SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (76811)10/12/2004 9:13:03 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793851
 
We Must Fight to Eliminate Terrorism, Not Tolerate It
By Rudy Giuliani

(Note: The following remarks delivered at BCO4 conference call yesterday)

For some time, and including when I spoke at the Republican Convention, I’ve wondered exactly what John Kerry’s approach would be to terrorism and I’ve wondered whether he had the conviction, the determination, and the focus, and the correct worldview to conduct a successful war against terrorism. And his quotations in the New York Times yesterday make it clear that he lacks that kind of committed view of the world. In fact, his comments are kind of extraordinary, particularly since he thinks we used to before September 11 live in a relatively safe world. He says we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.

I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?

This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly.

As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.

Finally, what he did after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, where I guess at that point terrorism was still just a nuisance. He must have thought that because that’s why he proposed seriously reducing our intelligence budget, when you would think someone who was really sensitive to the problem of terrorism would have done just the opposite. I think that rather than being some aberrational comment, it is the core of the John Kerry philosophy: that terrorism is no different than domestic law enforcement problems, and that the best we’re ever going to be able to do is reduce it, so why not follow the more European approach of compromising with it the way Europeans did in the 70s and the 80s and the 90s?

This is so totally different than what I think was the major advance that President Bush made – significant advance that he made in the Bush Doctrine on September 20, 2001, when he said we’re going to face up to terrorism and we’re going to do everything we can to defeat it, completely. There’s no reason why we have to tolerate global terrorism, just like there’s no reason to tolerate organized crime.

So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we’ve talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn’t understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it’s just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does.



To: LindyBill who wrote (76811)10/12/2004 1:13:26 PM
From: Neeka  Respond to of 793851
 
But…But…But…But…But…

Rush chimes in......


October 11, 2004


Listen to Rush…
(...roll a montage of Kerry's "buts" and his total blow-with-the-wind contractions)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

All right, let's get to the debate. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on the debate here, folks, because Bush won the debate. The media is saying that it was "a draw," is proof that Bush won the debate. (video | text ) Howard Fineman had a piece last Wednesday or Thursday, whenever it was. It steamed me to no end, which is why I spent Friday doing what I did talking about the Duelfer Report (news)and some of the ways it just totally repudiates the Kerry foreign policy. Fineman is now saying his column of Wednesday is irrelevant because Bush did so well in the debate on Friday night. It's typical: you have these debates, and then the day after you get the immediate spin, the night of you get the immediate spin and as days ensue thereafter you have a different spin on things, and the clear take here is that Bush won the debate. It's clear to anybody who wants to watch this and observe it objectively, both guys could have done better.

I mean, Bush gave Kerry a bunch of hanging curve balls that Kerry didn't hit out of the park. Kerry gave Bush a couple of hanging curve balls that Bush didn't hit out of the park, but he got closer to doing it than he did in the first debate. So in terms of their progression and momentum it was clearly Bush's night. There's no question about it. What I want to do here (program observer interruption). Look, I'm going to get to that, Mr. Snerdley. I'm going to get to the New York Times piece where Kerry talks about getting back to the days where terrorism is just a nuisance, back when the USS Cole was being blown up, or back when the World Trade Center bombing happened in '93. It's a nuisance. People die. We'll deal with it as a law enforcement issue. It's not enough to go to war over. I'll get to that. Be cool. That's why I'm telling you: We've got overload here today. It's why it's a three-hour program. I can't say everything that needs to be said in the first segment here, so just chill in there. We're to get to all this.


I read a piece after the first debate by James Taranto at OpinionJournal.com, and it gave me an idea after this debate, because what were the two most commonly used words? Well, what was the most common word John Kerry uttered in the debate on Friday night? The most common word? He used one word more than any other word, not only in Friday night's debate in St. Louis, but in the previous debate, wherever the hell it was. I don't remember. Where was the first debate? I don't even remember. See? That's what we remember about debates. Nevertheless, what was the most common word, Mr. Snerdley? (program observer interruption) No, I'll... (program observer interruption. No, it... (program observer interruption) Miami, that's right, Coral Gables. Okay, since you can't get the easy one, what was the most common word, I'll give you an easier one: What was the most common phrase that he used?

