Why I am voting for Bush

In his nomination acceptance speech last night Kerry basically said that he would not attak another country until AFTER we had been attacked. Living in the city that is one of the two most likely targets of a terrorist “first” strike, I’m going to chose the guy who will attempt to stop them in the first place. Yes, I understand this process is messy. I just prefer the mess to be over there.


2 Responses to Why I am voting for Bush

  1. nobody's fool says:

    and that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the terrorists win. because now this blogger is reacting entirely with fear.

  2. Nicholas says:

    hi alex! hope you don’t mind my chiming in here…

    i’m a pro-war democrat, fyi. i sometimes think of myself as a “scoop jackson” liberal.

    i’m curious…where in kerry’s speech did you find him to be saying what you found him to be saying?

    here are what seem to be some relevant passages, with commentary:

    “As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: “I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.” So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war. ”

    comment – talks about a “threat,” not something that has already happened.

    “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.”

    comment – this does talk about response to attack. but the line right before it was “we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us”, which certainly doesn’t seem to be saying we should wait to be attacked.

    “And the front lines of this battle are not just far away they’re right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. ”

    comment – says the front lines are _both_ abroad and at home.

    alex, i’m just passing through, but your reading of kerry’s speech seems to be a fairly strange one. i don’t think he’s EVER said that the US should never attack or invade any other country until we’re attacked first.

    Interested to hear your response.

    Now if I may editorialize for a little…

    – we don’t have enough troops to invade and occupy all the countries sponsoring terrorism (iran, syria) or under siege by internal terrorists (saudi, egypt, pakistan).

    – we can’t attack North Korea without losing 1 million south korean lives

    – we have a massive, growing, seemingly irreversible current account deficit, and a huge budget deficit, which make us economically dependent on the rest of the world’s support for the treasury and the dollar.

    Given all these risks and threats, Bush’s willingness to pursue an inflexible, dogmatic approach on Iraq has jeopardized our security. He dropped the ball in afghanistan. He has NOT sent a message to Iran and Syria that they’re next — instead, he’s given them a place to send all their bombthrowers for practice. there is ZERO chance that Bush will put any pressure at all on the Saudi royal family to reform. and North Korea has easily called his bluff – the unilateral approach isn’t working, and any other administration would already have changed tack. meanwhile, as we know, rumsfeld’s war against the army has left us severely under-resourced just when we need more troops most.

    So how exactly is it that you think Bush will fight terror effectively in term 2?

    We need a bipartisan, multilateral policy. That’s what Kerry offers. We need more troops in uniform and on the ground in Iraq. That’s what Kerry offers.

    And we need a commander in chief who is willing to change tactics as necessary in order to gain victory.

    This is the BIG point, for me. Bush is a politician. He is supremely political – perhaps even more than Clinton. His approach is to stick with his program as long as possible, because that’s what appeals to his base and, he believes, will keep him in office.

    It’s no way to fight a war.

    More simply, Bush offers an extremist approach that isn’t working and is going to lead to a weakened geostrategic position.

    Anyway, all of this is my opinion. But i can’t see where in the speech a reasonable interpreter would think Kerry’s saying we’d never attack anyone unless we were attacked first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: