Kerry's disgraceful Behavior

Found this on CBS News site and thought it would be linteresting for everyone to discuss. I just can't believe that the Dems will say he has been right, but who knows.

____

John Kerry has decided to pursue a scorched-earth strategy in this campaign. He is prepared to insult allies, hearten enemies, and denigrate efforts to succeed in Iraq. His behavior is deeply irresponsible -- and not even in his own best interest.

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours -- and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?


www.cbsnews.com...

I just can't believe that the Dems will say he has been right, but who knows.

There is no excuse, good or bad, for Kerrys behavior so I hope that no one will defend Kerry. The problem is, most Democrats don't like Kerry but they despise Bush so they are, in their minds, chosing the lesser of two evils.

I hope that people will come around and realize that Kerry is not an option. If Kerry wins we are all in big trouble!

Jemison

Judging from peoples opinions of Kerry and Bush, were screwed either way you slice this one. If Kerry isnnt an option, and Bush definately isint an option then what are we to do? Is there any point in voting if either of them is going to make a huge stinking mess if elected?

If Kerry isnnt an option, and Bush definately isint an option then what are we to do? Is there any point in voting if either of them is going to make a huge stinking mess if elected?

I know a lot of people seem to feel that way. I think people should vote, even if it's for a 3rd party or even a write-in.

Bush is not perfect but I believe that he has more good qualities than Kerry does. I admire the fact that he can make up his mind and stick with it even if it isn't the POPULAR choice. Kerry couldn't make up his mind and stick with it if his life depended on it ... and unfortunatly, when it comes to terrorism, OUR lives could depend on the decisions being made.

The fact that Bush has done things that were against popular opinion shows that he is willing to do things that are necessary even if they aren't pleasant, for the good of our Country both in the short term and long term. Many people won't do that (look at Clinton and his lack of response to the first WTC, U.S.S. Cole, etc.) but it takes great strength, leadership and committment to do what needs to be done knowing that he risks losing the election and losing supporters.

Also, in regards to Bush's decisions that might not be popular, I think people tend to forget that Bush is privy to a lot more information than we are. HE sees the daily terror reports, we don't. He sees the intelligence information, we don't.

Jemison

Unfortunately we also don't see any results from all the terrorism scares that the goverment issues on a daily basis. If Bush is seeing the intel reports on all these and giving his stamp of approval on them being issued to the public, then he needs to learn to read the reports right, cause of all the 'imminent attack' warnings issued, none have come to frutition at all.

I would say that would make Bush a better choice based on that fact alone. No terrorist attacks but lots of attempts. As a former Intelligence Analyst, I can tell you that we will never ever see the intel, nor will we ever reveal the methods or sources used to get the data. But you can believe that Bush will react to it, immediatly instead of hemming and hawing over it like Kerry would.

Unfortunately we also don't see any results from all the terrorism scares that the goverment issues on a daily basis. If Bush is seeing the intel reports on all these and giving his stamp of approval on them being issued to the public, then he needs to learn to read the reports right, cause of all the 'imminent attack' warnings issued, none have come to frutition at all.

I agree that a better method should be used rather than issuing constant alerts, but if they DONT issue the alerts and something happens everyone will have a fit. Of course when they do issue the alerts people still have a fit. Currently it's a lose-lose situation. And if an attack has been stopped, due to intelligence concerns and not wanting to expose where they got the information to stop the attack, it is unlikely we will hear about it for years to come. Definitly a dilemma.

Do you really think that Kerry would do a better job with issuing alerts? After all, many people were desperatly trying to tell him that security at Logan airport was horrible before 9/11 and he kept blowing them off. He refused to follow up on it. He was actually warned that the airport was ripe for a 'jihad' suicide operation! See the link below.

www.e-thepeople.org...


Jemison

As far as I'm concerned I don't think we as a whole public need to know about every fart and possible scratch of the butt in terrorist circles, we really don't even need to know about all the potential warnings, because we can't do much to stop it. Who does need to know are the police and other agencies whos job is to take care of that stuff before it happens.

As for Kerry doing a better job, I don't think he would probably do much better in relation to the alerts, because he is as caught up on this war as Bush is now, which is kind of sad.

No terrorist attacks but lots of attempts.

