You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Bush hits Kerry's view on terror
2004-10-12
By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Bush yesterday seized on Sen. John Kerry's remark that terrorism should be reduced to a "nuisance" like prostitution that doesn't define Americans' lives, saying it showed his ignorance of America's most urgent national-security imperative. "Senator Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to — quote — nuisance — end quote; and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling," Mr. Bush said. "I couldn't disagree more.
"Arrest them and bring them to justice!" It sounds good, but who's issuing any arrest warrants? Whose cops are rounding them up? I simply haven't seen any yet, except within individual countries. There ain't no UN Command for Law and Enforcement.
"Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance," he added. "Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."
It warms my heart that G.W. has started saying "liberty" and "freedom," rather than "democracy." Democracy's a reflection of liberty, but not necessarily vice versa...
The Kerry campaign defended the "nuisance" quote, which was published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, and said the administration was taking it out of context. "John Kerry is going to hunt and kill the terrorists before they can come after us, and no amount of selective editing by the Bush campaign can change that basic fact," said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer. "Once again, the Bush campaign is insulting the basic intelligence of the public by resorting to tired and desperate tactics to cling to power," he said.
Bush's comments don't insult my intelligence. His comments illustrate the basic difference between the two positions. JFK's going to "hunt and kill the terrorists"? How's he going to do it? Keep in mind that he said he'd have done everything differently from Bush.
The full, unedited quote, which the New York Times interviewer called "remarkable," revealed an approach to terrorism that contrasts sharply with the president's belief that it will remain a global war for the foreseeable future. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Mr. Kerry said.
Alas, poor Klinghoffer! Done in by a nuisance! And didn't hunting down and killing Abu Abbas work well?
"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.
Except that we're not talking about organized crime here. We're talking about SPECTRE, and the Council of Boskone, and the Learned Elders of Islam, and the insidious Dr. Fu Manchu...
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," he concluded.
Terror networks seem to be a binary condition: they're either a threat to the fabric of your life (because of the threat to life itself) or they're non-existent. There's no middle ground. That's why they don't call it "nuisancism." Loud drunks on the sidewalk in front of your window at 2 a.m. are a nuisance. Having the airplane you're taking to Disney World explode is terrorism.
The president, stumping in New Mexico before traveling to Denver, called the remark "new evidence that Senator Kerry fundamentally misunderstands the war on terror."
He misses the point entirely, as far as I can see...
He added: "Earlier, he questioned whether it was really a war at all, describing it as primarily a law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering operation, instead of a threat that demands the full use of American power."
Law enforcement is a tool to be used domestically, and for other nations to use domestically. Intelligence is essential, otherwise we're working blind, and it reveals the international nature of the problem. Diplomacy is another tool — strange, that Mr. Kerry, with his fixation on diplomacy, didn't mention it. But that might be because the logical extension of diplomacy is military action, which represents the least-preferred tool to the Publicans, the forbidden tool to the Dems.
Vice President Dick Cheney also hammered Mr. Kerry for the "nuisance" remark and said it was part of a pattern of the Massachusetts senator's minimizing the war on terror. "This is naive and dangerous, as was Senator Kerry's reluctance earlier this year to call the war on terror an actual war," he said at a rally in Medford, N.J. "He preferred to think of it, he said, as primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation."
No doubt he was just being nuanced, even though the statement is stoopid on its face, unless one slept through 9-11 and is still most interested in who killed Chandra Levy...
Even before the president and vice president went after the "nuisance" remark, their campaign raced to air a TV spot highlighting the quote. "First, Kerry said defeating terrorism was really more about law enforcement and intelligence than a strong military operation," says the ad's narrator. "More about law enforcement than a strong military? Now Kerry says we have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution. We're never going to end them. Terrorism — a nuisance? How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"
If he's elected president, he can fumble around and pass gas in summit after summit until the terrs manage to fly a plane into the White House while he's there and then we can start the whole process all over again, with new leadership.
Mr. Singer said the ad is "a dishonest and disingenuous way to campaign for president and another pathetic way to play the politics of fear." He also alluded to an interview that Mr. Bush gave to NBC's "Today" show on Aug. 30, in which he said "we can't win" the war on terror in the next four years.
True statement. It'll probably take ten years with the kind of leadership Bush has provided, 40 or 50 — assuming we don't lose — with Kerry's...
"Considering that George Bush doesn't think we can win the war on terror, let Osama bin Laden escape and rushed into Iraq with no plan to win the peace, it's no surprise that his campaign is distorting every word John Kerry has ever said," Mr. Singer said. The Kerry response ad, titled "Can't Win," accused Mr. Bush of not doing enough to inspect cargo ships that enter the United States, giving $7 billion in "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction. "And on the war on terror, Mr. Bush said, 'I don't think you can win it,' " the Democrat's ad says. "Not with his failed leadership. It's time for a new direction."
More like, it's time to take the gloves off. But if they come off, that means casualties, and the Dems'll leap on the casualties to make their cheap political points...
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the new Kerry ad takes Mr. Bush's words out of context. After he made his remarks, the president told radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh that he meant to say that terrorists will never formally surrender to America, as Japan did at the close of World War II. "They throw out these baseless charges whenever the senator's words are highlighted," said Mr. Stanzel, who accused Mr. Kerry of having a "September 10th mind-set." "They seem to have the most negative reaction when we simply repeat things John Kerry has said."
He utters gross stupidities often enough to make that a common occurence...
Mr. Cheney also accused the Democrat of not having learned from the September 11 attacks. "This is all part of a pre-9/11 mind-set, and it is a view we cannot go back to," he said in New Jersey. "This is a global conflict. If we fail to aggressively prosecute the war on terror, destroying terrorists where we find them and confronting governments that sponsor terror, the danger will only increase."
so true
The campaign will enter the final stage after tomorrow night's final presidential debate in Tempe, Ariz. Both campaigns expect the race to be close, just like in 2000, but the small lead that Mr. Bush enjoyed after his early September convention seems to be holding. An ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted Friday through Sunday put Mr. Bush at 51 percent and Mr. Kerry at 46 percent among likely voters nationwide. A Rasmussen daily tracking poll gave Mr. Bush 49 percent and Mr. Kerry 45 percent. Two other polls, however, give the Democratic challenger a slight lead. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters gave Mr. Kerry the support of 49 percent to Mr. Bush's 48 percent. And a Zogby International/Reuters poll gave Mr. Kerry a 47 percent to 44 percent lead, just outside the margin of error of 2.9 percent.
Posted by:Mark Espinola

#15  Cheney is campaigning in New Jersey!?

Internal tracking polls must be showing a slaughter in our favor.
Posted by: someone   2004-10-12 5:07:32 PM  

#14  Dan, you are of course right as far as the tactics required to defeat Germany. However, we have been reading here for some time about mass marches of students against the regime, and in the past few days about specific attacks on the businesses and property of the Mullahs. Given the youthful skew of the population, I was thinking that if we remove the ability of the ruling class to physically intimidate the populace, the kids may be able to handle the rest themselves.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-10-12 5:03:34 PM  

#13   Lyot, did you say typos? You are aware of the anti-Typo regulations governing comments in here? Look at all of mine, the typo-king... lol

The President, contingent on his victory Nov 2nd, will be free of political constraints (Kerry & the left) and then as Dan has stated "we can defeat the nations that use terrorists as a tool of national policy". The Islamic regimé in Tehran has been utilizing it's main natural resource, exportable crude oil to spread Shi'ite terrorism & expansion since 1979. Recall it was the radical Islamists in Iran which ordered the car bomb murder of our Marines in Lebanon in the early 1980's. This same regimé assisted in installing Hizballah's jihadic brownshirts in Lebanon and each day Israelis are confronted with Iranian paid & trained Islamic Hamas/Islamic Jihad madmen.

Although these days we do not hear the term 'oil embargo', something associated with the 1973-4 & 1979 Arab/Iranian oil embargos directed at America bring about the severe recession of the 1970's. Do people have such short memories of Khomeini holding 'America hostage'? His fanatical followers are still in the divers seat.

There are a number of options the President shall have in his 2nd term to deal with defeating those national 'terror' states. One of them, in relation to 'invading' Iran, would be to enforce a total Iranian oil blockade from exiting the Persian Gulf. A sustainable reduction in Iran's Opec oil revenue will further incite the Iranian public against the ruling mullahs. Hard economic times would begin domestically for Iran, greatly reducing the mullahs ability to continue supporting Syria, Hizballah & Hamas Iran is surrounded this second on almost all fronts. Somebody in the White House had a workable plan for the eventual downfall of the world #1 state purveyors of Shi'ite jihadism.

As 'trailing wife' as stated "A couple of missiles aimed at Revolutionary Guard barracks and the home addresses of individual Mullahs before dawn" has worked before in removing this form Jihad cancer.

Israel has the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, and in the past took swift action to knock out potential Middle Eastern nuclear threats like Saddam's back in 1981. I would not be a bit surprised if Israel takes the initiative very soon. Our troops & others in the Coalition are suffering now from Iran's exporting of Muslim terrorists.

We have the power to deny Iran the ability to earn millions for global terrorism and remove this Islamic terrorist nuclear threat by toppling the mullah dictatorship. The only question is, do we have the will as 2004 enters into 2005?

Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-10-12 1:26:42 PM  

#12  Yes I agree are battle is with the Mullahs but taking the clinton approach and sending over some missiles will not do the job. It will just entrench the mullahas.

Our fight in WWII was agasint nazism/fascism but it took destroying/occupying the german people to finally defeat nazism.
Just as the the german people of the 30's supported hitler the people of iran supported these asshats (at least in the begginning).

