« This is Halloween (4): Urban Legends and Ghost Stories | Main | A (Red Sox) Nation of Negativity »

Oh, Bother: Kerry's View on Terrorism

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

nui·sance n. 1. One that is inconvenient, annoying, or vexatious; a bother:
That's Sen. Kerry speaking, in case you haven't read that elsewhere already. What I'd like to know is, when exactly is Kerry talking about? When were terrorists just a nuisance? Was terrorism every just a bother, an annoyance? Just an incovenience? Does he mean before September 11, 2001? Before October 12, 2000? Before August 7, 1998? Before June 25, 1996? Before February 26, 1993? Before December 21, 1988? Before April 5, 1986? Before October 7, 1985? Before November 4, 1979? Before any of these dates? I'm sure the families of all the victims of all the above attacks would love to know that their loved ones were murdered at the hands of nothing more than nuisances. This, in a nutshell, is why I could never even think about giving my vote to John Kerry and why I will vote for George Bush. Perhaps terrorism should not be the daily focus of our lives - meaning us ordinary citizens - but it should certainly be a daily focus of the President of the United States and all who work for him. The problem with Kerry is he thinks that the war on terror begins and ends with bin Laden. He thinks that once bin Laden is frog marched into some prison cell where he can go think about what he's done, the war on terror is over. Look at this list. And this is just attacks on U.S. interests here and abroad. This does not take into account all of the terrorism that happens world wide, all of which greatly effects us because we want world peace, damn it. The war on terror is a GLOBAL one. It encompasses every nation and hundreds of different terrorist organizations, all with different goals and different targets. It damn well better be the daily focus of my president for a long time. Not only until bin Laden is caught. Not only until al Qaeda is demolished. And it's great that Kerry thinks we should obliterate terrorism to the point that it's just a nuisance, whatever that means, but does anyone have any idea just how he plans to do that? Keeping our coutnry safe should be the number one priority of the president and anyone who thinks that terrorism was ever just a nuisance does not deserve the title of president. [Ed Moltzen has links other blogger observances on this issue]


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh, Bother: Kerry's View on Terrorism:

» The Nuisance Nuance from Late Final
From today's New York Times Magazine: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' (Sen. John) Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know... [Read More]

» Not Understanding the Threat from Chasing the Wind
Another sign John Kerry doesn't understand the war on terror. He thinks of it as a "nuisance." In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get b... [Read More]

» Things I Just Learned from Sharp as a Marble
[Read More]

» On Being Out of Touch from 28J
During the 1992 presidential campaign, George H.W. Bush was characterized as being out of touch with America. He had never seen a grocery store scanner and he struggled with the town hall question about how the national debt had affected him personally... [Read More]

» Kerry's nuances of nuisances from Darleen's Place
I posted yesterday the Kerry quote from the New York Times. I didn't comment much beyond that it was unbelievable at that time because, well, frankly it stunned me beyond words. The Bush campaign has rightly siezed on this incredible... [Read More]

» Beans spilled; brass tacks gotten down to from Cold Fury
Yep, the cat’s out of the proverbial bag, just to throw another [Read More]

» Before When? from JimSpot
Michele has a nice post about Kerry's View on Terrorism. While the whole thing is more than worth the read,... [Read More]

» Pajamahadeen Pillorying Kerry's World View from rightpundit.com
When you make comments as vapid and ludicrous as John Kerry did this weekend in the New York Times Magazine, you have to expect to be held accountable by the pajamahadeen. Earlier I linked to posts by Volokh Conspiracy and Powerline. Now check out ... [Read More]

» Kerry, Master of Nuance, Calls Terror Nuisance from Infidel Cowboy
update: MIchele Catalano has a list of "nuisance incidents" and wonders how the families of the victims of these "nuiscances" think about he who would be President saying that terrorism was and will once again be just a nuisance. original... [Read More]

» Kerry, Master of Nuance, Calls Terror Nuisance from Infidel Cowboy
update: MIchele Catalano has a list of "nuisance incidents" and wonders how the families of the victims of these "nuiscances" think about he who would be President saying that terrorism was and will once again be just a nuisance. original... [Read More]

» Small-minded man from Twisted Spinster
Hey, didja hear the one about how this John F. Kerry guy (who's running for president of some small country somewhere) thinks terrorism is a nuisance, and should be compared to such small-time vice as illegal gambling and prostitution? Yeah, I laughed... [Read More]

» The War on Terror is Also a War on Words from Sad Parade
"Just this weekend, Senator Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to - quote - 'nuisance' - end quote - and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling...See, I couldn't disagree more. Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable [Read More]

» Additional Thoughts on Terrorism from Thinking Out Loud: Thought Leadership from an Enterprise Architect
Continuing the saga of why terrorism may be good for IT folks, was pondering several questions on combating terrorism in which I haven't figured out the right answer to and figured others may express their own two cents on the... [Read More]


The only nuisance I see here is Kerry's candidacy for President.

