defend America. And nothing is more un-American than thwarting that effort.

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

SOROS TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

• its naivete about the War on Terror,

• its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,

• its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

 

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

MORE

THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

 

by Mia T, 10.01.04

 

BUSH: I WILL ACT PREEMPTIVELY TO PROTECT AMERICA

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)


KERRY: I WILL REQUIRE 'A GLOBAL TEST' TO ACT PREEMPTIVELY

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control....

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

ENTIRE ARTICLE 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com

NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

 

As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.

--Elizabeth Rickard

 

The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....

Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....

There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.

Oil for Scandal
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

A suggested mass E-mailing---just copy and paste:

subject:
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL:
in Kerry's own words

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS! (ABC report)

GEORGE BUSH WILL ACT PREEMPTIVELY TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN AS HIS 34-YEAR RECORD PROVES . . . JOHN KERRY WILL NOT

     discussion, analysis

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today on November 2^nd , we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset , if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

Dick Cheney

 

"We were not at war in the 1990s."

John Kerry
(missing the point entirely that
the War on Terror began in earnest
with the bombing of the WTC in 1993
and bin Laden's subsequent repeated (and unanswered)
declarations and acts of war against America
throughout the clinton years).

 

 

"I think there's been an exaggeration; [President Bush] has exaggerated the threat of terrorism. There needs to be a refocusing. They are really misleading all of America... in a profound way."

John Kerry
Democratic presidential debate, January 29, 2004, Greenville, S.C.

 

"The War on Terror is less... is occasionally military but it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.

John Kerry

 

"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms."

John Kerry
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , 3 December 2003

 

"A threat that is real and imminent. That is the only justification for going to war."

John Kerry
acceptance speech, July 29, 2004

 

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in [their] sanity and restraint... is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

George Bush
State of the Union Address, The U.S. Capitol, January 28, 2003

 

"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston [Kerry acceptance speech], and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force." 

Dick Cheney

 

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ONE:

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....

LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.





Good Morning America
September 29, 2004

JOHN KERRY:
"We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today....


DIANE SAWYER:
"So, it was not worth it."


JOHN KERRY:
"You should not -- eh -- it depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein. The president -- eh -- misled the American people. Plain and simple. Bottom line."


DIANE SAWYER:
"So, if it turns out okay, it was worth it? -- "


JOHN KERRY (interrupts) :
"No."


DIANE SAWYER:
"...but now it wasn -- ?"


JOHN KERRY (interrupts again) :
"It was a mistake to do what he did but we have to succeed now that we've done it.

Good Morning America
September 29, 2004
for discussion, goto:
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)




Larry King Live
July 8, 2004

"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."

John Kerry
Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
(NB: Radio City, July 8, 2004, Nantucket, July 17, 2004)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

election update!
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT~THE SERIES

DEBATE 2: Bush KOs Kerry
(The Lethal Danger of Kerry-Edwards + Old Media)

DUELFER REPORT ON IRAQ RENDERS KERRY "A COMPLACENT FOOL" OR "AN UTTER FRAUD"

WHICH DANGEROUS MAN?

YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!

DEBATE ONE
NO GYP SHEET

Est-ce que je peux?
préemption et l'essai global

KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH

Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING

WINDSURFER WATERLOO
why the surfboard--not the snowboard--is (to mix war metaphors) Kerry's Achilles' heel

Windsurfing in the Persian Gulf

John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay

YOO-HOO DAN RATHER!
KERRY'S BELATED "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE:
Is a less-than-honorable discharge and clinton "pardon" behind Kerry's refusal to sign form 180 to release ALL of his records?

RATHERGATE IS ANOTHER WATERGATE: The Nexus

CARL BERNSTEIN: RATHERGATE MAY BE ANOTHER WATERGATE

CLUELESS: O'REILLY AND PODHORETZ ON RATHERGATE

THE KERRY-RATHER-BARNES FORGERIES DECONSTRUCTED

HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE

KERRY'S VIETNAM FIXATION
PART 1: advice from bill

Kerry's new W offensive

YOO-HOO! UNDECIDEDS + "PERSUADABLES"
HEAR THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR
(WHY INFORMED, RATIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH)

DECONSTRUCTING ZELL MILLER

EXPLOITING MAX CLELAND

Kerry is UNFIT #21: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
BOARDHEAD TO THE RESCUE

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

Kerry is UNFIT #20: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
PREEMPTION-(the whole ball of wax)

CONTEMPLATING KERRY'S "GUT"

A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?

getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament

Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security

YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!

"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)

UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"

THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES ³
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES ₂
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]

THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₁

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief

UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO

UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL

JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS

Q ERTY6 ^{utter failure}_BUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

 

 

MORE

 

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Mia T]

ping

[Wolverine]

Bump

[malia]

The thinking of a Kerry administration!

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. 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.
John Kerry The New York Times
October 10, 2004"

"We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. ''The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor.
Richard Holbrooke (the Clinton-era diplomat who would be Kerry's secretary of state)"

Good one Mia T

[beyond the sea]

But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise."

Just hold it down to one or two suitcase bombs each year or two, that would be under control. (sarcasm off)

Kerry is a sick pretender, but I'm afraid with the massive voter fraud (registration) he will win.

The following is an indicator to me. Bush, IMO, is most likely in reality ahead by about 6 to 10 points. Now we are hearing from all these despicable polls by networks, magazines, etc. that it is a "dead heat", a very, very, close race, head to head. That is a lie, IMO.

What they are trying to do is call it close now, so that when (and if) Kerry sneaks in, there will be no big sense of surprise. If Bush were said to be 6 to 10 points ahead right up until the election and Kerry won, then there would be great questions about the upcoming massive fraud. I can see how they are setting this up. I can't understand why others don't see this.

Our voting system is a cruel joke, and I fear for this nation. Bad times ahead.

[bmwcyle]

Kerry------fly swatter------dead Americans

[Mia T]

Seems to me the govt should do now, pre-Nov. 2, to election cheats what they do right before Apr 15th to tax cheats: open up investigations in suspect areas, start indicting them, start indicting some that are high profile. And stress that they could serve long jail terms. And be charged huge fines.

And start broadcasting the indictments. Start running public service announcements. Concentrate the ads in suspect areas.

And look for RICO situations while you're at it....

That, i suspect, would put a bit of a damper on the Left's election fraud schemes.

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

Justice Dept. Sues Pa. Election Officials

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243674/posts

[beyond the sea]

open up investigations in suspect areas, start indicting them, start indicting some that are high profile. And stress that they could serve long jail terms. And be charged huge fines. And start broadcasting the indictments. Start running public service announcements. Concentrate the ads in suspect areas. And look for RICO situations while you're at it....

not going to happen............ I hope and think that we have our own ways to beat this stuff.....But, not to be illuminated here!

[beyond the sea]

a small step in the right direction.