The most common phrase that Kerry used in the debate on Friday night was "I have a plan." "I have a plan! I have a plan! I have plan! I have a plan!" But the most common word Kerry used was "but." Everything he said had a "but" in it or a qualifier. "I believe we should have gotten Saddam but..." "I believe in tax cuts, but..." So what I instructed Cookie to do for this debate was put together a little montage of some, not all, we don't have time. The debate was an hour and a half. We'd have to spend 45 minutes here with a montage of Kerry. But I've put together enough to illustrate what I'm talking about in terms of -- you may say, "So what? He used the word 'but.'" The point is whatever he says he doesn't have the confidence to let it stand, wants to qualify it wants to be on as many sides of any issue as he can, and this is where he gets into this area of contradicting himself saying all these different things about one issue. Here is just a sample montage of what I'm talking about.

KERRY: The Patriot Act, I support it, but I just don't like the way John Ashcroft has applied it. I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat, believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president, but I would have used that force wisely. I will never stop at anything to hunt down and kill the terrorists. But you heard the president just say to you that we've added money. Folks, the test is not if you've added money. I don't support a draft, but let me tell you where you president's policies have put us. Go to JohnKerry.com and you'll find a tort reform plan. Yes, it's a problem. Do we need to fix it particularly for OB-GYNs and for brain surgeons and others? Yes. But it's less than 1% of the total cost of health care. We should look at the punitive and we should have some limitations, but look what's really important is the president's just trying to scare everybody here. We're throwing labels around. The Kyoto treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto and I was part of it. I know what happened, but this president didn't try to fix it. You can't stop all outsourcing, I never promised that and I'm not going to because that would be pandering, you can't. But what you can do is create a fair playing field. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need to be stronger on terrorism, but you know what we also need to do as Americans is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the United States. Religion has been a huge part of my life, it helped lead me through a war, it leads me today, but I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it.

RUSH: Stop, stop, stop the tape. Let me help you with this. There's still more to come, but when you hear the word "but," the way you need to listen to this is, every time he says "but," it means, "Forget what I just said, because it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything because I'm qualifying now, 'but.'" When you hear but, cancel out what you just heard him say because it's about change.

KERRY: I can talk to people about making other choices and about abstinence and all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society, but as a president I have to represent all the people in the nation. No Child Left Behind Act, I voted for it and I support it, but the president has underfunded it. I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. The president just said, My opponent's against, this my opponent's against that," you know, it's just not that simple. No I'm not. I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've gotta have an exception. I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity, not a nation, not a country, not an institution, but I know as I think you do that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. I will not stop in our effort to hunt down and kill the terrorists, but I'll also have a better plan. I believe America's best days are ahead of us. I'm an optimist, but--


RUSH: And there you have it. That's John Kerry. Now, some people like that. You have to understand, this is how he says everything to everybody. This is how he gets away with being all things to all people, and when you have a group of people out there who don't like, you know, firm lines of demarcation between right and wrong, good and bad, a guy like John Kerry comes along with his qualifications makes everybody feel happy. "Okay, he's going to do that, but he's not going to do it quite as bad. Oh, he's going to do that, but he's going to do it better. Oh, he doesn't agree with that, but..." This is, I think, a technique that appeals to the undecideds. It's not just a technique; it's actually who he is.

He doesn't have the conviction. He doesn't have a core to stand firm on anything, as has been amply illustrated throughout this campaign. But undecideds, if you can't make up your mind by now, what are you saying? "Well, I like Bush, but... Well, I like Kerry, but... Well, I don't think Kerry is, but..." So, you know, probably one of the most common uttered words among the undecided is "but," because they're sitting out there trying to figure things out, but this, but that. I just wanted to illustrate this to you because this is not the kind of job that you need a guy whose #1 most often used word is "but," because you're never going to know where the guy is going to go and take the rest of us with him. You're never going to be able to pin him down, even after he does something, "Well, yes, I did that, but..."

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I've got another little montage here for you. This is a ten second montage and it comes from Friday night's debate and it's John Kerry contradicting himself at one point in the debate and then at another point in the debate. Have one, two, three, four sentences. The first three are contradicted by the last. This happened I don't know how many minutes apart, but same debate Friday night in St. Louis. Here's John Kerry.

