9 out of 10 of Kerry's swift mates say he's a hero

[Smash255]

This is really @ssed up. Fantastic, he served his country. Wonderful, a new person comes out every now and then about it. But when is somebody going to ask the real hard question here about how his service is going to help him fight terrorism? Because he acts like 9/11 never happened. If I could put a call in to the GOP it would be to raise this question the next time Kerry brings up Vietnam to the American people and then mention that other than cutting Intelligence and military funding, KERRY HAS NO PLAN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM. How about his votes in the Senate and what they mean? Jimmy Carter had military experience too, for goodness sakes! It's not a new thing, lots of people served in the military.

Interesting change of topic.
Anyways, Kerry has plenty to say about national security and fighting terrorism.
Read Chapter 1 of his plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Read his position on National Security here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Until you read this, quit making attacking him for what he's supposedly not doing.

Voting record. That's more important than what he says. He doesn't say the same thing two days in a row, please.

What's the specific charge? I know that the GOP has some talking points to try to make Kerry look bad that leave out critical facts.

As for the flip flopper meme, I don't see how you can argue that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush isn't.

He's repeatedly voted to cut Intel funding, which is how this war on terror is going to be won. He's voted against defense systems. He was for the nuclear freeze, he backed the Carter and later Mondale plan of appeasing the Soviet Union. We don't need to rehash all this - it's not in dispute. He's trying to get people to overlook it by showing videos and pictures of himself as a naval officer.

But first and foremost, I want to hear him tell me why his military experience is applicable to the current situation since it's diametrically opposed to the kind of conflict Vietnam was. He didn't even think we should have been there. Clark volunteered for duty in Vietnam too; if military experience was really important to the Dems in this election they would have chosen him. Intelligent, distinguished... Clark started, before they drowned him out, with a plan for how to fight terror but he never really got to articulate it. Kerry was crowned basically right after Iowa. A shame, because we heard more from Clark in two weeks than we have from Kerry yet. I would have strongly considered voting for Clark.

The Republicans voted to cut the same Intel spending that you're talking about. He's voted for plenty of military increases. Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics, and started the fight against the USSR in Afganistan. Appeaser, my ass.

The fact that he's a war hero who signed up for Vietnam and that Bush specifically checked the box "don't serve overseas" and was AWOL doesn't automatically mean that he'd be a better President, but I don't see how this can be used to attack Kerry instead of Bush.

Kerry wants to go after the terrorists who attacked us, not just some random Iraqis that we've pissed off.

As for Clark, maybe he'll be Sec. of State?

Carter's response to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics and he asked Congress to postpone consideration of the SALT II Treaty, which was the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks. Yeah, the Soviets responded by giving him the finger. Carter screwed up the Iranian histage situation over which half of his cabinet resigned; that was bad, real bad. And because we appeared weak and did little more than shake our finger at the USSR, it made them bolder. Carter himself said, "we need to lower our expectations..." over which Reagan killed him at the debates, but I'm getting off topic. Maybe not because Kerry's way of thinking goes back to Carter's; they are very similar in lots of ways.

And there you go again on the AWOL business. That's ridiculous, he wasn't AWOL. But maybe that's libel now by Kerry's rules - with how he's trying to silence his critics.

Go after the terrorists, Kerry wants to do, huh? Specifically, THE terrorists. We're doing it now. Iraq is PART of that war, you guys haven't figured that out yet. When we went to war in WW II, who did we go to war with? JUST Japan? Hardly. We went to war with the Axis Powers - all of them, because they were all on the same damn side. Yes, they declared war on us first. But UBL declared war on us in 1996 (and we laughed at him), saying it's every Muslims duty to kill Americans. And plus, I have a whole 2-page list of quotes from Democratic senators and even people within the Clinton admin who specifically address Hussein's WMD's, programs, and desires. Nonsense Iraq isn't part of the war on terror. If you wait till you're attacked to attack somebody specifically, you're going to be toast. Take the fight to them, which is what we're doing now and what we need to keep doing.

