Kerry: Bush policies "encouraging the recruitment of terrorists"

[Marley23]

Other Democrats, what do you think of this? My initial reaction, frankly, was that I'm just surprised he said it. But I think he's right, and I don't think I'm alone. But I'm curious. Is it right? Could it be too negative? Too strong? I don't know, that's what I'm interested in hearing discussed.

From CNN: (http://cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/02/kerry.security/index.html)
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry on Monday accused the Bush administration of doing too little in the fight against terrorism and of instituting policies that encourage "the recruitment of terrorists."

President Bush responded to Kerry's comments by saying that he had done as much as possible to protect the nation from terrorist attacks and by implying that his opponent doesn't understand the seriousness of the U.S. war on terrorism.

Kerry said the Bush administration has not moved rapidly enough on a "long, long list" of recommendations from the independent, bipartisan commission that investigated the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"I believe this administration, in its policies, is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists," Kerry told CNN's "American Morning."

"We haven't done the work necessary to reach out to other countries," Kerry said. "We haven't done the work necessary with the Muslim world. We haven't done the work necessary to protect our own ports, our chemical facilities, our nuclear facilities.

"We shouldn't be limping along from one piece of information to the next. We should be doing everything necessary to protect our country."
And there's more, obviously, but that's the bit relevant to what I'm asking.

[Cisco]

I've held this opinion since at least March of 2003, I'm surprised it took this long for a politician to come out and say it.

Of course, I don't have concrete evidence that it's true, but I'd love to see cites.

[rjung]

Is this a surprise? Anyone with three brain cells to rub together vis-a-vis foreign policy realizes that Bush's Iraqi Misadventure(tm) is the greatest thing to hit Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism since the invention of the waterproof Koran. "See? SEE? We told you the western devils were out to destroy us and seize our land, and here they are doing it! How can you passively sit by now? Join today!"

The only people who think Bush's Iraqi Fuckup has helped reduce terrorism are either the folks in the Administration or their legion of know-nothing apologists. The only novelty here is that Kerry is a high-profile politician with the cojones to finally recognize the elephant in the room that everyone else has been ignoring.

[Equipoise]

The only people who think Bush's Iraqi Fuckup has helped reduce terrorism are either the folks in the Administration or their legion of know-nothing apologists. The only novelty here is that Kerry is a high-profile politician with the cojones to finally recognize the elephant in the room that everyone else has been ignoring.

One of many, many, many elephants.

I agree with Kerry. It seems like such an obvious thing that I'm surprised that this seems to be the first time it has been mentioned. Is it really the first?

I thought this when we went into Afghanistan. I told a co-worker that this was a war, the war on terror, that we would never win. He called me a traitor. While I tended to support the invasion of Afghanistan to rout the Taliban and find bin Laden (where is he, by the way?), I knew then that we would birth a whole new generation of terrorists by killing the mothers and fathers of future terrorists. I got into terrible arguments with this person who wouldn't even consider such a thing. And then we go and do it again in Iraq!

[Sevastopol]

I think the problem is not so much the 'recruitment' of terrorists, whatever that means. Instead it is the sacrifice of legitimacy.

Look the US had a legitimate beef but it overstepped the mark in a number of grievous and obvious ways.

How much quiet acquiescence and passive support this will channel to the tiny minority of radical activitists is anyone's guess.

So the worldview doesn't gel. The US has to deal with a world that isn't neatly bifurcated: Terrorist/Loyal Ally of the US. Instead losing the middle ground is the real problem with Bush's policies.

[Revtim]

Ted Kennedy was saying this well before Iraq was invaded.

[E72521]

Lil' Georgie should learn to respect his elders. (http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presid/focus/prqabush.htm)


During the Gulf War, why didn't the United States go all the way and stop Saddam Hussein? We are concerned because he seems to be able to still cause problems. -- Bebe Oh, Newington Forest School, Springfield, Virginia

President Bush: We did not "go all the way" in Desert Storm because at no time was that the purpose of the mission. It's complicated, so let me tell you why.

When our diplomatic efforts to convince Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait were not successful, the United States and our coalition partners obtained explicit authorization from the United Nations to remove the Iraqi military from Kuwait by force — but not to eliminate Saddam Hussein or to change the government.

