“Back in May, tech leaders such as John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems Inc., and Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc., threw their support behind George W. Bush. John Kerry has industry backing of his own, including that of Apple Computer Inc.
Previous Post
Apple releases Apple Remote Desktop 2.1 Update253 Comments
Leave a Reply
Apple inks ‘preliminary chip-making agreement’ with Intel: A major step in American semiconductor revival
Apple and Intel have struck a preliminary agreement under which Intel will manufacture some of the chips that power Apple devices…
Apple’s U.S. Education Store discount now requires proof that you’re a student or teacher
Apple is tightening its education pricing program with a new verification process that officially rolls out in the United States today…
Apple shares hit new all-time intraday and closing highs
In Nasdaq trading today, shares of Apple Inc. rose to hit a new all-time closing high. Apple’s all-time intraday high was also set today…
Apple TV’s ‘The Dynasty: UConn Huskies’ set to premiere globally August 21st
Apple TV announced that the new three-part docuseries, “The Dynasty: UConn Huskies,” featuring the legendary University of Connecticut…
Apple pushes back against Canada’s encryption bill
In a move that underscores the growing friction between Silicon Valley and governments worldwide, Apple and Meta have formally…
That’s nonsense.
Certainly the author of the Times article, Matt Bai, understood the significance of what Kerry said � and how the senator’s words “seemed to throw down a big orange marker between [his] philosophy and the president’s.”
Wrote Bai: [Kerry was] “suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, at least controllable.”
Maybe Kerry was playing to pre-9/11 nostalgia � a real enough phenomenon in American life.
As time passes, that terrible day recedes in the collective memory � and it becomes ever easier to also forget the lethal threat posed by al Qaeda.
Is Kerry playing to that wholly understandable, but utterly foolish, amnesia?
Does America need a Madrid, or a Beslan, or a Bali to once again take terrorism seriously? Does John Kerry?
There’s another possibility: For all his rhetoric, maybe Kerry just doesn’t believe the War on Terror is winnable.
Or Maybe he doesn’t believe it should be won.
He has spoken on behalf of America’s enemies in the past � first as a young veteran, when he slandered U.S. troops still fighting Vietnamese communists, and then in the Senate, when he argued on behalf of Daniel Ortega’s Sandinistas.
Or maybe the prospect of the long, hard struggle that Bush has spoken of from the outset just frightens him.
Whatever Kerry’s problem, Osama bin Laden is much more than a “nuisance.”
Those who doubt it need to visit that very big hole in the ground, downtown.
Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again! Effwerd forgot his medication again!
Look at the baby throw a tantrum.
Nicole, Bush said the war on terrorism was unwinnable. Then he flip-flopped and said we all misunderstood him. Yeah, right.
We all know that terrorism will continue to happen for a long time. At least Bush is going at them head on without a permision slip from our “friends” at the extremely corrupt UN. We all know Bush meant that terrorism won’t be solved in the short run. It’s going to take a long drawn out battle headed up by a strong leader like Bush not flip flop Kerry. You know it mr. effwerd.
It’s sad how uninformed most Bush supporters are. It’s a testament to the porpaganda machine that Bush has in place. If anyone doesn’t htink advertising works, just look at the number of myths and attitudes that people in this thread have adopted in their political stance.
Nicole, Kerry has said explicitly that he will not give veto power over US security to some foreign body. He has critisized GW for distracting us from the war on terrorism by invading Iraq. He has said repeatedly that he will pursue terrorists and seek to destroy them. Kerry has said that he would be willing to act unilaterally if we must. Kerry has said he is willing to take preemptive military action if we must. The biggest difference is that Kerry understands what constitutes the Core of the new global political realm and how we must work together with this Core to accomplish our foreign policy goals.
Bush is not a strong leader. He took a ten year old plan that his father dismissed as untenable and tried to present it as some fresh and new idea. He didn’t lead, he followed. He doesn’t have a plan to win the war on terrorism. He has driven wedges into the Core and has made it harder for us to fight the Gap.
John Kerry understands globalism. George Bush does not.
It’s truly pathetic how the anti-Bush crowd distorts truth and out and out lie about everything to try to get their way!
SEN. John Kerry has just explained, clearly and lucidly, the difference be tween the Democratic and Republi can approaches on how to fight terrorism: He told the New York Times Magazine that, as a “former law-enforcement person,” he knew that we could not wipe out terrorism, but hoped we could repress it until it became a “nuisance,” not a mortal threat.
Kerry’s likely secretary of State, Richard Holbrooke, chimed in, saying the War on Terror can only metaphorically be a war, like other “wars” against poverty, drugs or crime.
Both men believe the war against terror must be primarily a matter of law enforcement, conducted the same way we attempt, half-heartedly, to stamp out the international drug trade. To them, a combination of global alliances and interlocking law enforcement must bring individual terror-criminals to justice, one at a time, decimating the ranks of the terror gangs just as we wiped out some of the most dangerous Colombian drug cartels.
They see the war on Iraq as a diversion from this essentially criminal-justice function and the disruption of our relations with Germany, Russia and France as extremely bad news for a battle against terror that must rely on police activities of these three essential nations.
The fundamental flaw: This approach fails to recognize that terrorist gangs are only truly capable of mayhem when they’re aligned with nation-states, able to use a government’s resources to spread destruction globally.
This combination of nations and gangs doesn’t need weapons of mass destruction to be potent. They managed to knock down the Twin Towers and plunge the world into recession with only small knives and box-cutters.
Without government allies, terrorists are a threat on the level of drug cartels or organized crime. They can terrorize a local area, make profits, assassinate local officials and kill the occasional police officer � but they can’t knock down buildings or throw the world into turmoil.
