E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Kerry outlines anti-terrorism plan
Democrat John Kerry, widely assailed by Republican critics, said Friday that President Bush has failed in his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and faulted the Republican for breaking promises on the economy, education and health care.
In other news, dog bites man ...

The front-runner used a campaign speech to outline his plan to combat terrorism that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances - proposals that Kerry has been touting for more than a year.
The problem that Kerry and others seem to have forgotten is that it was that same approach during the 1990s that brought us 9/11. Take a look at the stories about the CIA's involvement with the Northern Alliance - our intel was solid, but we were so concerned about the particulars of international law or that the Guardian might say mean things about us that we kept holding back, even after the 1993 WTC bombing which was an attempted mass murder of over 50,000 New Yorkers or Oplan Bojinka. Sorry, we aren't going to make that mistake again.

In a somber speech at the University of California at Los Angeles, Kerry said it was Bush who has failed in his response to the Sept. 11 attacks and railed against ``his armchair hawks'' for failing to provide proper equipment for the military.

``We cannot win the war on terror through military power alone,'' said the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He's actually right on this, but we're not. If we were in terms of strictly military force and raw power, Riyadh and Tehran would long ago been reduced to radioactive debris, along with a fair number of other prominent cities in the Muslim world. Or maybe we could have just carpet-bombed them like the Russians did Grozny. And if we're trying to win through military might alone, then why exactly did the good colonel over in Tripoli surrender his toybox without a shot being fired?

Kerry said Iraq is in disarray with U.S. troops bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. He said outlying areas of Afghanistan are sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.
Zarqawi, meanwhile, has a different take altogether on Iraq ...

The Bush administration, he argued, has shown disdain for the Mideast peace process and allowed Iran and North Korea to continue their quest for nuclear weapons that could get into the hands of terrorists.
So does this mean that you're willing to lead us against Iran, which is pretty much doing everything the Taliban was pre-9/11? Or the People's Looney Bin of North Korea, which would sell al-Qaeda the bomb for hard cash in a Hollywood minute. But the Euros all want to "engage" Iran through negotiations and Rowhani is trying become best friends with France, while nobody anywhere near Kimmy's target scope wants to slug it out with him. So which are you more concerned about here, Senator Kerry?

``I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure with a stronger, more comprehensive, more effective strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned,'' Kerry said.
But you still haven't told us what that strategy is ...

Posted by: Dan Darling 2004-02-28
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=27060