The New Road

Kerry has the support of Hamas, Yassir Arafat, most of Europe, most of the UK and an opposing political analyst from Iran (from your link) who says:

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.

That is how the rest of the world sees John Kerry. All talk.

Which is fine in the beginning, when issues are being debated. Talk is good - sometimes productive. But when we have been attacked and see threats, we need to act.

"That is how the rest of the world sees John Kerry. All talk."

Could you specify a source for this?

Source: Jacqueline's opinion

Ok... So how is this:

"If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility"

All talk? What he is saying is, I believe, is that they are not a threat and not out of compliance at the moment, or they are amenable to talking on an international level to work out a nuclear deal. Right or wrong, doesn't matter. I don't understand what's the problem with talking with them about it? Does everything have to be war? Is war the only solution to any problem? Is Kerry weak because war isn't his first option? Or is Bush weak because he only ever wants to use force?

If the rest of the work thinks that John Kerry is 'all talk', how is it that a vast majority (and I have numbers and facts to prove that) want him as our next president?

Maybe it's because they know he will use force discriminately, as opposed to using force as the solution to every problem.

I think they (citizens of the world) see John Kerry as a talker. A negotiator. As you say, war isn't his first option. War probably is never an option, given his history. He is anti-war. He has been since his debating days at Yale. So, if the threat of force isn't there, Iran can continue to tell us that they are only developing nuclear technology as a source of energy and continue to build a weapon. Like North Korea did. Like Iraq was trying to do. Like India and Pakistan did. All of those are examples of countries who built nuclear bombs, by the way. I wasn't suggesting they all lied to us and the UN during the process. I don't know if they did or not.

That's why the majority of the world wants John Kerry in office. They believe they'll be freer to persue their ambitions, whatever they are, because John Kerry will not enforce George W. Bush's statement that if you harbor or support terrorists, you are against us and we'll use whatever means necessary to protect ourselves. They'd feel safer if Kerry were in charge.

Israel, who has been surrounded by hostile states who's goal is it's destruction since it's inception, and who has been in a bloody battle for it's life for over 50 years with the very same enemies we face, STRONGLY, UNWAVERINGLY, supports George W. Bush in this election.

I'm assuming your justification for the anti-war comment is the same as Bush's, which is this interview question from Hardball:

Q: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

Kerry: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris.

Q: Let me...

Kerry: Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was, and we should have done it right.

The portion in bold is what the Bush campaign uses. If you look at the quote in context (which you have often exhorted me to, given Bush's penchant for putting his foot in his mouth) you can't justify the position that Kerry is an 'anti-war' candidate.

In addition your assertion that Kerry would never go to war is flatly ridiculous. He will go to war, when it's necessary, just as Clinton did. But not for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time as Bush did. And more importantly, diverting our resources from the main war against al Qaeda.

Jacqueline, there are sixty-six countries that harbor members of al Qaeda. Do you suggest that we wage war against all of them? Fighting terror is an international police effort. It has been for years, and by in large it has been successful.

I understand that you do not believe in this method from previous posts, but you can't seriously consider invading 66 different countries.

The Bush campaign is slamming on Kerry for saying that he would like to reduce the level of the terror problem to that of a nuisance. But you and I both know that Bush said exactly the same thing with his "You can't win it..." line.

The fact is that fighting terror is more complex than "you harbor or support terrorists, you are against us and we'll use whatever means necessary to protect ourselves". Each country is different. Each threat is different. This administration knows that because they treat North Korea differently than Iraq, differently than Iran. But they have people, like you, chanting this 'war, war, war!' rhetoric, which is just going to get us all killed and turn the world against us.

As for Isreal, they are dealing with a substantially different type of threat than we are. Besides, I'd like to see actual poll numbers from there.

You really must stop this continuing insinuation that I do not think for myself and only spew campaign rhetoric. It is truly insulting. You apologize every time I point it out and then you continue to do it. You blanketly catagorize me with "those Republicans" who are god-fearing, blinded by faith and anything but rational, critical thinkers.

I will grant you that I don't do as much research as you do, but I do not regurgitate what Sean Hannity tells me to.

