View Full Version : Kerry vs Bush on national security
Now please take into account before answering that I'm not from the States.
In today's uncertain environment does it really matter who runs the show in regards to terrorism. What I mean by that is if Kerry is elected wouldn't he be shown everything that the States and the allies have in regards to the problems we are facing and basically say "holy crap" Bush was right we need to get medieval on their asses with or without public or international support?
I ask this because there seems to be a lot of support for Bush here despite what CNN and the like report about Kerry being favorite among the serving members do to his prior service and the apparent lack of Bush's.
I also haven't read the plethora of posts and I'm still very green here.
Hi 2VP
I'm not in the Military....
That said don't believe what CNN has to say re the Troops and Kerry. Obviously, I don't know every single Military member but those I do know can't stand Kerry's self serving look what I did chest thumping grandstanding. (Can you tell I don't like him?)
His voting record as it pertains to Military funding etc. speaks for itself. Many in the Senate and House are privvy to information that John Q. Public isn't, through briefings and such. So no...I don't think he would ever admit President Bush is right, he's too busy bashing in order to make himself look better. The man is running for President, supposedly has a vision for America....but in his arrogance he hasn't bothered to share with the Country what those "visions" are.
I believe if he could Kerry would sell out the collective soul of this Country.
Just my .02
Just to clarify. When I said Kerry would say Bush was right, I meant that he would say that to himself (internal monologue).
LOL that could be a scary conversation. ;) Well nothing is impossible, but I'd say it is improbable. Then again, the man flip flops on issues more than anyone I've seen....
So its his flip flopping, previous voting and lack of a plan that discourages the majority here?
Well for myself, it is all of that as well as how he thinks the GWOT should be prosecuted. Just one example, he feels OBL should be tried in the court system in the US....that is ridiculous in my opinion. There are so many things...
Not being an American citizen is a good advisory to preface your remarks and questions with.
That said, paying very close attention to who will ultimately be the best CinC of the US is well worth any time you put into studying, reading and learning.
The outcome of the US Presidential race has immediate implications for us foreigners internally and globally - economics, foreign policies, militarily specifications (wish lists) and even culturally. As well, a solid foundation of knowledge on the politics of other foreign countries is worthy of study - especially in regards to the GWOT.
This isn't a short-term interest regardless of which country you are taking an interest in. Do the immediate, 5 year, 10 year and 30 year math, factoring in all the repercussions, advances and potential set-backs if the wrong guy gets voted in.
Do the big picture math not the short term CNN poll math for the next four years.
Airbornelawyer
08-05-2004, 11:20
Look at it this way. In office, Kerry would likely run a foreign policy like Clintons. A preference for multilateralism, a tendency toward navel-gazing ("why do they hate us?") and a preference for the law enforcement approach, with the occasional retaliatory strike, over robust military action. Remember, Clinton led a coalition of the willing into action over Kosovo when he realized UN sanction was not forthcoming. Clinton also maintained the no-fly zones over Iraq, as well as related punitive actions like Desert Fox. He sent troops to Bosnia and beefed up Bush's deployment to Somalia. He was prepared for unilateral military action in Haiti, and the troops were actually on the go when a diplomatic deal was brokered. Clinton also was rather robust in increasing the powers of domestic law enforcement agencies. Remember Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elian Gonzalez.
But in the end, the fundamental characteristic of Clinton's defense and terrorism policies was that it was reactive. We did not take the war to the enemy. There was no perception of there being a war.
Kerry's campaign rhetoric and his convention speech enunciated a desire to return to that model. When asked if he would be a war president, he emphasizes being an education president, a jobs president, etc. The war, to the extent it is recognized, is just one more issue up there with gay marriage and prescription drugs. He speaks of fighting terrorism more from the law enforcement perspective. When he talks tough, it is to say that if the terrorists strike us, we will strike back hard - in other words, once again the initiative is ceded to them, and we only react. The campaign thinks they have a winner in talking about funding first responders - police, fire and EMT - calling them the first line of defense. But again, they are primarily there in reaction to an attack. As journalist and blogger Bill Hobbs put it (http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003465.html):For John Kerry, our "first responders" in the War on Terror are the people who respond to an attack with firehoses, bulldozers and cadaver dogs. For President George Bush, our "first responders" are the 101st Airborne, the Third Infantry Division, the Navy and the Air Force. They get no mention in Kerry's self-described "Agenda to Support Front Lines in America's War on Terror," which contains not a single single word about offense. The other factor to consider is that, unlike both Clinton and Bush, Kerry is not a leader. For all Clinton's other failings, he knew how to lead (how to motivate, build consensus, compromise, and make decisions). Kerry has virtually no executive or leadership experience and has demonstrated repeatedly his indecisiveness and poor judgment. His supporters tout his intellect and ability to see the complexities in various issues, but a leader must not merely be able to see all sides of an issue - he must take a stand on the issue. Kerry has had an enjoyable career in the Senate because that is a deliberative body, not an executive institution, and even in that context he has rarely taken a leadership role on any issue (he has long been described as a permanent back-bencher).
Originally posted by 2VP
I ask this because there seems to be a lot of support for Bush here despite what CNN and the like report about Kerry being favorite among the serving members do to his prior service and the apparent lack of Bush's.
While I rarely watch CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, if they are touting that the military service members are in favor of Kerry for his service "record", then they truely are twisting preception to their own views in order to shape public opinion. But then again, what else is new. Provided those around me are an actual reflection of the rest of the Army, Kerry MIGHT have the support of maybe 10 to 15% of todays service members.
Many of those that seem to support Kerry are under the delusion that he will bring them all the soldiers home so they no longer have to be deployed and away from their families. I say delusion because no where I have seen has Kerry ever said he would bring anyone home. Rather to the contrary, he has made comments about us beoming more involved in Sudan. Which would only add another round of deployments.
Airbornelawyer
08-05-2004, 12:33
CBS Poll: Vets Favor Bush (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/04/opinion/polls/printable621136.shtml)
Airbornelawyer
08-05-2004, 12:39
Sorry. That CBS poll was from early June. It had Bush over Kerry among veterans at 54 to 40. Things might have changed since then...
Rasmussen Reports, August 5, 2004, "Among Veterans: Bush 58% Kerry 35%" (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Veterans%20Vote.htm):A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.
The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.
When it comes to perceptions of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is likely that information from family and friends has a bigger impact than news coverage.
Overall, 47% of voters believe that Bush would make a better Commander-in-Chief than John Kerry. Forty-five percent (45%) take the opposite view and say Kerry would do a better job. This closely reflects the overall voter preference in the race for the White House (on the nights of this survey, Kerry attracted 48% of the total vote to 45% for Bush).
Veterans prefer Bush as Commander-in-Chief by a 60% to 33% margin. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans give the President good or excellent ratings for handling the situation in Iraq. Overall, just 43% of voters give the President such positive ratings on Iraq.
I was talking to my boss the other day (female) and she seems to think that Kerry and Edwards will run away with the race and it won't be even close, which I'm having a hard time buying into because I think it will be tight. Hoping it won't but I think that it will be another close race.
One possible scenario I keep thinking about is Kerry/Edwards winning the popular vote but not winning the key (swing) states and electoral votes. Man would that make a lot of heads explode, which would be funny as hell to see, and I do think that it's plausible.
Bottom line, I'm another vet that likes being proactive rather than being in a reactionary mode all the time in regards to the GWOT, but that's just me. Also, I have real heartburn with treating terrorists/terrorist acts as a crime; these are acts of war and the offenders should be treated accordingly - i.e. with a bullet in da head.
My 2 cents....