Some of my commentors have mentioned that I've goten this all wrong, that I've taken it out of context. Like hell.

This fits right in with the blithering statement he made about not being able to fight communism everywhere. He was just as wrong about that, too.

This man has no vision, and if he does have a worldview, it is a small, and ultimately petty thing.

Let me explain something to you, and I hope I don't offend anyone. Technically speaking, 9/11 was a nuisance to me. Nobody I knew directly was killed. The Cole bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing.... all nuisances. They caused me a little anger, a little pain, but it didn't make my life a living hell like it did for those whose loved ones were killed those days.

Is THAT what Kerry wants? In the words of the Immoral Kos - "Screw him"

i read his comment as him saying that he wants to get us back to a place where we've taken care of terrorists and terrorism to such a point that we no longer live in daily fear of them. and i don't see what's so bad about that.

This man is such a joke. He has never considered the War on Terror, a war. In fact in 1991 when the POTUS had clear cause to attack Iraq, had a UN Resolution authorizing force, a large international coalition (which included Germany & France), and the war was to liberate a US ally, he decided to cast his vote against it. He is a lightweight trying to throw figures at Bush, while only vaguely referring to his plan. What plan? The Jimmy Carter one where we try to buy off those trying to kill people around the world in order to perpetuate their death cult. I can't believe that he is that best that the Democrats have to throw at Bush.

Now that Christopher Reeve is dead, will he change his position from the second debate from one of supporting stem cell research to help Reeve walk again to one of supporting zombie technology to help Reeve walk again?

Why are we surprised? After all, this is the guy who said during the Democratic primary debates that the threat of terrorism is overstated.

Did he say Nuisance, or Nuance?
One has to wonder, when it comes from Kerry's mouth.

No matter what he said, it'll be different next week...or tomorrow.


While Camp Kerry's media arm, ABC, whined that his statement is being taken "out of context" by the GW campaign, in fact the whole statement is even more damning. Kerry makes the analogy of terrorism to prostitution, organized crime and gambling.

Um...last I checked the Mafia was not issuing fatwas calling for every non-mafia member to be killed or converted.

Islamist terrorism must be erradicated, on the scale the US and allies did to Nazism and fascism. Yes, those ideologies still simmer in some tiny wingnuts portions of the US and EU; but they are monitored and anytime they step out of line, the government brings the hammer down.

Kerry couldn't even bring himself to equate Islamist terrorism with fascism. He wants to call summits to reach out to the "Muslim world." Coupled with his nuisance statement and his previous statements that terrorism is "overstated" and "more a law enforcement issue than a military one" it is quite clear:

He just doesn't, or won't, get it.

Kerry is so out of touch with the real world. He reminds me of that lady in the movie The Patriot. You know the one - she's at the party, and is making small talk, than the ship blows up and she claps and says hurray! fireworks, hahahaha! - yeah, that's the one. It's actually Kerry in drag.

I am sure the Sudan and the Palestine/Israel areas are tired of the "nuisance" too.

Leave it to Laurence to dance on Superman's grave.

C'mon, Lair, the subject here is John "hookers gone wild" Kerry...

What Kerry's saying (implicitly, if not explicitly) is that we need to adopt a Johnny Nuance-style "European" attitude toward terrorism. Tolerating it as an inevitable facet of a nuanced, sophisticated lifestyle, where you need to make human sacrifices to monsters every once in a while to keep the peace.

Victor Davis Hanson had a great piece making this comparison here:

"As long as the mythical Athenians were willing to send, every nine years, seven maidens and seven young men down to King Minos's monster in the labyrinth, Athens was left alone by the Cretan fleet. The king rightly figured that harvesting just enough Athenians would remind them of their subservience without leading to open rebellion — as long as somebody impetuous like a Theseus didn't show up to wreck the arrangement."

"In exchange for our not retaliating in any meaningful way against the killers — addressing their sanctuaries in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, or Syria, or severing their financial links in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and their various state-sanctioned kindred operatives agreed to keep the number killed to reasonable levels. They were to reap their lethal harvests abroad and confine them mostly to professional diplomats, soldiers, or bumbling tourists, whose disappearance we distracted Americans would predictably chalk up to the perils of foreign service and exotic travel."

