George Will: John Kerry was right about terrorism

[iron81]

As one of the liberals in this thread, I'll address your questions.

- Wiretapping American's phone calls without a warrant is an impeachable offence. Its not me that says it, its the Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
I do solemnly swear that I will... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[/ QUOTE ]
-Taliban and Al-Qaeda members can be detained without trial because liberals agree with the general idea of a War on Terror. What most of us want is for terrrorists to be either tried in civilian/military court with due process or held as official Prisoners of War with protection under the Geneva Convention.

-Your statement regarding anti-terror operations is ridiculous. Of course most anti-terror operations should remain secret. Your problem is that you want the President to have a blank check to do whatever he wants. But when there is a massive systematic violation of the Constitution, I am glad the NYT prints it.

I don't think the Dems would be better at using the law enforcement tool than Bush. But I do think they would do a much better job at not making the problem worse and creating a whole new set of problems by launching stupid wars.

For CarlSpackler: The reason no one brings up domestic terrorism is that they are largely separate problems with different terrorists and motivations. Plus, no one is suggesting we carpet bomb Montana.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
If we ignore the rhetoric the administration is using to avoid this kind of argument, we can see that the Bush administration has used law enforcement techniques very frequently against terrorism. The argument, as Utah pointed out, is not whether law enforcement is good, but whether and when it should be supplemented by military action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, no. With respect, the "rhetoric" is the entire point. Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." At the time, the administration and other right-wingers attacked that statement. See, e.g. link, link and link.

Now, you are saying that not only was Kerry right, but that the administration recognized and recognizes that he was right and has been acting accordingly all along. All the while saying otherwise to drum up support for the Iraq war.

If the war is so great, why does it require such rhetorical games to sell to the American people?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, all of the liberals in this thread who are trumpeting the latest British success, you do in fact believe the following, right?:
-Wiretapping foreign telephone calls is an impeachable offence.

[/ QUOTE ]Just to be clear : I am, in fact, extremely glad of the latest success of British intelligence. As an airline passenger AND as a citizen.

Now, moving forward, why does everything have to be black or white?? Winning in poker entails thinking in shades of grey most of the time. So, as to telephone wiretapping, (a) it should still be necessary to obtain a warrant from a judge (or the respective procedure in the UK or Europe) citing probable cause, and (b) the judge should be more tolerant when the warrant involves a potential terrorist threat.

And to make sure that law enforcement agencies do not abuse that power to go after political opposition or simply to take shortcuts in purely criminal cases, every demand for wiretapping should be subsequently reviewed to validate the probable cause.

Yes, I can live with that -- literally...

[ QUOTE ]
-Taliban members and captured al-Qaeda cannot be detained unless they're being tried by a civilian court.

[/ QUOTE ] Hmm, you mean Taliban suspects and alleged terrorists, right? Well, I think civilian courts, under the appropriate laws, should be perfectly able to handle terrorist cases. European countries faced very violent terrorist activities in the 1970s and 80s but they were all handled mostly without stepping outside of the law, at least not to the extent that Bush wants the UY.S. to go.

Come on! Democracy is not that impotent! I am all for severe penalties for terrorist acts -- but I also want those penalties to be meted out through a strict observance of the law. Why should that be tough?

If anything, those young boys and girls fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are supposed to be dying precisely for political freedoms, amongst which is the right to a fair trial. Don't you agree ?

[ QUOTE ]
-Details of anti-terror operations should be publicized on the front page of the NYT as often as possible

[/ QUOTE ] No, of course not. They should not be. That would be the same as passing on information to the enemy. (I hope this does not come off as sarcastic. I'm very serious.)

But the people responsible for those operations should be held responsible for keeping their moves under wraps. Every leak has two parents; the one giving (or allowing to slip out) and the one receiving the information.

Mickey Brausch

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm, no. With respect, the "rhetoric" is the entire point. Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." At the time, the administration and other right-wingers attacked that statement. See, e.g. link, link and link.

