Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
We did the same thing (if anything) during the Cold War with terrorists. Slowly the violence built. We responded lightly. Then 9/11. Then knowledge of the A.Q. Khan network of rogue WMD networks. Bush has responded by getting Saudi Arabia (slowly) to crack down; by getting Libya to renounce terrorism; by getting Pakistan (slowly, and really only after attempts on their President's life) to crack down; by renouncing Yasser Arafat and the politics of terror; by greatly increasing our nation's intelligence capabilities; and by invading Iraq.
|
He has gotten Saudi Arabia to do next to nothing. I'm not saying that Kerry could have done better, but don't kid yourself. What happened with Libya started under Bush's father and continued under Clinton. Renouncing Arafat has done nothing to curb terrorism against us -- the Palestinians don't gun for us -- but it may make other Arabs resent us more. Not that I'm an Arafat fan. And when you talk about increasing intelligence capabilities, there was bipartisan agreement about that after 9/11.
And then there's Iraq.
Quote:
|
He is confronting and isolating Syria, N. Korea and Iran. In fact, Syrian and Iran are basically surrounded by our allied states now. Bush has put troops and/or equipment in other parts of the mid-East and Africa, in the Phillipines, and anywhere else our enemy exists and can be confronted directly without incurring undue costs.
|
Unclear that Syria supports terrorism against us. Against Israel, sure, but Syria was actually helping us against Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq. And then we "isolated" them.
Like the Bushies, you see the war on terror as one of confronting rogue states. But some of these states (Syria, North Korea) have nothing to do with the Islamists. And other states (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq) now are a haven for terrorists, not because the central government supports them but because the state's authority is limited. Failed states are a problem for us.
Quote:
|
Except for follow-up support in Afghanistan, and British, Polish, Italian, Spanish and Australian support in Iraq, our allies have done little to condone or contribute to our efforts. We simply cannot count on their support. Now you tell me, which of these actions and initiatives would Kerry have led? We have a 30 year history to go on. What can we expect in the future from him. What will he do to apply pressure? Who will he confront? Who will he ignore. And who will he simply react to?
|
Our allies are with us in Afghanistan, which is a war Democrats were fully with. Gore or Kerry would have done something similar there after 9/11, but might have invested more in the rebuilding to get a government whose writ extends beyond Kabul.
Iraq is a different story, but many of us think it was a wrong turn in the war on terror.
Bush's history pre-9/11 gave precious little indication of what he's done for the last three years. Who would have thought that he, in particular, would be trying to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq to bring democracy to them?
Quote:
|
His record in the old days is not exactly a shining star, and those days are over. He certainly has not advocated withdrawing from the world, so what exactly is his plan? Because, at best, it sounds like he's on-board to making things the way they were when we were reacting with Officer Dibble. And with his base, you know he will never say that he will order an invasion alone if the threat warrants such action. So what's conceited about this belief? Its based on his record and his silence for the last 30 years and during this campaign. You might hope he's only pandering to the far left in the party, but if he doesn't affirm the policy of preemption, he has given you no reason to believe that his plan to return to the old days of reaction and containment with allies is only our conceit.
|
I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that seems germane to you to the war on terror.
