"John H" wrote:


During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that
Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember
that?

On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll
back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can
invest in homeland security."

I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent
ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help.


I don't want to become that explainer or appologist for John Kerry. I
really
don't have any way to know what his explanation is. But here's one that
I think is about right:

Bush did exaggerate the terrorist threat. He exaggerated the threat that
Saddam
posed. He called Saddam a terrorist - which in fact Saddam was. Saddam had
terrorised his own people and some neighbors over a period of years. But
then
GW Bush also either directly stated or implied that Saddam was a grave
threat
to the US. Bush and his people talked about a nuckular program that could
produce a bomb in 6 weeks or 6 months. They said there were huge stock
piles of bio-weapons and that they knew pretty much exactly where they were.
Bush & Co. talked about moveable trailers used to make bio weapons. They
talked about drone air-planes that could reach the US and harm us. And they
kept calling Saddam a terrorst (which he was) but made it sound like he was
a terrorist connected to 9/11 and-or that would be a terrorist threat to
America.
In light of what has gone on (and not gone on) in Iraq ~ It seems these
claims
are much MUCH exaggerated.

However, that doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat. There are other
terrorist organizations (Al Quada etc.) that may be a true threat to
America.

Read that way, there is no contradiction (or as you call it "ambiguity")
when
one says, "Bush has exaggerated the terrorist threat. But we need to
invest more in Homeland Security." ~ I agree on first blush is does seem
slightly odd. But the point is, it's two DIFFERENT threats.

Another thing, not mentioned in your Kerry quotes, is that it's one thing to
think there is a threat and do everything we can to PREVENT that threat.
It is quite another to go offensive and start a full scale WAR to PREEMPT
what might be a threat. And that second action (preemption) looks and is
very bad when it turns out your preeptive reason was not even true.

Gary