Now, you are saying that not only was Kerry right, but that the administration recognized and recognizes that he was right and has been acting accordingly all along. All the while saying otherwise to drum up support for the Iraq war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insofar as Kerry's position was "Finding and arresting terrorists is good." then yes, I think everyone has admitted he is right. But I doubt that anyone has ever seriously advocated not having the FBI investigate potential terrorist activity or in any other way simply ignoring the utility of law enforcement in the war on terror. The debate that went on during the campaign and which is still going on is what other measures are appropriate. That's what Kerry was being attacked over.

I think it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that a Kerry administration would be more effective at law enforcement simply because he would make it the centerpiece of his anti-terror campaign. As I intimated previously, most of what I've seen the Democratic party doing in opposition has given me little faith in their ability to do a better job.

[CharlieDontSurf]

If you tied up everyone in Bush's administration to a lie detector and asked them..looking back, was invading and occupying Iraq a massive strategic screw-up in terms of protecting American lives and fighting the war on Al-queda/terrorism.

They would all say NO...and they would all fail the test.
Except maybe Bush...cuz he believes just about anything once he commits to it.

It blows my mind how many people simply can't understand what a massive screw-up Iraq has been and will most likely become. IE its gonna get much worse over the next 3-5 years.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
If you tied up everyone in Bush's administration to a lie detector and asked them..looking back, was invading and occupying Iraq a massive strategic screw-up in terms of protecting American lives and fighting the war on Al-queda/terrorism.

They would all say NO...and they would all fail the test.
Except maybe Bush...cuz he believes just about anything once he commits to it.

It blows my mind how many people simply can't understand what a massive screw-up Iraq has been and will most likely become. IE its gonna get much worse over the next 3-5 years.

[/ QUOTE ]You may want to hook all the democrats up as well as here is what a few of them said prior to the invasion.It is a huge lie to pretend that the democrats felt differently or that the republicans concocted this war out of thin air.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Bill "intern bangin" Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill "intern bangin" Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline "no clue" Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy "classified paper stealin" Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy "gift to republicans" Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al "man bear pig" Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted "bridge median jumping while drunk" Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert "KKK member" Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[CharlieDontSurf]

The difference is the majority of Dems who went ahead and supported it(if you have any grasp of reality Utah, you realize it was mainly a political move by Dems) now have changed course.
Some ave refused to given political reasons...hillary etc.
But even they admit that the war has been managed so poorly its pathetic.

[CharlieDontSurf]

The title for GWB would be much worse....George "lead 2500 americans to their death" Bush. Based on your response I can tell you must have the blinders on.

The post wasn't about someone lied to get us into Iraq etc or its all the Republicans fault....it was about the fact that the current administration doesn't know what the hell to do with Iraq and has chosen a strategy that limits the # of soldiers deaths, but doesn't accomplish anything.

Its not about GWB...its about the incompetence of the entire administration along with the Dep of Defense, Pentagon etc. If you actual think Iraq is a success or will end up better than it is now, I feel sorry for you since your obviously delusional.

Even your own partys top canidate to replace Bush, McCain-though it wouldnt shock me if the nut wing trys to torpedo him again, has admitted that eventhough he believes Iraq can be fixed and we should not pull out---the strategy had to be massivly altered...and a winning strategy will most likely result in a higher body count.

[Freerollin`]

Of course Will is right. This silly idea that "we're going to smoke 'em out...kill 'em all...impose our ways" is going to cause more problems than it solves.

Really, can an intelligent person pretend that more and more terrorists are not going to spring up after the ones we kill/incapacitate/imprison because we're killing/incapacitating/imprisoning their countrymen and those who share religious beliefs with them?

Why not come to the reasonable conclusion that we're never going to get 'em all and that seeking to (and directing resources toward) prevent(ing) terrorist attacks is far better than killing terrorists so that more can pop up?