As I mentioned before in Question 2, our coalition consisted of more than 30 countries — some of them were from the Arab world. Iraq is an Arab country, and a number of those coalition partners never would have supported the U.S. and other Western nations overthrowing an Arab government just because they don't like it.

Anyway, by the time we finished pushing the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, they were in such bad shape that most of their troops were, in effect, defenseless. The United States does not massacre helpless people simply to prove a point.

Furthermore, if we had gone into Baghdad to look for Saddam Hussein and to establish a government more favorable to our point of view, two things would have happened. First, our coalition would have shattered, and our Arab friends would have lost their trust in the United States. Second, American troops would have been bogged down in a very dangerous kind of urban warfare, and I was not going to let that happen to our people.

The UN Resolutions were limited for a purpose. I believe that because we respected and adhered to them the way that we did, we gained a great deal of goodwill and credibility that later enabled us to restart the peace process between Israel and her Arab neighbors. So a lot of good has come from it.

It's a complicated matter — diplomacy usually is — but I am convinced we did the right thing when we stopped the war.

Bolding is mine. A little father to son talk about diplomacy would be in order.

[madmonk28]

I'm reading Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by a CIA analyst who was once in charge of the hunt for Bin Laden. He argues exactly the point that Kerry made, that this war has mobilized Islamist fighters in the same way the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did.

He said Bush's response to 9/11 fulfilled Bin Laden's "wildest dream."

[PatriotX]

A recent Zogby poll shows that it's the policy (http://www.aaiusa.org/PDF/Impressions_of_America04.pdf).

Frustration with American foreign policy has dercreased the positive and increased the negative of the US in parts of the ME. The number one answers about why the US has come to be seen as such an unwelcome giant all involve foreign policy- relations with Israel re the Palestinians and Iraq.



From the summaries:

• Overall favorable ratings toward the US have declined in the past two years.
• Attitudes toward American values, people, and products remain mostly favorable,
but have also declined in the past two years.
• Attitudes toward US policy in Iraq and Palestine are extremely low, in the single digit range
• Attitudes toward US policy on terrorism are somewhat higher, though still quite
low. These too, have declined precipitously in the past two years.
• US policy is the major factor that accounts for the low US favorable ratings and the decline in these ratings.
• Most Arabs have only indirect or received knowledge about America. The
principle source of that knowledge comes from the Arab media.
• Arabs who have learned about America by visiting the US, knowing Americans or
watching American television programs have somewhat more favorable views
about US values, people and products.
These factors have no impact on Arab attitudes toward US policy, which remains
low and drives overall favorables down.
• Arabs, whose principle source of knowledge about the US, comes from Arab
commentary or Arab media have somewhat less favorable attitudes toward
American values, people and products, except in Saudi Arabia, where these
attitudes actually are somewhat higher among those who watch Arab television.


It serves to seperate various aspects and measure the impact of these things.

The critical moment occurs when a young person decides that killing americans is a good idea. The more of these moments that occur, the larger the pool of potential terrorists.

I believe that some of this was covered in a State Dept report last year.

[Ravenman]

from the Pew Research Foundation:

Approval rate of the U.S. in Jordan, 2002: 25%
Approval rate of the U.S. in Jordan, 2004: 1%

Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Indonesia, 2002: 36%
Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Indonesia, 2004: 83%

Approval rate of the U.S. in Turkey, 2002: 30%
Approval rate of the U.S. in Turkey, 2004: 15%

Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Nigeria, 2002: 11%
Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Nigeria, 2002: 36%

Page 133 (http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185topline.pdf) (pdf)

Only in America could it come as a surprise that more and more people hate us. Even the 9-11 Commission said in its report that terrorists hate us for what we do, not for what we are. All this Bush "they hate are freedoms" rhetoric is absolute nonsense.

Wes Clark said in 2002 that an unjustified war in Iraq would supercharge recruiting for Al Qaeda. Perhaps the better question is, does anyone now think that Clark is wrong? Because if he isn't, Kerry is right.

[BobLibDem]

Finally Kerry has said that the emperor has no clothes. I don't think there's any question that Bush has been the best recruiting tool that AlQaeda ever had. Even if they catch Osama, it's like the proverbial snake that grows seven new heads whenever one is cut off. Bush's policies have emboldened terrorists and alienated our allies. It's about time the Democrats were able to spot the bleeding elephant in the snow.

