shows how cowardly they are. you'd think theyd be all for bush since 'the media' keeps telling us hes the reason the terrorists are all fired up(in truth theyve been fired up since the 70s, bush jr has just been the first to actually DO SOMETHING about it, whether the right or the wrong way, thats the way our nation works, if its the wrong way, yes, it may be a huge mistake that cost lives, but what doesnt cost lives? your as likely to die in a car accident as on the battlefield if you join the army. when we make mistakes, we correct them, if bush jrs way isnt the right way to win it, the next guy will have his shot at it, and well keep trying til its done)but they want kerry cause he keeps saying hes going to pull completely out leaving the terrorists to regroup(battle of britain anyone? remember, the only reason britain did not fall was because hitler gave the RAF a HUGE break by bombing cities instead of the airfields and radar towers). quite obviously if they are going so far as to publicly admit they want kerry, bush must be doing one hell of a job destroying them! make no mistake, we are slowly winning this 'war on terror' as its called, its going to take a long time for sure, but we will win. that is how america works, were winners no matter the cost. ignore the vocal minority and you realise how many people actually agree with whats happening. 9 times out of 10 the people against the war entirely have no fricking clue what theyre talking about.

oh and before anyone goes spouting off how "you dont know what war is like you violence-hungry teenager". yes actually i do, not directly of course, because im not in the military(yet, though i will/would gladly serve should i be needed that urgently), but I have been studying military history since i was 12, and i made no effort to skip the letters home and the gruesome pictures of the war. i KNOW war is hell. thats specifically why we must stop it from coming here by fighting it over there.

I'm not sure I understand the cowardise thing, what do you want from them? To me it sounds like you want them to openly go to war or something, that wouldn't be brave that would be stupid; men on camels against planes and and laser guided missiles?

If we wanted to we could prevent the terror from spreading by allowing free trade. It's so much easier for Osama and all his followers to convince more people to join their cause if the people they are trying to convine are starved and poor. I'd like the war on terror to more like that in stead of what we are doing.

I was still for the war in Irak, I hate war but this time it seemed there was no other way. If we hadn't interfered the population would have suffered eternally, at least now they have a chance to create a somewhat better country.

I would still vote for kerry . I still dont like bush .
weird isn't it , that just the tape with his pictures on where he served the army has gone missing or whatever .

yeah they will, but I still stand by what I wrote at least now there is a chance for it to get better.

The CIA may not have planted the roots of Wahabism, but they've done an awful good job of making sure that it's had fertile ground to grow in.  If we're going to talk about the history of Wahabism, we should also talk about the history of US intervention in the region, starting from our government propping up murderous dictator Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. He's a guy that matched Saddam Hussein decades ago in the field of  "my secret police abduct my citizens and torture them to death on a lark".  When he was finally forced out, the Iranian people remembered our government's support of that slimeball and were ripe for being conned by the hardline fundamentalist Islamic Ayatollahs. Cause and effect works. Wahabism didn't spring up in a vacuum, outside factors contributed to its growth. The foaming-at-the-mouth mullahs get a lot more street cred when they can point to piles of civilians killed by weapons purchased from the US. Personally, this just smacks of more "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" nonsense. If "Al Qaeda" really wanted someone besides Bush as president in this country, why exactly would such a supposedly cagey and inscrutible organization allow that information to get out, practically ensuring that their "softer" choice would never make it? For that matter, what exactly would be the point in any high-ranking Al Qaeda member saying something like that? Our "intelligence" community can't even figure out where these guys are, but supposedly they know who they want as president of the US? Which are they, devilishly clever or self-destructively stupid?

Why use all the above? A nice truck carrying the bomb would be all it takes....think...who needs millions in tech when it can be done by simpler methods?

   

The wonderful and reliable source known as the Washington Times gives us this: If you vote anyone but Bush, THE TERRORISTS WIN!!! Never mind the fact the Kerry and Edwards promised to go HARDER on terrorists in their platform at the convention. All that matters is, since it's from a major pro-Bush newspaper, it MUST be true!

Contrary to wingnut belief, Democrats want to see terrorism eradicated off the face of the earth, too - not just Zell and Joe, either. I used to think that Kerry-Edwards's Bush-like "tough stance" on terrorism was simply to satisfy mainstream voters concerned about national security, the ONLY category where Bush remains high. At the convention, it looks like they meant it.

