Bush is Soft on Terror - DPChallenge Forums

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/19/2004 12:41:24 AM · #51

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

originally posted by SoCal69:

"I am still waiting to see the "pro-Kerry" posts."

About a week or so ago I posted about ten direct links to Kerry's website on a panoply of subjects where the campaign has layed out the Kerry/Edwards explicit issue positions/plans in detail.

It was in, I think, a response to louddog.

If you are interested i could find them for you?

It is a very impressive catalog, especially in comparison to Bush.

I have seen Kerry's website, and in all honesty, I saw very little of substance that gave me pause to think. It seems to me that Kerry and Bush are not as dissimilar as many would like to believe, except on a few key issues.

That being said, my point was this, and it is still valid:

the majority of the liberal posts in these threads are posts which demonize Bush. There are almost no posts which discuss Kerry, his positions, ideals and "vision." This includes your post which did nothing more than provide a link to his website, while the anti-Bush posts go on for page after page providing detailed "information" about Bush's conduct, business ties and the number of days he allegedly took off from work. There is no question in my mind that the predominant mindset of these posters, which seems to include you, is not "pro-Kerry" but rather is "anti-Bush." I am still waiting to see real "pro-Kerry" posts.

As I indicated in a previous post, these kinds of posts indicate to me that the posters support Kerry not because he is Kerry, but because he is not Bush. Kerry will not and cannot win an election if this is the makeup of his base of support.

Message edited by author 2004-09-19 00:42:16.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

09/19/2004 01:09:28 AM · #52

Originally posted by SoCal69:

***You may be correct in stating that Kerry is not Bush and that the overriding feeling in the liberal camp is anybody but Bush philosophy. That is because it is felt (in liberal circles) that Bush is so dangerous.

But this specific thread is about whether Bush is soft on terror. Bush's main campaign thrust is that he is doing a good job on fighting terrorism, so this thread does bring up a key issue in the campaign.
I have made some specific comments above about how I feel Bush is soft on terror. If you have a different opinion, I would like for you to post how you think Bush is strong on fighting terrorism.

Hye5

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/19/2004 01:15:07 AM · #53

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I have not expressed an opinion on whether Bush has been "strong on terror." Personally, I am not sure what that phrase means exactly... it would depend on one's personal viewpoints on how terrorism should be handled in the first place. As I have said, I have many disagreement with Bush's policies. However, my post was simply a response to another which took exception to my point, which was that the overriding theme here seems to be "anti-bush" rather than "pro-kerry." Thank you Olyuzi, for further establishing my point.

Message edited by author 2004-09-19 01:16:28.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

09/19/2004 01:31:31 AM · #54

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***You may be correct in stating that Kerry is not Bush and that the overriding feeling in the liberal camp is anybody but Bush philosophy. That is because it is felt (in liberal circles) that Bush is so dangerous.

But this specific thread is about whether Bush is soft on terror. Bush's main campaign thrust is that he is doing a good job on fighting terrorism, so this thread does bring up a key issue in the campaign.
I have made some specific comments above about how I feel Bush is soft on terror. If you have a different opinion, I would like for you to post how you think Bush is strong on fighting terrorism.

I have not expressed an opinion on whether Bush has been "strong on terror." Personally, I am not sure what that phrase means exactly... it would depend on one's personal viewpoints on how terrorism should be handled in the first place. As I have said, I have many disagreement with Bush's policies. However, my post was simply a response to another which took exception to my point, which was that the overriding theme here seems to be "anti-bush" rather than "pro-kerry." Thank you Olyuzi, for further establishing my point.

***I think what you mean to say is anti-Bush policy, and we are discussing Bush's specific policies towards fighting terrorism, which his campaign has made the rallying cry for his election. I have stated about 3 ways in which I think Bush is not doing a good job on fighting terrorism and making this country more vulnerable. Would you please comment on them? Why are you so reticent to discuss the topic stated? I am open to hearing what you think in regard to this important topic.

Hye5

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/19/2004 02:38:19 AM · #55

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

No, what I meant to say was ANTI-BUSH. I don't see much in the way of specific policy discussions in this thread at all. I see a lot of speculation and innuendo based on a lot of unrelated facts and a lot of anti-bush posts based on some twisted interpretation of facts.

I only saw one post where you actually discuss policy above, and that dealt with border security. Since you asked for my opinion, here it is. I believe Bush is too soft in his border policy. I believe the borders need to be controlled, regulated and patroled more strictly. Now that I have said that, I ask you, what is it that Kerry proposes to do specifically... I believe he is no better than Bush on this issue.

In any event, my opinion really is irrelevant, since I have no intention of spouting my beliefs and rhetoric the way many of you have been. I have no intention in trying to somehow convince everyone that my view is the only view. I know others have their own views and I leave them to it. I do not try to ram my beliefs down the throats of every other reader of these posts.

Message edited by author 2004-09-19 02:41:03.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/20/2004 01:21:49 AM · #56

I've been out of LA for three days and without access to the web, good to see that things are right where I left them. SoCal, I'll respond as soon as I get a chance.

I'm amending this post with the following:

SoCal, one of my very first posts was in support of Mr. Kerry for his positions, I think you've may have missed some of my early posts. Moreover, look, I can get into the policy positions, etc., as to why I support Mr. Kerry; but at the end of the day, I know one thing, support for a candidate is a gut feeling for a lot people, so, I'll put it in plain language: I support Mr. Kerry because I respect him as a man and as a human being. As for a fuller post on his policy positions, I'll post something later -- when I have a chance.

Just to offer you some information on what I did this weekend, I, along with about 50 other volunteers, traveled hundreds of miles to campaign for Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards. Now, again, you may believe that all these people where out there because they "hate" Mr. Bush, but I can tell you that every single one of them was out there because they're excited about Mr. Kerry and the values he represents.

To Kerry supporters, I saw a lot of enthusiasm out there -- this election will be close, and we can't take anything for granted; however, don't let some of the things that are often posted on this board, and else where, dishearten you. We've got to do a lot of work, but I saw a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of hard work out there -- I can't tell you how pumped I am after this weekend.

Message edited by author 2004-09-20 02:09:28.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

09/20/2004 01:38:32 AM · #57

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

***I think what you mean to say is anti-Bush policy, and we are discussing Bush's specific policies towards fighting terrorism, which his campaign has made the rallying cry for his election. I have stated about 3 ways in which I think Bush is not doing a good job on fighting terrorism and making this country more vulnerable. Would you please comment on them? Why are you so reticent to discuss the topic stated? I am open to hearing what you think in regard to this important topic.

No, what I meant to say was ANTI-BUSH. I don't see much in the way of specific policy discussions in this thread at all. I see a lot of speculation and innuendo based on a lot of unrelated facts and a lot of anti-bush posts based on some twisted interpretation of facts.

I only saw one post where you actually discuss policy above, and that dealt with border security. Since you asked for my opinion, here it is. I believe Bush is too soft in his border policy. I believe the borders need to be controlled, regulated and patroled more strictly. Now that I have said that, I ask you, what is it that Kerry proposes to do specifically... I believe he is no better than Bush on this issue.

In any event, my opinion really is irrelevant, since I have no intention of spouting my beliefs and rhetoric the way many of you have been. I have no intention in trying to somehow convince everyone that my view is the only view. I know others have their own views and I leave them to it. I do not try to ram my beliefs down the throats of every other reader of these posts.

***You're right, SoCal, I can't see much difference in either candidate's stance and approach towards terrorism. As you did, I went to each candidates web site and for they both lay out their claims in stated goals. This really doesn't say much because neither states how they would accomplish these goals. I"m sure this is done intentionally as it's easy to ascerain by both sides what the voters want to hear and neither wants to alienate any voters so they intentionally keep their agendas hidden. Maybe someone else with more knowledge about the differences between the two candidates will chime in with more specifics.

If you have followed any of what I have had to say over the many forum threads the past year, I have never stated I was a fan of Kerry, although I do believe he is the better choice. You are correct in stating that many people will be voting for him strictly because he's NOT Bush. So as far as terrorism goes, we only have to go on what these two have done in the past. That seems easy with Bush. I'm glad we agree on border security. But there are other places where Bush is weak on terrorism. I believe that by maintaining friendly relations with the Saudi's, major human rights violators and financial supporters of terrorism, the US government is both hypocritical on their war on terror and at the same time fanning the flames of the ire of the Arab world.

One last thing...liberals are not anti-Bush, but rather anti-Bush policies.

09/20/2004 11:34:21 AM · #58

Iraqi PM: 'Terrorists pouring in'

Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 1433 GMT (2233 HKT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned that "terrorists" are flooding into his country from across the Muslim world.

His comments on Monday echoed those of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who said the day before that Iraq was now the "crucible" in which the future of global terrorism would be determined.

Allawi, who is visiting London, told GMTV at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks since the end of major conflict in Iraq: "It's not a second conflict per se, it's really an international conflict.

"Terrorists are coming and pouring in from various countries into Iraq to try and undermine the situation in Iraq. They're coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, from Europe, from Morocco, from Syria and so on.

