Public Enquiry Project: Dick Morris on why the US must be THE WORLD'S FIREFIGHTER

About

The Teachings of Chairman Adrian

Right Nation

RIGHT NATION US

Important Links

Site Meter

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2004

« Over 500 hits today | Main | Thank God, it's about time »

May 28, 2004

Dick Morris on why the US must be THE WORLD'S FIREFIGHTER

Dick in a moment of brilliance.

Adrian

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21556.htm

THE WORLD'S FIREFIGHTER

By DICK MORRIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint

May 26, 2004 --

THE horrific human, financial and polit ical cost of the occupation of Iraq sug gests a need to review our nation's role in the post-9/11 world: The United States can't be the world's policeman — but must be the world's firefighter.

President Bush has been quite right to articulate the need for pre-emptive action to stop terrorists from getting sufficient traction and weaponry to attack the United States. To wait for an attack to respond would be to court disaster.

He also grasps, as President Bill Clinton did not and John Kerry does not, that military action to eliminate terror-sponsoring and terror-harboring nations' capacity of to commit mayhem is vital. Clinton treated terrorism as a crime. Kerry would devolve the War on Terror into a DEA-style effort — not a real war, but police activity devoted to stalking and arresting members of terror gangs while leaving uncurbed the nations whose sponsorship makes them truly threatening...

May 28, 2004 | Permalink

Comments

I have no idea what Kerrys stance is on terrorism, does he have any stance or is he just playing the peacenik line?

Posted by: alfredjames | May 28, 2004 at 11:54 AM

The reasoning is a little off. Let' see: Destroying and then rebuilding Iraq has bankrupted us, cost hundreds of American soldiers their lives, wounded thousands of them, killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, made the world LESS safe by its morally bankrupt conception and execution (according to a number of defense analysts), strengthed Al Qaeda by enraging the Arab world, cost us the respect of our allies, resulted in handing the country back to Saddam's army and fundamentalist Islamic clerics who rule as brutally as Saddam, and was initiated by a series of outright lies.

Therefore, thank God Bush is so smart.

Clinton/Kerry bad, bad, bad.

You can believe any fairy tale you want, and foam at the mouth when you scream it's true, but if it looks like crap, smells like crap, and governs like crap, then it's crap.

I had hoped this blog might be a place for a decent exchange of rational ideas, but I see you're just going to advance the propaganda of the Bushwhacker.

Posted by: Unapologetic | May 28, 2004 at 05:34 PM

The reasoning is a little off. Let' see: Destroying and then rebuilding Iraq has bankrupted us,

PURE HYPERBOLE

cost hundreds of American soldiers their lives, wounded thousands of them,

WHICH WOULD BE A REAL TRAGEDY FOR AMERICA IF WE DON'Y ACHIEVE OUR OBJECTIVES

killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians,

HYPERBOLE

made the world LESS safe by its morally bankrupt

COMPLETE LIE

conception and execution (according to a number of defense analysts),

ACCORDING TO LEFTY ANALYSTS, THEREFORE WORTHLESS

strengthed Al Qaeda by enraging the Arab world,

TOTALLY WRONG

cost us the respect of our allies,

FRANCE AND GERMANY ONLY, WHO HATED US ANYWAY

resulted in handing the country back to Saddam's army and fundamentalist Islamic clerics who rule as brutally as Saddam,

HYPERBOLE

and was initiated by a series of outright lies.

A COMPLETE LIE

Therefore, thank God Bush is so smart.

YOUR CORRECT ON THIS ONE

Clinton/Kerry bad, bad, bad.

SEE ABOVE

You can believe any fairy tale you want, and foam at the mouth when you scream it's true,

AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR POST

but if it looks like crap, smells like crap, and governs like crap, then it's crap.

SEE ABOVE

I had hoped this blog might be a place for a decent exchange of rational ideas, but I see you're just going to advance the propaganda of the Bushwhacker.
Posted by: Unapologetic

PERHAPS YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT RATIONAL MEANS IN ENGLISH, OR YOU CAN'T TELL RATIONAL FROM CAREFULLY REASONED. RATIONAL CAN ACTUALLY MEAN CRAZY IF YOUR DATAPOINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG. CAREFULLY REASONED MEANS INTEGRATING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES RATHER THAN ONLY OPERATING FROM A NARROW PERSPECTIVE WHICH YOU DID IN YOUR POST.

YOUR RANT IS MEANINGLESS IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

PLEASE TURN OFF THE HYPERBOLE AND TRY REASON.

ADRIAN

Posted by: Adrian Spidle | June 01, 2004 at 10:15 AM

I thought you were interested in intelligent debate. Do you or Dick Morris have any evidence to back up this claim:?
"Kerry would devolve the War on Terror into a DEA-style effort — not a real war, but police activity devoted to stalking and arresting members of terror gangs while leaving uncurbed the nations whose sponsorship makes them truly threatening... "
This sounds a lot like "Kerry is going to raise your gas tax by 50 cents" which many people believe because of the millions of dollars Bush has spent to spread this lie.
Kerry's war on terror plan is just becoming more detailed this week. He is not going to give Iran, Syria, or North Korea a free ride. I just feel a lot more secure for myself and my children if we have someone at the helm that has seen war firsthand.

Posted by: Raj | June 02, 2004 at 03:52 PM

I thought you were interested in intelligent debate. Do you or Dick Morris have any evidence to back up this claim:?

I POST WELL KNOWN PUNDITS FOR DEBATE. PLEASE DEBATE THE POINTS, NOT THE POINTERS.

"Kerry would devolve the War on Terror into a DEA-style effort — not a real war, but police activity devoted to stalking and arresting members of terror gangs while leaving uncurbed the nations whose sponsorship makes them truly threatening... "

KERRY HAS A TRACK RECORD. HE SAID HE'D PREFER A LAW ENFORCEMENT MODEL TO A PREEMPTIVE WAR MODEL. HE ALSO SAID HE THOUGHT THE US MILITARY SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE UN.

...Kerry's war on terror plan is just becoming more detailed this week. He is not going to give Iran, Syria, or North Korea a free ride.

AGAIN, HE HAS A RECORD. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT A PERSON SAYS AND DOES. A WISE PERSON MODULATES WHAT A POLITICIAN SAYS HE'LL DO BY WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THE PAST.

I just feel a lot more secure for myself and my children if we have someone at the helm that has seen war firsthand.

Posted by: Raj

ON THE OTHER HAND, I just feel a lot more secure for myself and my children if we have someone at the helm WHO'S RECORD SHOWS A COMMITTMENT TO DEFENDING OUR NATION IN DEEDS INSTEAD OF WORDS.

I'VE SEEN VIETNAM IN PERSON AND I REMEMBER KERRY'S WORDS IN 1971. THE IDEA OF HIM BEING PRESIDENT TERRIFIES ME AND MILLIONS LIKE ME.

Adrian

Posted by: Adrian Spidle | June 02, 2004 at 04:13 PM

KERRY HAS A TRACK RECORD. HE SAID HE'D PREFER A LAW ENFORCEMENT MODEL TO A PREEMPTIVE WAR MODEL. HE ALSO SAID HE THOUGHT THE US MILITARY SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE UN.

Isn't his track record from the last 10-20 years much more important than what he said in 1971? If you look at all of Kerry's statements on the topic since 1984, do you really believe he would let the US Military be controlled by the UN, or are you just spreading Bush/Cheney propaganda? Dick Cheney has also distorted and is very misleading about Kerry's comments on the war on terror.

AGAIN, HE HAS A RECORD. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT A PERSON SAYS AND DOES. A WISE PERSON MODULATES WHAT A POLITICIAN SAYS HE'LL DO BY WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THE PAST.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Why did Bush oppose creating a department of homeland security? Why hasn't he held anyone accountable for intelligence failures? How can he continue to stand by Donald Rumsfeld when he is a big part of the reason that world and u.s. opinion is turning even more against the Iraq war?

ON THE OTHER HAND, I just feel a lot more secure for myself and my children if we have someone at the helm WHO'S RECORD SHOWS A COMMITTMENT TO DEFENDING OUR NATION IN DEEDS INSTEAD OF WORDS.

I'VE SEEN VIETNAM IN PERSON AND I REMEMBER KERRY'S WORDS IN 1971. THE IDEA OF HIM BEING PRESIDENT TERRIFIES ME AND MILLIONS LIKE ME.

To use your word, this is hyperbole.
The men that knew Kerry the best support him 8 to 1. True, many of his commanders have come out against him. These look to me like people who still have not admitted to themselves they had bad leadership during Vietnam. Obviously I am not the person to debate this topic since I was only a year old when Kerry spoke in 1971. On the other hand, maybe it gives me a more objective perspective on the topic.

Posted by: Raj | June 02, 2004 at 04:31 PM

The men that knew Kerry the best support him 8 to 1. True, many of his commanders have come out against him. These look to me like people who still have not admitted to themselves they had bad leadership during Vietnam.

THIS IS A CRUCIAL POINT. MY FATHER WAS A DEMOCRAT AND I WAS 'TILL I GOT OUT OF THE SERVICE. FROM MY MEMORY AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I'D SAY THAT OUR MILITARY LEADERSHIP WAS EXEMPLARY WHILE THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL LEADERSHIP (I LOVED LBJ AND HUMPHRY)BETRAYED ALL US VETERANS.

I STILL BELIEVE THAT WAS A GOOD WAR FOR GOOD REASONS THAT WAS BADLY AND TRAGICALLY MISSMANAGED BY THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OF THE TIME.

... I was only a year old when Kerry spoke in 1971. On the other hand, maybe it gives me a more objective perspective on the topic.

BUT YOUR "KNOWLEDGE" IS FROM THE SLANTED PRESS AND ACADEMICS. I LIVED IT AND I'LL NEVER AGAIN TRUST THE DEMOCRATS TO PROTECT OUR NATION 'TILL THEY COME UP WITH ANOTHER FDR OR HST. KERRY IS NO FDR.

Adrian

Posted by: Adrian Spidle | June 02, 2004 at 04:55 PM

Maybe Kerry or someone like me will convince you to consider Kerry for his second term. Until then, it's been a good debate! I have to get back to work.

Posted by: Raj | June 02, 2004 at 05:01 PM