Kerry on homeland security

Kerry on homeland security
: John Kerry talks about terrorism and homeland security:

“And as we protect America from danger at home – we will protect this country from danger abroad. I do not believe George Bush has done too much in the war on terror. I believe he’s done too little. He has failed to maintain our post-9/11 global coalition, left our troops unprotected, and thought too little about the challenges we face. As President, I will use every tool at our disposal — not only a strong military, but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds — to fight the war on terror.”

Well, it’s a start… But I’d still rather hear the firm conviction of Tony Blair.

“This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long,” he said.

What he said.

  • Ebb Tide

    John Kerry, 2/27/04
    This war isn’t just a manhunt, a checklist of names from a deck of cards. In it, we do not face just one man or one terrorist group. We face a global jihadist movement of many groups, from different sources, with separate agendas, but all committed to assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the globe.
    As CIA Director George Tenet recently testified: “They are not all creatures of bin Laden, and so their fate is not tied to his. They have autonomous leadership, they pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks.”
    At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.
    The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.
    Kerry’s recent Foreign Policy speech, where he speaks about the Global War on Terror,

  • Reid

    Synopsis of Kerry’s speech – let’s pretend 9-11 never happened and go back to empty threats and flaccid responses until we get hit with another big attack.

  • >”This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance
    In other words, shoot first and then think about if it’s the right thing to do or if you’re aiming at the right target.

  • hey

    kerry believes that terrorism is a law enforcement manner, not a matter for the militar
    he is likely to employ the same people that led to clinton agonizing over whether to attack osama and then deciding to try and avoid casualties amongst the enemy
    and he has previously stated that he wanted to essentially eliminate the CIA (ok 30 years ago… but Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush weren’t advocating the removal of the CIA.. hell Rumsfeld was defense secretary 30 years ago!)
    you can try and convince yourself that kerry is serious on national security, but remember that his definition of “misled” is that bush did what he said he was going to do, when kerry thought that he was just bluffing
    so exactly which presidential candidate is dumb????

  • daudder

    you can’t declare war on a concept…you declare it on a country, an organization or a person…otherwise you can never know if you are winning.
    blairs words are strong, but they co9uld rationalize all sorts of actions, even against ones own people. at some point, don’t you have to know whether you have gone to far…

  • Anonymous
    For some reason, my earlier attempt at linking to his speech didn’t work, I tired it just now and it was a dead link, sorry about that, you’ll have to cut and paste!
    Kerry does say he will use the military, he even says he will increase the size of the military!
    “The next President must ensure that our forces are structured for maximum effectiveness and provided with all that they need to succeed in their missions. We must better prepare our forces for post-conflict operations and the task of building stability by adding more engineers, military police, psychological warfare personnel, and civil affairs teams.
    And to replenish our overextended military, as President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops, a temporary increase likely to last the remainder of the decade.”

  • Dinosaur

    I prefer the eloquence of George W Bush, if I could find any. Parliamentary experience has always been good for improved speaking. Bush (Rove) won’t even do a press conference. Did I hear the “blame Clinton” mantra above? It sounds like victory.

  • Joe Peden

    Kerry is an airhead, just like Dean. As an airhead, now he seeks to prove it.

  • So he wants to add another 2 divisions worth of Soldiers to the Army? Where the hell does he intend to put them? Between base closures and manpower drawdowns there just isn’t the room to put that many Soldiers. Recruiting is just now meeting thier goals. Either he’s going to have to increase benefits to those currently in so they don’t leave, or he’ll have to increase the benefits to those coming in so more will want to join.
    What does Kerry intend for these 40k Soldiers to do? Will they be used to alleviate the stress put onto the Reserves? Will they be another two divisions used in the deployment rotation so the current divisions aren’t sent overseas so often? Will they be a new overseas element in a former Eastern Bloc country like Poland? Or will they be some sort of new “peacekeeping” force?
    Until John Kerry can even begin to flesh out what the role of these new Soldiers will be, let alone explain how he’ll help the Army find these Soldiers or where they’ll be stationed, I’m going to have to call this a “So I Can Look Tough On Terrorism And Not A Pacifistic Hippy” broken-on-Oath-Of-Office-Plus-One promise.

