October 31, 200421 yr http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/30/134736.shtml After Osama bin Laden released his pre-election video yesterday, John Kerry repeated his criticism that President Bush let the terror kingpin get away by "outsourcing" the job to Afghan forces when we had bin Laden cornered in the Tora Bora mountains. But it turns out that in December 2001, when the Tora Bora operation was under way, Kerry endorsed Bush's tactics during an interview with CNN's Admin King. Kerry said the Bush plan to get bin Laden "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will." Lest anyone mistake his endorsement as half-hearted, Kerry added: "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way." The quotes, unearthed Saturday by New York Times columnist David Brooks, only add to Kerry's image as a political opportunist who tailors his rhetoric to fit the moment. According to Kerry, says Brooks: "When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's 'outsourcing.' In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition." The Tora Bora contradiction exposes the credibility gap in Kerry's anti-terror pronouncements, says Brooks. "Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything."
October 31, 200421 yr Author What a chump He just gets less credible by the day. I'm not so much Pro-Bush as I am anti-Kerry anymore.
October 31, 200421 yr Unfortunately, [bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong. Kerry is opposed to the fact once we had Bin Laen surrounded we sent in at best second rate soilders and not our own. I suppose you are okay with not using our troops, susposedly the best in the world, to hunt down the man responsible for 9/11. So I guess you'd rather those troops hunt down insurgents and not the kingpin we are going for. insurgents > Osama to you CF? Because that is what you make it seem like. I also applaud the use of the awesome right winged, Kerry bashing source.
October 31, 200421 yr Unfortunately, [bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong. Kerry is opposed to the fact once we had Bin Laen surrounded we sent in at best second rate soilders and not our own. I suppose you are okay with not using our troops, susposedly the best in the world, to hunt down the man responsible for 9/11. So I guess you'd rather those troops hunt down insurgents and not the kingpin we are going for. insurgents > Osama to you CF? Because that is what you make it seem like. I also applaud the use of the awesome right winged, Kerry bashing source. 604756[/snapback] :deadhorse
October 31, 200421 yr Author Unfortunately, [bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong. Kerry is opposed to the fact once we had Bin Laen surrounded we sent in at best second rate soilders and not our own. I suppose you are okay with not using our troops, susposedly the best in the world, to hunt down the man responsible for 9/11. So I guess you'd rather those troops hunt down insurgents and not the kingpin we are going for. insurgents > Osama to you CF? Because that is what you make it seem like. I also applaud the use of the awesome right winged, Kerry bashing source. 604756[/snapback] Come to think of it, yes, actually.
October 31, 200421 yr Unfortunately, [bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong. Kerry is opposed to the fact once we had Bin Laen surrounded we sent in at best second rate soilders and not our own. I suppose you are okay with not using our troops, susposedly the best in the world, to hunt down the man responsible for 9/11. So I guess you'd rather those troops hunt down insurgents and not the kingpin we are going for. insurgents > Osama to you CF? Because that is what you make it seem like. I also applaud the use of the awesome right winged, Kerry bashing source. 604756[/snapback] Come to think of it, yes, actually. 604827[/snapback] And when did you decide the war on terror became a war on insurgents which did not do anything to us until we invaded their country while ignoring the one responsible for 9/11.
October 31, 200421 yr Author My bad, it's 330 AM. Let me clarify. I think that the rest of TERRORISTS > Osama Bin Laden. Insurgents, those are just as important. Hell, they all need to be killed. I dunno dude. Brain's not working right now. I'll get back to you
October 31, 200421 yr My bad, it's 330 AM. Let me clarify. I think that the rest of TERRORISTS > Osama Bin Laden. Insurgents, those are just as important. Hell, they all need to be killed. I dunno dude. Brain's not working right now. I'll get back to you 604831[/snapback] Insurgents are basically the fighters in Iraq our troops are killing and getting killed by. I don't know if you can consider them "terrorists", even though that term is used loosely now a day anyway. And why would the general population of terrorists be more important than Osama? He is the ring leader, he is the one with a proven track record who can attack America. What other terrorists have attacked America since him?
October 31, 200421 yr Author Osama can't single handedly attack America. A capture of him is more of a psychological victory than a true victory. You know this, you just act like you don't because doing so makes Bush look bad.
October 31, 200421 yr Osama can't single handedly attack America.? A capture of him is more of a psychological victory than a true victory. You know this, you just act like you don't because doing so makes Bush look bad. 604873[/snapback] That's my fear of Kerry becoming president. He doesn't beleive in preemptive action, only in killing terrorist after they attack. I've heard "We'll hunt down and kill the terrorist" too often. He needs to realize the terrorist aren't just Al Qaeda and France I also don't get how you get terrorism down to an acceptable level. Was it acceptable during the Clinton administration? :blink:
October 31, 200421 yr CF you posted from Newsmax.com. When posting an article, I prefer it not come from one of these three, Newsmax, RNC, or Rush Limbaugh.