"Iraq is on the front line of fighting these terrorists. And, God forbid, if Iraq is broken or the will of Iraq is broken, then London would be a target, Washington will be a target, Paris will be a target, Cairo will be a target, as we have seen in the past."

But former British foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq war, disputed that argument.

"There were no international terrorists in Iraq until we went in," he told The Times newspaper.

"It was we who gave the perfect conditions in which al Qaeda could thrive."

Allawi made his comments on British TV on Monday ahead of talks with UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon and International Development Secretary Hilary Benn.

Monday's negotiations were expected to focus on what more Britain could do to support the interim Iraqi administration before January's scheduled elections, which Allawi insisted would go ahead despite the upsurge in violence.

Allawi also stressed again that his interim government would not make concessions with kidnappers. He said: "Our principal drive is not to negotiate with hostage-takers and not to negotiate with terrorists, and this is where we find our strength is."

Part of Allawi's agenda in London was to project a positive message from Iraq to the international community; he has previously blamed the media for focusing on the violence without reporting on the progress that was being made.

Monday's discussions came on the second day of the Iraqi premier's visit to London and followed a three-hour meeting with Blair on Sunday.

After their meeting, Allawi said the trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein would begin in Iraq as soon as next month.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Allawi said: "I think [it will be] October, with some of his supporters who are detained; will be in court. Maybe he will appear in November or December, but definitely in October the whole issue will start -- of the trial." (Full story)

In another interview published on Monday, Allawi said Saddam was depressed and had begged for mercy.

"He is distraught and depressed," Allawi said of Saddam, who is awaiting trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

"Saddam and his colleagues are not the giants that the media sometimes talks about. Saddam sent us an oral message in which he begged for mercy. He said that they were working in the public interest and did not mean any harm," Allawi said in an interview with the Arabic al-Hayat newspaper.

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

09/20/2004 01:41:08 PM · #59

To add to my above article; I found this ironic...

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said al Qaeda wants John Kerry to win the election.

Hastert's al Qaeda comment draws fire
Idea that terrorists want Kerry to win called 'silly,' 'disgraceful'
Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 1359 GMT (2159 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top Democrats slapped back Sunday at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that al Qaeda leaders want Sen. John Kerry to beat President Bush in November.

At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe called Hastert's comments "disgraceful," saying there was "no room for this in our political discourse."

"And I remind you that, you know, we could have done a lot better," McAuliffe said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"The president of the United States, on August 6th of 2001, was told in his briefing that America was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and they may use airplanes," McAuliffe said, referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"He didn't call the FAA. He didn't leave his monthlong vacation. He sat down there."

Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, said Hastert "has joined the fear-mongering choir."

"Let me just say this in the simplest possible terms," Edwards said at a rally in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. "When John Kerry is president of the United States, we will find al Qaeda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people."

Hastert, who as speaker heads the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, showed no sign of backing off his comments.

His spokesman, John Feehery, said Sunday that the speaker's comments "were consistent with the speaker's belief that John Kerry would be weak on the war."

"If John Kerry is perceived as being weak on the war, then of course, his election would be perceived as a good thing by the terrorists," Feehery said in a written response to questions about Hastert's remarks.

"The fact that John Kerry can't make up his mind about the war only strengthens that perception."

Neither the Bush campaign nor the White House had any comment on Hastert's remarks, but Bush has accused Kerry of repeatedly changing his position on the war in Iraq.

The comments followed a remark by Cheney earlier this month that Americans might be subjected to another terrorist attack if they were to make "the wrong choice" in November.

Cheney later said that any president must expect more attacks and that his point had been that he felt Bush was better prepared to deal with the threat.

Some Republicans played down Hastert's comments Sunday.

"I doubt that Osama bin Laden is likely to weigh in on our presidential election," said Rep. Chris Cox of California, chairman of the House Policy Committee and fourth-ranking member of the Republican leadership behind Hastert.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called the remarks "silly."

"I think most Americans understand that, regardless of who's president, the terrorists are still going to be terrorists, and they're going to still target Americans," said Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.

"And I don't think terrorists of the world sit around the campfire gauging who's the easier president to deal with."

It was the second time this month that Hastert's comments have provoked a public row.

Billionaire George Soros, a major backer of Democratic causes, asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate Hastert after the speaker suggested in a television interview that Soros got money from "drug groups."

Hastert later said he was referring to organizations to which Soros has contributed that favor drug legalization, but he ignored Soros' demand for an apology.

Analysts differ on just how much the Madrid bombings influenced the Spanish election.

Some say they prompted Spaniards to vote out Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a key U.S. ally in the Iraq war. Others say Aznar's insistence on blaming Basque separatists, not Islamist terrorists, tipped the electorate against him.

In any case, Aznar's successor, Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq shortly after taking office.

**
I truly do find this humorous. Right now Al Qaeda and other terrorists are doing quite well tearing up Iraq. Why would they want a different US president? They are having great success with the ones that is there.

American politics and the election system have truly turned to shit. Itâ��s so shameful this is the kind of stuff people have to hear during an election year.

I look forward to the debates in a couple of weeks. Hopefully those will be straightforward and informative.

Message edited by author 2004-09-20 13:41:30.

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

09/20/2004 01:52:08 PM · #60

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I look forward to the debates in a couple of weeks. Hopefully those will be straightforward and informative.

I doubt they will be either straightfoward or informative - see one opinion

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/20/2004 08:55:21 PM · #61

Message edited by author 2004-09-20 20:57:45.

Placebo

Sony DSC-S85

09/20/2004 09:36:52 PM · #62

gingerbaker

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

09/24/2004 11:02:35 AM · #63

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
originally posted by SoCal69:

"I am still waiting to see the "pro-Kerry" posts."

About a week or so ago I posted about ten direct links to Kerry's website on a panoply of subjects where the campaign has layed out the Kerry/Edwards explicit issue positions/plans in detail.

It was in, I think, a response to louddog.

If you are interested i could find them for you?

It is a very impressive catalog, especially in comparison to Bush.

I have seen Kerry's website, and in all honesty, I saw very little of substance that gave me pause to think. It seems to me that Kerry and Bush are not as dissimilar as many would like to believe, except on a few key issues.

That being said, my point was this, and it is still valid:

the majority of the liberal posts in these threads are posts which demonize Bush. There are almost no posts which discuss Kerry, his positions, ideals and "vision." This includes your post which did nothing more than provide a link to his website, while the anti-Bush posts go on for page after page providing detailed "information" about Bush's conduct, business ties and the number of days he allegedly took off from work. There is no question in my mind that the predominant mindset of these posters, which seems to include you, is not "pro-Kerry" but rather is "anti-Bush." I am still waiting to see real "pro-Kerry" posts.

As I indicated in a previous post, these kinds of posts indicate to me that the posters support Kerry not because he is Kerry, but because he is not Bush. Kerry will not and cannot win an election if this is the makeup of his base of support.

So Cal - how deep did you delve into the website of Kerry? His positions are layed out, many times in pretty good detail, and they DIFFER from Bush current policy. To wit:

On WMD:

There is no greater threat to America's security than the potential that terrorists could acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. John Kerry and John Edwards believe that preventing terrorists from gaining access to these weapons is our number one national security priority.

?Bush site on this subject - zero.

Defeating this threat requires American leadership of the highest order - leadership that brings our allies to greater collaboration, our friends to greater vigilance, our partners to greater participation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's policies have moved America in the opposite direction. They have weakened international agreements and initiatives to enforce non-proliferation instead of strengthening them. They have not done nearly enough to secure existing stockpiles and bomb-making materials. They have failed to take effective steps to stop the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. Our security requires an immediate change of course.

John Kerry has proposed a comprehensive strategy that uses all of our resources and the might of our alliances to:

Safeguard Existing Stockpiles of Dangerous Weapons and Materials including an acceleration of programs to secure all nuclear weapons and materials within the former Soviet Union, and at research reactors in countries outside the former Soviet Union, within 4 years.

End Production of New Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons by negotiating a global ban on production of new material.

Reduce Existing Stocks of Nuclear Weapons and Materials by ending development of the new generation of nuclear weapons, accelerating reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and reducing stocks of dangerous highly enriched uranium in Russia.

End Nuclear Weapons Programs in Hostile States, including by prioritizing negotiations with North Korea to ensure the complete, irreversible and verifiable elimination of its nuclear weapons program, and leading a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons.

Enhance International Efforts to Eliminate Illegal Trafficking Networks by toughening export controls, stiffening penalties, and strengthening law enforcement and intelligence sharing as well as improving the proliferation security initiative.
Appoint a presidential coordinator to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus exclusively on directing a top line effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist attack.

Safeguard Existing Nuclear Weapons Materials Worldwide
Under the Kerry-Edwards plan, any material that could be used in a nuclear weapon will be treated like a nuclear weapon. To safeguard all nuclear weapons material within four years, John Kerry will:

Accelerate Programs To Secure All Nuclear Weapons and Materials In The Former Soviet Union Within Four Years. By the end of 2003, only 22 per cent of the estimated 600 tons of the vulnerable nuclear material in the former Soviet Union had received comprehensive security upgrades, and only 43 per cent had even had basic, quick-fix upgrades. Yet President Bush has not made securing these vulnerable weapons and materials a priority, allowing summit after summit with Russian President Putin to go by without any action to overcome the bureaucratic obstacles to improving security. At their most recent summit in September 2003, the United States and Russia laid out an agenda for U.S.-Russian cooperation that did not even include the subject of securing nuclear stocks. As a result of this inaction, completing this work will take 13 years if we continue at the current pace. John Kerry will accelerate this work, breaking through the bureaucratic logjams that have hampered progress so that all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union will be secured in four years. John Kerry will make this a priority in our relations with Russia by immediately working to develop a strategic plan to secure all these weapons and materials;

Complete a Global Cleanout Of Potential Bomb-Making Materials In Four Years. Highly enriched uranium that can be used to create nuclear bombs is still used to fuel over 130 research reactors in more than 40 countries, many with only modest security. John Kerry's plan will remove potential bomb material provided by the Soviet Union and the United States from vulnerable sites outside the former Soviet Union within four years. It took the Bush administration three years to even announce their plan to do this, and by their own schedule it would take a decade to complete it - far too long given the gravity of the threat.

Establish Global Standards For Safekeeping Of Nuclear Materials. John Kerry will lead a major multinational effort to establish and enforce an international standard for the safe custody of nuclear weapons and materials. He will expand the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to provide assistance where necessary for countries to meet this standard. And he will re-establish American leadership in international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and materials by establishing a Contact Group of nations to work together to implement this and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and materials.

End Production of new Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons
Given the challenge of securing the thousands of nuclear weapons that already exist, the world does not need more nuclear weapons. To end the production of nuclear material for use in nuclear weapons, John Kerry will:

Negotiate a Global Ban On Production Of Material For Nuclear Weapons. There is strong international support for a ban on all production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for use in nuclear weapons that would permanently cap the world's nuclear weapons stockpiles. Yet the Bush administration has failed to move forward, keeping this initiative frozen in a lengthy inter-agency review process. As president, John Kerry will immediately ask the members of the U.N. Security Council to formally pledge never again to produce such material for weapons. He will then lead a broad international coalition to verifiably ban production of such materials by any nation.

Reduce Existing Stock of Nuclear Weapons and Materials
In the former Soviet Union alone, there are nearly 20,000 nuclear weapons and enough nuclear material to produce 50,000 more Hiroshima-sized bombs. We must reduce these existing stocks of nuclear weapons and materials, and America must lead by example. To do this, John Kerry will:

End Development Of The New Generation Of Nuclear Weapons. The Bush administration is spending millions of dollars developing bunker-busters and mini-nukes, a new generation of more "usable" nuclear weapons. As president, John Kerry will signal to the world that America is serious about stopping proliferation by putting an end to these programs.

Accelerate Reductions In U.S. and Russian Nuclear Arsenals. As president, John Kerry will work with the Russians to accelerate the timetable of planned and agreed consolidation and reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.

Reduce Stocks Of Dangerous Highly Enriched Uranium and Plutonium In Russia. As president, John Kerry will work with the Russians to accelerate the "blending down" of HEU into energy reactor fuel and speed the disposition of plutonium, a process which is now bogged down in a bureaucratic tangle.

End Nuclear Weapons Programs In Hostile States Like North Korea and Iran
We must ensure that hostile states like North Korea and Iran do not have nuclear weapons capabilities and that no nation can use the guise of peaceful energy programs to develop them. To accomplish this goal, John Kerry will:

End North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program As a Top Priority. Our goal must be to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program and permanently eliminate its enrichment and reprocessing efforts. All options must remain on the table to accomplish this. Any agreement must have rigorous verification, and must lead to complete and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Despite the obvious threat, for eighteen months we have negotiated largely over process while the North Koreans have reportedly made enough new bomb material for 6-9 new nuclear weapons. John Kerry believes we should continue the six party negotiations with the North Koreans, but also be willing to have direct bilateral talks. And we must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies.

Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons. A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.

Strengthen The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. As president, John Kerry will strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by closing the loophole that allows countries like Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons capabilities under the guise of a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program. He will work to create a consortium of states that would guarantee fuel supply and removal of spent fuel to states that agree not to have enrichment or reprocessing facilities of their own. At the same time, he will oppose the construction of reprocessing facilities in any countries that do not currently have them. John Kerry will also strengthen the NPT's enforcement and verification mechanisms by making adoption of the Additional Protocol mandatory. And he will work with the IAEA to refocus its mission so that there is an increased emphasis on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons materials.

Enhance International Efforts To Stop Trafficking In Nuclear Materials
The most effective way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to secure weapons and materials at the source. At the same time, we should strengthen our ability to prevent trafficking in bomb making materials and components. To accomplish these goals, John Kerry will:

Work With The International Community To Strengthen Nonproliferation Measures. As president, John Kerry will work with every country to toughen export controls, stiffen penalties, and strengthen law enforcement and intelligence sharing so that disasters like the A.Q. Khan network can never happen again. And he will work through the United Nations and international treaties to make trade in the technologies of mass destruction an international crime, like slavery and piracy.

Improve The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Only approximately 15 percent of the world's 50,000 large cargo ships are subject to inspection on short notice, and fewer than 20 countries are full participants in the PSI. As president, John Kerry will work with allies to increase participation so that instead of relying on coalitions of the willing, we can create the broader international framework necessary to make such an operation more effective.

Make Preventing Nuclear Terrorism A Top National Security Priority
As president, John Kerry will make preventing nuclear terrorism a top priority. He will:

Appoint A Presidential Coordinator To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. As president, John Kerry will appoint a Presidential Coordinator who will focus exclusively on directing a top line effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist attack. This Coordinator will be charged with marshalling all of our resources and making certain that all of the U.S. government's efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and materials are prioritized and integrated into a comprehensive plan.

Make Preventing Nuclear Terrorism A Cabinet-Level Priority. As president, John Kerry will instruct the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to make counter-proliferation efforts a major emphasis of their roles in promoting national security. He will also direct the Secretary of State to make preventing nuclear terrorism a top diplomatic priority.

Defending against Bioterrorism a Large pdf file, very sdpecific: //www.johnkerry.com/pdf/bioterror.pdf

Bush site on Biological warfare plan: Use Advanced Technology to Protect Against WMD Attacks - President Bush has already announced Project BioShield, which will fund cutting-edge countermeasures against a biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological attack

The Kerry-Edwards Plan To Secure Chemical Plants Against Terrorist Attack

Bush site on this subject - zero

Chemical plants are a major target for terrorist attack, and today their security is not adequate. Yet the Bush administration has backed away from strong measures after intense lobbying from contributors in the chemical industry. As president, John Kerry will put Americans' security first with strong measures to improve security at chemical plants.

Chemical Plants Are A Major Target For Terrorist Attack
A Chemical Plant Attack Could Endanger More Than a Million Americans. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are more than 100 chemical plants where a terrorist attack could endanger more than 1 million people. In the Philadelphia region, there are seven such plants - the highest concentration of these facilities on the East Coast. The U.S. Army Surgeon General has concluded that the threat to the public from an attack on a chemical plant is second only to the threat from a biological attack. [Washington Post , 6/12/02 ; Philadelphia Inquirer , 12/1/03 ; Washington Post , 3/12/02]

The National Infrastructure Protection Center Warned of Al-Qaeda Threat to Chemical Plants. In February 2003, the National Infrastructure Protection Center warned that Al-Qaeda "may attempt to launch conventional attacks against the U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption, and terror." [NIPC, 2/12/03]

Security At Chemical Plants Must Be Improved
60 Minutes Found Chemical Plant Security Lax. In November, 60 Minutes completed an investigation of security at chemical plants in urban areas. The investigators "found gates unlocked or wide open, dilapidated fences, and unprotected tanks filled with deadly chemicals that are used to manufacture everything from plastics to fertilizer." Regarding one plant, 60 Minutes noted, "There was an open gate right in front of the most dangerous chemicals at the plant. We made it in, with plenty of time to find what they were looking for." [60 Minutes , 11/14/03]

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Entered 60 Chemical Plants in Four Cities. While conducting an investigation into chemical plant security, a reporter found easy access to plants around the country. "The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review found in recent investigations that a reporter could easily enter more than 60 plants storing catastrophic amounts of chemicals in Baltimore, Chicago, Houston and western Pennsylvania." [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review , 6/11/02]

Chemical Materials "Are Far From Adequately Secured." A former security chief for Georgia-Pacific has stated, "Across the country there are huge storage tanks with highly dangerous materials that are far from adequately secured." He commented, "security at a 7-Eleven after midnight is better than that at a plant with a 90-ton vessel of chlorine." [AP , 11/16/03 ; Washington Post , 04/08/03]

