Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Tom Clancy Democrat - no longer undecided

I’m not with President Bush on stem cells, energy policy, environment, etc. but as a true blue Tom Clancy Democrat (I call myself that because in this election, fighting the terrorists trumps the other issues and I’m sure there are many people just like me), I’m no longer undecided after hearing and reading about what Kerry said about terrorism. I was undecided until this weekend. I wanted to vote for Kerry, but I was sure there would be something in the debates or in the last few weeks that would help me make up my mind.

In a cover story in the latest New York Times Magazine, Kerry said: "We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He said that, like prostitution and illegal gambling, terrorism will never go away. "But we're going to reduce it ... to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day."

I don’t think he has a clue about how dangerous the terrorists are if he can say something like that… I’m a permanent absentee voter, so I’ll be voting for Bush this weekend.


apple said...

I would read that differently. To me, that comment indicates that Kerry realizes that terrorism isn't something that can be totally eradicated. The very nature of terrorism - amorphous and global - means there is no clear target to retaliate against. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon - it has occurred for centuries before 9/11 and will continue to do so, no matter how many wars we declare. I'm not sure what is so offensive about that, nor what about that comment indicates that Kerry doesn't recognize the threat. I think that understanding it is the first step in addressing it - something that Bush hasn't been able to do.

On the terrorists, I have entirely different views altogether and would argue that having Bush in office for another 4 years would strengthen terrorists rather than defeat them.

Carbubble said...

Many of the same people complaining about Iraq were saying that Afghanistan would descend into a civil war. Instead 3.5 million refugees have returned and they just had the first free election in their history with very little violence. Forty percent of the electorate were women.

I agree that many mistakes were made in Iraq, but unfortunately, the people who hate Bush can't seem to give him credit for doing anything right. They also don't seem to think that the Iraqi people want to be free and will overcome the current chaos with our help. When they do and become a democratic country they will become long time friends of the U.S. like the people of Afghanistan. This is a major benefit to our long term security.

Why do the Iraqi people keep showing up to get jobs as policemen, national guard, etc. even when they are being killed in the thousands by the terrorists? Could it be because they want to be free?

I’m not impressed with George Soros’ reasoning. Just because he became a billionaire through currency manipulation that doesn’t make him a foreign policy or national security expert. He seems to think that there are more people in the world who hate us since we invaded Iraq. I don’t know how much more they can hate us when there are people willing to fly airplanes into buildings to kill thousands of people at a time and the terrorists are trying to get WMD’s so they can kill millions.

Read the 9/11 Commission report. All of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place before Bush was elected.

In fact we were attacked repeatedly by Islamic terrorists while Bill Clinton was President and presumably (at least according to Soros’ reasoning) everyone liked us better:

1) 1993 first World Trade Center bombing. Don’t forget that this could have easily killed more people than 9/11 since there would have been no time to evacuate if the building had collapsed.
2) 1996 Truck bombing of the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia.
3) 1998 Osama bin Laden issues a fatwa calling for the killing of Americans and their allies everywhere in the world.
4) 1998 Two U.S. embassies in Africa bombed.
5) 1999 Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle and/or Los Angeles luckily thwarted by custom’s agents on the Canadian border.
6) 2000 Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden.

What has happened since Bush has been elected? No other attacks on American soil. Who would have predicted that? Al-Qaeda’s main training base destroyed and 75% of its leadership killed or captured. Saddam Hussein, one of the most dangerous dictators in history and our sworn enemy, defeated. All U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia which was one of bin Laden’s main complaints. 45 million people liberated from tyranny. Libya renounces nuclear weapons as well as other WMD’s. The A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan that was disseminating nuclear weapons technology throughout the world rolled up. Pakistan actively fighting Islamic terrorists. Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program exposed and the world threatening sanctions if it doesn’t dismantle it. North Korea in multi-lateral talks to force it to abandon its nuclear weapons program. These are huge accomplishments in three and a half years.

It is easy to second guess decisions in a war. If you want to find out about massive screw-ups in war, read WWII history. Thousands were killed in a single battle because of foreseeable mistakes.

Finally, I don't feel comfortable with a billionaire like George Soros who says, “I'm going to spend $15 million to beat Bush”. If someone else made a similar statement about beating Kerry would the same people be applauding?

A key part of Bush’s strategy to defeat the Islamic fanatics is to bring democracy to areas of the world (like the Middle East) that have bred terrorism. In a number of interviews, Kerry has said that he thinks stability is more important than spreading democracy. I’m sorry, but stability is the policy that brought us all the attacks in the 90’s leading up to 9/11. For the naysayers who think you can’t bring democracy at the point of a gun, I point to Germany 1945, Japan 1945, Afghanistan 2004, and (if we have the will) Iraq 2005.

Here is an article by Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.victorhanson.com) that I think lays out the choice in the Presidential election: