#1 I posted this late last night in a Kerry thread, but wanted to see what people think of it, so I am reposting it here. (BTW, I know that some of these issues were previously raised by George Will, Mark Steyn and others.)
I sent this e-mail to John Loftus, an intelligence/national security guy who comments on a NYC-based radio show every night. He is a Democrat who is in favor of killing (or at least maiming) radical muslims, and has generally been complimentary of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the WoT. Tonight, he was discussing domestic politics and said the failure of the gun bill in the Senate (at the NRA's behest) is one reason this [Bush] Administration has to go. I was caught off-guard by the comment, so I sent him this e-mail:
I enjoy your nightly commentary on the John Batchelor Show and understand that you are a Democrat, but I am curious as to who you think al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, Arafat, Assad, et al., would prefer in the US Presidential election -- Bush or Kerry? Do you think Qaddaffi would have thrown in the towel on his WMD program with John Kerry in office? If John Kerry (or Al Gore) were in office, would Saddam Hussein still be in office too? How about Mullah Omar?
As someone who knows a lot about terrorism, terrorists and the dangers facing the US, do you think that a vote for John Kerry would be responsible? To me, Joe Lieberman was the only Democratic candidate that took the threats to the US seriously, and look where that got him. Kerry has not, to my mind, shown the judgment, strength or courage of his convictions (assuming he has any real convictions) to deal with the threats facing America, and his voting record shows a lack of seriousness about the threats and challenges facing the US and our military.
What is his plan for defending America beyond adding 100,000 cops and 100,000 firefighters? I know he talked about temporarily increasing troop strength by 40,000, but with recent Bush Defense Department moves (delaying most discharges and temporarily upping recruitment), that is happening anyway. He also speaks of President Bush's failure to deal with Iran or North Korea. What would he do differently? Would his approach to North Korea be unilateral or multilateral (the approach followed by the Bush Administration)? On Iran, he seems to have shown his cards a bit by suggesting that he would open a dialogue with the mullahs. To me, they are a bunch of thugs that will recognize only the application of American might and Presidential will. On al Qaeda, he has been critical of the failure to get bin Laden in Tora Bora. Would there have even been a Tora Bora if Al Gore (or John Kerry) was President?
To me, national security/defense is the only issue in this election, and John Kerry hasn't shown me anything to suggest that he would be up to the task of leading this country's defense as president. I will vote for President Bush this fall because I think he thinks and acts and leads like the defense of the US and the destruction of our enemies is the most important thing he will ever do. I fear that he will lose the election because people in the country want a "jobs president" or a "healthcare president" as John Kerry promised to be. Perhaps during the '90s being a "jobs president" was appropriate (I would argue that President Clinton should have done more to COMBAT al Qaeda during his tenure in office), but this is the 21st century, and I think the country needs serious, determined leadership in the War we are fighting, not someone who is going to hire more firefighters and cops to respond to attacks after they occur.
Thanks for letting me vent. Take care. |