  • Reid

    SSG B – Forget it. It’s all facade. Kerry doesn’t intend to do any of these things. Kerry is of the ilk that believes that the best way to confront one’s enemies is to disarm so that they won’t feel threatened. Then everyone will be nice to each other.
    His entire legislative career confirms that one of his first actions will be to move to gut the military and present a toothless, hectoring self-righteousness to our enemies (that’ll show ’em!) as our only defense.

  • Paul Branin

    At this point it doesn’t matter what Kerry says. His positions are based on shortsighted political expediency and nothing else, as is abundantly clear from his record. He is shamelessly opportunistic, untrustworthy, and is afflicted with the deadly narcissism that is so rampant among the left.
    This is exactly what we don’t need when confronting enemies who possess a single-minded determination to do us harm. Bush may not be eloquent like Tony Blair, but his convictions and resolve are undeniable, and his policies vis a vis the war are proving to be highly effective.
    A John Kerry presidency would be a disaster. There

  • Is it really possible to be a “right-wing troll” in a forum which really doesn’t have an absolute side? I’ve found Buzzmachine to be a pretty even and moderate site on the whole. Mr. Jarvis is capable of being further left of me on some issues (I say again, please curtail the “Stern is being duct-taped by Michael Powell thing”; it’s lame), but he’s not shrill and he usually makes a point worth thinking about.
    That being said, I don’t think one can call Kerry’s speech a “start”. As Reid said before his entire (not really entire but overwhelming majority of his career) has been spent making an effort to gut or under equip the military. He has repeatedly spoke about subverting US soverignity to foreign interests. Kerry is so far behind the “starting line” on national security interests he’d have to personally lead a team of Spec-Ops into the Pashtun areas of Pakistan, find Bin Laden’s spider hole, and drag him out at knife point just to get to the “starting line”.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    [P]lease curtail the “Stern is being duct-taped by Michael Powell thing”….

    Curtail it? Hell, put it on pay per view!
    I’d pay money to see it.

  • No

    Gee, ‘what he said’ sounds a lot like what Bush said. Kerry’s record? Cut, cut, cut the military ‘baby killers’ budgets and let the UN police force (wha???) do the dirty work of defending us. Just like Bosnia was protected by the UN? Great. Nice try…I knew JFK and you’re no JFK, Kerry. Your inner child is calling…he needs a bottle.

  • No

    …and I should have added, as a Bostonian, that the ultra-left Boston Globe has been eviscerating Kerry on a daily basis…not just during this election cycle, but every time he runs! He’s seen as an opportunistic phony. He is nearly universally loathed among both the Globe and Herald reporters and columnists…and this is in the most Democratic city in the union. They know him best.
    Maybe this is too inside Boston politics, but all that Bush would have to do to win in a landslide is to play the tapes of JFK’s roasting by the reigning Dems (including Teddy Kennedy) from Billy Bulger’s annual St Patrick’s Day breakfast in Southie. He was the butt of the breakfast every year. Wicked stuff from all about his phoniness that has left JFK stammering and humiliated each time he finally stumbles to defend himself at the podium. This went on for twenty years. The flop sweat was fabulous. He could have stayed away from Bulger’s roast, of course, but it’s a Democratic affair and no senator has ever been absent without absorbing a terrific beating from press and pols alike. Our frequent Republican governors always show up and take their lumps (and are often quite funny in their barbed rejoinders) especially our Carrot Topped former governor–earning them bravery points among the electorate. Hence their unexpected (re)elections.

  • James Stephenson

    I also like how he talks about there not being enough money for the Army in Iraq. After he voted against giving them the money.
    Man how can any of you supporting Kerry keep up with his current positions. But I guess that is the French way of doing politics.