KERRY: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. [...] Well, the president has been preoccupied with Iraq where there wasn't a threat.

RUSH: From the same debate Friday night! Here's Dick Cheney in Florida on Saturday trying to comprehend this.

CHENEY: On page 5, "I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam was a threat. I've always believed he was a threat," and on page 12, "The president's been preoccupied with Iraq where there wasn't a threat." That's unbelievable. It's... well, it's mind-boggling.

RUSH: You don't know what to say. What in the world do you say about that? What you want to say is, are you people listening? Are you people paying attention? You undecideds, are you paying attention to this? By the way, there's a new Zogby poll out, Bush down three. It's the only poll that shows Bush down. The other polls, ABC and Rasmussen have Bush up anywhere from five to six; Zogby's got him down three. Six percent undecided in the Zogby. Zogby says that the majority of the undecideds are leaning Kerry. So that's the latest on the polling data. Here's Joe Lockhart now. He was on Stephanopoulos' show yesterday and tried to explain this, what you just heard: Iraq was a threat. I've never changed my mind. I do believe Saddam was a threat. The president was preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat. Stephanopoulos says, "Joe, Cheney is not misreading the transcript. It's exactly what the transcript says. That's what John Kerry said."

LOCKHART: Well, listen, the president also said in this debate, "I was disappointed when I found out that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction." Now, how could a president of the United States be disappointed when he finds out that a sworn enemy, a madman doesn't have chemical and biological weapons?


RUSH: (Laughing.) They can't defend Kerry. They have to run out and make some sort of attempted semantical point against George W. Bush. So these things just continue to mount up. I mean, this is a history of John Kerry not just in this campaign but throughout his political life. Now, let's move on to this New York Times Sunday Magazine. This was unbelievable. Did you see the picture? Did you see the picture on this thing? Well, it's not the Botox. I mean, it's not. What happened to the eyes? You know, it looks like what they did was have Teresa strip down nude right before they snapped the picture and Kerry's eyes get wide and he can't believe what he's looking at. Did you see the eyes? That's the amazing thing about that picture. Botox is one thing, but I've never seen that look on his face. I've never seen that look at all. Either that or they glued the eyelids open for the picture.

Maybe it was Nancy Pelosi they dragged in there and said, "Hey, take your clothes off for the presidential nominee." It's just more phoniness. Here's a guy that we see in yet another pose that we've never seen before. Before we get to this New York Times, Sunday magazine, did you see this piece also in the New York Times? One of the biggest puff pieces I've ever seen trying to explain how Kerry's circumstantial, accidental, "Oh, gee, how about that?" marriages to wealthy women is now causing him a problem. It was just incredible, and then this New York Times piece goes on, you know, he has a very credible and forward-looking plan on Iraq but he's just having trouble getting people to understand it, which is typical of the mainstream press. He's so smart; he's so much above the rest of us that we just can't figure out what he's saying and he can't figure out a way to get down to our level so the New York Times tries in this piece. Now, you've got to listen to this excerpt.

This is from the excerpt on the wealthy women that he just happened to marry. One of these unfortunate things, you know, that's defined him. He goes out and marries these wealthy women. By the way, another thing, in this debate, how about insulting everybody in that audience by looking at them and assuming none of them make $200,000 a year or more? "Only three," but that's a lie. Only three of us in here are going to be qualified -- or hit by my tax cut. Well, he won't be hit by it because he doesn't earn 200 grand, Teresa does, but he doesn't, as a senator gets, what, 140K or something like that a year, 140,000. His own tax cut won't affect him or his own tax increase won't affect him. So there are only two people in there that are going to be affected, that's Charlie Gibson and Bush, according to the way they look. Can you imagine, folks, if people called this program and I said, "You know, you sound like X. You sound like an X," or whatever, to start judging people on the way they look, based on how they sound. How many people in that room were small business people, unless he knows that people in there were, you know, canvassed from the deep, dark, plundering, vanishing middle class, because of the Bush economic team. Robert Samuelson had a piece in Newsweek over the weekend, or latest issue, whenever it is, that the middle class is doing just great, that the poverty figures, you know where they stem from? You know where poverty is in this country? Immigrants. Illegal and legal. The vast majority of poverty is among the immigrant class in this country, not the middle class of the United States.

END TRANSCRIPT