Kerry Says We Must Go To Back To The Past

[Montesquieu]

Kerry told the New York Times, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."

What does he mean go back? The only interpretation available for this quote is that he liked the way it was under Bill Clinton, where Americans and others were killed at will with no attempt to respond and no strategic vision to deal with the very real problem terrorists represent.

Could anyone who thinks we need to go back in time, to a time when threats gathered and worked unfettered, be the right person to deal with any current problems? Why would Kerry ever deal with Iran? If he was elected he would see it as a repudiation of preemption, of the War on Terror all together. His ideas for dealing with Iran and North Korea are bilatteral talks on the Clinton model where we give them what they want in exchange for some inspectors to go in and try to see if they fool us, which they did.

Kerry is sinking his campaign into unthinking idiocy.

[oldsalt]

In a (very short) press conference last Thursday, Kerry let it be known that he believes that we have no legitimate right to deny nuclear weapons to anyone as long as we have any.

Don't worry, though, Kerry believes himself possessed of the magic wand of diplomacy and will save us all by waving it over the heads of the Dear Leader and the mad mullahs.

But no battle is better than half a battle.

Still think this is a benign policy?

[Godless Capitalist]

Did the NYT actually print that quote prominently on the front page? I doubt the families of the WTC victims consider terrorists a "nuisance."

[Montesquieu]

Did the NYT actually print that quote prominently on the front page? I doubt the families of the WTC victims consider terrorists a "nuisance."

Sorry, the story is a little updated since I created the topic. The quote cam from an article in New York Times Magazine. But it is now becoming a major news story, so I imagine most 9/11 families heard about it by now, though I'm not sure what good it does since most 9/11 families seem to have become highly partisan one way or the other.

[Elizabeth]

I read the 15 page article from the NYT as well, as I wanted to read the quotes in context. It appears to me that Kerry would like handle terrorism much the same as Clinton.

I think that the author of the article is correct in that Kerry is very careful about his wording about his ideas.

The stories I find interesting that should go along with this would be about the Oil for Food Program and various members of the UN and private companies profiting from briberies by Saddam - as well as nuclear materials missing from Iraq. Plus - there was an article about a week ago from a German paper in regard to Syrians testing chemicals weapons in Sudan - story not present in the media - perhaps it was not substantiated?

Another question I am currently researching is Saudi interactions with Iran.

[Montesquieu]

I lived in Saudi Arabia for about four years between 1993-1996, the Saudis hate the Iranians and the Iranians hate the Saudis. Were it not for the uniting hatred they all share for Israel (and to a lesser extent the U.S.) they would be blowing each other up right about now. It mainly has to do with their competing religious battle for Islam, and the fact that Arab and non-Arab muslims look down on each other.

[Elizabeth]

I lived in Saudi Arabia for about four years between 1993-1996, the Saudis hate the Iranians and the Iranians hate the Saudis.

I understand there is a division between Wahhabism and Shiism. However, I am still looking for the answer as to which group within Iran Osama bin Laden has ties to - and am wondering whether there are any indirect ties from certain groups in Saudi Arabia to the same connections.

The part of the article I find more telling about what a Kerry Presidency would look like is his view on "the dark side of globalization". It appears somewhat correct to look at connections between various terrorist organizations - not just Islamic. But I do not read anything in the article about how Kerry would address state sponsors of terror other than through attempted diplomacy.

He essentially says that democracy in the Middle East needs to come from within.

Since there are now generations of anti-American/anti-western thought in the Middle East (as well as an -acceptable- rationalization of why it is okay to use violence against innocents in order to achieve political/religious goals) - the type of thinking that has led to extreme violence against societies world-over - I am attempting to understand the thinking behind recognizing an enemy but not dealing with them offensively rather than defensively. And that is my interpretation of what I read in that article about how Kerry would handle terrorism.

-Elizabeth

[oldsalt]

I read the article as well. Kerry actually let it be known how he will "fight" the war -- excuse me, the police problem, without all the "I will kill the terrorists" rhetoric that his handlers insist on. He thereby exposes the fact that he exists, not in reality as we know it, but in a Potemkin village.

He yearns to "get back to where we were," when terrorism is just a nuisance, like prostitution and illegal gambling. As a former law enforcment official, a prosecutor, he knows that we will never rid ourselves of the criminal. We must treat it the way we treat the mafia -- make sure it isn't on the rise. (And they call Bush a pragmatist!) "This isn't the Sands of Iwo Jima," he avers, from which I infer that he's had enough of all this John Wayne-rah-rah American-playing at war BS.