Ok, I know I've done the same thing to Dick Cheney, so I'm not speaking from a point of moral superiority here, but if you focus on just that one line, you're warping the entire point of the article.

The focus was on the difference between the Bush and Kerry views and why Kerry thinks that "...law enforcement probably is the most important, though not the only, strategy you can employ against such forces, who need passports and bank accounts and weapons in order to survive and flourish."

It also says "...Kerry was among the first policy makers in Washington to begin mapping out a strategy to combat an entirely new kind of enemy. Americans were conditioned, by two world wars and a long standoff with a rival superpower, to see foreign policy as a mix of cooperation and tension between civilized states. Kerry came to believe, however, that Americans were in greater danger from the more shadowy groups he had been investigating -- nonstate actors, armed with cellphones and laptops -- who might detonate suitcase bombs or release lethal chemicals into the subway just to make a point. They lived in remote regions and exploited weak governments. Their goal wasn't to govern states but to destabilize them."

The article goes on to say that Kerry believes that "Wars are fought between states or between factions vying for control of a state; Al Qaeda and its many offspring are neither... Such a theory suggests that, in our grief and fury, we have overrated the military threat posed by Al Qaeda, paradoxically elevating what was essentially a criminal enterprise, albeit a devastatingly sophisticated and global one, into the ideological successor to Hitler and Stalin -- and thus conferring on the jihadists a kind of stature that might actually work in their favor, enabling them to attract more donations and more recruits."


the military threat posed by Al Qaeda, paradoxically elevating what was essentially a criminal enterprise, albeit a devastatingly sophisticated and global one, into the ideological successor to Hitler and Stalin

But Al Qaeda IS AN IDEOLOGICAL SUCCESSOR to Hitler. Islamism = fascism/Nazism. Al Qaeda is not Tony Soprano.

As I just posted here:
Last I looked, the Mafia wasn't issuing fatwas that non-mafia types were to be converted or killed. Last I looked, when the IRS took over the Mustang ranch, it wasn't because the girls where videotaping the murder of their customers with demands to make Nevada a prostitute-only nation. Last I looked, backroom poker-players and bookies weren't invading schools and shooting school children in the back.

Why is recognizing that Al Qaeda is motivated by purely ideological grounds so hard for some to grasp?

al quaeda may be an IDEOLOGICIAL successor to Hitler, but so is the KKK, so is Toyota's Mission Statement of total domination of world automobile sales. I mean, if you're going to break it down to an ideology, the fucking Yankees have successfully executed an ideologically similar strategy. It all comes down to the facts. Yes, al qeada needs to be routed. That is a war that must be fought, and it must be won. However, it can't be a war fought with tanks and B52's loaded with bunker busters or super sizers or daisy dukes or whatever they're called. It's a war that's going to have to be fought on the ground by small teams infiltrating the holes these guys are hiding in. Ideologically similar to hitler? Yes. Strategically similar to hitler? No.

al quaeda may be an IDEOLOGICIAL successor to Hitler, but so is the KKK, so is Toyota's Mission Statement of total domination of world automobile sales

[rolls eyes] yeah, sure... and Toyota is going to send kamikaze, bombladen Priuses into Ford dealerships around the country.

Now, who said that Islamism was strategically similar to Hitler? Why introduce something no one is arguing? Hmmm?

No offense, people, but sometimes it really annoys me how quickly and how far the comments stray from the original topic.

I was just trying to point out that although they may be ideologically similar, this has nothing to do with how the war should be fought or how strong the enemy is or is percieved to be. Sorry for going off topic. I just assumed people would ignore me as usual. I'll be the first to admit, I'm just sayin.

Michele, thanks for putting this in context. 9/11 was a shock, but it should not have been a surprise to anyone watching global events. I peg Lockerbie as the turning point in islamofascist terrorism, and as the point when the official response became crucial yet lacked substance, bite and focus. that is why Kerry's nuanced police action won't work -- you can complain all you want about "overrat[ing] the military threat," but at least you'll be alive to reassess things later. not so if you continue to underrate them.

We've all been in bars - Bali

I used to take the train downtown - Madrid

I have a child in grade school - Beslan

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."

We also should have learned to live w/communism according to him (which is easy to do when you marry money, especially 2x).

He has already appeased Iran, NorK and our enemies and told Iraq to go to hell. The black turbans have reconsidered the Senator's generous offer of nuke material, they want to talk.

We did't live w/the Barbary Pirates.

We are not European. We don't have to learn to live w/it. Even Guliani has spoken to this, he thinks that they are reaping what they've sown not going after these groups.

He can't even tell the truth as to which water he prefers.

He has a 30-year track record of his beliefs. And they are not American.

