Dems Don't Get Terror Threat

Atlanta Journal Constitution ^ | 10 Feb 04 | Nicole Gelinas

[petitfour]

Weren't the RATS in control of the Senate on 9/11?

[Huck]

Please don't be taken in by NEW posters until we can gauge their agenda.

Get a grip, Grandma. I've been on FR longer than you. I am asking questions that are important to me. Don't like it? Then ignore it. But to suggest that asking questions is now akin to "stirring dicontent" is just silly. Get over it. Thanks.

[petercooper]

Yes I guess there has to be all 3, but if we can use a predator drone like we did in Yemen to take 4 or 5 out at once that will be the first option. What Kerry is really saying is, let's use the military as a last resort.

[Huck]

Weren't the RATS in control of the Senate on 9/11?

Yes, that is true. Good catch.

[petercooper]

You beat me to it. When I read this in the NY Post this am, I thought about changing my tag line.

[TheGunny]

The fiscal policy of our nation will evolve and "catch up"with our new reality, the war and our way of life. Do you doubt this?

[American_Centurion]

I think there's room enough in that quote for both of us.

I gotta say, that girl has a way with words, really kinda hits me close to my heart.

[Huck]

The fiscal policy of our nation will evolve and "catch up"with our new reality, the war and our way of life. Do you doubt this?

Yes.

[Broadside Joe]

" Seems like a nation-building, remake the map, idealistic adventure to me. A sideshow. Not sure I understand or agree with this sort of approach. Maybe by the time Novemeber rolls around, it will have been amply explained. I watched the President, but he did not convince me."

From the 2003 Sate of the Union address:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

[TheGunny]

Interesting.....

[Rocky Mountain High]

"Get over it. "

Get a new expression. That one went out with "you go girl".

No Iraq/AQ connection? Two words: Salman Pak
The Iraq war is part of an entire strategy of middle east change. A strong military foothold in Iraq gives us viable military options and HUMINT while keeping tabs on Iran, Syria, etc.
John Kerry's "intelligence/law enforcement" policy says enough about his ideas on foreign policy. Essentially, he'll wait until we're hit again, then he'll send the FBI to arrest the suspects like they did with Ramzi Yousef et al. Ok, Yousef is rotting in prison here in Colorado, but that didn't prevent his "colleagues" from attacking the WTC again, this time with success.
I rather a president who preemptor's danger than one who thinks the cops can protects us.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda.
Democrats are cowards.

[sr4402]

I searched on NICOLE GELINAS for any articles in ajc.com with no luck. A Yahoo search reveals her writing articles for other papers like the NY Post.

Where is the URL for this article?

[Huck]

The Iraq war is part of an entire strategy of middle east change

I know.

[hedgie]

There's nothing wrong with it on the surface. And you are absolutely correct that the war on terror has law enforcement aspects and requires the assistance of other countries.

The issue, to me, is in the level of commitment and the willingness to treat the war on terror as a war. Meaning continued aggressive military action until the threat is 100% nullified.

Not "occasionally" but "continuously." Will Kerry be proactive on this, or will he need to be dragged into it?

My feeling is that it is going to be more of what we have seen in the past from him. Namely that he has built a career on being a war hero who is fundamentally anti-war.

There is nothing wrong with this and many fine Americans have fit this description.

But it is not what we need now.

[InvisibleChurch]

it's not that they don't 'get' the threat, they just don't believe that any one of them will actually be a victim of terrorism, but that when others are, they can step in and increase the size of government (even larger than W is making it)

[Huck]

What do you say to post #29?

[petercooper]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17539.htm

[Stallone]

Destroy the Left at every opportunity.

Admit nothing, provide no apologies or excuses.

Parry each thrust and shoot to kill.

[lugsoul]

What I say to it is...

It is a time-honored tactic of grossly overestimating the capability of your bogeyman in order to secure compliance from the populace for doing what you want to do anyway.

At some point, Saddam had chem/bio weapons. Most of what he had was crude, and his delivery systems were not very effective unless you were in a Kurd village or massed Iranian troops. There are model airplane enthusiasts who can build something more sophisticated that his "drones."

The question is whether the terrorists on 9/11 succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, or whether is was the tip of the iceberg. I tend to believe the former. And if you believe the former, the perpetual war on terror can easily be seen as the best excuse ever devised for a government power grab.

Nomex on.

[rhema]