First of all, as for Kerry making bold statements without ever saying exactly what he would do, I agree. Of course he does. Every politician does. They have to to get elected. In this single-issue driven political world we live in, every time you nail an issue down to specifics, you lose all the votes of those who are polarized against your position on that one issue. Maybe Kerry is slicker that Bush at that game, I dunno, but they both play it.
As for your statement "a guy who thinks it's okay for ont country to take over another country obviously has a problem with war under any circumstance", I'm sure you are referring to the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait, which was a clearcut violation of international law and a perfect example of a just war, and big Bush showed tremendous leadership and diplomatic skills in creating a coalition to liberate Kuwait (even though we did most of the heavy lifting) Little Bush has shown none of these skills in the post 9-11 wars, neither of which involved one nation attacking another. But the real counterpoint to your statement here is the irony about one country taking over another, which is exactly what we have done, almost unilaterally, to Iraq.
And this is all most of the rest of the world sees....the US attacking and occupying another country without provocation. You may disagree with that, but that is what the world sees, and although Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider", he has certainly failed at creating any kind of coalition supporting our efforts in the middle east.
I believe that coming to the aid of citizens of other countries, overthrowing despots, and fighting for freedom is one of the noblest things Americans do for the world, and I am proud when we do it honorably. However, we need a uniform policy, and we should not prop up one dictator and overthrow another, especially if we shy away from countries like N. Korea and Pakistan who really do have WMD's, because by picking on weaker countries, it makes us look like the biggest bully on the playground. We should also make every effort to avoid having to act unilaterally.
As for the media letting Kerry get away with crap, let me say you are correct, but don't think they don't let Republicans get away with crap as well. Reagan had the longest honeymoon with the press of all time. The press is supposed to be the watchdog of a free society, but they have become the lapdog of both political parties, and NEVER give a third party an even shake.
There!
Flamethrowers, read whatever you will from this news article:
------------------------------------------------
Politics
08/05/2004 16:52:40 EST Charles Rex Arbogast/AP Photo
Kerry Raps Bush on Initial 9/11 Inaction
By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - John Kerry said Thursday he would have jumped into action more quickly than President Bush did on Sept. 11, 2001, raising the stakes in the political fight over terrorism as Bush warned that the United States can't afford to "grow timid and weary and afraid" in Iraq or elsewhere.
The Democratic challenger said he'd never waver - "I can fight a more effective, smarter and better war on terror that actually makes America safer," Kerry told Missouri voters.
Disputing that vow was a group of Vietnam veterans who unveiled a television ad challenging Kerry's medal-winning service in the war. Another veteran, Republican Sen. John McCain, put the president on the spot by urging the White House to condemn the "dishonest and dishonorable" commercial.
Bush's spokesman declined to do so.
Again, war and terrorism dominated a campaign day, with Bush trying to rekindle the rally-around-the-president passions that pushed his popularity to record heights after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Kerry, tied or slightly ahead of Bush in most polls, hopes to erase the president's advantages on issues of terrorism and national security after making gains during last week's Democratic National Convention.
Before leaving the White House for Ohio and Michigan, Bush signed a $417.5 billion wartime defense bill providing an additional $25 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, body armor for troops and reinforced Humvee vehicles. Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, missed the votes on the bill.
Thrusting the administration's terrorism-fighting efforts into the spotlight, the Justice Department announced that two leaders of a mosque in Albany, N.Y., were arrested in an alleged plot involving a scheme to buy a shoulder-fired missile. Some Democratic critics have accused the administration of orchestrating the release of terrorism alerts and arrests to maximize their political benefits, a charge denied by the White House.
Addressing minority journalists in the nation's capital, Kerry was asked what he would have done as president the moment he received word of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Bush spent seven minutes listening to "The Pet Goat" being read at a Florida elementary school after his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered, "America is under attack," as televisions cameras recorded the anxious scene.
"I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to," Kerry said before flying to Missouri to resume his cross-country campaign trip. "And I would have attended to it."
Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani came to Bush's defense, accusing Kerry of taking cues from moviemaker Michael Moore, whose documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" questions the president's immediate reaction to the attacks.
"John Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the war on terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein," the Republican said.
Kerry suggested that Bush wasn't up to the task. "Americans want to know that the person they choose as president has all of the skills and the ability, all of the mental toughness, all of the gut instinct necessary to be a strong commander in chief," he said, adding that there is a "clear choice" between Bush and himself.
"I come to the job of commander in chief with the rare, gratefully, but important experience of having fought in a war," Kerry said. "And I believe we need a commander in chief who understands the test before you send young people to war."
Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
Kerry often suggests that a wartime president needs war experience, but the remark carried extra weight Thursday as a group of fellow veterans questioned his combat credentials.
"When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry," says Larry Thurlow, one of several veterans who criticizes Kerry in a new 60-second ad.
Thurlow didn't serve on Kerry's swiftboat, but says he witnessed the events that led to Kerry winning a Bronze Star and the last of his three Purple Hearts. Kerry's crewmates support the candidate and call him a hero.
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain told The Associated Press. McCain, chairman of Bush's Arizona campaign, compared the ad to tactics used by Bush supporters against him during the bitterly contested 2000 GOP presidential primaries.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan did not denounce the ad - only the form of financing behind it. "The president thought he got rid of this unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reform into law," McClellan said. A chief sponsor of that bill, which Bush initially opposed, was McCain.
Bush made his second visit to Ohio in less than a week and fifth visit to Michigan in the last four weeks - a measure of how important the two states and their combined 37 electoral votes are to both candidates. They need 270 votes to win.
"People of Iraq are watching carefully right now," Bush said in Ohio. "Are we going to be a country of our word when we say people should be free - that we're willing to stand by our word? Or are we going to grow timid and weary and afraid of the barbaric behavior of a few?"
____
On the Net:
http://www.johnkerry.com
http://www.georgewbush.com
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
... he would have jumped into action more quickly? And do WHAT? He doesn't say. He never does. Would he do something really bold...like forming a blue-ribbon panel? Re-arranging the furniture at the FBI? The problem with Kerry is he SAYS stuff like this, but he never says what he'd actually DO. Tough talk, no details. And plus, this is from one of the few guys who voted AGAINST the first Gulf War... a war every leader in the civilized world (even France!) thought was necessary and entirely just.
A guy who thinks its okay for one country to take over another country obviously has a problem with war under ANY circumstances. Maintaining respect for other nation's territory is one of the lynchpins of world order. Sen Kerry actually IS what Osama bin Laden thought the U.S. was - a pacifict, make-love-not-war paper tiger that wouldn't act aggressively even when directly attacked. Making it known that we'll attack like wildcats guarding our cubs is one element that helps keep us secure -- by preventing Syria, Iran, etc from being more bold in helping terrorists.
The fact that the media lets Kerry get away with non-specific statements such as this article, with no follow-up questions about what he'd do differently, is really negligent. The lastest media line it doesn't matter if its Kerry or Bush fighting the war on terror. Balderdash. The differnce is huge, based on Kerry's track record. In this election, the media is really doing a HUGE disservice to the Republic.
-- Modified on 8/5/2004 7:38:14 PM
First of all, as for Kerry making bold statements without ever saying exactly what he would do, I agree. Of course he does. Every politician does. They have to to get elected. In this single-issue driven political world we live in, every time you nail an issue down to specifics, you lose all the votes of those who are polarized against your position on that one issue. Maybe Kerry is slicker that Bush at that game, I dunno, but they both play it.
As for your statement "a guy who thinks it's okay for ont country to take over another country obviously has a problem with war under any circumstance", I'm sure you are referring to the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait, which was a clearcut violation of international law and a perfect example of a just war, and big Bush showed tremendous leadership and diplomatic skills in creating a coalition to liberate Kuwait (even though we did most of the heavy lifting) Little Bush has shown none of these skills in the post 9-11 wars, neither of which involved one nation attacking another. But the real counterpoint to your statement here is the irony about one country taking over another, which is exactly what we have done, almost unilaterally, to Iraq.
And this is all most of the rest of the world sees....the US attacking and occupying another country without provocation. You may disagree with that, but that is what the world sees, and although Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider", he has certainly failed at creating any kind of coalition supporting our efforts in the middle east.
I believe that coming to the aid of citizens of other countries, overthrowing despots, and fighting for freedom is one of the noblest things Americans do for the world, and I am proud when we do it honorably. However, we need a uniform policy, and we should not prop up one dictator and overthrow another, especially if we shy away from countries like N. Korea and Pakistan who really do have WMD's, because by picking on weaker countries, it makes us look like the biggest bully on the playground. We should also make every effort to avoid having to act unilaterally.
As for the media letting Kerry get away with crap, let me say you are correct, but don't think they don't let Republicans get away with crap as well. Reagan had the longest honeymoon with the press of all time. The press is supposed to be the watchdog of a free society, but they have become the lapdog of both political parties, and NEVER give a third party an even shake.
There!
... Clinton had a policy statement for every issue under the sun. He gave good policy wonk, in depth and detail. Sen Kerry on the other hand...is a mile wide and an inch deep with detail. And his lack of detail is NOT politics as usual -- so that's NO excuse. Every pol makes electioneering claims, but then backs them up with some fig leaf of details and specifics. Kerry doesn't have a fig leaf.
He uses platitudes without any offer of substance. Oddly, Bush gets accused of being a lightweight, but Kerry is so substance free (he's for a better America and being tough on terrorism) I have to wonder what HIS problem is.
Your saying "we took over Iraq" is plain silly. They have their own government now. It's nothing like Japan or Germany after WWII, the last two countries we took over. Anyone in the world who persists in the idea we own Iraq doesn't want to believe we didn't despite the facts, or isn't paying attention.
I agree spreading democracy is the noblest thing America can do. Unfortunately, we can't liberate everyone. China, anyone? Still, I notice in the paper Bush and Powell have been very vocal and active in the Sudan, which is a real mess, and they're attempting to rally Europe for a humane cause. Guess what? Europe isn't listening. What's the deal? Europe thinks it okay for a couple more million Sudanese to die because they're miffed at Bush? Yeah, those are humane allies to count on in a pinch. In other words, no matter what Old Europe won't help. No how no way. Under a president kerry, they might give more lip service to helping, but they won't help.
Bush has failed to rally support. It may not always be possible to rally support for a just cause, but it is always important to try before taking action. Bush made it clear early on that he didn't care what the rest of the world did, he would act unilaterally if necessary. That was a widely popular stance at the time, not so much anymore.
And your point about China, though a good one, actually makes my point. If we use diplomacy and trade to deal with a giant like China, then we should use the same tactics against weak nations, or act as a broad coalition to keep them in line. To do otherwise is, as I said, being the biggest bully on the block.
I like your thinking, though!
The statement about the media really gall me.
"As for the media letting Kerry get away with crap, let me say you are correct, but don't think they don't let Republicans get away with crap as well. Reagan had the longest honeymoon with the press of all time. The press is supposed to be the watchdog of a free society, but they have become the lapdog of both political parties, and NEVER give a third party an even shake."
Such a blanket statement is made too often here by some people. What the media does is bend over backwards to get good ratings and not step on ANY toes. The only agenda is self-preservation.