And Catherine, Kedwards thinks by going after OBL the problem will ease.

That's a narrow view.

At the risk of being slightly OT, it just struck me that Kerry's "nuisance" stance reminds me of Maggie Smith's character in "Tea with Mussolini" and her insistence that El Duce is really fine man (and El Duce is later shown thinking this woman is a stupid pain).

Kerry's concurrent statements that he wants to "reach out" to the "Islamic world" while downplaying terrorism is just as wrongheaded as Smith's.

Michelle: You have typos in the Lockerbee and Berlin disco dates.

Keep up the good work.

Bush wants Terrorsim to be the focus of your life. Your whole life. And everyone else's.
That kinda sucks doncha think?

Kerry is right on, he wants the American security apparatus to be such that Terrorism will barely be a thought on anyones mind. Instead people will be thinking about their children, their jobs, their vacations, not hunkered in the basement with duct tape and a gas mask.

That's the kind of leadership america needs. Not the fear-mongering of the republican right.

So Jeff defines acceptable to Americans type terrorism. Gee, I hope mr kerry wins. Then we won't have to be bothered worrying whether or not some crazed zealot is going to chop our heads off! Mr. Kerry will just invite them to the Cumbaya summit and appease them with....... hmmmm what would appease a crazed zealot?

I don't worry everyday about terrorism. It doesn't consume me. Because I have a president who was willing to fight when it was the right thing to do at the right time.

So Jeff don't worry your pretty little mind about it.

Yeah, let's just be like the grandpa at the end of Lost Boys.

("That's the problem with living here: all the damned jihadists...")

(Which, unlike vampires, can come out in the day. Squirt guns with holy water are also sadly ineffective.)

Who here actually read the entire article?

Hey Cooper, your response made no sense.
"defines acceptable to Americans type terrorism" WTF does that mean?

Who taught you how to organize your thoughts? Dub-ya? Maybe you need an earpiece to prompt you.

Kerry would kick ass as President. At home, and abroad.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch. It's funny how everyone seems to forget that.

I hope Kerry wins.

Obviously Michele didn't read the article. Or if she did, she chose to skip over the paragraph just before the "nuisance" quote, which reads as follows:

"In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. ''I don't think you can win it,'' he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow of danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality."

Further reading will reveal that Senator John Kerry learned quite a lot about terrorism during his landmark investigation into BCCI, and was one of the first to "get it" in Richard Clarke's words, as well as Tony Lake. At a time when George Bush was still snorting cocaine, John Kerry was learning about connections between drug lords, terrorist networks and non-state actors--am I off topic yet, Michele?

I had one of those rare moments where I though Jeff was making sense

Kerry would kiss ass as President. At home, and abroad.

Then I reread his post.


More out of context spinning from the Bush side. Go read the whole article before you start peeing yourselves about this statement.

Doesn't matter. Bush is still going to lose the election, thank God. And the world will be a better safer place because of it.


I've read the whole article.

John Kerry channels Chamberlain like no one else in modern times, regardless of how much the New America Firster Times tries to disguise it.

In the words of James Lileks:
A nuisance? I don’t want the definition of success of terrorism to be “it isn’t on the rise.” I want the definition of success to be “free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven’t gotten around to kicking in the ass yet.” I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there’s no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government. I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent. Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.

Anyone with a stake in the future beyond tracking the next "in" nightclub or the color of Scott Peterson's tie doesn't want to go back to a place where as long as the bus loads of kids being blown to smithereens are just Jews over there, or the occasional US military babykiller in a place over there where s/he probably had no "right" to be anyway...oh by the way, pass the Chardonney, we just had it flown in from France... a bit expensive these days due to the, ahem, unrest and attempts at Sharia but... let's party like its 1999..have you read that naughty Cox lately?! Not like we're insensitive or anything, perish the thought, we just know our priorities and who are we to judge?

Darleen, if you think Bush is going to deliver you the Promised Land, via bombs, puppet dictators and empty slogans, then you are drinking that neo-con fantasy KoolAid that Ahmed Chalabi's prosecutors, CIA bin Laden authority Michael Scheuer, and Charles Duelfer just concluded was really, really bad for you.

Wow, just in time for a good laugh, some grade-A leftist boilerplate from Brad! Kinda cute, in its way....

Remember kids, if you ignore terrorism, it'll go away! Keep your powder dry for the fight against Hitler!


Don't set up strawmen.

And Duefler confirmed in his testimony things that "Peace through Nuanced Nuisance" Kerry refuses to address. Saddam had corrupted and co-oped the UN, France, Russia and others. Leaving him and his devil-spawn sons in charge was not an option. Period.

Kerry puts a high priority on being "popular," especially in the salons of Europe...exactly the people he wanted to hear the message of terrorism as prostitution, not terrorism as a to-be-defeated ideology.

My children and grandchildren can ill-afford a Kerry Prom Queen Presidency.


Your one-celled little mind seems to do awfully well at mis-processing information and regurgitating the slogans of the right. Perhaps you should go and work for the Bush campaign.

"The salons of Europe" That's good. It sounds nice and effete and furthers your side's goal of feminizing Senator Kerry. But the bottom line is, sweetheart, that Bush's policy of strong-arming and then ignoring the United Nations and other allies the United States desperately needs to fight terrorism has left us more vulnerable to terrorism and hated in the world to an extent that is unique in our nation's history.

I hope the blinders that you seem to be wearing are a comfort to you when the terror attacks DO come, now that Al-Quaeda's membership has mushroomed the world over in the wake of the war in Iraq.

David, sweetcheeks,

I've been following vagaries of Islamo-fascism since 1972 when the deathcult thugs murdered Israeli athletes and to this day the quislings in the UN and the IOC and the salons of Europe, refuse to deal with that ideology except to coddle it or make excuses for it. France confines its "bravery" to making moslem girls not wear headscarves in public schools and then merely publicly wrings its hands over de facto Sharia in its moslem ghettos.

Your idea that Islamism is the result of the war in Iraq would be laughable if it weren't so patently pathetic.

9/11 ripped open and exposed the whole dry-rot structure of "moral equivalency" international politics where thug-dictatorships are considered equal with democracies, and Kerry just wants to slap a piece of sheetrock and a couple of coats of paint over it and call it habitable.

This is the last moment I am going to devote to this pissing match, Darleen, but let's get one thing straight.

I am not implying that Islamic fundamentalism is a result of the Iraq war. I am saying that little oil-pimp in the White House is incompetent and daily makes our ability to fight terrorism weaker by pushing our allies further and further away. We can't track terrorists in countries that won't cooperate with our investigative forces.

Kiss my sweet cheeked white ass.

And have a lovely evening, you condescenting twat.


(okay, it was the next to last moment)

Boy, David F. really gets pissy when he loses a debate, doesn't he?

Reducing terrorism to a 'nuisance'. So at what level of deaths and destruction do we consider it to be a nuisance?

This so reminds me of the Democrat meme of tax cuts for the 'rich'. Please define for me Rich. Is it earning $10,000 a year before taxes? How about $50,000 a year? During the second debate it would see that the magic number between rich and not-rich was $200,000 a year. Year after year and election after election you keep hearing this class warfare rhetoric of bias for the RICH but never any definition of what rich is. By not defining it they make possible many levels of class warfare and envy as the person earning $150,000 a year gets to feel good as they sock it to the guy earning $200,000, not realizing they are pandering to the guy $100,000 a year wanting to see the $150,000 a year person get screwed all the way down the various levels of earning.

Now back to the main topic. Acceptable levels of nuisance? How do they propose to define it? Number of attacks per year? Per month?

Maybe we limit it to the amount of property damage? Perhaps we could just say kill no more than 10 people at a time?

Or we could have a nuanced sliding scale combining all three. No more than 5 attacks a year killing no more than 25 people at a time causing no more than $100,000 in damages.

If we get really imaginative we can also introduce a multiplier for how we kill the people involved in the 'inconvience' as we could now call terrorist incidents.

Then attacks could be conviently catalogued and ignored until it crossed the threshold of nuisance.

Oooo.... I got called a "twat"!

Heaven's, Ah think ah'm gettin' tha vahpors!


Sweety, when you wander into the kitchen with the adults and accuse them of peeing on themselves, you just might have that pretty little white ass of yours handed to you. And by a mere woman at that. Imagine! So stopped being so peevish.

PS David, you're in the same rhetorical trap Kerry is... you use the "allies" euphemism to mean France (and maybe Germany and Belgium) and you get upset when others actually understand that.


Al-Quaeda's membership has mushroomed the world over in the wake of the war in Iraq

According to all sources that I've seen, al Qaeda's force has 'mushroomed' to 18,000.

Before 9/11, when we were at 'peace' with the Muslim world, al Qaeda had a force of 20,000 fighters.

According to MSNBC:

"The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al-Qaida trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said."

So, when we were at 'peace', al Qaeda had 20,000.

2,000 were killed or captured.

How does the current figure of 18,000 equal a mushroom?

In fact, war produced no net growth of al Qaeda fighters, while 'peace' produced 20,000.

Kerry wants us to go back to that time of 'peace', proving that he's even more pathetic than I'd thought.