[PatriotX]

How much quiet acquiescence and passive support this will channel to the tiny minority of radical activitists is anyone's guess.
This is all that's necessary. For people to let it happen around them. If there's no one who can present good counter-arguments in the cafes then those who advocate bloodshed etc will be unrestrained y public opinion. It's not necessary to mobilize the entire population- just to render a bulk of it abivalent or otherwise passive.
Every time someone young says, "Death to America," and there's no elder there to say, "Settle down and drink your tea," the terrorists win.
Even if someone older realizes the implications of such statements are blodshed and tears, if they don't have a good counter-argument they will say nothing, or worse yet join in.
The prevailing attitude in a society has impact on the likelihood of certain behaviors arising within its members. If the attitude toward teh US is, "They deserve it," then no one will stop what they think's coming to us.

Those who're terrorists now are prob'ly beyond conversion; but, those who have yet to make such a committment are reachable.
It's not enough to wipe out terrorists as they arise, there must be valiant efforst to prevent the ocurence of future terrorists to take their place.






The only people who think Bush's Iraqi Fuckup has helped reduce terrorism are either the folks in the Administration or their legion of know-nothing apologists. The only novelty here is that Kerry is a high-profile politician with the cojones to finally recognize the elephant in the room that everyone else has been ignoring.

[PatriotX]

How much quiet acquiescence and passive support this will channel to the tiny minority of radical activitists is anyone's guess.
This is all that's necessary. For people to let it happen around them. If there's no one who can present good counter-arguments in the cafes then those who advocate bloodshed etc will be unrestrained y public opinion. It's not necessary to mobilize the entire population- just to render a bulk of it abivalent or otherwise passive.
Every time someone young says, "Death to America," and there's no elder there to say, "Settle down and drink your tea," the terrorists win.
Even if someone older realizes the implications of such statements are blodshed and tears, if they don't have a good counter-argument they will say nothing, or worse yet join in.
The prevailing attitude in a society has impact on the likelihood of certain behaviors arising within its members. If the attitude toward teh US is, "They deserve it," then no one will stop what they think's coming to us.

Those who're terrorists now are prob'ly beyond conversion; but, those who have yet to make such a committment are reachable.
It's not enough to wipe out terrorists as they arise, there must be valiant efforst to prevent the occurence of future terrorists to take their place.


The only people who think Bush's Iraqi Fuckup has helped reduce terrorism are either the folks in the Administration...
I'm not so sure about this. Recall Rumsfeld's 'long hard slog' memo's discussion of 'metrics'. There're those who say that there's a Straussian plan behind the plan going on. The purported plot is to get the US inextricably entangled in the ME. Then we will have to be commtted to remaking the area whether we want to or not.


The only novelty here is that Kerry is a high-profile politician with the cojones to finally recognize the elephant in the room that everyone else has been ignoring.
This lengthy delay is some of what disheartens me about our politics in general. Surely these sophisticated DC types were able to see these things before us provincial yokels in the backwaters of Arkansas. But ...

[Rashak Mani]

Most Dopers understand and agree with Kerry... the problem is getting the average US voter that has a short attention span and a tendency to enjoy military might displays to understand that.

To them its simple... I've followed conservatives in many boards: Bush is killing a lot of arabs... a lot of these arabs are terrorists. Potential recruits wouldn't want to be killed and would be dissuaded. The US is showing muscle and keeping terrorists low.

So how do you make these guys understand that suicidal terrorists don't fear death ? (yep should be self explanatory) That killing 400 terrorists and then AQ getting 1000 new angry recruits = 600 more terrorists. That arabs have pride too ! I've tried to argue with no results... way too many americans think terrorism is a military problem to be solved with military means.

[Marley23]

Most Dopers understand and agree with Kerry...
Kerry agreeing with Dopers is part of what I consider a good sign. ;)

the problem is getting the average US voter that has a short attention span and a tendency to enjoy military might displays to understand that.
Even if that's true, major combat in Iraq ended a year ago, and at this point polls are showing a majority of people don't think it was worth it.

[Rashak Mani]

Even if that's true, major combat in Iraq ended a year ago, and at this point polls are showing a majority of people don't think it was worth it.

