[FreedomNeocon]

Now asked about the "Spying" question... Kerry said it is a violation of law, and that Osama will die of Kidney failure before Chaney 'or his guys' get him. He says he is for going after Osama, but for protecting the rights of citizens and not ignoring the constitution.

Says he is for reforming laws if we need to make it possible and legal, but now it is all illegal and Bush isn't telling them why he can't just do it legal now. Tell them what they need.

Not yet ready to cut off funding to the program though.

[FreedomNeocon]

Asked about Al Gore calling for impeachment and special council.

Kerry agrees we should have a council and comission because congress showed it is unwilling to do what needs to be done.

Asked if the dems might be politically on the wrong side of national security, Kerry says no he is not worried and he is willing to have that debate. Calls Bush incompitent (something about no wizzard behind the curtain). Says its 'disgraceful' that troops have to go on the internet for body armor.

[FreedomNeocon]

Asked about Al Gore calling for impeachment and special council.

Kerry agrees we should have a council and comission because congress showed it is unwilling to do what needs to be done.

Asked if the dems might be politically on the wrong side of national security, Kerry says no he is not worried and he is willing to have that debate. Calls Bush incompitent (something about no wizzard behind the curtain). Says its 'disgraceful' that troops have to go on the internet for body armor.

[Fudd Fan]

a-HA! So Jean-Fraud was "against" the 'spy' program before he was "for" it? Or vice-versa? Oh of course!!

[Alas Babylon!]

Not yet ready to cut off funding to the program though.

I see. So now he is against it before he was for it?

[maica]

Maybe it is time for the Senators to have ia lesson in winning wars. One of the methods used since the invention of war is knowing what the enemies plans are. It is called collecting intelligence. It is done by spying!

Why do they willfully want to pretend that we can defeat alQaida without intelligence?

Why do they authorize the budget of NSA, DIA, etc if we are not allowed to learn what our enemies are communicating to each other?

[snugs]

Sounds as usual Kerry wants it both ways.

I loved the way the Dick Cheney used to point this out during the election campaign.

Here is an extract from a speech on at Sioux City Convention Center in Sioux City, Iowa on October 28, 2004

---

Now, I look at John Kerry and I see a man who is trying very hard to convey the impression during the course of this campaign that he would be as tough and aggressive as the President has been at pursuing the war on terror. And then I looked to see well, what does the evidence show? Is there any reason to believe that, in fact, he would be that aggressive? What's the track record of this man who wants to be the Commander-in-Chief?

And the answer is, I don't think he could cut it. I think bottom line that he's got a record of weakness and a strategy of retreat in mind here. That means that we would not see the kind of aggressive pursuit of terrorists and those who support terror that I believe is absolutely essential to keep us safe and secure here at home in the United States. (Applause.)

Now, why do I say that? Well, you can go back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time on a platform that we should never commit U.S. forces without U.N. authorization. The United Nations would have to approve any deployment of the U.S. forces.

1984, when he first ran for the Senate, and he ran on the platform of cutting out or eliminating most of the major weapons programs that President Reagan put in place in the 1980s that were a key to keeping the peace and winning the Cold War, and that we're using today in our efforts around the globe. That was 1984.

1991, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf. John Kerry likes to talk about some kind of global test. He did this the other night in a debate, have to meet some global test before you can use U.S. military force. Well, in that case, we had 34 nations committed forces alongside. We had the U.N. Security Council specifically authorized to use the force the kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And John Kerry voted "no." There isn't another conceivable condition you'd want to impose, or that anybody has ever suggested. And that still wasn't good enough for John Kerry. He still voted against Operation Desert Storm.

1993, he was on the Senate intelligence committee, the World Trade Center is bombed for the first time, he didn't attend a meeting of the intelligence committee for the full year after the attack on the World Trade Center. And then what he did was offer up an amendment to cut billions of dollars out of our intelligence budget. It was so radical even Ted Kennedy wouldn't support it. (Laughter.)

So there's a long record here of his activities in the United States Senate and before of coming down consistently on the wrong side of these national security issues. And I guess, the one that capped it for me the other day was when he was asked about what his long-term objectives would be in the war on terror -- this is an interview that ran in The New York Times a couple of weeks ago. And he said, well, he'd like to get terror back to where it used to be where it was just a nuisance. (Laughter.) That's word he used, and he compared to illegal gambling, for example, as something that you could manage to an acceptable level.

But then I asked myself when I heard that, well, when was terrorism ever just a nuisance? When ever was there a time in our history when we could look at a terrorist act and consider it as just a nuisance? And clearly, that didn't apply in my mind to the attack on the USS Cole four years ago, or the first World Trade Center in '93 or when they took Pan Am Flight 103 out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, or that attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut where we lost 241 men on a Sunday in October 21 years ago. Terrorism has never been something you can think of as just a nuisance. And if that's your mind set, if that's the way you think about it, if you say, as John Kerry has, well, I don't really think about it, a war, I think it's primarily a law enforcement action, that's not the right mind set to do what needs to be done to win this war against terror. We're not interested in getting terror down to some acceptable level where we can live with it, we're interested in defeating it. And that's what George Bush will do. (Applause.)

And John Kerry is perfectly prepared to say virtually anything to try to get elected this time around. We've seen it now, and as we get closer and closer to the election, we get more and more outrageous charges being made that can't be substantiated. The most recent one, of course, he's claiming now that somehow the troops on their way to Baghdad overlooked an arms depot where a lot of munitions were stashed and our guys should have wrapped them up. And he's been critical of the commanders and the President and the troops for not having done that, claiming there's several hundred tons of explosives missing. But as the evidence accumulates over the last couple of days, it looks as though those materials were moved long before our guys ever got there, and that, in fact, Saddam Hussein moved his stuff out before the war started.

And so it's another fallacious charge that's not supported by the facts. I think it's a cheap shot. I think it's criticism of the troops and the commanders that absolutely is not warranted. I just think John Kerry, as I say again, has reached that point where he will say literally anything in order to try to advance his political interests.

---

Kerry will try these tactics again if he tries to run.

He is a right piece of work.

[Mo1]

"Now asked about the "Spying" question... Kerry said it is a violation of law, and that Osama will die of Kidney failure before Chaney 'or his guys' get him. He says he is for going after Osama, but for protecting the rights of citizens and not ignoring the constitution. "


Gee .. During the 2004 Debates - Kerry got on the President's case for not listening more


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.5/index.html

KERRY: The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to.

On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.

And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?

We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe.

[OldFriend]

I cannot imagine the danger we would be in if the president had let the traitors in congress know our methods of tracking terrorists.