And here I was thinking that stance would render them immune to such bullshit like this. Nope, they STILL try to smear Kerry as weak, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Look, both candidates' records are about evenly matched when it came to national security. Bush proposed, Kerry approved. Now, they're even matching on rhetoric.

Fact is, what the terrorists think don't matter a HOOT. It weill be what AMERICANS think, based on their own views on foreign AND domestic policy, when Election day comes. Speaking of American voters, this article even goes as far as to imply that Kerry-voters are FOR THE TERRORISTS! I mean, if that is NOT utterly disgusting.... (My stomach churns at this moment... I need a vomit icon...)

Phoenix... tsk tsk... I had no idea you would stoop this LOW.

Heh, actually I have no intention of voting for either of them. Or Nader for that matter. They're all part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Bush, well, it doesn't take balls to push a button, nor does it take balls to sit in an air-conditioned office behind Secret Service and Marine guards and say "Bring it on!" while people thousands of miles away are the ones it'll get brought on. Kerry's busy trying to match Bush word for word with the "war president" rhetoric and freely admits that he still would have voted in favor of the war even though none of the reasons originally given for said war have panned out. Nader's busy pulling in contributions from the same kind of corporate slime that the other two parties cozy up to. And none of it changes the fact that while Wahabism may continue to grow in the Middle East no matter what the US's policy approach, continuing the same policies are definitley not going to stop it and most likely will encourage it.


The only people legitimately helping the terrorists are those that give them financial, material or military support. "Indirectly" is really fudging things. I refuse to accept the ridiculous assertion that someone here in the US protesting American policy in the region is even remotely responsible for terrorism. No one here says "capitulate". No one here says "Let's surrender and become an Islamic republic.". The suggestion is to stop living up to the negative image. Too often it seems that our government hears the US being called "the Great Satan" and responds by saying, "Oh yeah? We'll show you Satan!". It is possible to be tough and strong without being a bully. Right now all I see is a lot of chest-thumping (from both sides of the aisle), a lot of high-tech firepower being brought to bear on two horribly technologically inferior nations, and not a single thought to the fact that our actions are probably doing more to recruit for Al Qaeda than anything else.


And guess what Bush (or Kerry for that matter) is going to do about it? Jack and squat. Almost all, if not all, of the hijackers responsible for 9/11 were Saudi nationals, from organizations with ties to the Saudi government. So we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. You do the math. Besides, if you're worried about the US being innundated with wild-eyed fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, you'd better not read stories like this one. We've all ready got a good crop of domestic terrorists, and I'm not talking about the ELF or their like, they just damage property, I'm talking about ones that have all ready been caught trying to make or procure their own WMD, or actually have been caught about to use it against American civilians. Doubt you'll see that one on FOX News any time soon.

Those swiftboat vets are a crock of bull. They never actually served on John Kerry's boat, you know that? Meanwhile, those who actually served WITH Kerry went to praise him at the Democratic Convention! (Were invited! Whatever...)

John McCain - "Swiftboat veterans = dishonest, dishonerable; Bush must repudiate them"

If you can't believe McCain, who can you believe? Hell, even John O'Neill, who spearheaded this, is retracting his statements.

Meanwhile, the American public, influenced by a subservient press, STILL trusts Mr. AWOL (I'm sorry, "Honorably Discharged") from the Texas Air National Guard on national security. There's a REASON Kerry pumps his Vietnam record.

On "flip-flops" - Oh, please. The biggest flip-flopper so far has been George W. Bush himself. First a war president, then a peace president, then a war president again. First, his primary concern was Osama and Al-Qaeda, then it wasn't. First he's against nation-building, then he's all for it! At least MY candidate (People with good memory will recall who he is) was consistent on his position on the war.

The point is, the fact that the Kerry-Edwards utterly CRUSHED the anti-war platform proposals shows that they DO want to appear tough on terrorists.  Maybe it's an election thing, but I doubt that they would adopt positions that they so utterly crushed beforehand. Then again, it's probably just my perception that Kerry will end up not being different from Bush when it comes to the war. But calling Kerry "weak on terror", something that you can probably say about MY candidate, is a crock of shit.

Speaking of flip-flops, did you know that after the bombing in Spain, Al-Qaeda stated that they wanted Bush to LOSE? I cannot recall an instance where the left-blogosphere ran with THAT instance - they just said "Bush is in deep trouble".

Seriously - if regurgitating Republican talking points (Often conjured up by Rove, Scaife, etc., or in the case of the Washington Times, MOON) is your idea of "truth", I don't know if I could have respect for your arguments as I did in the past.