Convince me to vote for Kerry

[Arrian]

1993 WTC bombing. The one in the midwest that turned out to be a home-grown wacko. That's two...

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

I'm presuming we're only really concerned with terrorist attacks from radical Islamic groups. So, let's see....225 years of nationhood before 9-11 and one terrorist attack. Yep, I can see how they would be a weekly occurance without Bush based on that precendent!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


I think the liberals in the US today are socialists in the main, true.

I just never thought you were a socialist, Mr. Fun. That is why I question why you are proud to be a liberal.

Che is ignorant about liberalism as well, the way he spews out hateful labels such as "spineless" but you are WORSE in your ignorance about liberalism.


I am not a socialist -- I am a moderate liberal (I don't consider myself absolutely centrist, but to the left of centrism).

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm presuming we're only really concerned with terrorist attacks from radical Islamic groups. So, let's see....225 years of nationhood before 9-11 and one terrorist attack. Yep, I can see how they would be a weekly occurance without Bush based on that precendent!

The point is that there would have been more attacks after 9-11 but the FBI was able to foil them.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by The diplomat


The point is that there would have been more attacks after 9-11 but the FBI was able to foil them.

And they wouldn't be able to if anyone else was president? They never foiled any attacks before 9-11?

[Moral Hazard]

In reply to original question:

Even if you were 18 you live in Idaho, which will go to Bush. So feel free to vote third party.

The rest of it is just a bunch of labelling, being pragmatic isn't spineless and a mixed market is wholly consistant since even the most hardcore market worshipper admits that it does fail at times.

[Wiglaf]

It is so funny how people's reasons for voting against Kerry are "he's not Bush." One of the main reasons presented (esp by that whiney Firefly guy, who wrote an excessively emotional disseration on the matter) is the Iraq war. And yet Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and only decries the war now because he was losing to Dean in the primaries.

I'd rather have a decisive president who wont' take any crap, rather than an indecisive panderer. I know what Bush would do if there's another 9/11, he'd be aggressive and NO terrorist nation would **** around with us, see Libya turning over their WMDs. But Kerry? Who knows

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki
How many terrorist attacks were there on American soil before 9-11?

Actually there were quite a few. All but one of them, however, were homegrown terrorists (unless Puerto Ricans are considered foreigners). Since 9/11 there have been three high profile terrorist attacks in the U.S. Again, all were homegrown (the sniper, the anthax mailer, and the smilie bomber).

We have only been attacked twice by foreign terrorists on our soil, so we have no accurate measure to see how good Bush has done. Under Clinton, at least one major terrorist attack was foiled, quite by accident, the millenium plot. IIRC, there have been other plots that were uncovered, but I don't recall them.

Since Bush has been pres, as far as we know (which admittedly could be a great deal), there have been no further attempts to attack us at home. This could be because he has disrupted them, as may be the case with the Lakawana, NY "cell" (who may well also have been just some unlucky pilgrams), the University of South Florida "cell" (AFAIK, no charges have yet been brought, and previous attempts to bring charges against the "ringleader" were dismissed with derission by a Federal judge in the 90s). It is reasonable to believe that by shutting down the airlines, further hijack-attacks were stopped (at least two in following days are known to have been planned).

But we don't know what has or hasn't happened in the shadows. Bush can neither be creditted nor be called lucky as far as no attacks occuring since 9/11. We simply do not have the data to make an informed choice.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, and only decries the war now because he was losing to Dean in the primaries.

No he didn't. On Frontline last week, they showed an excerpt of Kerry's speach before voting to authorize the use of force. It was clear that he was voting to authorize force to use as a lever against Hussein to allow the inspectors into Iraq, and not simply to allow the President to invade willy-nilly. That's what he said then. That's what he says now. He didn't change his tune because of Dean.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The point is that there would have been more attacks after 9-11 but the FBI was able to foil them.

You have no evidence on which to base that assertion.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I know what Bush would do if there's another 9/11...

But wouldn't that be a sign that he's failed?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Richelieu
But wouldn't that be a sign that he's failed?

To be fair, no. He should have stopped 9/11, but we can't assume that the next time will be so obvious and leave so many clues lying all over the place.

[Wiglaf]

No he didn't. On Frontline last week, they showed an excerpt of Kerry's speach before voting to authorize the use of force. It was clear that he was voting to authorize force to use as a lever against Hussein to allow the inspectors into Iraq, and not simply to allow the President to invade willy-nilly. That's what he said then. That's what he says now. He didn't change his tune because of Dean.

Huh? He said "I'm giving the President the power to invade this country, and I support this power, but only to scare Saddam?" If so he's a flaming moron.

P.S. OH BY THE WAY Kerry doesn't deny that Saddam should've been taken out. He just thinks we should've done it better, ie more troops, more peace after the war, etc, which is real easy to say now.

What a crappy candidate. At least Dean stood for something, before he became the dentist-politician-pawn of DNC that he is now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
He said "I'm giving the President the power to invade this country, and I support this power, but only to scare Saddam?" If so he's a flaming moron.

Check your facts, Wiggie. He said he was authorizing the use of force in order to force Hussein into readmitting the inspectors, and that he hoped that the President would use the power wisely and build a coalition with our allies and invade only if and when it was necessary. I believe you can't give the Pres conditional authority to use force. It's an all or nothing scenario.

[Wiglaf]

I believe you can't give the Pres conditional authority to use force. It's an all or nothing scenario.

So do I. So Kerry's bull****ting around the issue is confusing, convenient, and still not convincing.

He wanted the coalition. Well, we got one in Gulf War I and he voted against it. We've got one now - albeit a small one militarily - and he insults it. Whatever.

"Only when necessary"? In a post 9/11 world, a fundamentalist islamic nation state advocating terrorism in violation of dozens of international laws and stalling inspectors AND not telling us what the **** happened to the nerve gas they used in the 90's SURE AS SEEMS NECESSARY TO ME, check your facts.