Terrorists want Kerry to win

[prism68]

This is an old point, but this article states it so well I couldn't resist sharing

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Think back to the Civil War. Who do you think the South was rooting for when Lincoln went head to head with McClellan? Gee, there was Lincoln who intended to prosecute the war to the finish and then there was McClellan who in essence wanted to call it a draw. Boy, that would have been a tough call huh?

How about a more recent example? Think back to 1984: do you think the Soviet Union wanted the most dedicated anti-Communist ever to inhabit the White House, Ronald Reagan, to come back for a second term or do you think they were really terrified of wimpy liberal, Walter Mondale? This is not hard to figure out.

The reality is that if you want a Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy type of candidate in office who's more concerned about whether the French & Germans like us than defending America, then John Kerry is your guy. But, he's also al-Qaida's guy because there's nothing they could use more right now than a 4 year long break to catch their breath, rebuild their organization, and pursue weapons of mass destruction.

[bobbcat]

Of course they want Kerry to win. They are surely tired of having our military fighting them on their turf and keeping them too busy over there to get the project off the ground whereby they get to blow up more of us over here on our turf. They'll have high hopes of accomplishing more bloodshed here with a Kerry presidency, as their chances of success will surely rise with Kerry at the helm.

I'll be at the ready with a huge I TOLD YOU SO if I get to watch the carnage unfold should Kerry indeed win this election.

[hrdlife1]

WHAT?! what?! You just sat there and made that up, right in your head, now didn't you LOL?!

That can't be true. Terrorists? Really?!

I've gotta look that up. I watched "Diary of a Political Tourist" the other night and I swear I didn't see one terrorist anywhere near John Kerry.

brb

[hrdlife1]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

I'm reading this right now...

Why does everyone keep bringing up hitler?

Here's google results:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[monkee]

Well, I guess the "Bush Camp" aren't the only ones who feel this way.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, siding with President Bush two weeks before the U.S. election, said Monday that armed attacks in Iraq were staged by "international terrorism" out to block his re-election.

"The attacks of international terrorism in Iraq are directed not only at international coalition forces but at President Bush personally," said Putin, speaking in the Tajik capital.

"International terrorism has given itself the goal of causing maximum damage to Bush in the election battle, the goal of blocking the re-election of Bush for a second presidential term," he told a news conference.

Putin's comments, ahead of the Nov. 2 election in which Democratic challenger John Kerry and Bush are fighting a close race, seemed a reward to the U.S. President for his personal friendship and valuable support.

The strong support he enjoys from Bush since quickly backing the U.S. war on terrorism following the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks in the United States has helped him withstand other criticism from the United States and the West over his democratic record at home.

Despite making clear he wanted to see Bush returned to the White House, the pragmatic Putin carefully balanced his comments by adding: "We will, of course, respect any choice by the American people."

Last June, Putin made clear for the first time he would like to see Bush back in the White House, accusing the Democrats of hypocrisy for attacking the U.S. leader on Iraq, saying the Clinton administration had been responsible for the 1999 air attacks on Yugoslavia.

Makes you wonder if Kerry really is the only one that could work with the rest of the world?

[hrdlife1]

It's hard to argue with Reuters.

[bobbcat]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if the US refuses to fight the Islamofascists on their turf, the US will get to fight them on the home turf. I do not see why this is not apparent to everyone. Just look at the pattern of terrorist acts that have taken place all over the world over the course of the past 15 years or so.

[hrdlife1]

Bobcat, your argument doesn't make sense to me. I seriously doubt our military would LET it come to fighting ANYTHING out on our soil. It would most certainly be stopped before it got to U.S. soil, this time. 9/11 was an eye-opener for all of America.

[mayfly]

I thought Pearl Harbor was the eye opener.

[Highwaychild77]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]
This is a good article about Jon Kerry's record against terrorism. It seems that this article shows that Kerry has been involved in shutting them down way before now.

[hrdlife1]

Originally Posted by mayfly

I thought Pearl Harbor was the eye opener.

Wasn't that what caused the U.S. to become involved in World War 2? Didn't we declare war on Japan before we even declared war on Hitler? Point being, we went after the people WHO ATTACKED US not like in a roundabout way but I mean STRAIGHT AT 'EM?! Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right? So, how was that an eye opener on terrorism?

[monkee]

Originally Posted by hrdlife1

Wasn't that what caused the U.S. to become involved in World War 2? Didn't we declare war on Japan before we even declared war on Hitler? Point being, we went after the people WHO ATTACKED US not like in a roundabout way but I mean STRAIGHT AT 'EM?! Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right? So, how was that an eye opener on terrorism?

That may be true, but then we went into Afghanistan first, which is where we knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and his cronies. The only real difference is that when dealing with terrorists, there is no "country" with specific borders. They're all over the place and we have to pick and choose where we can get rid of them and when.

[Highwaychild77]

Originally Posted by monkee

That may be true, but then we went into Afghanistan first, which is where we knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and his cronies. The only real difference is that when dealing with terrorists, there is no "country" with specific borders. They're all over the place and we have to pick and choose where we can get rid of them and when.

We sure did go into Afghanistan first. Then we gave up after letting OBL waltz off in Tora Bora. So then we decided to go after old enemies. Why? I think it was to take our minds off the failure in Afghanistan.JMO

[hrdlife1]

Originally Posted by monkee

That may be true, but then we went into Afghanistan first, which is where we knew the Taliban was harboring Bin Laden and his cronies. The only real difference is that when dealing with terrorists, there is no "country" with specific borders. They're all over the place and we have to pick and choose where we can get rid of them and when.

Right, right, and right again monkee. But, I don't understand how Pearl Harbor factored in, that's what I was addressing. Pearl Harbor wasn't necessarily a "terrorist" act. That was a war act.

Now, I'm the one sounding like a broken record, but seriously, we have Saddam and if he has the info on where Bin Laden is...why haven't we gotten it yet? I'm just hoping that very soon we can find out exactly where all over the world the terrorist groups are and finally find retribution for 9/11.

[monkee]

Originally Posted by Highwaychild77

We sure did go into Afghanistan first. Then we gave up after letting OBL waltz off in Tora Bora. So then we decided to go after old enemies. Why? I think it was to take our minds off the failure in Afghanistan.JMO

Okay, wait a minute. I don't understand. If we "let" Bin Laden "waltz off", then why would we consider that a failure? How sure are you that he was where they thought he was? If they knew he was there, why the heck wouldn't they go get him? This is the kind of accusation that gets tossed around all the time that just doesn't make one bit of sense. Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot like that?