Kerry views the entire war as illegitimate. He means it when he talks about diplomacy being the answer to the problem. His fantasy coalition consists of the various Arab countries and old Europe. His thinking is that we must find out what the Arabs want and compromise (cough "appease"). He thinks that we must once again sit down with the Dear Leader for bilateral talks. The countries which will be affected first, Japan, South Korea, and China, don't need to be involved. They aren't involved because they have nothing to bribe the Dear Leader with (China is nominally on North Korea's side. That Bush got them to pressure the Dear Leader in the first place was a diplomatic coup.) The fact that this policy is what put us in peril in the first place seems not to play a part in his fairy tale world of diplomacy.

He thinks that we ought to talk the Iranians into buying nuclear material from us so that we can monitor its use. He has even offered to give it to them if they will acceed to this stipulation. This is obviously based on the idea that Iran is merely seeking nuclear material for the peaceful use of nuclear power and not its stated intentin to have a "Muslim bomb." So far the Iranians have laughed at this proposal. If they persist, Mr. Kerry has stated that he will go to the UN and ask for sanctions. The Iranians are biting their nails as we speak.

In both these cases, Kerry advocates this course of action based on the premise that America has no legitimate right to ask any other country -- regardless of that country's stated intent, or whether it is even sane -- to give up their right to have the same weapons we do. Every country is equal in the eyes of Kerry. If we don't have these weapons, it will no longer be legitamate for these countries to have them either. Since we all know that legitimacy is the paramount value sought by every country, they will no longer have any need to seek a nuclear capability. It's all so clear!

Kerry will withdraw (surrender) from Iraq as quickly as possible. It will not matter to him what happens to the country after we're gone. It does not matter that we will be handing the enemy a victory he could not hope to attain otherwise. For an example of this particular "plan," you need look no further than Viet Nam. There is a difference this time, however. The Vietnamese had no ambition to conquer this country, the Islamist does. Do not kid yourself on this point: Islam preaches patience of a sort that is generational. What is one lifetime when the goal is the spread of The Religion of Peace. It is Allah's world and it is their duty to die getting it for him.

I won't go into the horrors of Kyoto or socialized medicine. It was hard enough reading this inbred, nuanced clap-trap the first time.

Elizabeth:

Trying to understand Islam is like attempting to understand the history of Christianity in one lesson. Islam, like every mystical belief system, has a myriad of sects, most of which hate each other. The history and the pathology are complex, as is the savage atavism of its consequent societies.

One thing is certain: You will learn virtually nothing from the American mainstream media. Try some of the better blogs: Little Green Footballs regularly prints articles from Arab newpapers. Read some of the Iraqi blogs. MEMRI translates articles from Arab sources. There are English edition Arab newpapers and magazines. Also check out the Asian newspapers. Yahoo has links to several good English edition media from Asia. Read carefully though. I've learned to glean as much from what isn't said, or how something is said, as from anything I accept as true.

That ought to be enough to get you started.

[Elizabeth]

Elizabeth:

One thing is certain:  You will learn virtually nothing from the American mainstream media.  Try some of the better blogs:  Little Green Footballs regularly prints articles from Arab newpapers.  Read some of the Iraqi blogs.  MEMRI translates articles from Arab sources.  There are English edition Arab newpapers and magazines.  Also check out the Asian newspapers.  Yahoo has links to several good English edition media from Asia.  Read carefully though.  I've learned to glean as much from what isn't said, or how something is said, as from anything I accept as true.

That ought to be enough to get you started.   

Thanks Janet! It's good to try to gather as much information as possible from a variety of sources and I'd not heard of Little Green Footballs or MEMRI before.

-Elizabeth

[Yes]

Kerry is sinking his campaign into unthinking idiocy.

In my opinion, the entire campaign has sunken to unthinking idiocy.

Neither candidate has a clue as to how to control government spending.

Neither candidate has a clue as to how to end the mess in Iraq.

The whole issue of education that was so hotly debated? Both candidates advocate the very solutions that have caused the downturn in education in this country.

There isn't an ounce of resourcefulness in any of the proposals put forth by any of the candidates. The Iraq war, for example, was fought under pretense rather than principle.

Sadly, the war that mattered even more, Afghanistan, was fought under a misguided set of standards that alowed our enemies to escape.