It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush not stronger on terror?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Many are under the impression, pretty much only because Bush says so, that Bush will be stronger on terror. That is pretty much the main reason many are voting for him. But has anybody stopped to think that maybe Bush is not the stronger candidate when it comes to terrorism? Here is an interesting article I read:

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Bush's major assault is on Kerry's ability to defend us from terrorism. On this score, the president ishow to put this delicately?lying. He keeps saying on the stump that Kerry won't hit terrorists until they hit us and would apply a "global test" before intervening. This is a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of what Kerry actually said. Bush goes on to argue that Kerry voted to disarm the military. In fact, both CIA Director Porter Goss and Vice President Dick Cheney supported even deeper cuts in intelligence and weapons systems at the end of the cold war. The irony of Bush's "wolf ad" (featuring pictures of scary wolves as the announcer talks about Kerry's weakness on defense) is that it's the president who has a wolf problem. The greatest single consequence of the botched war in Iraq is that the next time trouble arises somewhere in the world, our allies won't believe U.S. intelligence about an "imminent threat." With a toxic combination of arrogance and incompetence, Bush has become the boy who cried wolf.

As for the prospect of a military draft, Bush is correct when he says he has no plans for conscription; it is unnecessary for Iraq. But he has yet to explain what he'll do about an Army that is by all accounts overstretched and putting severe strains on the guard and Reserves. And the world could change abruptly (by, say, a single assassin's bullet in Pakistan); a second war of the same size would require a draft.

The shorthand that Bush is relying on to win is that he will protect America and Kerry won't. This may work politically, but it is simply untrue. Does anyone seriously believe Kerry wouldn't fight Al Qaeda? As for Homeland Security, Kerry could hardly do worse. Bush sold out to the chemical industryso chemical plants are largely unprotected. He failed to follow through on cargo securityso ports are unsecured. Compare Bush to a real wartime leader like Franklin D. Roosevelt. When FDR ordered that 50,000 combat aircraft be built in five months, he was told it was impossible. He made it happen. When Bush, by contrast, was told it would take five years after 9/11 to consolidate terrorist watch lists and replace the FBI's primitive computers, he shrugged and sat on his hands. The job remains undone. Now that's frightening.





[edit on 27-10-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Bush is obviously a stronger terrorist than any other presidential aspirant.

No other party needs to use fear and terror as its means of winning people's minds and hearts. Fear is the tactic of the corrupt, deranged, foolhardy and incompetent.

Bush is much stronger on terror. It is the only ruse that his corrupt government can use to drum up business. Thinking people are sick of it. Unthinking people continue to lap it up.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.


What makes you feel that way?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.


What makes you feel that way?


Well Kerry has never been pro military in any fashion, matter of fact he has been to the other side.


What he did in Gulf War 1


How he changes his mind dependant on the polls


His connections to vietnam, maybe he is a plant? (hehe)


And finally, he is a Liberal from Mass, how in the hell can he be aggressive, strength and power are all the enemy understand, the arab culture has always been that way



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I don't see how Kerry's being from Mass means he's less adept at fighting the various terror threats.

What is even less obvious is how exactly Bush has been "strong on terror" (which is by the way a terrible choice of words IMHO). All the resources needed to really build up security here went to the drain also known as Iraq. I'd say Bush has done a miserable job. Maybe because he's from Texas





posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well Kerry has never been pro military in any fashion, matter of fact he has been to the other side.


Who volunteered to go to Vietnam? How was Bush pro military in his past? Was it when he went AWOL from the TX Air National Guard maybe?




What he did in Gulf War 1


We already discussed that, sometimes politicians and their parties vote against something simply because of one item they want changed, not because they are against the entire issue.



How he changes his mind dependant on the polls


All politicians do that, it's their jobs, they serve WE THE PEOPLE, remember? If the people are against something, the politician is obliged to listen. That's what democracy is all about.



His connections to vietnam, maybe he is a plant? (hehe)


That was 30 years ago! If we want to discuss the past, we can talk about Bush's DUI's, or his alleged coc aine use, or his blowing up frogs out of utter cruelty. Both were young and inexperienced, let's try and look to the future, shall we?



And finally, he is a Liberal from Mass, how in the hell can he be aggressive, strength and power are all the enemy understand, the arab culture has always been that way


Now your just generalizing, and using political stereotyping.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Edsinger why can't you just accept that Kerry is a Vietnam hero because he decided to speak the truth about what went on in 'nam, it was an awful war and war crimes were committed, an example is the use of FFZ's (Free Fire Zone's) in Vietnam which is the targeting of basically anything that moves, combatants and non-combatants which is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention. Any soldier in there is a war criminal because they committed a war crime.

I deeply respect that Kerry stood up against an illegitimate war and challenged the US government the way he did, BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THE WRONG. O'neill is the real crook for not owning up to what he did because he has admitted be being in the FFZ and that makes him a war criminal, just like Kerry.

I know Edsinger you seem to think that its patriotic to not tell the truth about Vietnam and just let that awful war continue and we should paint a rosy picture about the soldiers there because it's the patriotic thing to do. WRONG. You are spitting on the graves of those soldier's if you think for one minute that trying to end an illegitimate war that your govt is now willing to get out of because of its honour and which in turn costs more lives is unpatriotic that is ridiculous.

Kerry is a War Hero not because of the war crimes he committed and his conduct on the ground but because he fought to end that awful war and challenge the govt who was in the wrong. It is the duty of patriots to challenge their govt when they are doing misdeeds. He has always been in the right on this and this will never change.

I'd rather someone like that anyday than someone who exploited the power the American people bestowed upon him to not explore all avenues to avoid war and conflict and who just jumped into sending over 1000 US soldiers to their deaths without a second thought.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Some of the people think that "terror" is something that is tangible or that it can be lure away whisper away or eraser, neither bush nor Kerry will be able to do anything if the "terrorist" which to attack our nation they are not for the money and the terrorist are martyrs they care less what happens after they die for their cause.

The only way to take care of an attack is to have the best intelligence and all the help from other countries watch to see and be prepared.

Bush and Kerry are not super heroes that can see and control what the terrorists have in mind or what they are planning to do and is wrong to fill the people in our country with the "superheroe" bs, if the terrorist wants to harm us here in US they will find a way to do it despite what bush or Kerry may say.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
"strong on terror" (which is by the way a terrible choice of words IMHO.


Sorry, that's just what I typed
, besides, it could be a good choice of words because it can be used two ways, strong on fighting terror, or strong on spreading it.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Kerry would likely react to a terrorist attack as strongly as Bush, at least initially. The key word here is react. After that he would be very slow to pursue the terrorists; he would need UN approval so that he could not be held solely accountable for his decisions. And he is much too beholden to the anti-war Hollywood crowd to see the battle through.

As far as the nobility of his Viet Nam war protesting, well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but just remember what he said to David Broder of the Washington Post:

In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record. -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)


This is the true measure of John Kerry.




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
yeah it's a presedential campaign and Kerry will do anything to win, he and bush will go as low as low and exploit their "records" for their own benefits

but i still stand by his actions against the war

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
After that he would be very slow to pursue the terrorists; he would need UN approval so that he could not be held solely accountable for his decisions. And he is much too beholden to the anti-war Hollywood crowd to see the battle through.


You're just repeating the Bush campaign rhetoric mentioned in the article I referred to, Kerry has stated he will not let up on the terrorists, I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.



As far as the nobility of his Viet Nam war protesting, well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but just remember what he said to David Broder of the Washington Post:

In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record. -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)


This is the true measure of John Kerry.





Again, Bush does not have an "angelic" past himself, so if we're going to keep looking backwards, look at Bush too. Just to be fair.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I cannot understand how Bush is stronger on terror than Kerry. One of the 9-11 comission points of contention and policy implementation was securing the southern border with more Border Patrol agents, equipment, and closing down the flood of illegal immigrants.

What Bush see's is achance to put pressure on Congress from enacting these recommendations just so he can get the Hispanic vote. Terrorist wont have to fly a plane into the country, all they have to do is walk across the border. Now that is what I call political courage and making our country more secure.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   
.
How can someone so incompetent it is close to funny be considered 'strong on terror'?

Only if you realize his goal is creating more terrorists to fight.

That combined with alienating virtually every long-term ally we have, leaves us wide open to terror attacks.

So with Bush you get extra terrorism! Aren't you thrilled?
.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.

What makes you feel that way?

Well Kerry has never been pro military in any fashion, matter of fact he has been to the other side.


So those two tours of duty off Yankee Station and upriver were his hippy, pacifist phase?



What he did in Gulf War 1


What did he do? I thought he was serving Senator, don't remember him sneaking across the lines to give Saddam vital intelligence.



His connections to vietnam, maybe he is a plant? (hehe)


So what do you say about Hackworth then?




And finally, he is a Liberal from Mass, how in the hell can he be aggressive, strength and power are all the enemy understand, the arab culture has always been that way


FDR was in a wheelchair, how could he be aggressive? Strength and power were all the Japanese understood.
Harry S T was a failed salesman, how the hell could he be aggressive? Strength and power were all the Japanese, North Koreans, Russians and Chinese understood.
And Kennedy was a Democrat from Boston, how can they be aggressive, oh wait, didn't he have a little conflab with Kruschev?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Bush and his team are responsible for taking down the WTC, blowing human buildings out of the towers and making others jump to their deaths. So tell me how he's going to be against terrorism when he's already terrorized the whole US?

Bush = Terrorist.

How Kerry could be any better, I don't know.

So, vote Baradnik.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

You're just repeating the Bush campaign rhetoric mentioned in the article I referred to, Kerry has stated he will not let up on the terrorists, I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.

Well, I didn't read the article you referred to. I arrived at my conclusions solely from having known Kerry for over 10 years. It is heartening to know, however, that Kerry's transparency is so obvious.




Again, Bush does not have an "angelic" past himself, so if we're going to keep looking backwards, look at Bush too. Just to be fair.

Then I'm sure that you will be quick to change the title of your post to reflect that they both have checkered pasts. Just to be fair.





posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Bush = Terrorist.

How Kerry could be any better, I don't know.

So, vote Baradnik.

I'll ignore your batty remarks about the WTC and ask just one question - who's Baradnik?




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Bush = Terrorist.

How Kerry could be any better, I don't know.

So, vote Baradnik.

I'll ignore your batty remarks about the WTC and ask just one question - who's Baradnik?



I'll ignore you're insult and post a link. Hold on, lemme find one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There ya go, look on left hand side of page.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join