Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations

[FishForLunch]

I guess we will see Kerry apologizing to the world especially to France, Iran, Germany and North Korea, who knows maybe to the Baatists in Syria and Iraq.

Reminds me of when Clinton apologized on behalf of all Americans for encouraging Slavery during his Africa visit.

What a loser !!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President George W. Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word. In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers - at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before. "I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaeda operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaeda operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades. "Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime. "By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight.

[FishForLunch]

Tehran Times

Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election


WASHINGTON (Mehr News Agency) -- The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows.

As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we have personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world have historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully aware of how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at risk.

It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others.

We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in field of international affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer.

An understanding of global affairs is essential in these times, and central to this campaign Kerry has the experience and the understanding necessary to successfully restore the United States to its position of respect within the community of nations. He has the judgment and vision necessary to assure that the United States fulfills a leadership role in meeting the challenges we face throughout the world.

The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well.

We believe John Kerry is the Democrat who can go toe-to-toe against the current Administration on national security and defense issues. We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November, and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more stable world.

[madape]

... and the enemies of America begin their chant





"KER-RY, KER-RY, KER-RY"

Remind me who's side this turncoat is on again...

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

That'll work. Terrorist regimes respond to dialogue REAAALLY well. Amazing that nobody's ever tried to stop terrorism with words before.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]

[madape]

"Looks like meat's back on the menu boys!"

For some reason I can't keep this line from Lord of the Rings out of my head.

[Mavdog]

What a hatchet job. Timmerman should be working for the RNC....then again, maybe he already does.

From that noted (tounge in cheek) non-partisan group Heritage Foundation

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Let's see, change it to read: "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Republican Party hierarchy that opposes what Kerry is doing in the most vitrolic and emotional terms"
It's like the pot calling the kettle black...

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

Well, GWBush's policy of pre-emptive war certainly indicates that Haeri may be on to who their next war may be against. I guess it's fair to say that if you liked Iraq, you'll love the campaign of war with Iran....and then it's on to Syria, and while we're at it let's take down Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. We could stay at war for at least 2 more administrations! That's the ticket to being re-elected, stay at war!

Wielding the hatchet with deftness, they continue:

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States

Too funny! Is this really from Mad magazine? It's ludicrous to accuse Kerry, or any other candidate for that matter, of "working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States"...like there were any advocates anyway.

To set the record stariaght, here's what Kerry is saying on Iran:
"Where the Bush Administration refuses to even attempt a non-confrontational foreign policy toward Iran, a Kerry Administration would recognize that limited cooperation with Iran in select areas of mutual interest is not only possible but in the best interest of both nations. A Kerry administration would work with Iran to deport senior al Qaeda leadership currently in that country by offering to trade them for MEK terrorists, pressuring them diplomatically and through the UN if that effort failed, and would work with Iran to stop the flow of Afghan narcotics across its borders."

The policy of pre-emptive war is fraught with failure and unforeseen consequences. It had never been the policy of this country and should not be in the future.

[madape]

Looks like Kerry's taking on the Clintonion method towards dealing with rogue nations...

Kerry: "Please Mr Ayatollah, will you pretty pretty please dismantle your weapons programs?"
Khameini: "Only if you promise Iran massive amounts of foreign aid... oh, and can you also supply me with some uranium? "
Kerry: "What?"
Khameini: "And we also need equipment that can refine the uranium"
Kerry: "Isn't that kind of beside the point"
Khameini: "No, we'll only be using the material for... uh... energy"
Kerry: "But aren't you an oil rich nation"
Khameini: "What's your point?"
Kerry: "Fine, but put in a good word for me with Putin"
Khameini: "You got it"

[FishForLunch]

Hey Madape atleast you should give credit to Kerry for opening a dialogue with the them, even if they mean harm to the USA. It should give the peacenicks warm and fussy feelings when Kerry says War on Terror is overblown and it is basically a law enforcement operation.

[Blonde Bomber]

He's (Kerry) just trying to win votes. It will be a sad day if he gets elected. I just hope people come to there senses.

[madape]

It will be a sad day if he gets elected.

Well, it depends on who you're talking about. I'm sure they'll be dancing in the streets of the West Bank, in the palaces of the worlds most bloodthirsty dictators, and in terrorist training camps across the world.

[Drbio]

Kerry is a no-spine puss.