Clark Sec. of state? Doesn't matter, I'm not voting for Kerry.

Few things

Kerry did not vote to cut all of the Intel Spending or anything like that.  yes, at times he voted for some cuts, but you know what??  SImilar cuts were PASSED BY REPUBLICANS.  Granted he did vote against SOME weapons systems, however MOST of the weapons systems he voted for, most of the weapons systems used in Afghanistan and Iraq he voted FOR, much of the systems he voted against were during the Bush 1 adminstration when cuts were being made after the Cold War.  And you know who else supported those very same cuts??  The Sec of Defense of the Time.  CHENEY.  So your blaming Kerry for supporting cuts your Vice_President also supported, thats a good one.

 As with Iraq.  Well lets look at Iraq, and some of the other middle east nations and the terrorist threat.  Whats the main thing the terrorists threat revolves around?  What did 9/11 revolve around?  FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM.  Now in order to solve the terrorist problem we need to adress the fundamentalist problem.  How exactly do w do that in a country where fundamentalist Islam wasn't a problem??  Before you use the republican attack line of how can you defend Saddam or any of that garbage, I'm not.  Saddam is a piece of crap and I'm happy with him being out of power.  However, we have MANY other important issues that have been put on the side because of Saddam and Iraq, such as Fundamenalist Islam.  Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc.  Thats where we really need to be worried about.   I agree now that we are in Iraq, we need to finish the job, but we also need more International support.  90% of the troops in Iraq should not be American troops, we need to get the alliances back in order to reduce the burden on our troops.  Another thing wih the war on terror, the more open communication with other nations, in sharing Intelligence, etc the better it is at fighting terrorism, the better we can prepare, the better chances we have of putting a stop to potentioal volitale situations.  You don't do that if half the world hates you.  

We have an excellent excellent military, the best miltary in the world which I have the utmost respect for. but their is only so much even the best can do when they have little or no help

[Smash255]

Smash, you think Syria is a part of the fundamentalist Islam problem?

Funny, they have a secular Ba'athist government just like Iraq did, yet you claim Iraq had nothign to do with terrorism.

Partisan hack.

Syria's govt is Bathast, but their is a lot of fundamentalist support within the country, something that did not exist in Iraq (well now it does).  I'm in no way saying Saddam was a good guy or anything like that he was a horrific dictator, but as far as threats to the United States, Iraq was lower on the list than the others I mentioned

[Smash255]

Smash, you think Syria is a part of the fundamentalist Islam problem?


Funny, they have a secular Ba'athist government just like Iraq did, yet you claim Iraq had nothign to do with terrorism.

Partisan hack.

Syria's govt is Bathast, but their is a lot of fundamentalist support within the country, something that did not exist in Iraq (well now it does).  I'm in no way saying Saddam was a good guy or anything like that he was a horrific dictator, but as far as threats to the United States, Iraq was lower on the list than the others I mentioned

Ansar al-Islam, the PUK, and undercurrents of radicalism within the Shi'ite community are not results of the occupation, but long standing factors within Iraq.

Granted, but they wern't anything we had to be worried about pre invasion.  The factions in Syria is something we need to be concerned about, and obviously the same holds true for the others I mentioned

[Smash255]

Smash,

I agree we should be concerned about all of those countries, BUT WHAT SEPERATES THEM FROM IRAQ?

They are bigger threats. More people we needed to be worried with in the other areas, more connections to Al Qaeda

[Smash255]

Smash,

I agree we should be concerned about all of those countries, BUT WHAT SEPERATES THEM FROM IRAQ?

They are bigger threats. More people we needed to be worried with in the other areas, more connections to Al Qaeda

What were the Syrian connections to Al Qaeda at the time we hit Iraq?

Unfortunley because of the White House's editing, and black outs of the JIC report and the refusal of the White House to release any of that info we never really know.  Regardless as far as the war on terror goes and possible threats to the United States, we have had many more important issues other than Iraq