What would Kerry do after he's elected and another terror attack happens?

[DaveSZ]

Would he hesitate to use force, or would he defend this country?

What do you think?

(Not flamebait. I'm wondering what you think he'd do.)

[Caution]

1. find those responsible and bring them to justice

without hesitation. anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention to what he says

[Bowline]

"find those responsible and bring them to justice"

Easier said than done. We've heard politicians promising this for years with damn few results.

[curlyred]

11. Bush isn't interested in bringing anyone to justice

The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center attack are in jail. Clinton was focussed on bringing those responsible in, and they are in jail.

Bush is more interested in war for politics and oil, and we will never see any of those responsible for 9-11 in jail.

[Suziq]

32. If I Recall Correctly . . .

Bill Clinton found and convicted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

:hippie:

[DaveSZ]

4. Specifics

Would he send in Special Forces or what would he do specifically?

I'm on board with him on most other issues, but I want to know what he'd do to keep us safe.

[Caution]

5. give me a specific scenario?

"there's an attack, what do you do" does not provide any inkling of any kind of scenario, and how the hell would Kerry answer that question? He would ask the advice of those in the know (such as Richard Clarke), ask the advice of the military and then respond appropriately.

What I can say is that he wouldn't simply stop bothering with the perpetrators like Bush has done with Osama Bin Forgotten.

[DCdem87]

2. he would

not hesitate to defend this country against ANY impending enemy unlike Bush who only wants to hurt his personal enemies (people who have exhausted their ability to make bush money). He will not have or give the American people a distorted image of the real threats to this country.

[Tim4319]

3. I hope he doesn't sit for seven minutes reading a book about a goat!

[displacedtexan]

6. Or run away IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION from the White House...

and hide in a bunker while DC and NYC burn.

[DaveSZ]

9. Ok

Al Qaeda (which is the real enemy and not Iraq), plants a bomb at a chemical plant.

A tank filled with anhydrous ammonia explodes and the vapor cloud blankets a major city.

Thousands of people are blinded and their lungs burned beyond function.


What does Kerry do now?

[A_Possum]

24. This is still too hypothetical

When does this happen? Before or after there's an NID? How are the intel services working together under Kerry? Is it before or after he's added 50k guys to the National Guard at home, etc. Or are we still stuck with most of our guys mired in Iraq?

In a general reply to your very generalized situation, he'd jump on first response to take care of survivors, (having funded and trained them adequately beforehand) and at the same time hunker down with his NID to get the latest (un-politicized) intel, which presumably wouln't take all that long because he would have been meeting with the NID all along and be up on who/what/where/how. Then the Special Forces would act on the intel to follow up, making sure to stop any related attacks in other places. The fresh intel (one presumes there would be new clues) would be followed to get to the leaders of al Queda who did the planning (as I assume the actual bombers were suicide, if not then get them too.) He'll also go to the city to provide support and leadership at the time of the disaster itself and not run the other direction. He'd make sure the city got all the help it needs financially. Etc etc.

Frankly, I think this kind of thing is just arm-waving. What Kerry doesn't do is go invade the country he's got a personal grudge against, waste our soldiers and make us look like impotent bullies and highlight exactly how to defeat the United States.

[liveoaktx]

7. He would not do any LESS than the little Shrub has done

Bush did not capture OBL-sent too few troops to do the job and then pulled them to go to a bogus war he's already planned.

He did not put the money where it should have been on homeland security, plus used Homeland Security for political props reason to keep people in fear instead of building them up

He burned his bridges with the international community, whose countries largely view him as a dangerous loose cannon. He scorned the UN recommendations and burned Congress by deciding to go it alone with his group of PNACers.

He used the Patriot Act to strip some vital civil liberties under the guise of an eternal never-ending wartime.

Can Kerry do better? Yup. And he will.

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. But Kerry voted for the patriot act

and as far as I know has said nothing about a repeal. Did I miss something?

[liveoaktx]

19. Yup, he has said that he is against some provisions of it

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0417a.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/homeland_security/homeland_plan.html

Like eight Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Kerry has rejected this administration's policy of detaining American citizens indefinitely, without access to a lawyer or chance to prove their innocence. He believes some provisions of the Patriot Act - like the money laundering provisions - must be made stronger. Others - like the library and "sneak-and-peek" search provisions - must be made smarter, to better protect privacy and freedom while allowing our government to do everything necessary to track down terrorists and defend America. As president, John Kerry will ensure that the American government is open and responsive to the needs and inquiries of Congress and the public, offering enough information to hold the government accountable without compromising our security.

[rocktivity]

8. Are you talking about real solutions or instant gratification?

And what kind of a terrorist attack are you talking about? A bomb? A blackout? A hostage taking? A computer crash? A poisoned water supply?

Bush is in the mess he created because he struck back without considering the consequences, AND because the public's instant gratification at the idea of dropping bombs on "rag-heads" wore off. It might make us feel good to just lash out at other countries, but look at the results we're getting!

:headbang:
rocknation

[DaveSZ]

10. No

Bush misled us into believing that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I don't think Kerry would do anything like that, but I still want him to defend our country with force if needed.

The first thing he should do is try to get our chemical plants guarded.

The Democrats have tried (at least Corzine has tried), but the Republicans are in the control of the petrochem industry, and so they won't do anything.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaveSZ]

16. "will probably play Paddy Cake with the U.N. if we are attacked."

That doesn't inspire much confidence.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Yes, Ireland has a strong commitment to the UN.