October 31, 200421 yr only in killing terrorist after they attack. When has he ever said that? I want at least three sources which have him admitting he'll lay down until we're attacked Do you have any idea how to fight against terrorists other than sending in troops? Honestly, Clinton had Clarke draw up a plan against Al Qaeda after The Cole Bombing that Bush did not accept. It would have cut off the off shore banks, provided aid to economically dead countries where Terrorism can easily breed, among others. But I guess to you that would just be waiting for The Terrorists to attack us.
October 31, 200421 yr only in killing terrorist after they attack. When has he ever said that? I want at least three sources which have him admitting he'll lay down until we're attacked 604898[/snapback] I want sources saying Kerry believes in pre-emptive action against terrorists. Clinton had Clarke draw up a plan against Al Qaeda after The Cole Bombing that Bush did not accept. Exactly, a plan was made against Al Qaeda, AFTER the attack.
October 31, 200421 yr only in killing terrorist after they attack. When has he ever said that? I want at least three sources which have him admitting he'll lay down until we're attacked 604898[/snapback] I want sources saying Kerry believes in pre-emptive action against terrorists. I asked you to defend claims YOU MADE. If you can not defend your claims then you don't have the right to make them. Once again you have no idea, hurting the terrorists before they get you does not mean that you have to bomb them but apparently that's the world you live in. Now once again, I ask you to defend the claims you made first that Kerry wants to lay down till we're attacked.
October 31, 200421 yr He needs to realize the terrorist aren't just Al Qaeda and France Can you expand on this?
October 31, 200421 yr QUOTE(Joseph Holt @ Oct 31 2004, 11:10 AM) QUOTE He needs to realize the terrorist aren't just Al Qaeda and France Can you expand on this? France has been a haven for PLO types, Ayatolla Kohmeni, etc for many decades. They also bombed GreenPeace's Rainbow Warrior. http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/rw/pkbomb.html Right - so there's a difference between that and the US selling arms to the Middle East, supporting the Taliban, making "interventions" in numerous legitmate Latin American administrations etc... :mischief2
November 1, 200421 yr Maybe you can expand on the geopolitical aspect of Greenpeace that prompted France to deem them a threat worthy of sabotage/bombing? I've no idea and I'm not going to feign intellect by looking it up on the internet, then composing an answer. I'm just saying that you shouldn't make lazy observations - anyone can play that game. I'm sure between us in the next 24hrs we could probably label every country on the planet as terrorists if you accept the precident being laid down here. I know he's only a kid, but these sort of slack "observations" need challenging from time to time.
November 1, 200421 yr Things that happened within the geoploitical context of cold war proxy battles when examined in TODAY's context seem pretty ugly and ethically marginal. It would be hard to find anyone who would claim all the things we did during the cold war were based on ethical motives pure as the driven snow - and if you do find such a person - they're lying. Excellent - we agree. Back to the original point; France has been a haven for PLO types, Ayatolla Kohmeni, etc for many decades So are you saying that they've only become terrorists since we created/ defined the current geo-political environment? All the other years were ok. or Are you agreeing that it's lazy and ill-informed to label them terrorists today, just because they accomodate people we have a problem with?
November 1, 200421 yr Author CF you posted from Newsmax.com. When posting an article, I prefer it not come from one of these three, Newsmax, RNC, or Rush Limbaugh. 604892[/snapback] Sure. How bout a few left wing sources that you don't like.
November 1, 200421 yr Has anyone ever posted anything from smirking chimp claiming it to be legitimate news, or Michael Moore's website, or democrats.com(a very liberal site)? Nope.
November 2, 200421 yr Who are "they" and "them"? When you can define a geopolitical context that justifies bombing the Rainbow Warrior maybe I'll give you an answer. My original response was in terms of France and I'm unwilling to be distracted away from that by canards and red herrings. Sorry mate, intellectual highgrounding won't work with me - you can only split hairs and fragment issues so far before starting to look stupid. You *may well* have a deep, intellectual grasp of all the issues and if you really do then please think about a more inclusive approach to spreading your wisdom and points of view. BTW - I'm a Libertarian too. In my opinion, to be a Libertarian requires a certain disposition which helps you see past the limitations of the incumbent two parties and appreciate a genuine alternative. An alternative based on the ability to understand and reconcile a wide range of, sometimes conflicting, issues. Not breaking things down into simple black and white (e.g. "You're either with me or against me"). Your relentless and amateurish ABK standpoint has shown me that You Sir, are no Libertarian. I actually joined this board to read about the Marlins (which *is* why we're all here right?). If I want proper political discussion I go elsewhere - I shouldn't have got drawn in here, but I couldn't resist some of the comments being posted here. Signing off now - will just browse as a Guest in the future. GO FISH!!! :marlins
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.