John Kerry's Pro-Terror Voting Record

Token_White_Guy · August 3, 2004, 1:20pm

He can try to hide from his record. I sure won’t let him.

Imagine Osama Bin Laden in the U.S. Senate (Democrat of course)… Can someone tell me if Osama Bin Laden’s voting record would be (hypotheically) any different than John Kerry’s?

I think they’d be the same. And (with OBL in the Senate) Kerry would have another choice for a running-mate…

Truth is Served. Whether or not you can handle it? That’s up to you.

I’ll be waiting for you personal attacks and smear tactics.

Ready…?

GO!

yojimbo · August 3, 2004, 1:30pm

Care to give some examples of these pro-terror voting decisions for the people who aren’t as knowledgeable as you in this subject?

I don’t remember the stories about the “Blow the living shit out of the US” or the “Kill all Americans” bills but maybe that’s just liberal media bias for ya

minty_green · August 3, 2004, 1:31pm

Away.

SentientMeat · August 3, 2004, 1:34pm

“All those in favour of more terrorism say ‘aye’”

Kerry: “Aye!”

Perhaps you could propose some specific votes which you believe were somehow “Pro-Terror”. I would suggest that the best recruiting drive ObL could hope for from the US was a Soviet-style hegemonistic tantrum in the Middle East.

Kerry did, apparently, vote for that.

BobLibDem · August 3, 2004, 1:34pm

Don’t know what happened to the report post button, but this begs for it. The OP is not of sufficient coherence to warrant a reply.

Token_White_Guy · August 3, 2004, 1:35pm

Cutting intelligence?

Cutting Military Spending?

Undermining the War Effort?

Any of these ring a bell?

SentientMeat · August 3, 2004, 1:36pm

It’s the exclamation mark in the top right, Bob. I don’t think this OP warrants its use, personally.

jjimm · August 3, 2004, 1:37pm

BobLibDem, it’s the little ! on the top-right by the post number.

Anyway, I’d love to see examples of Kerry’s pro (blow?) terrorism votes. Did he recommend cutting intel funding too?

SentientMeat · August 3, 2004, 1:38pm

And what if that war and military spending effectively is “pro-Terror”?

Sevastopol · August 3, 2004, 1:40pm

It would be nice to lure $15 bucks out of this guy. You know, before…

Token_White_Guy · August 3, 2004, 1:41pm

Osama Bin Laden (like John Kerry) would cut Intelligence.

Osama Bin Laden (like John Kerry) would cut Military Spending.

Osama Bin Laden (like John Kerry) would undermine the War effort.

There are more examples…

jjimm · August 3, 2004, 1:43pm

Oh for goodness’ sake.

SentientMeat · August 3, 2004, 1:44pm

I would suggest that Osama would prefer the US to invade the Middle East (requiring higher military spending and a pro-war administration), since it makes his job recruiting and brainwashing terrorists so much easier.

yojimbo · August 3, 2004, 1:48pm

I bet you look as cute as a button in your The War Against Terror T-shirt.

Token_White_Guy · August 3, 2004, 1:51pm

http://www.jibjab.com/?flash4=true

scotandrsn · August 3, 2004, 1:52pm

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, Token White Guy!

Specific citations from Kerry’s Senate voting record are what we’re looking for here.

I’ll get you started.

Click this link to find out how to gain access to Congressional voting records.

Please find one (more if you like, but we want just one for now) example of a bill where Kerry voted “pro-terror”. Explain why you think voting a particular way on that particular bill supported terrorism, and show Kerry’s vote.

Then this will be a debate. Prior to that, we got nothin’ to work with here.

Sevastopol · August 3, 2004, 1:52pm

No, no TWG’s a real sage. It’s imperative he stick around to disabuse us of our fearful ignorance.

Perhaps if we are adequately respectful the Guru may click on the Subscribe button, 3rd from the left, so that we might not be cast back into blindness at the expiry of one fleeting month’s membership.

RedFury · August 3, 2004, 1:55pm

So, you’re saying OBL is a pro-choice, in favor of stem-cell research, against tax cuts for the top 1%, environmentally conscious, equal rights advocate, pro-Israel, universal health care reform and after-school care programs, willing to work with the rest of the world community who also favors nuclear non-proliferation treaties, liberal pinko commie?

Learn something new every day. Or maybe not.

Token_White_Guy · August 3, 2004, 1:59pm

I’m not pro-Partial Birth Murder. And I’m anti Terror.

Other than those, I’m actually quite moderate.

RTFirefly · August 3, 2004, 2:01pm

Who cares about Manchuria? We’ve got the Arabian candidate!

So let’s imagine an update - not the remake with Denzel Washington, which I haven’t seen, but my own version. This time the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation’s defender against terrorist evildoers.

The Arabian candidate wouldn’t openly help terrorists. Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending to be their enemy.

After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist base, a necessary action to preserve his image of toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public’s attention shifted, he would systematically squander the military victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and terrorist allies would make a comeback.

Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a country that posed no imminent threat. He would insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear weapons.

Again, he would take care to squander a military victory. The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block all planning for the war’s aftermath; they would arrange for our army to allow looters to destroy much of the country’s infrastructure. Then they would disband the defeated regime’s army, turning hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.

After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied country’s reconstruction, simply by failing to spend aid funds or rein in cronyism and corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.

Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean trick when our enemies are mass murderers, by creating a climate in which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only petty crimes.

At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical plants and other potential targets. He would stonewall investigations into why the initial terrorist attack succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his officials would ensure public indifference if and when a real threat is announced.

Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist threat for personal political gain, he would undermine the nation’s unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion about the government’s motives.

Krugman is clear elsewhere in the column that he doesn’t believe Bush is actually an al-Qaeda mole. But he sure acts like one, doesn’t he?