• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

John Kerry


May 30, 2004
Reaction score
Another article from CBS News.

(CBS/AP) John Kerry is accusing President George W. Bush of not doing enough to prevent nuclear terrorism and promises a new plan "to keep the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands."

The Democratic presidential candidate will lay out what he calls a "layered strategy" to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear technology, to al Qaeda and other terrorists in a speech Tuesday at the Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, Florida.

The speech is part of a series designed to explain Kerry's national security policies during an 11-day tour that ends Sunday on the 60th anniversary of D-Day.

In an advance copy of the speech, Kerry called for doing more to:

# Secure all bomb-making materials.

# Ensure that no new materials are produced for nuclear weapons.

# End nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran.

"We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore — and that mission begins far away," Kerry said in the prepared speech remarks. "We have to secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world so that searching the containers here at the Port of Palm Beach isn't our only line of defense — it is our last line of defense."

Kerry said the key question was whether the United States had done all it could to secure dangerous weapons since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The honest answer is that we have done too little, often too late, and even cut back our efforts or turned away from the greatest threats we face in the world today," he said.

Kerry called for "a strategy that invokes our nonmilitary strength early enough and effectively enough so military force doesn't become our only option."

Eliminating weapons of mass destruction was cited by the Bush administration as a primary reason for invading Iraq. No such weapons have been found.

Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, is also stepping up his criticism of how Mr. Bush treats both active-duty and retired military personnel.

During a visit Monday to Portsmouth, Virginia, home to naval shipyards and other big military installations, Kerry said the Bush administration had overextended the military and turned the National Guard and Reserve "into almost active duty."

"Even while they are creating more veterans, they are not taking care of the veterans we have the way they ought to be," Kerry said in an interview with a local TV station after watching the city's Memorial Day parade on Monday.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said it was sad that Kerry would deliver a political attack on "a day of remembrance that should be above politics."

Kerry's campaign accused the president of planning budget cuts that would devastate programs for veterans, women, children and homeland security — and yet do little to reduce the nation's deficit.

The campaign cited recently disclosed Bush administration memos that call for preparing a preliminary 2006 budget that would cut spending after the presidential election.

Among the agencies targeted is the Veterans Affairs Department, whose budget would be slashed by 3.4 percent, or about $1 billion to $28.7 billion.

The White House Office of Management and Budget said the documents were routine procedural guidelines so officials could start gathering data about their needs for 2006 spending and do not necessarily reflect the final budget blueprint.

Meanwhile, the Kerry campaign unveiled a new TV ad Tuesday called "Optimists" that focuses on Kerry’s plan to "America stronger at home, and respected in the world."

The 30-second commercial is the first in a new round of advertising meant to explain Kerry's proposals on the economy, health care and national security.

Kerry will spend $18 million in June, a heavy amount for five months before the election, to run issue-focused commercials in media markets in 20 states – including GOP-leaning Virginia for the first time – and nationally on cable networks.

The ad says that for Kerry "a stronger America begins at home" and highlights his domestic plans to create jobs, lower health care costs and make the nation less reliant on Middle Eastern oil. The ad also promises "a strong military and strong alliances to defeat terror."

On Wednesday, the commercial will replace 60-second biographical ads, which survey his life from his birth to his military service to his Senate career, that have been running in 19 states since early May. The campaign won't run the new ad just yet in Virginia. A biographical spot will air instead.

Kerry strategists believe the bio ads helped Kerry's image in the wake of ads by President Bush that labeled the Democrat a flip-flopping liberal.

I began reading this article, and immediately saw fundamental flaws. We know that Kerry disapproves of the way Iraq is being handled. I believe Kerry has indicated that he disapproves of the USA taking unilateral action. I bring your attention to "# End nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran.".

How is he going to do this? I know the hope is for a diplomatic solution. There is always that hope. And there very well may be.

But let us not forget that North Korea is simply trying to blackmail the USA for more aid. And let me point out that this is aid that only props up a tyrannical government. Let us not forget that North Korea has already broken it's word, it's promise, made in '90. (The actual year may be off)

Iran? Please. We're talking about a Muslim theocracy that is also fighting to hold onto a oppressive form of government. Are we going to buy them off as well?
CBS News said:
Kerry called for "a strategy that invokes our nonmilitary strength early enough and effectively enough so military force doesn't become our only option."

Interesting - it seems that John Kerry forgets about the many UN resolutions that were made prior to taking out Sadam. The rest of the world could care less about us. Which is pretty much how I feel about them. But, we got the bigger stick. :)

CBS News said:
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, is also stepping up his criticism of how Mr. Bush treats both active-duty and retired military personnel.

Who the hell is he to talk about treating military vets? He threw tomatoes at them when they came home from Vietnam!!!

As far as the "End nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korean and Iran". This is nothing new. We need to let China and her neighbors deal with North Korea. Which is what Bush is currently doing - it will pay off in the long run.

Iran? Well they will get their chance shortly. Right now, it's Sadi's turn.
So Bush acted too little, too late? But I seem to remember the Dem's complaining that Bush rushed into thinks before there was enough proof that Saddam had the weapons.


  • 1403.gif
    3.9 KB · Views: 3
First, ya'll need to start showing respect for a highly decorated, purple hearted war hero. 2nd show some respect for your candidate. He could be elected to be your president.
Now about the war:

On December 1, 2001, Minister Farrakhan was divinely guided to inform Pres. Bush via letter that the ideas in the president’s mind toward Iraq, if acted upon, would plunge the United States into an inextricable quagmire of war and international strife.

The Minister warned the president that, "Afghanistan is only a preliminary to a much wider war which is already planned, and this war also has a home front aspect as well."

In his second letter to the president dated October 30, 2002, Min. Farrakhan wrote, "I warned that should you pursue what I know is in your mind and heart concerning Saddam Hussein and Iraq that you would lose the great advantage that you gained after September 11, 2001, and that the coalition would fall apart and you might be forced to go it alone."

Is not the Bush administration a lone wolf in its stance against Iraq, leading a motley pack of countries whose allegiance has been bought and paid for with international aid? It is a lone wolf, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair as its slaughtered prey, after he abandoned the overwhelming public opinion of his countrymen that was against British military involvement in Iraq.

Minister Farrakhan continued in his letter, "I opined that if you did such (go to war), you might run into something that your advisors had not thought of or perceived. This is already happening."

The president led the country to believe that the Americans would be welcomed into Iraq with open arms, as benevolent "GI Joes." That has not been the case.

More men and women have died since the end of the war than during the entire war. They face daily attacks and assaults, the uncertainty of which threatens at its core the morale of the American fighting force. The cost of liberating Iraq may exceed $100 billion, while the poor and disenfranchised of America still wait for relief to come their way.

What would the cities and states look like if the president found $100 billion to rebuild the schools, economies, infrastructure and people of America? If the president has his way, Iraqis who collaborate with the occupation of their country by American multinational corporations could soon enjoy a better quality of life than the poor within America’s own borders who struggle every day just to survive.

This was copied from http://www.finalcall.com
Both letter can be read from my post on Liberal Views
Top Bottom