Umm I havent seen the least bit of evidence about any attempts, just alot of blown smoke. How many times have we gunned a cell down in the middle of an operation here on US soil yet? Have we shot down any hijacked airliners lately? Nope, neither have happend, else it would be all over the news and Bush would be waving his warflag all over the place.

we really don't even need to know about all the potential warnings, because we can't do much to stop it.

If people are vigilant you never know what they can do to help stop an attack. Think about the people on the flights on 9/11. Nobody thought to fight the terrorists that hit the WTC or the Pentagon because they had no idea that their flights would end crashing into buildings or by the time they did find out it was too late to do much about it. By the time news spread and people on the plane that crashed into Pennsylvania heard what was going on, they opted to do something about it. I think that is a very good example of what the general public can do if they have warnings.

I know that people have reported things like middle eastern men videotaping things like bridges, disneyland, etc. We might never know if that stopped something or not, but the more eyes and ears you use the more likely you are to stop something.

Also, the warnings issued may be a deterrent for the terrorists but there is probably no way to know that for sure. What bugs me is that when the terror alert is NOT raised it seems like that would be the more likely time for something to happen. Why try to pull something off when everyone is expecting it? That takes away from the element of shock and surprise as well as increases the risk that you wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Jemison

they are both in the skull and bones and both with to further the agenda of the shadow government. the system is corupt. if you vote you are falling into their trap. IMO

Not all presidential candidates are skull n bones. Voting is not falling for anything. What makes voting rediculous is that it's always a choice between two lying rich white guys. We're told we're a free country and can choose our leaders, and are offered vanilla or vanilla. And we actually think we're exercising our rights and freedoms when we go vote for one or the other. Not enough to support an independent and other folks can't get money to run or backing to get on the ballot. We're fisted every 4 years and act like we are actually DOING something.

Kerry is miserable and may even be worse at speaking than Bush. I'd like to see the article where the "puppet" remark was made since journalism can't really be trusted as seen with some of Teresa H. Kerry's "quotes". But he needs to ease up on Alawi because he's playing beautifully for the terrorists. He should be backing up our people and not making things worse. It's obvious our people are divided on the war in whole, but we can't afford to have somebody who might be the next president badmouthing the guy who's sitting over there on the hotseat trying to get Iraq running smoothly again.

In regards to Australia, we know full well that the Howard government was not "coerced or bribed". They knew full well that the intelligence was crap but spun it on to us regardless. With the free trade agreement between the US and Australia coming up prior to the war, I can definately see that as motivating factor to keep on the side of going to war. They are in on the lies.

(edit for spelling)

[edit on 27-9-2004 by cargo]

Damn Cargo! Stop being so mad at the world. The world is full of good and bad guys. Can you at least admit that. Can you admit that bad guys need to be taken out. Sorry I have to talk to you like your three but I think it's the only way to get the message through.

Originally posted by jrsdls
France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours -- and will also remember the insult.

John Kerry's campaign is focusing on his 'international policy' of
mending friendships and bringing troops from other countries into
Iraq to relieve our troops there. Considering Kerry's behavior ....
there is absolutely no way ANY country will help. France (Kerry's
best and probably only real international buddies) has already
said that it doesn't matter who becomes America's president, they
won't send troops for any reason into Iraq.

Kerry has no viable international policy. When he speaks, all he
does is whistle in the dark. It's a fantasy he spews to get votes.
Nothing more.

Originally posted by jrsdls
Found this on CBS News site and thought it would be linteresting for everyone to discuss.
____

www.cbsnews.com...

Hi, everyone - newbie here. Sorry to post without introducing myself first, but I just couldn't let this one slide by. It's hardly fair to post this link, crediting this right-wing hyperbole to CBS News, without the disclaimer that this "story" is in fact an opinion column from The Weekly Standard. If you aren't familiar with that esteemed publication, it's a neocon fount of wisdom founded by William Kristol (the author of the quoted article) with financial assistance from Rupert Murdoch.

You may remember Kristol's name from his time spent as "Dan Quayle's brain," an unenviable task at best.

Originally posted by verfed
Damn Cargo! Stop being so mad at the world. The world is full of good and bad guys. Can you at least admit that. Can you admit that bad guys need to be taken out. Sorry I have to talk to you like your three but I think it's the only way to get the message through.

That's where we differ. To you there is black and white. To me there is black, grey, grey, grey, grey, grey, grey and white. Of course there are bad guys, it's the bad guys masquerading as good guys that I hate the most. Lets call them grey guys.

Oh, and you explain things like you're three.