Your guess about where I derived my opinion about Kerry's anti-war stance was wrong. Though he did declare himself the "anti-war" candidate in the segment you specify, he has a history of being anti-war. I read an article months ago about John Kerry and his education. I don't remember where it was. I read it, processed it, and used it to help me form an opinion about him. This morning, since I don't remember the original article, I googled, "John Kerry Yale Anti War" and I found this at wikipedia:

Yale University (1962-1966)

Kerry (bottom, far right) played on the lacrosse team at Yale University as #14.
Kerry (top, middle) also played on the hockey team.In 1962, Kerry entered Yale University. There he majored in political science and graduated with a B.A. in 1966. He also played on the soccer, hockey, lacrosse, and fencing teams; in addition, he took flying lessons. To earn extra money during the summers, he loaded trucks in a grocery warehouse and sold encyclopedias door to door.

In his sophomore year Kerry became president of the Yale Political Union. His involvement with the Political Union gave him an opportunity to be involved with important issues of the day, such as the civil rights movement and Kennedy's New Frontier program. He was also inducted into the Skull and Bones Society. Under the guidance of the speaking coach and history professor Rollin Osterweis, Kerry won dozens of debate contests against other college students from across the nation. In March 1965, as the Vietnam War escalated, he won the Ten Eyck prize as the best orator in the junior class for a speech that was critical of U.S. foreign policy.

In the speech he said, "It is the specter of Western imperialism that causes more fear among Africans and Asians than communism, and thus it is self-defeating." Because of his public speaking skills, he was chosen to give the class oration at graduation. The speech was hastily rewritten at the last moment, and was a broad criticism of American foreign policy, including the war.

That snippit isn't as in-depth as what I read before, but it illustrates that Kerry was anti-Viet Nam, even before he went. More importantly, his quote shows that he believed that the evil empire of America was worse than Communism.

Now I'll go back to your comments and see what else you said, because I had to clear up the "source" issue before I could even read any further.

"He will go to war, when it's necessary, just as Clinton did. But not for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time as Bush did."
The intelligence suggested the time was right. We went to Iraq at the right time for the right reasons. John Kerry laid out exactly how he would do it in an editorial in the NY Times the Fall before we went into Iraq. It lays out exactly what the administration did. Kerry's plan just would have had his "thoughtful, sensitive" timeframe behind it.

"There are sixty-six countries that harbor members of al Qaeda. Do you suggest that we wage war against all of them?"
Of course not. We shouldn't invade all of them and topple their government. We should seek and destroy wherever the terrorist are. Proactively. Agressively. With Special Forces if need be. I agree, all of the cases are individual cases that require their own plan of attack.

"The Bush campaign is slamming on Kerry for saying that he would like to reduce the level of the terror problem to that of a nuisance. But you and I both know that Bush said exactly the same thing with his "You can't win it..." line."
I agree.

"This administration knows that because they treat North Korea differently than Iraq, differently than Iran."
Exactly. And I trust them to continue to use sound judgement and continue to lead the battle responsibly and effectively - as they have been.

"But they have people, like you, chanting this 'war, war, war!' rhetoric, which is just going to get us all killed and turn the world against us."
I'm turning the world against us?

"As for Isreal, they are dealing with a substantially different type of threat than we are. Besides, I'd like to see actual poll numbers from there."
It is the exact same threat. Muslim extremists want them destroyed. And they use terrorism to make their statement. If we were surrounded by Muslim extremists outside our borders, they would be bringing it to us every day, like they are in Israel. And they are trying to. And they have been successful. That is why we have to seek and destroy them wherever they are.

I'd like to see the poll numbers, too. I read about their support for us on a yahoo news article a few days ago and I think I remember that their support for Bush was 2-1. But then, for some reason, I'm remembering that I read somewhere that Israeli support for Bush was something like 96%. I couldn't find a poll or any numbers when I looked again - I could barely even find an article. It's like the whole subject magically disappeared! I only found a Reuters story with the follwing quotes:

Israelis strongly support Bush win

By Matt Spetalnick
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

JERUSALEM — Opinion polls show that Israelis are solid in their support of President Bush on Nov. 2, considering him the best ally that the Jewish state has had in the White House.

Opinion polls show that Israelis stand alone internationally in their solid support of Mr. Bush.
"Israel loves the president because he holds the umbrella that protects it from its enemies," wrote Shmuel Rosner, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper.
Rachel Saperstein, a 63-year-old Israeli grandmother who lives in the Gaza Strip, regards Mr. Bush as a hero.
"Who else could keep a terrorist like [Yasser] Arafat in isolation and throw Saddam Hussein in jail?" she said. "Bush wants Israel to be safe from Muslim terror."

During my search I also found this article which is also interesting. Turns out "the rest of the world" isn't really all for Kerry:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/041024/137/2hh5n.html

My candidate is the man for the job.