[Mavdog]

A couple of converstaions from the White House:

GeorgeW: I remember what Paul told me. that I can invade any country that I think may be a threat. How about North korea Condi?
Condelessa: No Mr. President, we can't invade North Korea.
GeorgeW: Well, why not? You, Rumsfield and Paul said I could do it to Iraq...and I didn't need the UN's help.
Condelessa: Mr. President, North Korea has WMD and they could use them.
GeorgeW: Oh, this is different than Iraq, you mean they really have them...dang it. I sure liked that pre-emptive war thing.
Condelessa: You're going to need to engage our allies..
GeorgeW: Allies? you mean Tony?
Condelessa: No, Tony can't help you here. I mean your going to need to reach out to our other allies...
GeorgeW: Do we have any? I mean, after you guys told me that we didn't need anyone else, that we could do as we wish and we could just ignore the rest of the world's opinions, I though we didn't need any allies. I called everybody up and said screw you, we don't need your help and we'll do what we want! Except mexico, cuz I like Vincinte. he's a cowboy like me...
Condelessa: Mr. President, you need to get the Chinese to work with us, and the South Koreans, and the Japanese. You need to get Vlad to help too. Otherwise we can't make a deal with the North Koreans for them to get rid of their weapons.
GeorgeW: Ahh, just screw those north Koreans. It's an Asian problem, right? They can't do anything to us, can they?
Condelessa: well, sort of....remember, they do have WMD this time.
GeorgeW: oh sh...

[madape]

.. oh shit, I guess it will be a little harder to clean up this mess. Is there anything else that Clinton fucked up that I need to take care of?

[FishForLunch]

Mavdog what is your opinion about this statement from Kerry, "War on Terror is overblown and it is basically a law enforcement operation."

Let me guess Kerry was misquoted or he might have changed his mind since, or better yet he has basically three positions on the War on Terrorism.

[Mavdog]

Fish asked;

Mavdog what is your opinion about this statement from Kerry, "War on Terror is overblown and it is basically a law enforcement operation."

Let me guess Kerry was misquoted or he might have changed his mind since, or better yet he has basically three positions on the War on Terrorism

wrong on all guesses. Here's a post I made earlier in another thread that addressed the same quote:

What is incorrect in the statement

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''I think there has been an exaggeration,'' he said. ''They are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. It's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Has the current administration mislead the American public? Very hard to argue that they have not for clearly they have, there have been so many incorrect statements put forth regarding the justifications for the assault on Iraq, what we would find there once we overthrew Hussein, and the connection between Hussein and the Al Queda network. In that the enemies, who is Al Queda only as they are the only ones to threaten the US, are not actual States themselves it is a reasonable conclusion that the use of military force is not the solution but rather search (intelligence) and apprehend (enforcement) is the manner in which to contain and defeat the enemy.

Previous post on the quote

[FishForLunch]

In that the enemies, who is Al Queda only as they are the only ones to threaten the US, are not actual States themselves it is a reasonable conclusion that the use of military force is not the solution but rather search (intelligence) and apprehend (enforcement) is the manner in which to contain and defeat the enemy.

apprehend by law enforcement like Kerry said. That means ISI and police to me, not Special Forces(Task Force 121) supported by the air power like Rummy wants. That sounds like a crappy idea to me. Why would anyone in their right mind trust the ISI and Pakistan to help get Osama. I dont trust the security of this country to others, may the democracts do.

[Mavdog]

apprehend by law enforcement like Kerry said. That means ISI and police to me, not Special Forces(Task Force 121) supported by the air power like Rummy wants. That sounds like a crappy idea to me. Why would anyone in their right mind trust the ISI and Pakistan to help get Osama. I dont trust the security of this country to others, may the democracts do.

All I know is that what has been done has not worked...if "trust" in the Pakistanis is what will get to him, I'm more than willing to do so. The goal is to get our hands on Bin Laden isn't it? Our troops haven't succeeded. A prejudice to not involve others isn't helping the effort...

[madape]

All I know is that what has been done has not worked...if "trust" in the Pakistanis is what will get to him, I'm more than willing to do so. The goal is to get our hands on Bin Laden isn't it? Our troops haven't succeeded. A prejudice to not involve others isn't helping the effort...

Sorry Mavdog, what DIDN'T work was Clinton's (and Kerry's) law enforcement approach. Before Bush declared war on terror, we were blindsided with massacre after massacre by these murdering fucks. Kenya, Cole, 9/11.... Al Qaeda thrived under Clinton. Taliban leaders gleefully helped Bin Laden kill Americans with no fear of repercussions. The Saudis funneled millions into his coffers, and into the coffers of Palestinian terror orgizations who's mission is to murder Jews. That all changed when Bush declared war. It never would have changed if Gore were elected, and it is in danged of happening again if Kerry somehow shams his way into office. How many Americans need to die before we decided this joke of a foriegn policy wasn't working? Does Kerry not care that this failed policy has already cost us the lives of thousands of our countrymen? Does Kerry really want to revert back to the time when the federal government casually accepted the murder of innocent US women and children in the name of diplomacy? Since we declared war, there hasn't been one single incident of terror on US soil. Not one. By recent accounts, we've killed or captured over 70% of Al-Qaeda leadership. We've overthrown two regimes who supported terrorist activites. We've used the threat of military action to extract concessions out of several other countries who may have otherwise harboring or funding terrorist groups, or building weapons that could eventually send New York or Tel Aviv up in nuclear flame. The only black mark on Bush's war on terror is that Osama Bin Laden has not been captured. If he's not dead already, ihe s clearly in the crosshairs. We'll probably catch him before summer, but regardless, his terror network is almost completley incapacitated. We need to carry on Bush's fight until every last muderer is in prison.

There is no denying that with the exception of capturing Osama, the war on terror has to this point been a flawless success. Once the inevitable happens, and Osama is captured, there will be no denying that Bush was right, and Clinton, Kerry and the diplomats on the left were wrong. Now these pacificts are left in the despicable position of having to root for Osama to elude capture... and to root for more American deaths at the hands of these fucks. If things go the way the Democrats hope, maybe they can point at Bush's war and claim that it has been a failure. But right now? The people who say such things should be regarded as fools.

[Dooby]

The thing that has always driven me F'ing bonkers about Clinton. Clinton is quoted as saying that as soon as heard about Sept. 11, he knew it must have been Osamma BinLaden, because only he was capable of such a thing.

If Clinton knew he was capable of such a thing, why didn't he do anything to stop it. Drives me F'ing bonkers.

Sorry. Just ranting. Back to y'all.

[Mavdog]

I find it interesting that you assert that “Clinton’s law enforcement approach” didn’t work…while the Bush approach has NOT succeeded in apprehending Bin Laden either, apparently something that escapes you. Bush has failed to reach Bin Laden, and if a coordination with other countries (the deft use of diplomacy, something this admin is void of understanding) would facilitate getting Bin Laden who in their right mind would oppose such?

Al Queda hasn’t attacked American soil, but from your ramblings it is clear you must be unaware of their activity elsewhere. The battle is ongoing, and Al Queda has NOT been stopped nor defeated. I disagree strongly that ANY Administration, GWBush or BClinton, “casually accepted the murder of innocent US women and children” (BTW what happened to men?), That type of rhetoric is unfounded and distasteful. These attacks in other countries show that the war on terrorism is NOT a “flawless success”…just try telling that to the victims of violence in Tunisia, Indonesia, Bali, etc. I’m sure that they are who you call “fools” for not believing that the war against Al Queda has been so “flawless”, it’s just that their murdered family members show otherwise. They would ask what type of fool believes that the enemy has been defeated when they mourn their losses.

You assert that “the threat of military action” has produced results from “several other countries” involved in terrorism…with no example. Don’t bring up Libya, for that dialogue was begun in the final year of Clinton’s administration. Who else? Diplomacy and international relations are absent concepts with this administration.

We need the assistance of the world to combat this threat. A lone ranger approach isn’t the right way to accomplish the goal of defeating terrorism…and we can’t go around invading everybody under the pretext of fighting terrorism, lest we be seen as being guilty of the same offense as those we would be chasing.

[ItalianMobbstah187]

Drbio, you are so way out of bounds here...To call a man who fought in Vietnam a "no-spine puss", you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Mavdog]

An interesting news brief about Yemeni security apprehending what is called a "seior Al Queda" person. This bolsters the argument that security- what we call law enforcement- is the most successful tool in locating and seizing the terrorist in the network.

Hmmm, creedance that Kerry IS correct that it is primarily "an intelligence and law enforcement operation.''


Yemen Says It Nabs Top Al Qaeda Man, Surrounds Others
Wed Mar 3,12:42 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

SANAA (Reuters) - Yemen's security forces have arrested a Yemeni believed to be a senior al Qaeda member after surrounding a group of Islamic militants in a remote region, a government official said Wednesday.

"Security forces have captured a Yemeni man believed to be an important member of al Qaeda," the official told Reuters. "They are still surrounding the others."

Officials declined to say whether Imam al-Sherif, a prominent Egyptian militant, was among those surrounded in the mountainous region in the southern Abyan province.

Sherif set up the Jihad group which Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahri once headed. Some local media said he may be the man in police custody.

[Evilmav2]

The thing that has always driven me F'ing bonkers about Clinton. Clinton is quoted as saying that as soon as heard about Sept. 11, he knew it must have been Osamma BinLaden, because only he was capable of such a thing.

If Clinton knew he was capable of such a thing, why didn't he do anything to stop it. Drives me F'ing bonkers.

Not only didn't Mr. Foresight mount any serious efforts to apprehend Bin Laden or stomp out the Taliban vipers nest in Afghanistan during his administration, but he also actually refused Sudanese offers to extradite Bin Laden to the US back in 1995 and 1996- a mistake that allowed Bin Laden to escape to Afghanistan after the Sudanese ultimately expelled him. Of course, we tried to get our Saudi friends to accept a Sudanese Bin Laden extradition (Clinton and Madeleine Albright didn't know if the US had enough evidence against Bin Laden to justify extraditing him here), but the Saudi's declined to do so...

