It isnt a problem, now it is a problem. its overblown, now its not. please pick one lurch, youre making me dizzy.


Kerry flip-flops on terrorism

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry spent the past week hawking a tough national-security image to convince voters that he can be trusted to aggressively fight the war on terrorism, calling it the "greatest threat" facing America today.
But less than six months ago, the Massachusetts senator said in a televised debate that the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat posed by terrorism.

"I think there's been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said in January when asked whether he agreed with most Europeans that President Bush "has exaggerated the threat of terrorism."
"There needs to be a refocusing," Mr. Kerry said.
In the current political battle, in which national security appears to play a considerable role, Mr. Kerry is singing a decidedly different tune from his primary days, promising to fight a tougher and smarter war against terrorists than Mr. Bush has.
The Kerry campaign did not explain the apparent discrepancies in his positions, except to say that his current position is the one he's sticking with.
"John Kerry spent this week talking about the security challenges before our nation, and what we need to do to make our nation stronger and safer," campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said. "These terrorist threats are very real, and more must be done to address them."
Mr. Kerry called the prospect of a nuclear attack by terrorists "the greatest threat we face today."
"The question before us now is what shadowy figures may someday have their finger on a nuclear button if we don't act," he said in one of a series of speeches in which he accused Mr. Bush of not taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough.
In that same speech, he vowed to round up all the unguarded nuclear material in the world within four years, mainly through negotiations. In another speech, Mr. Kerry promised to name a national coordinator to combat bioterrorism.
He also said he would expand the standing army by 40,000 troops — at no additional cost to taxpayers — to fight terrorism. Yet, he had insisted during much of the primary that the fight against terrorists was primarily a police action rather than a military operation.
Last month, after Attorney General John Ashcroft warned of terrorist attacks this summer, Mr. Kerry took a hard line on terrorism.
"We were again reminded that we do live in dangerous times," he said.
During a January debate in Greenville, S.C., moderator Tom Brokaw asked Mr. Kerry to explain his assertion by asking, "Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?"
Mr. Kerry listed several areas of exaggeration for the crowd of Democrats, including "nuclear weapons."
"They are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way," Mr. Kerry responded.
He went on to say that the war on terror is "occasionally military," but that "it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world, the very thing this administration is worst at."
Among those struck by Mr. Kerry's assertion was Sen. John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat who went on to win the South Carolina primary and become Mr. Kerry's toughest primary opponent.
After answering an unrelated question, Mr. Edwards asked to return to the earlier question.
"It's hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September 11," said Mr. Edwards, who makes most short lists of potential running mates for Mr. Kerry.

It's just not the duct tape all your windows and hide under your bed threat, as much as this administration would have us believe. Bush and his buddies have a vested interest in trying to keep everyone frightened, it's all they have to run on. "I'm squinty eyed marshal Bush and I'ma out here in the street, at high noon, fighten' terra, six guns a blazen' :p

It's just not the duct tape all your windows and hide under your bed threat, as much as this administration would have us believe. Bush and his buddies have a vested interest in trying to keep everyone frightened, it's all they have to run on. "I'm squinty eyed marshal Bush and I'ma out here in the street, at high noon, fighten' terra, six guns a blazen' :p


please let johnny know. he seems to be confused because he says now its the greatest threat we face, just what the admin has always said. johnny even now says a nuclear threat is the worst one after saying that threat was an exaggeration. you dont seem to be in agreement with what your candidate is saying. are kerry and bush both exaggerating the threat?

from the article, He (kerry) went on to say that the war on terror is "occasionally military," but that "it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.

is that your position too?

please let johnny know. he seems to be confused because he says now its the greatest threat we face, just what the admin has always said. johnny even now says a nuclear threat is the worst one after saying that threat was an exaggeration. you dont seem to be in agreement with what your candidate is saying. are kerry and bush both exaggerating the threat?

from the article, He (kerry) went on to say that the war on terror is "occasionally military," but that "it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.

is that your position too?

I know you won't agree but let me just try. Every president since Adams has flip flopped his positions about huge and monumental areas of political policy.

Here are a few.

1) Jefferson limited government buys unconstitutionally from the French the Louisiana Purchase.

2) Lincoln on the slave issue was all over the place during the Lincoln Douglas debates. Going from so far as choosing to return them all to Africa. In his inaugural he said he would not seek war but then called up the militias even in wavering states. He went back and forth on emancipation and even shelved it until the "victory" at Anteteim when it would be better politically. Ran on a "free soil" plank did not want abolition abolished slavery. (but sent to the southern states a never ratified copy of a proposed 14th amendment that would have ensured the south slavery in perpetuity and could not have been amended after its passage) How is that for just playing both sides.

