POLITICS: John Kerry Outlines Terror Plan

In his bid for the top position in U.S. government many questions have been asked of John Kerry. The top on many minds is what will he do with the war on Terrorism? Today Kerry has outlined his plan including 7 main points and critical comments about the Bush administration's handling of the war so far...




His seven main points are as follows and are now available as public record:

One: Kerry will strengthen our military. His plan will transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation.

Two: he will deny terrorists the weapons they seek by securing nuclear materials worldwide and implementing port and bio-terrorism security strategies.

Three: Kerry will cut off terrorist finances.

Four: he will make homeland security a real priority, backed up by real resources.

Five: Kerry will launch a strategy to win the war of ideas to prevent terrorists from poisoning more minds.

Six: he will promote democracy and freedom throughout the Muslim world.

Seven: Kerry will rebuild America's strong alliances, critical not only to our military operations but in everything we do to track down and capture terrorists.

Has he made his plan clear enough, or are there more questions?

Related Links:

Kerry unveiling plan for terror war

Cheney: Kerry disrespectful to Iraqi leader

KERRY'S ANSWER: CUT & RUN

[edit on 24-9-2004 by UM_Gazz]

With the exception of point number 7, no different than Bush's plan....

But, I'm particularly fond of number 7....

Um, Basically this sounds like "Kerry" borrowed the idea from President Bush, It almost sounds as if he even is using the exact words that the president used after 9/11 in a address he made to our nation. Question I have, doesnt Kerry understand that for the most part the American public who have worked hard in big major corporations and have lost pay, promotions and even thier jobs from people like him who steal others hard work and try to claim it for themselves have had enough of people like that???

Vote for Bush!!! He might be lost, he might be drunk, he might be wrong, he is only a man and not anyone of us are perfect! He also can think for himself and for the most part does "right or wrong", respect the fact his decisions are his not others like most "puppets".

I'd swear Kerry must have boned up on the subject at the Bush/Cheney website last night cause it sounds.............well.............republican.

As to #7 I can't put any stock in the dysfunctional U.N. nor the axis of weasels that broke every U.N. sponsored sanction applied in the past decade.

Bushs alliances with non-traditional allies known as the coalition of the willing seems a better bet for future action against terrorism.

The insinuation that Bush has no international support in the war on terror is blatently false. Bush wants reliable allies rather than wishy washy ones such as France, Germany and Russia who put their economic interest's ahead of the war on terror.

France, Germany and Russia continued to sell military and industrial goods in defiance of U.N. resolutions on Iraq showing their untrustworthy nature.

Russia is a prime supplier of nuclear technology to Iran. France and Germany have contributed much dual use industriall know-how and equipment to Iran.

At the same time Frane and Germany give lip service to Irans nuclear ambitions - they are its main trading partners.

Kerry wants us to rely on these countries with conflicting interests to make the world safer - come on give me a break!

France, Germany and Russia continued to sell military and industrial goods in defiance of U.N. resolutions on Iraq showing their untrustworthy nature.

Won't argue you with you there...but I also didn't see him specifically mention those three either.... At least it shows that Kerry cares something about international opinion....something Shrub obviously doesn't consider at all. I'm not saying it should be the de-facto thing to consider, but at least consider it SOMEWHAT....

Well let hope that if Kerry become president, he will use bushes polices toward terrorism, and turn them around so they can work better than the way bush are using them now. Obviously bush has the right Idea is just he can not make them work.

Perhaps with Kerry we finally find Bin-laden

Interesting how some of you see Kerry's plan as having a republican twist to it.

I think Kerry has to show a strong position on this issue and really to do that one would almost have to lean toward the right.

Interesting.. But is it too late?

Other links to check out...

New polls hold good news for Bush

Kerry Tries to Reopen the Gender Gap

Important to note that Kerry was saying these things, especially points three through seven all throughout his campaign... not that anyone was listening with all of the distractions. He was advocating going international way when Bush & Co. were still stuck on going it alone. Of course, he was accused of being anti-American and unpatriotic when he did so. And then Bush started hammering policy points that sounded and smelled like what Kerry had been saying all along...

December 2003...
www.mercurynews.com...

Originally posted by Gazrok
With the exception of point number 7, no different than Bush's plan....

But, I'm particularly fond of number 7....

I don't know. Yes alliances are important, but one of the offshoots of the Bush (read not old Europe) stance is that we are looking to other nations for the same. Like Poland etc. There is a benifit to this beyond the military. It opens up huge new markets etc.

My only other thought: nations do not have friends and allies they have mutual interests.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
he will deny terrorists the weapons they seek by securing nuclear materials worldwide and implementing port and bio-terrorism security strategies.

Ok, so this practically directly addresses the iran issue, but does it mean he will go to war with iran if they will not cooperate with the IAEA and continue to develop nuclear facilities and the like?

he will promote democracy and freedom throughout the Muslim world.

How? How will be promote democracy in Saudi Arabia without destabilizing it, or reform in iran without taking power from the authorities?

Kerry will rebuild America's strong alliances, critical not only to our military operations but in everything we do to track down and capture terrorists.

What nations would he be building alliances with that would even be needed? Russia will only act when they have a stack in it too, france doesn't have sufficient power projection capabilites, pakistan is already working with the US. The only really helpful countries would be Germany and Turkey.

Has he made his plan clear enough, or are there more questions?

I'd like to know if this means that he will or will not engage in preemptive strikes against iran, for one thing. Whever bin laden is he isn't in 'bin ladenia' or 'al-ladenstan', he is in some other country, one that may or may not be willing to aide in turning him over. If bin laden is in iran, or moving between north eastern iran, waziristan, and southwest afghanistan, does this mean that kerry will sent troops to cross those borders with the same regard bin laden gives them?

I notice a number of people saying this is identical to bushes platform. However, it isn't. The so called 'Bush Doctrine' (supposedly really the Cheny Doctrine), is to engage in what is, for lack of a better term, a world wide militant democratic revolution, overthrowing antagonistic regimes and replaceing them with democratically elected native regimes, with a focus on the more dangerous and 'terror supportive' ones first. Its 'pre-emptive action', whereas Candidate Kerry's plan is different. It talks about promoting democracy, but only specifically in the middle east, and not necissarily through this 'regime change' method. Also, he is talking tough on al-qaida, and who wouldn't, but the import i get from it is 'i'd focus on al-qaida, not things like iraq'.

gazrok
it shows that Kerry cares something about international opinion

The situation reminds me of an episode of south park, where the town is split between rednecks who 'support our troops' and say 'if you dun like eeit then you can giiiit out!' and the 'no more war' side of town. Cartman gets knocked on the head, travels back in time to the consitutional convetion, and sees a similar situation, 'cept its on the revolutionary war, yea or nea. The result is that the congregation votes for a democracy, that way they can go to war, but protest it at the same time. That way the world will hate the gov, but not the american public. If kerry gets voted in, there might very well be the perception of a 'change' in US policy, with some diplomatic, 'soft power' breakthroughs, which would be convenient, since the US was already able to overthrow hussein anyway.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'd like to know if this means that he will or will not engage in preemptive strikes against iran, for one thing.

Good post Nygdan

I can't help but think that Bush or Kerry are willing to even think about any 'preemptive' strike on Iran.. I am thinking that no matter who has to deal with this issue, any kind of military action against Iran would only follow some kind of move on Iran's part that would be seen as an urgent threat to U.S. security or an act of war.

I believe they will push for every last diplomatic option on Iran and if all fail they will push for more diplomacy.

I don't believe that either Bush or Kerry see a viable military option with Iran that would not come at great costs in both $$ and lives!!

Iran would almost have to launch some kind of attack on the U.S.A. or Israel.. We will react when it comes to Iran not launch a 'preemptive' strike.


[edit on 24-9-2004 by UM_Gazz]

If you get the chance, watch it on C-Span later or at least read the full script.

These weren't minor little bullet points Kerry touched on. They were integrated macro-points that define more than just winning the war on terror. He basically summed up in about an hour everything that's wrong with the planet and how to fix it. It was amazing.

I genuinely like the guy now. Not just think he's an acceptable alternative to Bush. I saw a dynamic thought process that sees the links in world problems like AIDS and terrorism. He knows the problem isn't that we see the problems on "TV screens" :shk: it's that we have problems we're ignoring.

The points aren't a laundry list of things to get to. They are things to do, now. All at once. That's how you win decisively.

And I was cheering from home when he put Saudi Arabia on the list. About damn time. No special treatment. No looking the other way. Cut the terrorists off at the funds. Win them while they're young, don't just shoot back at them when they grow up. He get's it. He really gets it where Bush doesn't.

His vision was crystal, all encompassing, realistic and rounded... and Bush wishes he could think and communicate difficult concepts that eloquently.

Bush thinks fighting terrorism is hard because terrorists hide. :shk: He doesn't understand or communicate the roots of the problems facing America, like Kerry or frankly most people. It takes more than a commitment of money and lives to defeat an ideology that thrives on our very opposition to it.

Kerry had my vote already, but he earned it today.

For anyone interested, the full text of Kerry's speech can be found here:

www.johnkerry.com...

I see now why people were calling John Kerry a "closer."

I'm also happy finally hear someone finally addressing the issues with the ports and the bizarre financing of a $100 billion "star wars" system. Hallelujah.

RANT... haven't you caught on to the fact that this war is about a whole lot more than just terrorism? Presidential candidates say all kinds of things and live up to very few if any of their "promises". Every time one of these guys opens their mouths it's almost pure propaganda and BS. The whole point of these speeches is to get people emotionally caught up in the moment. Especially so close to an election. Looks like it worked lol.

Look at what's happened with Bush... he had most of the country emotionally charged while laying out his plans to bring freedom to Iraq. Let's just say that... we may have been just a little bit mislead lol.

I read somewhere a while back that the Russian public had been polled as to whether or not they believed in UFOs. The majority said that they did believe in UFOs. When those who said yes were asked why they believed.... most said, "because our government said that they didn't, and we've learned over time that everything the government tells us is a lie" lol.

I"m starting to kinda feel that way here

It's 100% economics if you ask me.

Economy is the strength that allows us to field a military and choose with whom we do business. The military is the strength that helps determine how global economic principles work. This country has built such an amazing economy that 80% of world currency trading is on the US dollar, and almost every country in the world uses US dollars for their national reserve. This gives us unprecedented economic leverage!

We have to rely on the ME for the world's most precious commodity and the #1 resource the US needs to maintain itself at the current economic level.

Right now the country is in an economic crisis. We have a massive debt (7.5 trillion) and huge trade defecits. Usually a country that has these problems has very little value to their money. What the US has though, is the lever on the global economy and the military to back that up. What happens though is we have to leverage certain countries into poverty to maintain not only the value of the dollar, but the stability of the global economy.

Essentially, we are employing a long-term solution that is not going to work. No military is able to operate at the tempo of ours, and if we are suddenly unable to effect physical control over national economies, or have the deterrence to do so, the nature of the global economy and currency system could change to the point that we are in an economic crisis as large as the great depression.

What we need to do is:

A: Effectively change the nature of our defense, both military and intelligence, to actual defense mode.

B: Re-ignite US domestic industry to dominate the 21st century's technology. The business-friendly nature of the US, plus the resources here, both physical and educational, gave us the biggest industrial and economic powers the world has ever seen.

We are losing the things that made this country rich, and banking on a program of military expansion to maintain the national economy. This same strategy SUNK the Soviet Union after they expanded to the point that they were contained, and it will sink the United States if we cannot find an alternative method of shoring up our economy.

C: Eliminate the national debt. Ever since the Spanish-American war, when the US decided to start acquiring foreign territory, we have been in debt. Though it's made us rich, the good-old days are coming to an end. The world is too small and information technology too great for nations to emply this method any longer. What we have to do now is pay off the debt so that investor confidence remains strong. That, combined with renewed technology, industry, and agricultural powers of the US, we will be incredibly strong without using the methods that are essentially outdated.

Basically what we are seeing with the whole War on Terror is the outer limits of political and economic expansion of the United States. If we work to make our country strong domestically, it will be strong. We have the defense, the brain power, the quality of living that draws people here (though we're losing that) and the know-how. It just takes the old guard to wake up to the new guard, and cutting off those sweet, sweet government - business ties.

So now, Kerry plans to win TWAT by doing...exactly what Bush has done, other than by including sucking up to those who support our enemies (and his campaign). Great tactics there, John. Quite original.

Almost as good as how he weasled his way into a purple heart for shooting his grenade launcher at a nearby rock, but not quite. I guess it doesn't matter really, since he threw it back over the white house fence...or just the ribbon anyway...or was that someone else's ribbon that he only pretended to throw, in a figurative gesture?

No...wait...I'm sorry. I must've forgotten that this is his week to wear the "commander in chief wannabe" hat. I was thinking of last week, when he wore his "fight a kinder, gentler war on terrorism" hat. You gotta hand it to him, the man's got quite a collection!

Now I know why people refer to Kerry as a real loser.
I read the Kerry spewing from Temple University and it has to be the largest bunch of crap I�ve heard in a long time. Basically he states that we will start doing a lot of what we are already doing�.we�ll talk tough to a few countries�.start a new round of nation welfare, even though it would just be an expansion�..somehow talk tough to belligerent countries and they will understand the error of their ways, straighten up and fly right��.the speech was a lot of hot air pandering to the simple minded and gullible.

�������.Instead of speaking forcefully to the Saudis and others about terrorist financing ���

tough talk, now were getting somewhere.

���.this President under-funded homeland security. That was the wrong choice����

not only is this patently false it�s underlying premise is just stupid�.first, DHS had it�s previous funding doubled, as anyone who has been anywhere near governmental agency funding knows doubling funding without large amounts of waste would be a monumental task, let alone go beyond that. And here is the commonly recurring theme; throw money at it.

���..I begin with this belief: The war on terror is as monumental a struggle as the Cold War���

Another conflict on which he was totally and demonstrably wrong.

���..in the most despicable and gruesome ways in Iraq, which was not a terrorist haven before the invasion����..Iraq is now what it was not before the war � a haven for terrorists���

And what was �salman pak� and how about the other terrorists that received at a very minimum aid and comfort, if not outright support.

���First, I will build a stronger, smarter military and intelligence capability to capture or kill our enemies�����

Just an old Kerry stand by; the military is stupid and incompetent.

����..By the morning of September 12th, everyone in America knew that our intelligence wasn�t as good as it needed to be. But three years later, believe it or not, we read that the CIA unit charged with finding bin Laden has fewer experienced case officers today than it had before 9/11�����

First make the case that the intelligence service is incompetent; then complain that enough of the old guard is not involved in one small arguably important portion of intelligence activities. Flipping and flopping in the same breath, amazing.

������..I will help the government of Afghanistan expand its authority beyond Kabul to the rest of the country. I will lead our allies to share the burden, so that NATO finally provides more troops����

How is he going to help Afghanistan�more American troops, foreign troops are already there? Notice he�s not humming the UN tune in this one.

�����.I will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union within four years. At President Bush�s pace, it will take 13 years����

And he can speak for Russian agreement on this how�oh I forgot we will talk tough to them. Based upon what we had to pay the Russians in order to get what we have I�d hate to see what we have to pay to speed up the timetable.

���.I will seek a verifiable global ban on the production of materials for nuclear weapons����

Who are we going to verify and how? Emotional pandering to the simple of mind.

����..I will make it clear to Iran that we will lead an international effort to impose tough sanctions if they do not permanently suspend their uranium enrichment program and provide verifiable assurances that they are not developing nuclear weapons�����

And what happens we they tell us to pound sand�whoops they already did, so what now?

����and I will talk directly with the North Koreans -- to get a verifiable agreement that will eliminate their nuclear weapons program completely and irreversibly. We have to get serious about diplomacy with North Korea now. Only then will we have the support of our allies for action if diplomacy fails����

Already government policy.

����..I will work with our allies, with the World Bank and international financial institutions to shut down the financial pipeline that keeps terrorism alive. And I will pursue a plan to make this nation energy independent of Mid East oil���

We are already working this path on both issues.

���.At our ports, we will provide a 600 percent increase in support for the most promising cargo inspection programs. In our airports, we�ll install the equipment to check passengers for explosives to screen cargo just like we screen baggage���

Throw money at it that will solve the problem.
TSA is already exploring the cargo screening.

���So we will win when we show that America uses its economic power for the common good, doing our share to defeat the abject poverty, hunger, and disease that destroy lives and create failed states in every part of the world. The world�s poorest countries, suffering under crushing debt burdens, need particular attention. As president, I will lead the international community to cancel the debt of the most vulnerable nations in return for them living up to goals of social and economic progress���

Aren�t we already the number largest contributor�.what did that get us. But we are going to start a whole new give away. I guess he is proposing nation welfare on a scale we have never seen, scary.

���I will be clear with repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change � not just for our sake but for their own survival����

Or we are going to start talking tough, what a joke.

���Let it be clear that the issue here is advancing democracy in Arab nations, not yielding to pressure to undermine Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. Our alliance with Israel � the survival and security of Israel � are non-negotiable. The only solution is a Jewish state of Israel living side by side in security and peace with a democratic Palestinian state����

The Palestinians had this at one time and have been offered this and that doesn�t seem to have been enough�.I guess once we talk tough to them it will work this time.

����President Clinton built a real coalition in Kosovo, and now virtually every soldier on patrol there comes from a foreign country. During the Cold War, every American president understood what is still true today: The strength of our country is vital but so is the character of our country. It is better to be an America that rallies others to our cause than an America that has to go it alone����

A coalition that didn�t have UN backing and only was allowed because the French forgot to show up�..and again he points to the conflict he was on the wrong side of.

Keholmes,

I will like a link were you got all that information from, I will like to read it myself seems very interesting.

Originally posted by marg6043
Keholmes,

I will like a link were you got all that information from, I will like to read it myself seems very interesting.

haven't you looked at the previous post....pay particular attention to posts by lmgnyc