Ahh, once again, if we had just taken it, it would not inspire them to sign up. If we just didn't make them angry...


My parents are 70. They know they won't live to see the end of this. Bush is just beginning to lay the groundwork. IF we're lucky, I'll live to see the end of it, but that would put me at pushing 70 or more.

They've been at war w/the West for 1000 years. It's going to take a combination of hammer and carrot, both sides' arguments have merit, but at this point in time, it's hammertime.

Egypt's finally getting some sort of property rights.

It was a nuisance when it was over there.

W didn't push our allies away, gratitude only lasts a generation. One doesn't need to go back 100-150 or more years to find out how they saw us then, it hasn't changed. One only needs to start at the 80s. Our betters haven't changed. They still don't understand US, but we do understand them.

From David F, Bush has made us "hated in the world to an extent that is unique in our nation's history"? Anybody remember Pershing missiles deployed to Germany in the '80's? I seem to recall the same rhetoric then, by the same players, about the same people. We are not Europeans. We are Americans, and it's time some of us remembered that.

The problem with Kerry is he thinks that the war on terror begins and ends with bin Laden.

Michele, do you actually believe that?

Kerry does not believe the war on terror begins and ends with Bin Laden. But having said that - Bush has so far FAILED to capture or kill him (although I have not ruled out the chance that Bin Laden will be trotted out in front of the public on Halloween!)

Many think that 9/11 is what is being avenged. But...why is Hussein the one captured and not Bin Laden! Come on! First things first!

I sure hope Kerry wins. The greatest country in the world can finally go back to being great again.


The question is, which country does Kerry want "great again."

No, the question is does Jeff understand "unfinished busines?"

NK, Iran, Iraq all unfinished biz and biting US in the ass at the same time.

Note to Josh: I banned you about two months ago. I see you've made your way back. Why would you insist on coming back to a place from which you had been banned?

Don't wait up expecting me to respond to any of your comments. You're not welcome here, haven't been for a long time and this is the extent of any response you will get out of me.

Sandy P-
They have been at war with the west for well over 1000 years. They have been at war with the west since they took Egypt and Palestine from the Roman Empire (They still considered themselves Roman, even though they no longer held Italy and the western med, and no spoke Greek instead of Latin) in the 7th century. Not sure of timescale, Mohammed may have still been alive.

OBL is dead, buried under a million tons of stone in tora bora. If he was still alive he would have released a video showing him holding a recent western newspaper with distinctive front page to prove it. Instead of that all that appears are audiotapes which can very easily be fabricated. ProTools (pro audio editing program, Britney's career depends on it) is really nice. It can do a lot. It could make you sound like a little girl or an old man. It can easily be used to make anyone who speaks arabic of OBL's dialect fluently sound like him. OBL is dead and has been dead for 2 years. The manner of his death is such that we can never know for sure, but it doesn't matter. His personal wealth is gone, and his subordinates are wielding his organisations power. OBL ain't the problem, its Wahabbi Islam thats the problem, and it hasn't been stomped thoroughly enough yet.

Victor - if he was killed in Tora Bora (and I've suspected that for awhile as well) then it was almost 3 years ago since he bought it.

Darleen - That would be the United States. It's amazing that anyone would suggest Kerry is anti-american in any way, shape or form. Honestly, I think America is lucky that someone with such intelligence and conviction and personal wealth is willing to serve.

/Bush can't even talk


Kerry is not so much "anti American" as he is pro-World. And considering the vast body of his comments on subordinating American military, business and political rights to World will, while that may not necessarily be "anti-American" it is not "pro-American" in terms of America as a solely sovereign nation with its own interests paramount.

note to michelle--

Huh. I honestly didn't know I'd been banned. Probably becuase I hadn't tried to come back here until about two weeks ago. Ah well. Nevermind then. Carry on.

I'm pro-world. I hope Kerry is too.

Anyone that isn't pro-world should leave.

I don't think respecting long standing allies of America is going to undermine the 'solely sovereign nation' staus in any way.

Kerry will fight the good fight, and bring American friends with him.
As it is, not a lot of friends are hanging out in Iraq (except of course, Poland).

Joshua - do people get banned alot on this site?



I knew the concept would go over your head.

If Kerry wants to be King of the World then he shouldn't be running for President. We have alliances to advance our national interests not dictate them.

"I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." George Washington to Patrick Henry warning of permanent entanglements.

If anyone in hysterics actually read the article there wouldn't be any discussion. Kerry saying what he said and Bush saying what he said (regarding not being able to win the war on terror) are both pretty accurate. Why is one getting a pass and not the other?

Digby had some deliciously sarcastic remarks about this.

"If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline] that would hit the enemy in a murderous place."

Some good guy who fought and beat some other guy (the bad guy was regarded by some as kinda like Saddam).

"This may sound callous, but it is nevertheless true. The number of deaths caused by terrorism is statistically insignificant; compare it to the death toll from famine insub-Saharan Africa, or the annual carnage on our own highways. Our problem is not the loss of life, it is a loss of perspective. The real threat of terrorism is the disproportion of our national character and goals, and this is a threat we pose to ourselves."

David G. Hubbard, in Winning Back the Sky: A Tactical Analysis of Terrorisn

This http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Treadway/treadway.pdf article is very good (about terror) and has a great article titled "Nuisance vs. Conventional"

Darleen, I guess when you don't like my arguments, you resort to insults, that's very...republican of you.

Thank you for the quote from Washington. You have brightened my day.

When I think of you-I will cross my fingers for a Bush victory.


Um...yeah. "a nuisance". On the scale of society, where the the cost of doing something exceeds the value of doing something.

It would be good to bring terrorism down to that, it's also a realistic perspective on what's possible. One cannot eliminate terrorism. One can MARGINALIZE it and one can generally make the exercises pointless. I refer you to the hijacking plague of the 70's, after the novelty wore off and terrorists stopped getting ink and attention for it.

Terrorism must get publicity to work, and it must be of the "oh, horrors," not the "Oh, yawn, not again" variety.

In point of fact, Kerry's call for more special forces and special ops training goes (on it's face) far more directly to achieving that end than bush's bluster.

Nothing will be achieved by being afraid. Nope.

But being usefully PISSED and tactically vengeful will. And bush doesn't seem to get that, nor have any idea how to harness my personal pissedness or fulfill my need for vengeance.

Bob - you hit the nail on the head.
Very well said.

Joshua - do people get banned alot on this site?

Jeff- Not that I recall. Back when I used to come here a lot the bar for getting banned was actually rather high. I think I'm just unusually obnoxious. Also, after I stopped coming to ASV, I sort of started an "I hate michele" blog over at my domain. It had previously been an "I hate Ryan Rhodes" blog, which Ryan thought was damn funny. Michele was, evidently, somewhat less amused.

(To be fair, I did say that I believed she'd been brainwashed into a Republican by her husband. I wouldn't ban someone over something like that, but I can certainly understand the sentiment.)

How many anti-American terrorists are there? Not people that sympathize, not people that might donate money, but the sort of people willing to travel across countries (even to this one) to commit acts of violence and fear, to lay down their lives if necessary?

Ten thousand? Fifteen thousand? I'd be surprised if it was as many as that. Let's think about this a bit...

What are they going to do? Come screaming across a land-bridge? Sneak five or ten thousand jihadists at a time in through INS?

Yeah, they can pull off the occasional attack on US soil. So can our own nutcases, and I don't see anyone so scared of the militia movement that they're threatening to nuke anyone who posses a really strict view of the Constitution.

Yeah, terrorists can frighten us. Yeah, they can kill us. But we're a nation of almost three hundred million people. We don't live next door to them, we weren't -- until Iraq -- occupying their country, providing them easy targets.

Yet Kevin Drum points out two columnists calling for massive bombardments, even to nuclear weapons, of our "enemies".

What danger? 15,000 people against 300,000,000? Are we so craven that a mere 15,000 people scare us shitless? We faced down the Soviet Union for decades when they had enough weaponry to wipe everyone off the planet several times over. When did we become such cowards?

Yeah, the thought of Al Qaeda with nuclear or biological or chemical weaponry is frightening. But nuking Iraq isn't going to fix that. Securing stray nuclear material, investing in human intelligence, reestablishing ties with old allies...that would help. Port security, that would help.

All of which Bush can't/won't do.

Al Qaeda can't kill us. But I'm beginning to wonder if they can get us to kill ourselves.


ah.. i can feel darleen reaching for her 'it's patently obvious that...' stamper right now

Oh, I would so hate to disappoint you by not answering, nothanks.

BTW...it certainly wasn't J Kerry that was part of the "stare down the Soviets" brigade. That would have been headed up by evil old Ronald Reagan that K-man sneered at and opposed at every turn..including his heartfelt rendition of seared..seared memories of Christmas in Cambodia.

Sharia has come to Canada as well as their increasing dedication to erradicating free speech. France will probably be Islamist within my children's generation (they are busy fighting headscarves but won't address their ghettos. And their historic kneejerk response to strength is to go all Vichy). Spain is defunding the Catholic church and funding mosques (and honors an old Spaniard who fought for Hitler). Jews are leaving France for Israel in increasing numbers, even as terrorist-enablers like Rachel Corries' ISM help the suicide bombers murder at buses, malls and discos.

And let's not even mention the perfidous UN where Kofi is eager to condemn America and Israel while ignoring Islamist atrocities around the world.

The American militia movement...along with the Aryan Brotherhood, the Nazi Lowriders, the "Christian Identity" movement are monitored..and when they even breath wrong, they are hammered. But FBI sitting in a mosque and listening to a sermon about the pigs and monkeys of Jews that need to be erradicated? Watch CAIR and the ACLU scream bloody murder.

No, I don't think ultimately the American people will succumb to Islamism. But we have a choice to take care of it now, over there. Or we can have some more 9/11's and fight it here. Where do you want it first? A suicide bomber on Main Street in Disneyland? A truckbomb on the Golden Gate Bridge? How about some sarin gas in NYC subways?

What makes you think the Islamists who are quite upfront about their ideology and goals, are going to be satisfied with just dominating the ME and Europe?
Why do you refuse to take them at their word?

And, just to get you thinking about human nature. Consider, why was the Holocaust so successful? Why were Righteous Gentiles so few?

Now, tell me again how the ideology of Islamism is but a mere nuisance.

Darleen are you one of those Christian fundamentalists that's wants Israel strong, so that it can be destroyed in the apocalypse?

Inquiring minds want to know.

NJ Vince

Funny how my defending Israel's right to exist either gets me accused of being either a Christian fundie or...oooo... a Jew!

I come from a family of mixed religious traditions. While I was raised going to Sunday school at the local Presbytarian church, I had a Mormon grandmother, Jewish relatives and close friends (I feel very comfortable with the tenets of Judaism). My former marriage was to a third generation Irish Roman Catholic man (from New Jersey) and I studied Catholicism and attended mass for many years with my girls.

One of the defining moments of my life was waking up on my 13th birthday and turning on the radio to hear about the start of the Israeli six-day war (on my 14th birthday, it was waking up to news of Robert Kennedy's assassination by a "Palestinian".)

I'm interested in life, here on Earth. I'm also interested in living a moral life fit for human beings.

Islamism is an ideology unfit for human beings.

"Islamism is an ideology unfit for human beings."

And Christianity and Judaism are fit ideologies? How incredibly insensitive and disgusting of you to condemn hundreds of millions of people in one sentence like that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I saw that statement slamming Canada for its hate laws and it made me wonder. I'm fairly certain that is one that is supported by the ADL.

Every nation has a right to protect itself and its citizens. Occupation and settlement building is not self defense.

That's all. I don't dialog with racists, whether NeoNazis or WP flaming the left site I moderate, or racists such as yourself who do not distinguish between Islam and Radical/Fundamentalist Islam.

Darlene-just so you know - the plural is Islam - not ism.

I'm betting you have never set foot outside your own country.
You probably never will.

i dont even remember what the orginal topic was but some of the stuff i have seen here is completely incorrect and it makes me mad that people are bashing kerry for understating things and picking on his ability when they dont know jack about what is going on in our country. some idiot said Islamism=Facism/Nazism. that person is a freaking idiot i am sorry to say because they do not know the simplest meaning of the word Islam. "Islam" means "peace." i am not saying that those terrorists are right in what they do and that nothing should be done about erradicating them, but what i am saying is that those ppl are mentally messed up and when they are trying to get ppl to believe that Americans are terrorists, and those ppl see Americans terrorizing their country, they are going to believe these Islamic EXTREMISTS over the US. PLZ NOTE that i said ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS, and not Muslims in general. The Muslim religion is actually all about peace. and also how is it that America can fight terrorism by way of weapons and tanks etc. when we are trying to bring about peace and justice in the world. you can't fix a mental problem by killing thousands of ppl who are not doing anything to harm us. actually forget thouseands i mion millions and millions of ppl. oh yah and side note:you all who are saying stuff about ISlam who are totally incorrect, before you make another statement plz get politically informed before you make a nuisance of yourself to other well informed ppl who are wasting their time reading comments made by you.

ps. anyone who voted for bush has NO VALUE for a human life, and that makes me plain sick. it does not matter that he has tax cuts for the rich. what matters is that kerry is pro-choice abortion, i am not for it but ppl in AMERICA should have the choice; allowing gay-marriage---it is AMERICA---A PLACE OF FREEDOM!! ; pro-education and health care: look at how american citizens dont have it!!!!

is this politics cause if kerry was to be president it would be terrible cause he is so old hahahahahahahahahahah