Kerry calls terrorism a nuisance?

[Pollwatch99]

Posted on the Drudgereport, anybody have more details?

"In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended"

[Pollwatch99]

Terrorism is no more than a nuisance right now...

Please tell Kerry/Edwards to keep publically announcing this.  Sorry Gov; have strong feelings do not agree

[Pollwatch99]

He is correct, like it or not, terrorism can never be ended. Anyone who thinks it can be universally wiped out is one naive fool.

Wrong on state sanctioned terrorism( like Afgan), that can be defeated.

Right on non-state sanctioned terrorism.

There is a difference.

[Pollwatch99]

Kerry has alluded before that you fight terrorism with police action.  Bush believed you use the miltary to wipe out state sanctioned terrorism. Kerry hides his views, Bush doesn't.  Look at this board, splitting between republicans and democrats.

Here is the whole point; say what you believe so Americans can cast a vote based on your true beliefs.  It's about not running an honest campaign for office.  Mark my words, the republicans will hit really hard on this now and it's merited.   

[Pollwatch99]

Kerry has alluded before that you fight terrorism with police action.  Bush believed you use the miltary to wipe out state sanctioned terrorism. Kerry hides his views, Bush doesn't.  Look at this board, splitting between republicans and democrats.

Perhaps that will be useful if there ever is any State terrorism.

Wow, wouldn't you agree than the Taliban in Afgan allowing terrorism training camps is the classic example?

[Pollwatch99]

In terms of Mr. Gore.  Given his behavior since 2000, one has to be thankful he wasn't the President.  Did Nixon behave this way after losing a close election to Kennedy?  No, and Gore gets no excuse for his significant failures to show dignity and stateman's

[Pollwatch99]

Posted on the Drudgereport, anybody have more details?

"In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended"

As far as I can tell, what Kerry means is not that America should regard terrorists as nothing more but a nuisance, but that Americans need to stop being scared out of their skin over terrorists and to get on with their lives.  He's saying that, while vigilance is needed, Americans need to calm down and stop letting their lives revolve around the fear of terrorism.  September 11, though the most successful terrorist attack on American soil, did not magically mark the start of terrorism as some people seem to think.

I personally see nothing wrong with this.  The whole point of terrorism is to make people scared stiff.  If we actively encourage people to be in such a state of mind, we'll essentially be doing the terrorists' work.  There's a difference between being complacent and being unafraid.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the people who continue to ignore everything I've said and continue to spout that the opinions of one or two Democrats obviously represent everybody.  Some people wonder why respectful discourse has left the board...

Is he really saying that?  Early in the election cycle Kerry talked about the way to fight terrorism is primarily as a police action.  When you equate it to other items such as prostution, you are suggesting that you use different resources (non-miltary) to address the issue.  You do not employ the military to respond to nuisance items but you certainly deploy police.  It is not this statement in isolation, it is his prior early campaign statements combined with this statement that makes this interesting and worthy of press scrunity. 

[Pollwatch99]

In terms of Mr. Gore.  Given his behavior since 2000, one has to be thankful he wasn't the President.  Did Nixon behave this way after losing a close election to Kennedy?  No, and Gore gets no excuse for his significant failures to show dignity and stateman's

Bush and Kerry behaved exactly alike in 2000, Bush just won the bluff - had a few more cards on his side: supreme court, media, etc.

Oh I agree fully Gore's behavior up until 2000 was fine, very dignified and presidental. Since 2000, it's been bad and a loss does not excuse it.

[Pollwatch99]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

Suggesting the US employed terrorism to win WWII is really an extreme view.