GAO Notes Risk of Chemical Theft for Weapon. The General Accounting Office has also noted concern over the theft of chemicals from a facility, "which could be used to create a weaponâ�¦" [GAO, 3/03]

Security at Chemical Plants "Ranged from Fair to Very Poor." A 1999 report by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that security at chemical plants "ranged from fair to very poor." [Chemical Market Reporter , 10/29/01]

John Kerry Will Enforce Strong Chemical Plant Security
America Needs Strong, Mandatory Protections for Chemical Security. Senator Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairs of a blue-ribbon homeland security commission, have both recognized the need for mandatory, enforceable standards for chemical plan security. [Washington Post , 8/11/03 ; 60 Minutes , 11/14/03]

As president, John Kerry will:

Identify high-priority chemical plants where a terrorist attack could cause massive loss of life;

Require adequate physical security around these plants, such as adequate security force, adequate fencing, and adequate surveillance;

Require the use of less dangerous chemicals and technologies whenever that is practicable; and,

Implement these requirements on a basis that allows companies to assess their vulnerabilities on an individualized basis, to implement their own plans to meet those vulnerabilities in light of local circumstances, and requires government enforcement and action only when industry fails to move first.

I did this cut and paste in two minutes flat. I think it is easy to see the differences between Bush and Kerry on the issues, both in design, strategy, and detail, if one just takes the time to look.

How carefully did you look at these sites?

Message edited by author 2004-09-24 11:17:00.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/24/2004 12:59:59 PM · #64

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/24/2004 02:28:35 PM · #65

COUNTRIES AL QUEDA OPERATED IN AS OF NOV 10, 2001

Note that Iraq was not on the State Department's list:

Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen

---------------------------------------

Official State Department page (published November 10, 2001):
//usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

mrorange002

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/24/2004 03:03:31 PM · #66

Originally posted by louddog:

beautiful shot...

silly shot!!!

Message edited by author 2004-09-24 15:03:50.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/24/2004 03:22:59 PM · #67

Originally posted by bdobe:

COUNTRIES AL QUEDA OPERATED IN AS OF NOV 10, 2001

Note that Iraq was not on the State Department's list:

OK, bdobe. You can now consider this thread as having been "marked". That's two down, several more to go.

09/24/2004 03:48:35 PM · #68

Originally posted by bdobe:

COUNTRIES AL QUEDA OPERATED IN AS OF NOV 10, 2001

Note that Iraq was not on the State Department's list:

Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen

---------------------------------------

Official State Department page (published November 10, 2001):
//usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

Thats a pretty damning statistic. Too bad it will never be brought to light in main stream media.

ScottK

09/24/2004 03:57:35 PM · #69

Originally posted by bdobe:

COUNTRIES AL QUEDA OPERATED IN AS OF NOV 10, 2001

Note that Iraq was not on the State Department's list:
....

Isn't there a rule on cross posting? If there isn't there should be.

ScottK

09/24/2004 04:03:26 PM · #70

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Thats a pretty damning statistic. Too bad it will never be brought to light in main stream media.

Hardly. As I posted on dbode's original thread (and now have to do so here as well since he's, as Ron put it, "marked" this one):

So? Al-queda isn't the only terrorist organization. Sadam very much had ties with and provided support to terrorists, acoring to this 60 minutes report (if you can trust 60 minutes...): The Arafat Papers [his link with Iran and Iraq]

In fact, going back to the original claim of this thread, this proves that he's not soft on terror, and that his approach is to stop all terror (i.e. the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike) and not just sit around and wait for something bad to happen to us. And yes, its too bad it took 9/11 to force us all into the realization that this can happen to us.

09/24/2004 05:19:15 PM · #71

Well ill just say this.

If whatâ��s happening right now in Iraq is what people consider "Bush being tuff on terror" and that this type of action in Iraq "being tuff on terror" should continue until "terrorism is stamped out" or "smoked out" in Bush's terms; I hope you own guns, live on a farm and are able to fully support/feed you and your family with it, donâ��t mind cold water bathes and reading in candle light.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/24/2004 05:27:13 PM · #72

On September 11, 2001, we were attacked by Osama Bin Ladin and his terrorist network: Al Queda. The Bush administration took their eyes off the ball, plunged us into a war of choice in Iraq, all the while Osama Bin Ladin remains at large. As for Al Queda, the terrorist organization now is a multi-headed beast with outcrops in many more countries than it had in 2001, and all Mr. Bush can now say about Osama Bin Ladin is:

"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Bush's supporters can rationalize things all they want and split hairs into a million pieces, but none of their cognitive dissonance will change facts on the ground, and every day that passes the truth becomes harder and harder to spin.

-------------------------------------------------

Today, once again, Mr. Kerry outlined his Iraq plan. You can read the speech here:

//www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

Message edited by author 2004-09-24 18:09:02.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

09/24/2004 10:45:36 PM · #73

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

09/25/2004 02:33:54 AM · #74

Originally posted by bdobe:

Partial list of key Al Qaida members killed or captured in Bush's war on terror:

Nuradi Abdi
Tariq Anwar Al-Sayyid Ahmad
Qari Saifullah Akhtar
Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahal
Ibrahim al Durayhim
Turki al Muteiri
Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi
Shaban Al Shihri
Mohammed Hamdi Al-Ahdal
Youssef al-Airi
Jamal Al-Badawi
Mukhtar Al-Bakri
Faisal al-Dakhil
Juma Al-Dosari
Omar Al-Faruq
Khalid Al-Fawwaz
Ghasoub al-Abrash Al-Ghalyoun
Ahmed Al-Ghamdi
Hamza Al-Ghamdi
Saeed Al-Ghamdi
Abu Zubair Al-Haili
Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi
Ali Qaed Sinan Al-Harethi
Nawaf Al-Hazmi
Salem Al-Hazmi
Ahmed Al-Haznawi
Abu Eisa or Abu Musa al-Hindi
Farouk Ali-Haimoud
Al-Jaziri Abu Jafar
Ahmad Said Al-Kadr
Mohamed Mohamed al-Kahtani
Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi
Abu Ana Al-Liby
Nabil al-Marabh
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri
Ibrahim bin Abdul-Aziz bin Mohammed Al-Mezeini
Khalid Al-Midhar
Abdullah al-Misawa
Abdel Aziz Al-Muqrin
Ahmed Al-Nami
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
Othman Al-Omari
Abdulaziz Al-Omari
Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali
Fahd (Fahid al-Qasa) al-Qusa
Abdullah Mohammed Rashid al-Rashud
Rakan Mohsin Mohammed al-Saikhan
Abu Hazim Al-Sha'ir
Marwan Al-Shehhi
Mohald Al-Shehri
Wail Al-Shehri
Waleed Al-Shehri
Mourad al-Sirouri
Satam Al-Suqami
Zuher al-Tbaiti
Ibrahim al-Thawr
Sahim Alwan
Al-Yemeni Abu Salah
Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel al-Zahrani
Enaam M. Arnaout
Masrab Arochi
Mohammed Atef
Mohammed Atta
Mohammed Junaid Babar
Samir Abdullah Mohammed Ballaki
Fayez Banihammad
Adel Mohanned Abdul Almagid Bary
Jeffrey Leon Battle
Djamel Beghal
Salahadin Benayich
Abdullah Benayich
Abdelaziz Benyaich
Ahmed Ibrahim Bilal
Tawfiq aka Khallad bin Attash
Ramzi Binalshibh
Ahmed Brahim
Redouan Chekkouri
Younes Chekkouri
Yassine Chekkouri
Kamel Daoudi
Kamal Derwish
Ibrahim Hussein Abdel Hadi Eidarous
Wadih El-Hage
Ahmed Ellattah
Mohamad Kamal Elzahabi
Iyman Faris
Patrice Lumbumba Ford
Faysal Galab
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani
Yahya Goba
Khaled Ali Haj
Hani Hanjour
Ahmed Hannan
Raed Hijazi
Imad Barakat
Imam Samudra
Riduan aka "Hambali" Isamuddin
Ziad Jarrah
Ahmed Said Khadr
Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan
Essid Sami Ben Khemais
Karim Koubriti
October Martinique Lewis
Tarek Maaroufi
Khalfan Khamis Mohamed
Khalid Sheik Mohammed
Majed Moqed
Shafal Mosed
Zacarias Moussaoui
Maamoun Msouh
Abdul Hakim Murad
Abdul Raouf Naseeb
Mohammed Sadiq Odeh
Jose Padilla
Richard Reid
Ahmed Ressam
Pierre Richard Robert
Jack Roche
Ahmed Said
Mohammed Salah
Ali Mohamed Saleh
Bassan Dalati Satut
Wali Khan Amin Shah
Yaseinn Taher
Abu Talha
Nizar Trabelsi
James Ujaama
Imad Yarkas
Ramzi Yousef
Mohammed Haydar Zammar
Jamal Zougam
Abu Zubaydah

The Bush administration took their eyes off the ball?

Message edited by author 2004-09-25 02:37:18.

LoudDog