Complex operations require as the empowering accoutrements of nationhood: secure boundaries to plan and train for operations; import-export trade with other nations to use in smuggling; intelligence and diplomatic contacts worldwide; foreign currency reserves. With these tools, terror gangs become global threats.
It isn’t hard to smash a gang. It is very, very difficult to topple a foreign government and then restore the country to order. But it is only by going nation-by-nation and getting rid of those regimes that sponsor and promote terror gangs that we can be successful. President Bush began with Afghanistan and Iraq. While terrorists are still at large and causing damage in both places, they don’t control either country, and can’t use them as bases for global operations.
Bush flipped Libya by his aggressive and successful action against Saddam. Now he must use a robust American presence in Iraq to intimidate Syria and Iran and to get the Saudis to be tougher on terror. Then, with a successful track record behind him, Bush (along with China, South Korea and Japan) can begin to close in on North Korea.
But this model of a War on Terror is far from the mindset and the planning of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Shortly after 9/11, Leon Furth, Al Gore’s chief national-security adviser, warned against attacking Iraq and urged a law-enforcement approach to terror in language almost identical to Holbrooke’s and Kerry’s. The same misguided mindset characterized the Clinton administration’s core thinking on terror � that is, the “defense” that paved the way for 9/11. It is fundamentally, deeply and unalterably wrong.
Richard,
The fundamental problems with Bush’s “change the world by invading all the countries that support terrorism” strategy is that while Afghanistan has been fairly successful Iraq has not been. While we’ve been tied up in Iraq, North Korea and Iran have obtained nuclear weapons (something they have been trying to do for decades and only under Bush have been successful). Just take a look at how FUBAR Iraq is. Do you honestly think we can invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the many other countries that would fall on the list of harbouring or aiding Terrorism (especially when compared to the razor thin ties Iraq had) and be succussful? The strategy is a very bad one. Very bad, and very dangerous and detrimental to the big picture. Don’t you think the terrorist would thrive in a world that is falling into devisive chaos?
Kerry’s strategy is that the invasion of Afghanistan was righteous. The world knew that it was. Unfortunately we did a half assed job there and but thankfully it still is working out pretty well. After 9-11 the USA had an unprecedented level of support from the world. That level of support has been thrown in the garbage, Richard, by Bush. He threw it in the garbage intentionally! What an asshole, right? Does he not value intelligence in this war? Does it not make sense that intelligence would be the single most important weapon we can weild in such a war? Kerry knows that in order to keep ants out of the house you don’t burn your own house down. Yes, there will always be ants (they, like terrorism, have been around since the dawn of man), but they won’t have the power to get in the house.
Why do Richard’s posts stink of a copied and pasted blog entry?
“This approach fails to recognize that terrorist gangs are only truly capable of mayhem when they’re aligned with nation-states, able to use a government’s resources to spread destruction globally.”
How old school. You realize this is pre-911 thinking? And besides, one of the main state supporters of terrorism is (nuclear) Pakistan. Bush’s beloved ally (much like Saddam was a beloved US ally through the 80s). Who do you think propped up the Taleban?
“Bush flipped Libya by his aggressive and successful action against Saddam.”
Wrong. Lybia was a product of a decade of UN sanctions and international pressure.
keep drinking the liberal fantasy world kool aide fword.
But Mr. Gspank, why is it up to the US to deal with Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Saudi Arabia? Why can’t the UN take care of this without the US? Can any liberal answer that? Effwerd are you out there???
The UN doesn’t have any troops of its own. The UN is dependent upon member nations to contribute troops. The only way the UN can deal with failed states is through the motivations of the member states.
Next strawman.
Nicole, I make the kool aid.
People, people…stop the bashing! Kerry was in the senate for 20 years…look at his record and show us his accomplishments… Bush was prez for only 8 months before 911…I think that pretty much gives him a pass to a second term..then and only then we can judge him…we have been safe here in the states since 911….
effwerd, I hope your mom gets home soon to let you out of the basement.
Stanley, if you look at reality, you’ll find that the USA has had many allies in it’s efforts for containing global terrorism and in keeping nuclear materials from getting into the wrong handsw (and wrong countries) for many years. It is only recently that our long standing allies have been pushed aside by this president thereby weakening the UN, NATO, and our traditional alliances drastically. It’s our “Go it alone” attitude that answers your question. How ironic that your question proves my point perfectly.
sjz writes:
Bush was prez for only 8 months before 911…I think that pretty much gives him a pass to a second term.
Those are your credantials??? To get elected to a second term all you have to do is have terrorists blow up icons that symbolize the USA’s power and kill 3,000 people in the process. That gets your vote?
AS for Kerry’s Senate record, sure that’s a good place to start. Do the research, don’t just listen to Fox News and the spin the Republicans put on it. Find out what he did in the Senate for the past 20 years and that makes sense to base your vote in part on his record. I just wish people would have done the same for GW four years ago. They would have found someone who had no real credentials and pretty much ruined every company his rich daddy gave him a chance to run.
Nice try fword. Why doesn’t the UN do anything about those countries? Vote to get their asses together and do something. You knew exactly what I was saying. Typical sleazy liberal strategy.
Can anyone here give me a list of Bush’s credentials to be our president before he was elected? I’d be curious to see that list. (and no, just because his daddy was president isn’t one of them)
Gspank,
You didn’t remotely answer the question either. Why doesn’t the UN vote to do something about those problem countries with or without the US?????????? You can’t answer that can you Mr. Smarty Pants.