I quoted the Bush campaign, Jacqueline. Is that not a reliable source for you?

So your suggestion is that he is an anti-war candidate today because he was an anti-war protester in the Vietnam era? Even though he strongly backed our Kosovo and Afghanistan efforts, and voted to give the president the authority to use force as a bargaining tool in Iraq? How does that make any sense?

About the world. Yes, I think this president is turning the world against us and your support for this president is helping him in that cause. I read your link which talked primarily about the leaders, here as an article which talks about the peoples support for Bush in these countries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm

"And I trust them to continue to use sound judgement and continue to lead the battle responsibly and effectively - as they have been."

You have got to be kidding. When was that ever the case? Was it sound judgment when they lost track of 380 tons of high explosives? Was Abu Gharaib sound judgment? Was letting the people loot sound judgment? Was sending in too few troops sound judgment? Was cherry picking the intelligence on WMDs sound judgment? I could go on and on, but I don't see the point. It's obvious to me at this point that there is nothing this president could do that you would not find some way to accept. Let us hope that your blind faith applies to the office and not the office holder.

Your source was fine. It was not, however, how I came to the determination that John Kerry is anit-war. My opinion was not formed from the Bush campaign website. It was a culmination of much information, including the sources mentioned above.

Kerry backed Clinton while he was being impeached. Purely political. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but only to scare Saddam Hussein, not to actually use it. He does what is politically expedient.

Kerry has a history of being anti-war. He has taken the position of criticizing our country, saying our policies are worse than communism, promoting the cause of the enemy and actually meeting with them. I do not believe he would ever go to war - ever. Well, maybe if we were attacked with a nuclear or biological weapon. Well, no. Maybe nuclear . . . maybe.

Kerry was quoted in the New York Times at a Wall Street protest in 1971, saying, "Guilty as Lieutenant Calley may have been of the actual act of murder, the verdict does not single out the real criminal ... the United States of America."

Several weeks later he appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" where he said, "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others...in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages."

He was quoted in The Harvard Crimson as saying he would like to "almost eliminate CIA activity" and wanted US troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." (Boston Globe article)

For his valiant service on behalf of the Communist Vietnamese government, Kerry was awarded a special commendation as a "Hero" of communist victory in 1983 when he was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts. The record of Kerry and fellow pro-Communist North Vietnam comrades was cited by General Vo Nguyen Giap, the military commander of North Vietnamese forces, in his 1985 memoir. Giap wrote that, "if it were not for the disunity created by... stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered."

Kerry earned the award, having aided and abetted the enemy, helped to prolong the war, and create more American casualties. Today, a photograph of Kerry being greeted by Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, is displayed in a room dedicated to the anti-war protesters in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City. (Newsmax article)

Kerry wanted to negotiate with the communists in Nicaragua and "give peace a chance."
Like Neville Chamberlain waving a printed statement hailing "peace for our time" with Hitler, Kerry brought back a peace proposal to derail Reagan's request for Contra aid. (Newsmax article)

I'm surprised he even wants to lead us. But that has been his ambition:

Kerry had thought about running for public office long before he had gone to Vietnam. But when he returned from the war, he wasn't greeted as a hero, like the soldiers of his father's generation. Kerry found that being a veteran could be a drawback, especially in Eastern Massachusetts, where he hoped to run for the US House. (Boston Globe article)

Again, he does what is politically expedient. I don't trust him and I don't believe he has the courage of his convictions.

And now he (and your party) are using all the political dirty tricks available to try to realize it. My side is, too. I'm not saying they're above the fray. It's ugly, but that's how it is. That's why I don't only rely on what is spoon-fed on the news. They're appealing to the lowest common denominator and you never get the full story. I know that, and so, like you, I dig deeper.

And my conclusion is that John Kerry is an elitist, pacifist, leftist who is not strong on the issues that are important or critical today.

He would not be a good war time leader. He wants America to go in the wrong direction and I will not support him unless he is sworn in in January. Heaven Forbid.

When Kerry is elected will you give him the same type of blind allegiance you give this president?

Or will you support the inevitable Republican partisan witch hunt? The same one they pulled on Clinton?

By the way, your post was excellent. You had me up until this line:

I do not believe he would ever go to war - ever. Well, maybe if we were attacked with a nuclear or biological weapon. Well, no. Maybe nuclear . . . maybe.

Which is Ann Coulteresque in it's hyperbole. Perhaps if you had staid within the lines of actual facts I would have been more inclined to agree with you.