Kerry "tougher on terrorism" than Bush?

Great Debates
21

Yep, that’s the link. Good catch, Anna. Sorry, I’m at work, and not really suited for deep googling.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hagerp/PR_warpw.html

http://www.ishipress.com/wag-dog.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/21newsc.html
That’s all fairly period stuff, and, unfortunately, nobody knew any better at the time.

I’m not saying that we could have stopped 9/11, but… we could have handled it a lot better. And the reasons we didn’t were ideological.

I see a regretable tendency in the Bush camp to err on the side of the ideological over the actual. I’m not going to go any more in that direction, as I would get quite upset and start hijacking the thread worse…

But the point remains, I don’t… think… Bush did all he could or should have.

22

It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest one or the other candidate is more “tough on terror”, as if this were a matter of personal committment or negligence. But Kerry is likely to be more effective, simply by not being Bush.

Bush’s policies have left rather a poor taste in the mouths of the “international community.” Many of them have experienced terrorism first hand, and for years. They could be forgiven for feeling that terrorism only became the worlds number one priority when it happens to us.

Any real effort against terrorism must necessarily involve cooperation and shared intelligence. We have to rely on foreigners to go that extra mile on our behalf, indeed, we must expect them to place themselves at risk.

If Kerry’s ascension to the White House can be taken as a signal that American arrogance and selfishness will be set aside and the “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive domination will be modified to respectfully acknowledge the opinions and priorities of other nations, this will help enormously.

Will it help enough? Hard to say. We have insulted and patronized an entire planet, not to mention bitch-slapping the UN. There are enormous repairs to be made, and GeeDubya is not about to make them. That would be almost as bad as admitting he was wro…wro…less than entirely correct.

Kerry, at least, would have the advantage of offering a “fresh start”.

23

FWIW, I put “tougher on terrorism” in quotes specifically because I wanted to leave the issue of what that meant open to interpretation.

24

Might want to check the results of a poll just released from Iraq.

Survey finds optimism in Iraq

25

If Kerry was half as focused on combatting terrorism as Bill Clinton was, that’d easily make him twice as tough as George W. Bush.

Summary of George W. Bush’s war on terrorism:
2001: “Osama bin Laden? Who cares?”
2002: “Osama bin Laden, dead or alive!”
2003: “Osama bin Laden? Who cares? I’m hunting Saddam!”
2004: “Osama bin Laden, but only because it’ll help me get re-elected.”

26

Don’t forget the rest of that poll:

"Just a quarter said they had confidence in US-led occupation forces to deliver their needs. There were far higher levels of confidence in Iraqi religious leaders (70%), local police (68%) and the new Iraqi army (56%).

"Fifty-one percent were opposed to the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq, against 39% who supported it.

“Almost a fifth of those questioned said that attacks on foreign forces were acceptable”

27

In regards to the poll conducted by the BBC - I found this sort of interesting –

I suppose the idea here is that a strong leader will be needed to first establish order and create the environment necessary before a democratic government can take hold.

28

Maybe between us we’ll get the entire poll cut and pasted –

29

Well, shit, ol’ GeeDubyas approval ratings in Iraq are better than they are here! And they say what they really need is a strong, authoritative leader…

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

30

Probably not ---- I’m hoping this means that the Iraqi people are bonded in opinion to the extent that they will have the internal support to freely govern themselves, despite the efforts of terrorists. And for some reason — I’m also thinking these poll results probably really grates on the nerves of some here.

31

What did Iraq have to do with Terrorism before Bush ? Nothing. OP is talking about Terrorism.

Bush is pretty good at invading dictatorships… not making nations either.

32

Here’s some more detailed info on the poll


and what Rahsak Mani said, xpt with the qualification of “terrorism against the US” to be susbtituted for “terrorism”:

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism against the US before Bush ? Nothing. OP is talking about Terrorism.

33

Sorry but that is simply not true ----. Saddam was ‘rewarding’ the families of terrorists who had committed terrorist actions with, first $10,000 and then increased it to $25,000.

34 
Wow ! Your joking ?! He was a "MAJOR" terrorist financer ! Giving money to poor palestinians with wacko bombers ! What an outrage. That must have been a great factor in determining human bombs in Palestine ! Saddam the Terror Master.

Thank god the rich Saudis weren't doing anything similar...

( Sarcasm off )

35

Well I wasn’t expecting that.

36

Damn, that’s a higher % than the winner has had in our last 3 presidential elections.

37

If you don’t want to mess with the pdf, abc news has a semi breakdown with more info:

Note the differences between the Arabs and the Kurds (breakdown in the article).

Also, keep in mind this poll was concluded prior to the Shiite bombing massacre.

But again, just what does this have to do with being “tough” on terrorism???

38

How things are going today: All North South Central Baghdad
Good70% 85% 65% 70% 67%
Bad 29 14 34 28 32
Compared to a year ago, before the war:
Better 56% 70% 63% 54% 46%
Same 23 15 21 22 31
Worse 19 13 13 23 23
How they’ll be a year from now:
Better 71% 83% 74% 70% 63%
Same 9 4 6 10 16
Worse 7 1 4 9 10

39

WOW! Sorry about that mess. I didn’t even know I’d posted until I got a message indicating such. I WAS going to post something about the the Iraqi attitudes reflected in the ABC poll showing 70% indicating that ‘things’ are going “good” and with 29% saying “bad.” Sorry.

40

1 2