|
First of all, I don't hate the Patriot Act. I feel that much of the act is vital and important. There are several parts which are simply too invasive(which I think have been discussed ad naseum) and we must ensure that the term "terrorist" is not used too frivolously in investigations and prosecutions. This legislation was rushed together with far too little discussion and consideration. Fortunately, they put sunset clauses on it so that we have a second chance to get it right.
As far as our being less secure, I think this has also been discussed ad naseum, but it is nevertheless a reality. If I had my druthers, we would not have rushed into Iraq. I approve of President Bush asking for and congress approving the authorization to use force if necessary(remember we were told this was a vote for peace, not for war). We needed a big stick to get Saddam in line. This said, I would have prefered to complete the job in Afganistan and pursue an all-out hunt for Osama Bin Ladin while developing a truly international coalition against terrorism. I would prefer to have seen a greater emphasis on US border security, port security and airline security. I would prefer to see greater funding and assistance to first responders within the United States including training and communication upgrades. I would like to see a greater emphasis on the restructuring of our intelligence community and the tools (both technological and human) that they use. I would like to see a much stronger effort to track and monitor the exsisting supply of post-Cold War nuclear weapons that pose a serious risk of falling into the hand of terrorists. While all of this was going on, I would have begun to turn the heat up on Saddam while working with the international community. Saddam was certainly a threat, but much more of a potential threat, while Al Qaida was and still is an immediate threat. What many of you on the right don't seem to grasp is that by diverting our resources from acutally pursuing terrorists we have allowed them to regroup and infact by invading a country that contains some of Islams holiest sites we have only increased their numbers and provided them with white hot recruiting tools.
Additionaly this poorly planned war has put a serious strain on our military forces and we are seeing a reduction of people who are reupping in the Reserves. Add to all of this, the fact that this Administration has pushed throught absurdly large tax cuts and spent absurbly large amounts of money (FYI Bush has spent more on Domestic Issues and Military Expenditures, in real dollars, than the Clinton Administration) and created the largest deficits in our history which have the potential to seriously harm our long-term economic stabilty. Also, by implementing the "Bush Doctrine" we have only encouraged the development of nuclear programs in countries like North Korea and Iran, because we have made it clear that if you have some sort of ties to terrorists (strong in Afganistan, weak in Iraq) and do not have nuclear weapons, we may just attack. If you have strong ties to terrorism and do have nukes (Pakistan for one) we will work with you.
So, overall I do think we are less secure due to George Bush and his policies. Now, to be fair, I do have the advantage of hindsight in this matter, but I think if you look through my posts, I, just like John Kerry, have been pretty consistant on these points. Certain nuances may have morphed a bit as the situation in the world and at home have changed, but I am sure you won't hold that against me, since it is only common sense to adjust or alter tactics when they are proven wrong or if the situation in which they are being played out changes.
__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams
|