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: WoT
Wall St. Journal Summary: Why JFK Is Wrong About Iraq
2004-10-19
For those who aren't subscribers, I present it unedited.
John Kerry may or may not have been quoted correctly (he says not) in an Oct. 10 New York Times Magazine article in which he envisioned reducing terrorism to a mere "nuisance" level. But if author Matt Bai got it anywhere near right, as seems likely, the comment implies that the senator still doesn't understand why the U.S. is at war. Or maybe he did understand but has forgotten.

"Nuisances," like muggings and prostitution, can be managed by cops. Foreign countries harboring and sponsoring terrorists have to be subdued with armies to root out the terrorists before they can strike. Even the most limited effort, say, a lone fanatic uncorking a poison-gas canister in a crowded railway terminal or sports arena, could hardly be described as a "nuisance."

Most Americans clearly understood after 9/11 the need to go after terrorists where they live before they can get to that train station or arena. President George W. Bush set about to do just that in 2001 with the full support of Congress. Sen. Kerry fully approved before reverting to the pacifist mindset that has guided his career.
Posted by:trailing wife

#11  I didn't say today..heh heh - I can hedge as well as Mr. S
Posted by: Frank G   2004-10-19 10:09:10 PM  

#10  2300Z, Frank, is already passed. It is almost 0200Z. Mah mah mah, how tahm flahs......heh heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-10-19 9:53:58 PM  

#9  As for Bryant, her story was simply not believable for several reasons

please provide evidence. I'll be back to check at 2300 zulu time. Would appreciate references, footnotes, bookmarks and highlighting of relevant points. Neatness counts
Posted by: Frank G   2004-10-19 9:50:09 PM  

#8  
Re: #5 (Ed)
I don't know or remember what the problems were with Lester's story. As I recall, he didn't specifically identify any of his Arab visitors. They were just some Arabs. I'm not sure about that, though. I'll have to review that story.

As for Bryant, her story was simply not believable for several reasons. The first reason is that Atta was not in the USA yet. The main reason is that her entire story is absurd.

When I read the transcript of her TV interview the first time, I believed her. When absurdities were pointed out to me and then I reread the transcript, I clearly recognized the absurdities. Her story is obviously imaginary.

By the way, I think that that Al Qaeda very probably has intended to attack the USA with chemical weapons and has considered the use of crop-dusters. That's probably why Moussaoui was collecting information about them. There's no good evidence (Lester aside), though, that any of the 9/11 hijackers (Moussaoui aside) collected information about crop-dusters.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-10-19 9:45:30 PM  

#7  They don't understand.
Terrorism is of nuisance value only when it occurs in Chechnya, Jerusalem pizza huts and not anywhere near Kerry's voters.
Posted by: Cynic   2004-10-19 12:29:57 PM  

#6  And now...

A man with a tape recorder up his nose...
Posted by: mojo   2004-10-19 11:43:28 AM  

#5  Mike,
Looked at your link and can accept what it says.
When these conflicts in dates became apparent after the FBI re- interviewed the two witnesses, the Department of Justice decided to drop the terror crop-dusters from its case. On June 25 2002, it replaced the previous indictment with a new one that omitted the claim that "Mohammed Atta made inquiries regarding starting a crop dusting company," any other references to"crop dusting" encounters by anyone alleged to be part of the conspiracy.
So which of these are true?
1. Bryant/Lester were lying.
2. FBI did not find them believable.
3. Stories did not have corroboration and could not be proven in court.

Do you have more info (e.g. they recanted).
Posted by: ed   2004-10-19 10:44:41 AM  

#4  
Re #3 (Ed): According to the link, it was another Arab trying to get a gov loan to buy a cropduster. The same man that the gov employee said threatened to cut off her head when the load was refused.

The gov employee, Johnell Bryant, is a fabricator. Neither Atta nor the other man came to see here about a crop-duster. She fabricated the entire story from beginning to end.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-10-19 9:47:47 AM  

#3  That's even worse. At least we know Mohamed Atta is dead. According to the link, it was another Arab trying to get a gov loan to buy a cropduster. The same man that the gov employee said threatened to cut off her head when the load was refused. In addition, 'a group of 12-15 "arab- looking" men who had visited the airport and asked about crop-dusters' are still out there and their identities and motives are unknown. We do know that the first anthrax attacks started in Florida. Were the perpetrators colleagues of Atta?
Posted by: ed   2004-10-19 9:04:05 AM  

#2  Classic photo here:

Kerry caught picking his nose...well almost...he can't decide which side.

Hey JFK...pick me out a winner huh!
Posted by: RN   2004-10-19 8:57:43 AM  

#1  
the terrorists who pulled off the 9/11 attacks had earlier taken a great interest in the art of flying crop-duster airplanes. What could that have been all about?

Precisely read, this is not true. The US Government no longer alleges that any of the 9/11 hijackers expressed any interest in crop-duster airplanes.

Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, collected information about crop-dusters.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2004-10-19 8:52:30 AM  

00:00