This is a defining moment in history-
either we tackle this regime or we leave the region to them.
They are actively working towards this while we debate humanities.
Posted by: Dan   2004-10-12 1:16:56 PM  

#11  It seems to me our quarrel is not with Iran as such, but with the Mullahs and their tools. A couple of missiles aimed at Revolutionary Guard barracks and the home addresses of individual Mullahs before dawn, followed by destroying the Parliament building and dropping a few bunker busters on their nuclear development facilities might well do the trick.

I realize we don't know where all the secret facilities are, but even reducing their nuclear development capability will impact the urgency of dealing with the issue.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-10-12 12:23:39 PM  

#10  #5 Why should we not attack iran? A country which as has been attacking us for 25 years?

You stated that crushing the Hizballah already equals waging war with Iran, be it by proxy
Is this not what iran is doing against us? Iran has been waging war agaisnt us. The only difference is that no us president (dem or rep) has had the moral fortitude to fight back.

One hotbed (Irak) is enough for the moment..Iran needs a soft revolution
so since iraq is a hotbed (due to in large part to iran) we should back off? This is exactly what the mullaha's intended.
Posted by: Dan   2004-10-12 11:27:17 AM  

#9  No terrorism will never be defeated - but we can defeat the nations that use terrorists as a tool of national policy.

The lone (or small group) loonies with no national support will always be around - but our country will not be hit like 9-11.
Posted by: Dan   2004-10-12 11:21:17 AM  

#8  Links: belmont club re: Kerry's NYT article scroll down to Pillar of Salt, Oct 11

instapundit Giuliani comments scroll down to Oct. 11

Both of these are great reads!
Posted by: 2b   2004-10-12 8:40:16 AM  

#7  Lyot, I know what you are saying and you have a point re: that terrorism will never be eliminated.

Go read Belmont club for a great and fair analysis of Kerry's comments. Then when you're done - go read what Giuliani (instapundit or LGF) had to say about it.
Posted by: 2b   2004-10-12 8:31:04 AM  

#6  Mark, sorry for the typo..Spemble Grains 4886 = me
Posted by: Lyot   2004-10-12 7:50:07 AM  

#5  Mmark, if the threat is credible and there's good intelligence to back it up, sure I would not have anything against such anti-terrorist measures in Syria/Lebanon. The spread of WMD to these groups is unacceptable and must be crushed as much as possible. I'm not sure about attacking Iran, as crushing the Hizballah already equals waging war with Iran, be it by proxy.. One would guess they get the messsage by then. Only if every other option fails, Iran should be attacked. One hotbed (Irak) is enough for the moment..Iran needs a soft revolution and I hope it will happen.
Posted by: Spemble Grains4886   2004-10-12 7:49:15 AM  

#4  lyot, Ok, allow me to ask this.

If Bush had stated, lets say some 8-10 months ago 'we have the hardcore tangible proof that Saddam did indeed transfer his chemical & gem warfare weaponry (WMD) to Assad's Syria, then soon after portions were distributed in various mountainous regions of northern Lebanon, under joint Hizballah-Syrian control, with deep Iranian involvement.

Bush then declares to the American public; 'Based on the known threats (including nuclear) and recent published documentation, American and her allies have agreed are going to engage both terrorist promoting Syria and Lebanon, plus Iran, if or when they become aggressive against the allies!

Would you have supported these global anti-terrorist measures, even though it would mean broadening the the geographic area concerning the overall objective of hitting the heart of the 'terrorist empire' and defeating the greatest threat to international economic stability.
Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-10-12 6:15:22 AM  

#3  M.E, you must have understood me wrong.. I don't think it's possible to speak of contemporary terrorism as a 'nuisance'. Yet, through policy it should become no more then a 'nuisance'.. Eradicting terrorism 100% is not possible imho, yet managing it so that it becomes no more then a nuisance should. That I think is what George Bush meant a couple of weeks ago, and I truly think that's also Kerry's conviction.
Posted by: lyot   2004-10-12 5:01:44 AM  

#2  (lyot) Why don't you locate some scared-for-life victims of 9-11, caused by Islamic terrorists, and try feeding them the Kerry 'nuisance' rubbish as you stare at their various skin graphs.

While your at it you may also want to seek out the multi-thousands of international terrorist related injury victims caused by the followers of the 'nuisance'.

Here is a short list to assist you in finding the world's victims of the 'nuisance': Indonesia, The Philippines, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Russia, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, India, The Sudan, Thailand, along with the scores of other nations in which the barbaric Islamic 'Terrorist Inc' enemy has chosen to slaughter the innocent, to further their monstrous goal of total world-wide domination through targeted extermination of millions of 'infidels.

Remember now, be sure to cast your vote for the same 'nuisance' candidate the jihad boys & the French are cheering for!

Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-10-12 4:37:33 AM  

#1   I thought it was Bush who said that this war on terror can not be won. Approx. a month ago.. He did flip-flop the next day, yet, i think he was genuine in his evaluation of the problem : Terrorism will never be totally rooted out, and if it would become a 'nuisance', I think it would already be a great succes.
Posted by: lyot   2004-10-12 3:53:33 AM  

00:00