Why I'm Voting for Kerry

[mouse]

And you know what? I am better because I have a degree.....isn't that the whole purpose of getting one?


Duh.

^RACK^

[JoeChalupa]

Be nice Joe and keep your pie-hole shut.

[SpursWoman]

Why's that, Joe? You wouldn't agree that most people go to college to make themselves better?


He didn't say I thought I was better than everyone else....just better. And I am better than I was before I went. I know more, I'm better qualified for the jobs that I've had....the people I met there......etc.

I'm sorry I had to spell that out....kind of ruins the joke, you know?

[spurster]

Possibly this is another fruitless comment after having this thread hijacked.

Thank you, Joe and uu666 for your comments.

MB, I understand that you think Saddam was a grave threat. I don't agree, and I can only point again to the lack of WMDs, nukes, and AQ terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. I also understand that you thought Clinton was weak on terrorism, but I wouldn't say Bush was any better or worse than Clinton prior to 9/11. The 9/11 commission had plenty bad to say about both of them.

To say that any President post-9/11 will be like our Presidents pre-9/11 on terrorism is bad reasoning. Even Bush changed, and he is being strong on terrorism following his beliefs of where the problems are. I just don't agree that Iraq was a "front on terror" pre-invasion. Even if you wanted to be completely cynical, being strong on terrorism is good politics, and Bush, Kerry, and future candidates/Presidents will act on that if nothing else.

[Useruser666]

Possibly this is another fruitless comment after having this thread hijacked.

Thank you, Joe and uu666 for your comments.

MB, I understand that you think Saddam was a grave threat. I don't agree, and I can only point again to the lack of WMDs, nukes, and AQ terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. I also understand that you thought Clinton was weak on terrorism, but I wouldn't say Bush was any better or worse than Clinton prior to 9/11. The 9/11 commission had plenty bad to say about both of them.

To say that any President post-9/11 will be like our Presidents pre-9/11 on terrorism is bad reasoning. Even Bush changed, and he is being strong on terrorism following his beliefs of where the problems are. I just don't agree that Iraq was a "front on terror" pre-invasion. Even if you wanted to be completely cynical, being strong on terrorism is good politics, and Bush, Kerry, and future candidates/Presidents will act on that if nothing else.

I agree with that spurster. I just believe the comments Kerry has made about the war and terrorism leads me to believe he doesn't have a clear plan on what things need to be done. I feel he is more likely to give in to popular beliefs than the best course of action. I could see critisizing Bush for handling security here or for the war in Iraq if we were getting attacked here on a daily basis. We have not been attacked here since 9/11 and that in some ways leads me to believe something about what the US is doing has worked so far.

[Marcus Bryant]

My view is shaped by the fact that whether we like it or not we are facing a vicious enemy who doesn't play by the rules of a 21st century civilization. It is a different enemy, one that is not solely comprised of enemy states but rather a confederation of like minded individuals spread across the globe who are connected through various religious ins utions and who definitely have contact with and support from certain dictatorships.

The problem with Hussein basically was that certain 'allies' let us down. If France and Russia were not so desirious of a relationship with Hussein then the scenario would have been quite different.

A simple minded focus in dealing with this threat is desirable. It's good to have clarity on this issue. Also it should be noted that the Bush administration has not been ardently unilateralist (in tone) in its approach to other global hot spots. I think Bush's approach to dealing with the North Koreans is much more sane and coherent than Kerry's proposal. With respect to the Iranians the US has not disregarded the efforts of France and Germany to find a resolution to that situation. Yet at some point you have to be firm and be willing to use force to deal with situations that get out of control. I for one do not think that you use force with Iran. You don't need to. You just gave them an example next door of what can happen if you aren't cooperative. Iran itself seems much more ripe for a revolt from within. It probably didn't hurt the US in the eyes of the Iranian people to be the nation that finally removed Hussein from power.

As for 'complexity' in leadership, that is better suited for domestic policy, but for threats to national security one needs a singleminded focus. The Kerry anti-terrorism policy was basically the pre-9/11 approach of this nation's government, one which Reagan was as guilty of as Clinton. We tried wishing it away. Didn't work.