Quote:
His history doesn't merely "suggest" this, and no "benefit of the doubt" is required. He DID go to Vietnam, DID serve heroicly and earn the silver star, and DID rise to prominence in the anti-war movement, and testify before congress.
|
I wasn't questioning any of his previous actions, merely suggesting that his waffling on Iraq may be due to similar reasoning- that is, he stands by his country but still has reservations about the decisions that Bush made. This is quite a leap of faith, but one that a voter can definitely make. Whether the waffling is a GOP talking point or not is irrevelent, I watched every Democratic presidential debate, and Kerry most definitely changed his reponse to questions regarding Iraq. My point was that just as he has changed his opinions, so have most voters. If our leadership fails to recognize a shift in policy needs, that's a weakness.
Quote:
First, nobody's really talking about "continued preemptive war."
|
Then you haven't been paying attention. The president has repeatedly stating that the United States will continue to stamp out dangerous leaders and havens of terrorism across the world. In the past week there have been two deadly terrorist attacks in the news- obviously more war is needed. We won't be in Iraq, but we'll be in Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, Israel... oh wait, their terrorism is okay. Scratch that last one. Saudi Arabia... dang it, they're okay too. Back to the point, setting the concept of preemptive WAR, not "strike", not "intelligence action", but full blown man-on-the-ground regime change WAR, as the standard in international relations has set us up for continued military action. This benefits the Boeings and Halliburtons of the world, and it obviously will root out some bad guys along the way, but if you think it's gonna "end" with Iraq, you don't read the papers. (And it doesn't sound like that's the case at all)
In regards to "9/11 happened", well, it didn't just "happen". Many folks (Including the Clinton White House) believed that Osama bin Laden was a threat, and many intelligence advisors suggested this specific means of attack. Somewhere in our leadership, someone was asleep at the switch. The amount of time between the first plane striking the WTC and the second was significant enough (18 minutes) to allow for that plane being SHOT DOWN. There's no two ways about it- the second plane never should have hit. Ever. Had Bush (Or his people!) been ready to make the tough calls, the second plane wouldn't have hit, and a lot less bodies would be the result. Argue all you like about how it wasn't his fault, but mere minutes after that event occured, fighters shoulda been in the air. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MILITARY DEFENSE. Of course, the administration's staunch refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the matter should be considered, as well as the near-immediate evacuation of our #1 suspect's family from the USA, while the investigation was going full-bore. Forget the fact that Saudi Arabia's name was blacked out of the "official" findings in every instance...
Or to use a football analogy, occasionally teams run a "fake punt". It's rare enough that you don't expect it, but it can happen from time to time. If you don't train your special teams to defend the fake punt, then the COACH is to blame. However, none of us saw it coming, so we can't hold it against him. See, the thing is, if the VERY NEXT PLAY after a succesful fake punt, the punter checked back in, every single one of us would know the fix was in, and if the coach bumbled it again, it'd be his head on a platter. Sure, 15 minutes is not a lot of time for these tough decisions, but that's why we (supposedly) put so much effort into finding the RIGHT GUY to run the country- it's a hard job.
But I digress... my attempt wasn't to show how partisan people could be, but rather to battle that with anti-partisanship. That is, I'm a Democrat, but I can admit John Kerry is bad in THIS way, while as a Republican, someone else can admit Bush's flaws. These don't have to be personal flaws, but rather policy flaws. Bush is at odds with many conservatives in regards to immigration and HUGE spending, yet the same conservatives will rarely call him on it, because they don't want to lend a hand to his ouster, for fear the other TEAM wins the election. Ask schoolkids what political party Washington, Lincoln, or hell, even Kennedy belonged to- they won't know, but they've been taught that all of these guys were great leaders. Ask adults (well, educated ones) their political party and they know. Kids know that a leader we can trust, rely on, and support is more important than "our guy" on "our team". How often do you hear a politician's name nowadays without hearing his party affiliation directly following? Partisanship will divide, not unite.