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
An interesting news brief about Yemeni security apprehending what is called a "seior Al Queda" person. This bolsters the argument that security- what we call law enforcement- is the most successful tool in locating and seizing the terrorist in the network.

Hmmm, creedance that Kerry IS correct that it is primarily "an intelligence and law enforcement operation.''

I doubt seriously that law enforcement in Yemem would have apprehended the Al Queda terrorist without pressure from top officials in the Yemen government. It is likely that the unyielding pressure that the US is putting on is what is causing that extraordinary situation.

[sturm und drang]

Nothing scares me more than our incredibly myopic "screw the world, we don't need 'em, they're all wrong and we're right" mentality. It's this kind of heavy-handed approach that will continue to spawn terrorist groups for years and years to come.

It's like a 21st century version of Hercules and Hydra: for every head we chop off, two more sprout in its place.

We have to mend our international relationships. If we don't, WE are the rogue nation. Our tongue-wagging, chest-thumping "we're America, and we don't need you" is nothing more than pure stupidity. We can't fight a war on terror by ourselves. Remember the response of our allies after 9/11? Remember how many Al-Qaeda terrorists Germany, France, etc. rounded up in its wake?

Just because those countries wouldn't support a war against Iraq -- a war they wouldn't support, remember, because they were rightly unconvinced Iraq was sponsoring terror, harboring terrorists or had WMD -- doesn't mean they can't help us fight terror. They have done that, and will continue to do so.

This Brave New World is a nefarious, amorphous one without borders. We all know that. So how can we think that we can win it without a network of true allies? Bush's "diplomacy" -- something even his staunchest of supporters admit he is sorely, sorely lacking -- has cost us dearly. It's time to try to repair those relationships. Before it's too late, and we're left trying to fight true terrorism by ourselves.

[Chiwas]

I just received this. Oh well, it's funny.

[madape]

North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid
By Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding in Washington
Published: March 4 2004 20:24 | Last Updated: March 4 2004 20:24



North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader.


But the Dear Leader is not the only one getting deferential treatment from the communist state's propaganda machine: John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.

In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime.

The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme.

But both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush are committed to North Korean disarmament. Mr Kerry, however, would renew bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, while Mr Bush has sought to manage the conversation with North Korea through multilateral talks. Mr Kerry has also been more forthright about setting out the economic rewards for North Korea if it disarms.

The Bush administration appears in no hurry to tackle the North Korea issue before the election, aware that a US compromise with Pyongyang would represent an embarrassing climbdown, while confrontation would risk a bloody - and electorally disastrous - war.

If North Korea is hoping that a Democratic victory would herald a return to Bill Clinton's policy of engagement with Pyongyang, then Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Centre for Pacific Affairs in Washington, cautions Mr Kim against expecting too much from Mr Kerry. "It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," he says.

Either way, the North Korean media is a constituency Mr Kerry could do without. Second only to the warm words Mr Kerry has enjoyed from Jane Fonda, the actress and antiwar liberal who is still a bugbear of the American right, a signal of support from the Dear Leader will delight conservative talk-show hosts and Republicans eager to paint Mr Kerry as soft on national security.

A small group of Vietnam veterans has already branded Mr Kerry as "Hanoi John" - a reference to his antiwar activities in 1971 after he returned from serving in Vietnam.

Mr Kerry was first introduced to North Korea's information-starved people in early February, when Radio Pyongyang reported that opinion polls indicated he was likely to defeat Mr Bush.

A few days later, the station broadcast comments by Mr Kerry criticising Mr Bush for deceiving the world about Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction. Later in February, KCNA welcomed Mr Kerry's pledge to adopt a more "sincere attitude" towards North Korea if elected.

"Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party, sharply criticised President Bush, saying it was an ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea," said the news agency.

Pyongyang's friendly attitude towards Mr Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric.

[Dooby]

Dammit MadApe, I was just about to post that!

[madape]

Who will be the next to endorse Kerry? Osama Bin Laden?

He should change his campaign slogan to: "John Kerry - fighting for the rights of terrorists and nuclear proliferation"

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: ItalianMobbstah187
Drbio, you are so way out of bounds here...To call a man who fought in Vietnam a "no-spine puss", you should be ashamed of yourself.

Wrong. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our war veterans. However, they lose that respect when they bad mouth the United States for fighting. Kerry protested the war and only uses his service time as a crutch. I spend significant hours working with veterans and the overwhelming majority of them that I visit with want to puke when they hear Kerrys' name.

Kerry is a no-spine puss.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: madape
Who will be the next to endorse Kerry? Osama Bin Laden?

He should change his campaign slogan to: "John Kerry - fighting for the rights of terrorists and nuclear proliferation"

genius.