Monday, September 27, 2004

If the debate were scripted...

These might be some good lines:
"'President Bush has been suggesting that I would be soft on terrorism, or that the terrorists want me to win. But what the president says is not true- my record tells the truth.

When President Bush was playing tee-ball in West Texas I was growing up on the front lines of the war against communism- in West Berlin, just a stone's throw from the wall.

When President Bush was working on a losing campaign in Alabama, I was coming under fire in the Mekong Delta as a Naval Officer in Vietnam.

When he was being investigated for securities fraud in the 80s, I was shutting down the world's largest sponsor of international terrorism- the Bank of Credit and Commerce International- despite opposition from many powerful politicians in Washington.

When President Bush got a sweetheart deal on a baseball team I was pushing for an investigation of those Republican politicians who sold weapons to a sworn enemy of the United States- the government of Iran.

When President Bush was making Texas the most polluted state in America, I was voting for more than 4 trillion dollars in expanded defense funding.

When this president opposed a 9/11 commission and a Department of Homeland Security I was successfully fighting to get those institutions put into place. And now that we have virtually no protection of our chemical plants, when 98% of the containers shipping into our ports- including those from Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Sudan- are completely uninspected, when 1100 soldiers have died in a war that has served as the greatest recruiting tool al Qaida ever had, when the Taliban has started making gains in Afghanistan, when an anti-American government in Sudan has slaughtered 2 million Christians as our government looks on, when North Korea is testing nukes while the inspectors told us BEFORE the War in Iraq that there were no weapons there- President Bush is 'resolutely' leading us down the same failed path while I am offering hope for the future.

You can listen to soundbites or you can read between the lines- no terrorist would ever want this old sailor in the Oval Office.'"
This business of putting words in Kerry's mouth is fun.

5 comments:

Dustin said...

he saw the berlin wall and that shows he is not soft on terrorism how?
he was under fire in the mekong delta and that shows he is not soft on terrorism how?
he attacked a bank that was being used against communists and stumbled upon terrorist money (which was never talked about till now) and that shows he is not soft on terrorism how?
so then would kerry had invaded Lebanon or acted more like carter and forgoten about the hostages?
as far as rushing to completly overhaul the government in 4 monthes, without debate (which involves changing of opinion as the more information is gained), and as I recall the only people that voted against homeland security mr kerry holds in high reguard such as mr kennedy.
98% of shipping containers is a grossly inacurrate number but if you want to use 2003's numbers go for it.
we disagree in iraq so not even worth mentioning...
if we went into sudan we would have less allies then when we went into Iraq, nobody wants to touch it with a ten foot pole.
Clinton sold the north Koreans the nuke material, Bush has no say in the matter
proving more and more that reality doesn't connect with hard core democrats (or repbulicans) hope I never become either

Kendall said...

Of course not every line has to be a slamdunk.

Where were you in the 80's? I heard about BCCI and I wasn't near the newshound then that I am now. Since it was a success story it had its moment of fame and life moved on. The BCCI takedown did put Islamic charities on the radar as far as funneling money into terrorist groups were concerned. I suspect that many of the sources of what information we did have about bin Laden and friends during the Richard Clarke watch were developed as a result of the BCCI investigation.

Having so many troops tied down in an unnecessary war in Iraq certainly limits our options to help out militarily in other trouble spots but more than that it absorbs our limited pool of nation-building expertise. And this particular war has alienated us from Arabic states that could be really helpful in situations like Darfur.

Clinton sold nuclear material to North Korea? Check your source on this. North Korea mines its own uranium and got some from Russia back in the early days. The Clinton agreement was to supply a couple of LWR's but that never got past the planning stages.

Reality, what a concept! --Robin Williams

Carter said...

So, now I know the truth about Bush supporters. It's a case of the blind leading the blind (read: igorant or stupid). Because to accuse the past president (read: Clinton) of selling Nukes to an enemy (read: North Korea) and not back it up ... well. Where did you get that information Dustin. Mr. "I don't have a profile". Your misleading propaganda would be better read on Fox news. Otherwise show me some facts.

Facts? Well who needs them, we didn't need proof of WMD's to invade or justify.

Anonymous said...

Sorry guys I tought since you know so much on the report that you read the cox commitee's report which stated
"The U.S.-funded light water reactors in North Korea will accumulate plutonium in spent fuel at the rate of about 17,300 ounces per year, enough to produce 65 nuclear bombs a year."

sorry but I was in a bit of a hurry and thought that it was long enough without putting justification on every comment (there were many)
oh and I don't bother setting up profiles on the internet much better things to do with my time, although I should figure out what my password was so I don't have to post a Anonymous anymore. But thanks for a reminder of how polite extremists can be.

Kendall said...

I don't know whether your number is correct on the amount of plutonium generated by the the LWRs in question. The danger of plutonium extraction was certainly recognized under the Agreed Framework. It included full oversight and accountability by the IAEA such that the fuel was going to be watched very carefully. Furthermore, it mandated the dismantling of the other reactors North Korea had. North Korea could get the electrical power in needed but the capacity for plutonium production was to be significantly reduced. Needless to say, this all fell apart when the DPRK was forced to admit that it had been continuing a nuclear weapons program based on highly enriched uranium.

Given that the actual success that inspections had in suppressing Iraqi nuclear development it's too bad that we have failed to follow a policy leading to the presence of inspectors in the DPRK. The real deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons is when you have more to lose than gain by using them. The solution to the proliferation problem is to get these rogue nations developed to the point where they indeed have too much to lose.