It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bush's major assault is on Kerry's ability to defend us from terrorism. On this score, the president is�how to put this delicately?�lying. He keeps saying on the stump that Kerry won't hit terrorists until they hit us and would apply a "global test" before intervening. This is a clear and deliberate misrepresentation of what Kerry actually said. Bush goes on to argue that Kerry voted to disarm the military. In fact, both CIA Director Porter Goss and Vice President Dick Cheney supported even deeper cuts in intelligence and weapons systems at the end of the cold war. The irony of Bush's "wolf ad" (featuring pictures of scary wolves as the announcer talks about Kerry's weakness on defense) is that it's the president who has a wolf problem. The greatest single consequence of the botched war in Iraq is that the next time trouble arises somewhere in the world, our allies won't believe U.S. intelligence about an "imminent threat." With a toxic combination of arrogance and incompetence, Bush has become the boy who cried wolf.
As for the prospect of a military draft, Bush is correct when he says he has no plans for conscription; it is unnecessary for Iraq. But he has yet to explain what he'll do about an Army that is by all accounts overstretched and putting severe strains on the guard and Reserves. And the world could change abruptly (by, say, a single assassin's bullet in Pakistan); a second war of the same size would require a draft.
The shorthand that Bush is relying on to win is that he will protect America and Kerry won't. This may work politically, but it is simply untrue. Does anyone seriously believe Kerry wouldn't fight Al Qaeda? As for Homeland Security, Kerry could hardly do worse. Bush sold out to the chemical industry�so chemical plants are largely unprotected. He failed to follow through on cargo security�so ports are unsecured. Compare Bush to a real wartime leader like Franklin D. Roosevelt. When FDR ordered that 50,000 combat aircraft be built in five months, he was told it was impossible. He made it happen. When Bush, by contrast, was told it would take five years after 9/11 to consolidate terrorist watch lists and replace the FBI's primitive computers, he shrugged and sat on his hands. The job remains undone. Now that's frightening.
Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.
Originally posted by 27jd
Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.
What makes you feel that way?
Originally posted by edsinger
Well Kerry has never been pro military in any fashion, matter of fact he has been to the other side.
What he did in Gulf War 1
How he changes his mind dependant on the polls
His connections to vietnam, maybe he is a plant? (hehe)
And finally, he is a Liberal from Mass, how in the hell can he be aggressive, strength and power are all the enemy understand, the arab culture has always been that way
Originally posted by Aelita
"strong on terror" (which is by the way a terrible choice of words IMHO.
In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record.� -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)
Originally posted by jsobecky
After that he would be very slow to pursue the terrorists; he would need UN approval so that he could not be held solely accountable for his decisions. And he is much too beholden to the anti-war Hollywood crowd to see the battle through.
As far as the nobility of his Viet Nam war protesting, well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but just remember what he said to David Broder of the Washington Post:
In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record.� -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)
This is the true measure of John Kerry.
Originally posted by edsinger
Well this is hogwash IMHO. Bush will be a hammer, as Kerry will be a sternly worded memo. It's my take anyway.
What makes you feel that way?
Well Kerry has never been pro military in any fashion, matter of fact he has been to the other side.
What he did in Gulf War 1
His connections to vietnam, maybe he is a plant? (hehe)
And finally, he is a Liberal from Mass, how in the hell can he be aggressive, strength and power are all the enemy understand, the arab culture has always been that way
Originally posted by 27jd
You're just repeating the Bush campaign rhetoric mentioned in the article I referred to, Kerry has stated he will not let up on the terrorists, I guess it's just a matter of who you believe.
Again, Bush does not have an "angelic" past himself, so if we're going to keep looking backwards, look at Bush too. Just to be fair.
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Bush = Terrorist.
How Kerry could be any better, I don't know.
So, vote Baradnik.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by taibunsuu
Bush = Terrorist.
How Kerry could be any better, I don't know.
So, vote Baradnik.
I'll ignore your batty remarks about the WTC and ask just one question - who's Baradnik?