Ireland became a member of the United Nations in 1955. Since 1958, the Defence Forces has had a continuous presence on peacekeeping missions, mainly in the Middle East. However, in recent years, following the end of the cold war, Irish Defence Forces personnel have also found themselves in many other parts of the globe as peacekeepers. Personnel have served as observers in Central America, Russia, former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Namibia, Western Sahara , South Africa and East Timor. This extensive Irish participation in peacekeeping is regarded in very positive terms both by the Government and the Defence Forces. Indeed, in September 1993 the Government restated the roles of the Defence Forces and defined one of them as being:

"To participate in United Nations missions in the cause of international peace"

Ireland's participation in peacekeeping operations has promoted a positive image of Ireland and it's Defence Forces both within the international community at the United Nations and among all sides in the mission areas.

Unfortunately this service has not been without cost. To date eighty-two members of the Defence Forces have given their lives in the cause of world peace.

www.military.ie/overseas/irl_un.htm

Do you have a problem with this, oh Revolutionary 1?

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. Deleted Message

n/t

[Vickers]

14. Probably invade Sweden.

Oops! Thought you said Bush. My apologies.

:crazy:

[DaveSZ]

17. I trust Kerry with civil liberties more than Bush

The judges he appoints will also strike down anything that goes too far, and I can't say the same for Bush's judges.

[Andy_Stephenson]

20. I wish I could conjure up the trust you have...

but his actions over the last four years have me in doubt.

[SheilaT]

18. What do you think he should do?

Invade some country that has nothing to do with the perpetrators?

I notice that this is the kind of question that is typically flame bait, or used elsewhere by apologizers for the Republicans to make it sound as if torture and complete abrogation of our constitution is somehow okay.

And isn't it amazing, that first of all, despite supposedly having a wonderful intelligence community, they somehow didn't quite get it that a major attack was being planned back in '01. (I won't even get started on how they totally missed the collapse of the Soviet Union)

And so now, as if to make up for it, they spend a lot of time scaring us with vague threats.

Second of all, in all this time NOTHING new has happened here. Isn't it just possible that Al Qaeda is not the all-knowing, all-powerful group they want us to think it is?

Look. The reality is that a truly determined group or individual can create a lot of havoc, death, and destruction. I can think of various ways myself, but I don't generally discuss them because it could be too easy then to think that I'm somehow actually planning such things.

The best way to protect this country to is to keep its constitution intact, including all the protections in the Bill of Rights. And the second best is not to behave in ways that create enemies. Like invading other nations for no good reason.

[DaveSZ]

22. Ah

So I'm a Republican apologist now?

Little old me with a star by my name?

For the record I think invading Iraq was a mistake, I'm against child torture, and I also want to keep the Bill of Rights intact.

I supported our efforts in Afghanistan with our true international coalition before Dumbya pulled the troops out to invade Iraq.

[Used and Abused]

21. He could use force, as long as he knew who to use force against

Bush just kind of picked a country at random and retaliated for 911. Nevermind the fact that most of the hijackers were from somewhere else.

[iverglas]

25. quite the false dichotomy there

Would he hesitate to use force, or would he defend this country?

Would someone 100% willing to defend, and committed to defending, his/her country not still reasonably hesitate to use force in many instances?

Like ... if there were no obvious target against which to use the force in order to actually defend the country, as compared to, oh, using an attack as a pretext in order to do something else altogether?

[sandnsea]

26. It depends

What if it's done by a cell that's been in Tuscaloosa for the last 5 years? I could only hope he'd invade Alabama. If it's a country that's nothing more than a terrorist haven, like Afghanistan, probably invade. If not, he'd go after the terrorists like we have with the rest of them.

[iverglas]

27. say what?

If it's a country that's nothing more than a terrorist haven, like Afghanistan, ...

I tend to think that the many ordinary people living in Afghanistan (and getting hit by those bombs) regard it as just a little bit more than "a terrorist haven".

And I'm afraid that this sounds dreadfully ethnocentric.

[sandnsea]

28. And the refugees in Pakistan?

That were driven out by the Taliban? Wonder what they thought. We made as big a mess of Afghanistan as we did Iraq. But we were right in Afghanistan for alot of reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with your perceived notions of "ethnocentricity". Geesh. How lovely for Americans to sit in their comfy homes with full refrigerators and condemn others to lives of complete poverty.

[iverglas]

29. just a note

How lovely for Americans to sit in their comfy homes with full refrigerators and condemn others to lives of complete poverty.

I couldn't agree more ... me not being a USAmerican and all.

I just don't think that the sentiment has bugger all (if you'll excuse the double negative) to do with the attack on Afghanistan.

There were uncountable reasons why some action was needed in the case of Afghanistan ... none of which had bugger all to do with attacks on the US, either.

Bombing people just wasn't the action that was needed. And it certainly hasn't done much about all those problems.

[drscm]

30. Blame Clinton? It seems to work for *Bush. eom

eom

[Commendatori]

31. Just a guess, but I think he'd go overboard in an attempt to take

the national security issue from the Republicans once and for all. If he failed to act swiftly, decisively and ruthlessly, he could forget about a second term (or, possibly, even a second nomination). He's running against the biggest moron to ever hold the job and is barely leading, largely because of this perception among the masses that Bush's actions are actually meant for our security.

Kerry would recognize the need to act fast and act hard. My guess is that this would lead to an overboard reaction. No worries, though - it couldn't be more stupid than what the Chimp in Chief has done so far.