Still somehow Bush claims the intel was bad and he had good intentions... that an evil dictator was taken down... even while still claiming WMD will be found... duh... Polls still indicate Bush wins the election... so Iraq isn't spoiling Bush's party enough.

[capacitor]

The recruitment poster for al-Qaeda is not bin Laden pointing directly like Uncle Sam, but the thumbs-up soldier peeking under a pile of prisoners' bodies like it was some Mapplethorpe statue.

[Marley23]

even while still claiming WMD will be found... duh...
Can I get a cite on that? I haven't heard him say anything of the sort in a good long time.

Polls still indicate Bush wins the election...
No, they don't. Polls indicate things are up in the air and that either guy could win.

[ElvisL1ves]

It's the same not-really-lying insinuation crap still, marley23. Today's Talking Points Memo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com) reports:George W. Bush, August 2nd 2004: “Let me talk about the intelligence in Iraq. First of all, we all thought we’d find stockpiles of weapons. We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet. Every person standing up here would say, 'Gosh, we thought it was going to be different.; As did congress, by the way. Member of both parties. And the United Nations. But what we do know is that Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons. And ... umm … but let me just say this to you. Knowing what I know today, we still would have gone on into Iraq. We still would have gone to make our country more secure. He had the capability of making weapons. He had terrorist ties. The decision I made was the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.”

Kerry is just saying what many of us did, well before the invasion, as one of the many reasons it was a stupid idea. He'll get the usual "traitor" and "crazy" crap from the usual gasbags, but they won't be able to say why he's wrong.

[ElvisL1ves]

Rashak, not all polls agree, but the bulk of them point to a Kerry lead right now. If your point is that Bush could actually win despite himself, well, yes, that thought is disturbing.

[RedFury]

Can I get a cite on that? I haven't heard him say anything of the sort in a good long time.

Monday, 8/2/04: Bush says he would make same decisions (http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=41690)

Bush acknowledged that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq, but he said they might still turn up. "We still would have gone to make our country more secure," Bush said, adding that Saddam "had the capability of making weapons."

"He had terrorist ties," Bush said. "The decision I made was the right decision."

There you have it, straight from No Mistake Misleader.

[RedFury]

Beaten to the post by Elvis I see. Oh well, quotes in stereo.

[Rashak Mani]

There is a Gallup poll saying Bush 51 Kerry 47 Poll here (http://www.gallup.com/election2004/)

Still Bush has an easier time with the electoral college... he will lose the national vote again for sure... but in 2000 that didn't mean much either.

[Equipoise]

There is a Gallup poll saying Bush 51 Kerry 47 Poll here (http://www.gallup.com/election2004/)

Still Bush has an easier time with the electoral college... he will lose the national vote again for sure... but in 2000 that didn't mean much either.

If Bush loses the popular vote and wins the electoral college, I predict riots. Not insulting signage and yelling and egg-throwing that the mass media will ignore, I mean real riots. I'll be right out there with them. Me, a grey-haired grandmother with 3 cats, I will be right there with them. I promise not to destroy any personal property.


The recruitment poster for al-Qaeda is not bin Laden pointing directly like Uncle Sam, but the thumbs-up soldier peeking under a pile of prisoners' bodies like it was some Mapplethorpe statue.

That sort of got lost and I wanted to highlight it. You're exactly right, and when the news comes out about the child rape/torture, the sky is the limit.


Where are all the Bush-apologists? I hear crickets from that direction.

[lissener]

I was reading a recent New Yorker article that quoted an Al Qaeda strategic document that says that Al Qaeda wants Bush to win in November; they figure he's the best thing to come along to mobilize Islamic extremists in a long time.

Isn't Bush and Co. still saying that Al Qaeda wants Kerry to win?

[elucidator]

Bumper sticker distributed by Kentucky Republicans "Kerry is Osama's man, and Bush is mine."

Ad see on Drudge: "Ten of ten terrorists agree: Anybody But Bush!"

Sure, they'll say it. And if they can't come right out and say it, they'll suggest it. And if not that, they'll imply it. At the very least, insinuate.

Then there's always "commentary", on a phenomenon noticed, but certainly not participated in....

"Some people are saying Kerry is (generic slur on patriotism)"

If it doesn't work, it may be the first time I'd ever seen where it didn't work. I'd take that as a mighty hopeful sign.