3) Ronald Reagan voted for FDR four times. Passed tax cuts and then reversed them the following year calling them revenue enhancements.

4) Kennedy cut a deal in Laos after running to the right of Nixon on Communism.

5) Nixon ran on ending the war "peace with honor" and then spread the war into cambodia, laos etc.

6) Carter put human rights as a feature of his foreign policy. Backed the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia where 750,000 died.

7) Clinton credited for welfare overhaul, secretly signed kicking and screaming. Ran as a new democrat tried to pass universal healthcare.

8) Bush 41 "read my lips" no new taxes. Oops new taxes. Urged the Iraqi revolt than left the country. Vowed to carry on Reaganism changed to new World order.

9) Bush 43 Gay marriage, states issue, now constitutional amendment. We are going to have everybody put their cards on the table and have a yes or no vote and then not submit the resolution to the vote. Anti U.N. now pro U.N.

Every politician is a flip flopper. I would be very afraid of one who couldnt fact certain realities and not change their mind. Do you think it was bad that Jefferson overstepped executive power to buy most of the mid and northwest?

These things never happened.......................................... ................................

from the article, He (kerry) went on to say that the war on terror is "occasionally military," but that "it's primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world.

is that your position too?
I think that keeping the war on terror primarily based on intelligence and law-enforcement makes a heck of a lot opf sense. Full scale military invasions should be based on a real need--not spurious reasoning.

I know you won't agree but let me just try. Every president since Adams has flip flopped his positions about huge and monumental areas of political policy.

Here are a few.

1) Jefferson limited government buys unconstitutionally from the French the Louisiana Purchase.

2) Lincoln on the slave issue was all over the place during the Lincoln Douglas debates. Going from so far as choosing to return them all to Africa. In his inaugural he said he would not seek war but then called up the militias even in wavering states. He went back and forth on emancipation and even shelved it until the "victory" at Anteteim when it would be better politically. Ran on a "free soil" plank did not want abolition abolished slavery. (but sent to the southern states a never ratified copy of a proposed 14th amendment that would have ensured the south slavery in perpetuity and could not have been amended after its passage) How is that for just playing both sides.

3) Ronald Reagan voted for FDR four times. Passed tax cuts and then reversed them the following year calling them revenue enhancements.

4) Kennedy cut a deal in Laos after running to the right of Nixon on Communism.

5) Nixon ran on ending the war "peace with honor" and then spread the war into cambodia, laos etc.

6) Carter put human rights as a feature of his foreign policy. Backed the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia where 750,000 died.

7) Clinton credited for welfare overhaul, secretly signed kicking and screaming. Ran as a new democrat tried to pass universal healthcare.

8) Bush 41 "read my lips" no new taxes. Oops new taxes. Urged the Iraqi revolt than left the country. Vowed to carry on Reaganism changed to new World order.

9) Bush 43 Gay marriage, states issue, now constitutional amendment. We are going to have everybody put their cards on the table and have a yes or no vote and then not submit the resolution to the vote. Anti U.N. now pro U.N.

Every politician is a flip flopper. I would be very afraid of one who couldnt fact certain realities and not change their mind. Do you think it was bad that Jefferson overstepped executive power to buy most of the mid and northwest?


one huge point. he's not flip flopping with mayo and lettuce or boxers or briefs. he is unsure of whether terrorism is as big a problem as bush says it is or not. he's unsure of issues concerning national defense. he cant even make up his mind if the terrorists have or could acquire nuclear weapons or not. that should scare anyone against voting for him. btw - most of the flip floppin took place over the last 6 months. i wonder what his position will be by the election? a president kerry would be great. every 6 months he re-evaluates and changes what he stands for and against.

I think that keeping the war on terror primarily based on intelligence and law-enforcement makes a heck of a lot opf sense. Full scale military invasions should be based on a real need--not spurious reasoning.

thats right in step with the u.n. and the fornicator in chiefs stance. it helped bring us 9/11.

one huge point. he's not flip flopping with mayo and lettuce or boxers or briefs. he is unsure of whether terrorism is as big a problem as bush says it is or not. he's unsure of issues concerning national defense. he cant even make up his mind if the terrorists have or could acquire nuclear weapons or not. that should scare anyone against voting for him. btw - most of the flip floppin took place over the last 6 months. i wonder what his position will be by the election? a president kerry would be great. every 6 months he re-evaluates and changes what he stands for and against.


Please Bill I beg or you to just read before you spout. I specifically chose some of the most monumental decisions ever faced by any leader of our free world precisely to confound your argument that these were somehow minor issues.

Louisiana Purchase, slavery, fighting or not fighting communism, taxation, going from a new deal democrat to conservative republicanism. These are not Boxers or Briefs and your assertion has relegated you to absurdity.

thats right in step with the u.n. and the fornicator in chiefs stance. it helped bring us 9/11.
Doesn't seem that Bushs war has done much to stop it--only legitimize AlQueda and gain them many new converts.

Please Bill I beg or you to just read before you spout. I specifically chose some of the most monumental decisions ever faced by any leader of our free world precisely to confound your argument that these were somehow minor issues.

Louisiana Purchase, slavery, fighting or not fighting communism, taxation, going from a new deal democrat to conservative republicanism. These are not Boxers or Briefs and your assertion has relegated you to absurdity.

all monumental. none, with maybe the exception of fighting communism or not, were AS monumental as the one we face now and thats the position we're in. some of you refuse to believe it or want to ignore it to make political gain on issues that will determine what the world will look like in the next 100 years and our position in it. youre not doing the country any favors.

all monumental. none, with maybe the exception of fighting communism or not, were AS monumental as the one we face now and thats the position we're in. some of you refuse to believe it or want to ignore it to make political gain on issues that will determine what the world will look like in the next 100 years and our position in it. youre not doing the country any favors.

You have now slipped beyond absurdity.

Slavery the cause of the civil war that caused the death of 620,000 Americans.
The battle of Antetiem remains the bloodiest day in the history of the United States.
I know of no other issue that was so important that it split the country into two factions as war.


But the most important thing is that you are so in the tank that you can't even admit it that "EVERY" politician flip flops his positions and many times it is for the better when they do so. Would you have preferred Reagan remain a lifelong Democrat?

Doesn't seem that Bushs war has done much to stop it--only legitimize AlQueda and gain them many new converts.

what should we have done then after 9/11? laid low? hope they leave us alone?

many new converts? either they were radicals or they werent. besides, where does the 18,000 figure come from exactly? does the dnc have access to aq's role call every morning? fine, we'll have a better idea of who to kill.

i really dont know what you expect. the war, if by bush's war you mean iraq, is a little over a year old. good thing you didnt have to sit through ww1 or 2.

aq is legitimized by who? the extremists. its all the same. it already was legitimized and it was fight them now or fight them later.

You have now slipped beyond absurdity.

Slavery the cause of the civil war that caused the death of 620,000 Americans.
The battle of Antetiem remains the bloodiest day in the history of the United States.
I know of no other issue that was so important that it split the country into two factions as war.


But the most important thing is that you are so in the tank that you can't even admit it that "EVERY" politician flip flops his positions and many times it is for the better when they do so. Would you have preferred Reagan remain a lifelong Democrat?

there are flip flops, and there are glaring lapses in sound judgement. you know what kerry's is but you wont admit that. states rights was the cause of the civil war by the way.

there are flip flops, and there are glaring lapses in sound judgement. you know what kerry's is but you wont admit that. states rights was the cause of the civil war by the way.

Has the scar from your lobotomy healed as of yet or do you just comb over the scar?

From Alexander Stephens vice president of the confederacy in his "cornerstone" speech.

"One good and wise feature in our new or revised Constitution is, that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so far as the Confederate legislative halls are concerned. On this subject, from which sprung the immediate cause of our late troubles and threatened dangers,"

I suppose you know more than the then Vice president of the confederacy.

Has the scar from your lobotomy healed as of yet or do you just comb over the scar?

From Alexander Stephens vice president of the confederacy in his "cornerstone" speech.

"One good and wise feature in our new or revised Constitution is, that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so far as the Confederate legislative halls are concerned. On this subject, from which sprung the immediate cause of our late troubles and threatened dangers,"

I suppose you know more than the then Vice president of the confederacy.


believe what you want. youre the one who supposedly doesnt trust anything about government. slavery was a states rights issue and just one of many reasons for the war. as a history buff, youre not well up on the civil war.


Causes of the Civil War

"Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA

"Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.
We must, therefore, look beyond the institution of slavery for the fundamental issues which dominated and inspired all classes of the contending sections. It is not difficult to find them."

I'm not siding with either in this discussion. I'm just tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to so many federal/state/local elections. Face it, we have two losers of different breeds wanting the most powerful position in the world, neither of which I trust in said position. And no, I'm NOT voting for Nader! :confused: LOL

Still, I love the freedom to vote. I'm just whining about the choices...AGAIN.

I love my country but fear my government.

I'm not siding with either in this discussion. I'm just tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to so many federal/state/local elections. Face it, we have two losers of different breeds wanting the most powerful position in the world, neither of which I trust in said position. And no, I'm NOT voting for Nader! :confused: LOL

Still, I love the freedom to vote. I'm just whining about the choices...AGAIN.

I love my country but fear my government.
I hear you. It is frustrating. I'm not crazy about Nader either. If this is the best 3rd party candidate they can come up with then God help us.

believe what you want. youre the one who supposedly doesnt trust anything about government. slavery was a states rights issue and just one of many reasons for the war. as a history buff, youre not well up on the civil war.

Actually I have studied for my thesis for the past two years. You might do well to go through some of this yourself. Try Morgan, McPherson, Potter's "Impending Crisis", Genovese, Wood. Read the Richmond papers of the time, the Atlanta journals, and those from Mississippi. Read from professorial stalwarts of this age like Harris here at N.C. State and read the speeches from Davis, Stephens and the southern congress. Go through the documents and read the writ of secession from places like Louisiana and South Carolina listen to the speech given on the convention floors, read the memoirs from confederate officers. Go to the North and pour over the documents from the likes of Seward and Lincoln's cabinet. Read his letters. Go to Virginia and see how they played both sides to see what Lincoln would do. Read the history of Kentucky, who joined the confederacy after the civil war. Read about Bleeding Kansas, the railroad issue with Douglas, popular sovereignty. Read Justice Taney Dred Scott decision. Pour over biographies of John Brown and how slave owners reacted. Try the psychological aspects of southern of evil to greater good the deception of "paternalism" and the world the slaves made in "Roll Jordan Roll." NO other issue was to break the Union. The South wanted not just slavery, they required the expansion of slavery, they required a slave empire that reached from the Mason Dixon Line with its heart at Cuba touching the Brazillian border. That is why the South left the union. States rights is pure revisionism like saying the North fought to free the slaves. They fought for Union.

What you have proven is what I already suspected you are beneath anyone who wishes to engage in any sort of intellectual debate. Good Day.

Actually I have studied for my thesis for the past two years. You might do well to go through some of this yourself. Try Morgan, McPherson, Potter's "Impending Crisis", Genovese, Wood. Read the Richmond papers of the time, the Atlanta journals, and those from Mississippi. Read from professorial stalwarts of this age like Harris here at N.C. State and read the speeches from Davis, Stephens and the southern congress. Go through the documents and read the writ of secession from places like Louisiana and South Carolina listen to the speech given on the convention floors, read the memoirs from confederate officers. Go to the North and pour over the documents from the likes of Seward and Lincoln's cabinet. Read his letters. Go to Virginia and see how they played both sides to see what Lincoln would do. Read the history of Kentucky, who joined the confederacy after the civil war. Read about Bleeding Kansas, the railroad issue with Douglas, popular sovereignty. Read Justice Taney Dred Scott decision. Pour over biographies of John Brown and how slave owners reacted. Try the psychological aspects of southern of evil to greater good the deception of "paternalism" and the world the slaves made in "Roll Jordan Roll." NO other issue was to break the Union. The South wanted not just slavery, they required the expansion of slavery, they required a slave empire that reached from the Mason Dixon Line with its heart at Cuba touching the Brazillian border. That is why the South left the union. States rights is pure revisionism like saying the North fought to free the slaves. They fought for Union.

What you have proven is what I already suspected you are beneath anyone who wishes to engage in any sort of intellectual debate. Good Day.


you get a D. the south wanted to seceed like i said due to states rights. slavery was ONE of them. not the sole cause of the war.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warorigin.htm

apparently you believed you knew all there was to know about the civil war and its causes. i guess we can thank public education for that and not place all the blame at your feet.

you get a D. the south wanted to seceed like i said due to states rights. slavery was ONE of them. not the sole cause of the war.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warorigin.htm

apparently you believed you knew all there was to know about the civil war and its causes. i guess we can thank public education for that and not place all the blame at your feet.

You are unworthy of debate.

You are unworthy of debate.

dont have time to bone up on it, huh? papers due, clocks tickin.

and i didnt mean to put a ding in your fragile civil war understanding.

dont have time to bone up on it, huh? papers due, clocks tickin.

You are beneath debate.

isn't it possible that terrorism is a major threat, but the bushies have still exaggerated that threat even higher than it is for their own political purposes? the real world is not an either/or proposition, as much as the bushies, and it appears, bill, would like to believe.

isn't it possible that terrorism is a major threat, but the bushies have still exaggerated that threat even higher than it is for their own political purposes? the real world is not an either/or proposition, as much as the bushies, and it appears, bill, would like to believe.

the flipper said the greatest threat we face today is a nuclear attack. on a 1 - 10 scale where do you put that? a 4?

isn't it possible that terrorism is a major threat, but the bushies have still exaggerated that threat even higher than it is for their own political purposes? the real world is not an either/or proposition, as much as the bushies, and it appears, bill, would like to believe.

That is the belief of novelist and essayist E.L. Doctorow. He has written an essay about this belief. It hinges on the "void" of fear without the specter of the Cold War. Filled nicely by fears of the faceless threat of terrorism.

the flipper said the greatest threat we face today is a nuclear attack. on a 1 - 10 scale where do you put that? a 4?

isn't that kind of obvious? doesn't mean it's imminent, or we have to be subjected to "duck and cover" pronouncements from the government all the time.

isn't that kind of obvious? doesn't mean it's imminent, or we have to be subjected to "duck and cover" pronouncements from the government all the time.

i must really live in the sticks. i havent heard of any duck and cover announcements. i do however think its smart for them to pass on any credible information they can release without hurting national security. it puts people on alert and heightens awareness, not bad things. the safety of the country is first and foremost. besides, if they had info and didnt release it and something happened, anything, the libby shrill would deafen those of us who survived.

I'll put it as a "10".
When he talks of nuclear attack, he's not talking about ICBMs.
If you think that two plane crashes in NY were bad, think of a 10 kiloton device going off in downtown NYC. Think of 30,000 dead and lower Manhatten closed down.
I'd call that the #1 problem.

I'll put it as a "10".
When he talks of nuclear attack, he's not talking about ICBMs.
If you think that two plane crashes in NY were bad, think of a 10 kiloton device going off in downtown NYC. Think of 30,000 dead and lower Manhatten closed down.
I'd call that the #1 problem.


but 6 months ago he said the terrorist threat was blown out of proportion. thats the point. hes wishy washy and its not good to have a waffler in charge of national security especially when we're talking about NUKES! and pardon me, but NUKES arent a problem for the courts to solve or for some policeman to be in charge of stopping which was/is/might be kerrys stance.

he didn't say it was "blown out of proportion". that's what you're doing with his words. he said that he believed the bush administration was exaggerating the existing threat. and i agree with him.

which is not to say that the threat doesn't exist. but what has bush done to lower the chances that a dirty bomb could be smuggled in through our ports, or that opium sales profits aren't funding more terrorism? nothing. afghanistan is a big success story in their book.

he didn't say it was "blown out of proportion". that's what you're doing with his words. he said that he believed the bush administration was exaggerating the existing threat. and i agree with him.

which is not to say that the threat doesn't exist. but what has bush done to lower the chances that a dirty bomb could be smuggled in through our ports, or that opium sales profits aren't funding more terrorism? nothing. afghanistan is a big success story in their book.


That success story saw 11 workers killed this morning with more wounded.

"First order than Justice"

he didn't say it was "blown out of proportion". that's what you're doing with his words. he said that he believed the bush administration was exaggerating the existing threat. and i agree with him.

which is not to say that the threat doesn't exist. but what has bush done to lower the chances that a dirty bomb could be smuggled in through our ports, or that opium sales profits aren't funding more terrorism? nothing. afghanistan is a big success story in their book.


explain to me how you exaggerate the threat of a nuclear weapon. youre mincing words to support yor point.

we've been under the threat of a nuclear weapon since the '50's. but we don't need to hear daily warnings of the "smoking mushroom cloud" that american cities will become, or the "imminent threat" posed by some country that is about as threatening as a declawed 20 year old cat, meanwhile, ignoring and allowing the potential threat from nuclear states such as n. korea or pakistan to grow, or the problem of nukes from the former soviet states falling into the wrong hands. these are the problems that we should be taking steps to resolve and eliminate, not embarking on foolhardy plans about changing the entire region of the middle east. what could those hundreds of billions done in these other areas that would have actually done something about ther nuclear threat?

i'm not mincing anything, you're just deliberately distorting the man's words to fuel your pathetic obsession.