PDA

View Full Version : Politics Used to end at the water's edge


dude1394
04-28-2004, 07:42 PM
What a shame that the democrats are so incensed about getting back into power that they don't even think about how their rhetoric is playing in the terrorist propaganda. However I can't believe they are this stupid so I have to assume they don't care. But with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton running around it's no wodner that Kerry takes' his cues from them.



Terrorists Cheer Kerry's Rhetoric
Posted April 28, 2004
By J. Michael Waller

Sen. John Kerry´s increasingly shrill challenge of President Bush is grinding down the image of the United States abroad and playing directly into the hands of anti-U.S. extremists.

Exploiting the liberties of free societies, terrorists are using the mass media to sow divisions among and within the democracies, terrorism experts report. The March bombing of the Madrid subway proved that low-budget terrorist attacks could be used to influence democratic elections and, by virtue of Spain's sudden military withdrawal from Iraq, to drive wedges between the staunchest allies in the international antiterrorism coalition. Senior Spanish and U.S. officials now believe al-Qaeda will plan more attacks in the United States to try to force President George W. Bush from office.

Playing directly into the terrorists' hands is Bush's increasingly shrill challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). Democracies long have been vulnerable to manipulation by hostile foreign powers. President George Washington foresaw this in his Farewell Address of 1796. Though the popular notion is that the main point of the address was to warn against entangling alliances, the most persistent theme of Washington's speech was to warn against foreign subversion of America's democratic process. In his words, "It is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed," to undermine the national identity and sense of purpose. Specifically, Washington feared that foreign adversaries would use the new democratic system to turn Americans against themselves.

More (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/Politics/Terrorists.Cheer.Kerrys.Rhetoric-670185.shtml)

Mavdog
04-28-2004, 08:33 PM
Exploiting the liberties of free societies, terrorists are using the mass media to sow divisions among and within the democracies, terrorism experts report

Yeah, like all this talk about the War in Iraq has made a lot of people sympathetic towards the terrorists.

Ridiculous.

dude1394
04-28-2004, 09:02 PM
Mavdog do you honestly not think that hearing our politicians words come back at us from terrorists isn't a problem? It's not like the islamofacists are all rocket scientists or something. He's talking about the target audience, not the american people. However it did seem to make a difference in spain.

Mavdog
04-28-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Mavdog do you honestly not think that hearing our politicians words come back at us from terrorists isn't a problem?

no, it isn't. they do not understand the nature of open free-speech societies.


It's not like the islamofacists are all rocket scientists or something.

so how does that endorse the conclusions of this writer?


He's talking about the target audience, not the american people. However it did seem to make a difference in spain.

Spain's election was more complex than merely a reaction to the bombing.

The phrase written is "divisions among and within the democracies" which includes the american people last time I looked...

dude1394
04-28-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog

Originally posted by: dude1394
Mavdog do you honestly not think that hearing our politicians words come back at us from terrorists isn't a problem?

no, it isn't. they do not understand the nature of open free-speech societies.

So you do not feel that hearing that an anti-war presidential candidate is leading (Dean) is lost on the propaganda of Bin Laden? You don't think that our ridiculous 9/11 commission during a presidential election cycle doesn't give terrorists hope that kerry or a person with less resolve than bush will win? The islamofacists know they cannot defeat us militarily but like vietnam they can defeat us politically.

Bin Laden in his manifesto has said it, that we are a paper tiger and are not willing to do the hard work. That we will cut and run. He believes it, he preaches it and our political parties and media are playing into it.


And my point of all this is that this is propaganda targeted at other muslim extremists. That's the problem. "Most" in the west know bin laden for a very evil man but many feel that he is a "criminal problem" and not a war issue. We all know which one bin laden thinks it is.

Mavdog
04-28-2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
[quote]
Originally posted by: Mavdog
[quote]
Originally posted by: dude1394
Mavdog do you honestly not think that hearing our politicians words come back at us from terrorists isn't a problem?]

no, it isn't. they do not understand the nature of open free-speech societies.

So you do not feel that hearing that an anti-war presidential candidate is leading (Dean) is lost on the propaganda of Bin Laden? You don't think that our ridiculous 9/11 commission during a presidential election cycle doesn't give terrorists hope that kerry or a person with less resolve than bush will win? The islamofacists know they cannot defeat us militarily but like vietnam they can defeat us politically.

No, if bin laden follows the american election he will see that kerry doesn't advocate leaving iraq, nor does he expouse a theme of tolerance towards terrorists. Quite the opposite, kerry strongly agrees that the US cannot just "cut and run" nor is he for abandoning the afganistan campaign.

It is only those who wish to portray kerry as someone with "less resolve" who believe that he won't be just as agressive against terrorists. Kerry's position statements surely don't lend credibility to that accusation.

The irony doesn't escape me that the right wing screams murder when anyone (such as Bryd) uses the vietnam comparison when discussing iraq, and then the right wing then screams against any criticism of the war in iraq using that same vietnam war as illlustration.


Bin Laden in his manifesto has said it, that we are a paper tiger and are not willing to do the hard work. That we will cut and run. He believes it, he preaches it and our political parties and media are playing into it.

The evidence is against your conclusion.


And my point of all this is that this is propaganda targeted at other muslim extremists. That's the problem. "Most" in the west know bin laden for a very evil man but many feel that he is a "criminal problem" and not a war issue. We all know which one bin laden thinks it is.

You and I have no idea what bin laden thinks.

Political discussion and debate should not be limited by an unfounded fear that such free speech could be misunderstood by our enemies. It is at their own peril that they make incorrect assumptions about our country's dynamic.

The only true anti-war candidate is Nader, and with a possible 4% of the vote the message will be pretty darn clear for anyone to wishes to listen.

dude1394
04-28-2004, 10:03 PM
So your contention is that kerry would stand up and say that we will not leave iraq until we are finished "as long as I am in the oval office".

You and I have very different opinons of kerry's resolve. I can't really tell if you are being honest about this or if you are just defending your candidate. We do know that kerry feels this is a "criminal problem" and is not comfortable with calling it a war.

Yes we DO know that Bin Laden considers this a WAR. You can't nuance the islamofacists.

Mavdog
04-28-2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
So your contention is that kerry would stand up and say that we will not leave iraq until we are finished "as long as I am in the oval office".

You and I have very different opinons of kerry's resolve. I can't really tell if you are being honest about this or if you are just defending your candidate. We do know that kerry feels this is a "criminal problem" and is not comfortable with calling it a war.

Yes we DO know that Bin Laden considers this a WAR. You can't nuance the islamofacists.

You should read more about the candidates' positions, it's apparent you haven't.

"A Strategy to Win the Peace in Iraq
Level with the American People. Kerry recognizes that the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous. He believes we should stop sugar-coating what’s going on in Iraq. Our troops know how bad it is there. It doesn’t help them for the White House to suggest we are making so much progress when we are not.
Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can’t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it."

and also this on terror:

"FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR: John Kerry has a comprehensive approach to fighting the global war on terrorism that will identify, disrupt, and eliminate terrorist networks.

Kerry will use direct military force when necessary to capture and destroy terrorist group and their leaders.
He will also increase the size of the Army by 40,000 active duty troops on a temporary basis.
Kerry will improve international intelligence and law enforcement and cut off the flow of terrorist funds.
In order to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.
Kerry will build bridges to the Arab and Islamic world by supporting and assisting human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture."