Kerry "tougher on terrorism" than Bush?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@rjung

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.

I hope everyone else got a good laugh out of this, too.

The main focus of Bush’s presidency has been combatting terrorism. President Clinton never focused on any one thing, choosing instead to cut a wide swath across many policy landscapes, and leaving a deep impression on none. In many ways, this philosphy was very, very effective for Clnton. But one thing we should all be able to agree on is that Clinton did not ever “focus” on terror.

Better yet, let’s talk concrete examples.

Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing terrorists and weakening (or toppling) regimes that support terrorism the main focus of Bush’s military and foriegn policy. Bush has been criticized for going too far to to fight terrorist regimes in this country and abroad (e.g., Gitmo, Iraq, Patriot Act, and now apparently killing 6 al Queda operatives).

Clinton invaded Somalia and Bosnia, primarily using the military in a humanitarian capacity. His greatest entry into combatting terrorism was when he lobbed a 70 to 80 Tomahawks at OBL (narrowly missing) in retaliation for blowing up two US embassies in Africa. To say that he in any way “focused” on terrorism is pure, weapons grade bullshit. In fact, if Clinton did realize the extent of the threat posed by OBL (and I don’t think he, or anyone else, could have) then Clinton should be criticized for not focusing on terror.

From a 1998 Salon.com article:

But the charge helped to reinforce the president’s claims that bin Laden is “perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today,” and that there was “compelling” – if unrevealable – evidence that a network of terrorist groups he controlled was planning “further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving groups.”

At a time when presidential veracity is at an all-time low, one might have wished that the president and his national security advisors had laid out in detail just what was the “compelling evidence” that led the United States to launch some 75 missiles at two sovereign nations.
. . . .
For while there is little doubt that bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the United States with the financial means to put some teeth in that enmity, his exact role in anti-American terrorism is unclear. The administration’s claims are based more on conjecture – mostly bin Laden’s own braggadocio and the bad company he apparently keeps – than hard and convincing evidence.
. . . .
But so far, for all of the accusations, no government, not even that of the United States, has established enough credible evidence against bin Laden to conclusively prove his direct participation in, much less leadership of, any of the ugly plots and acts he stands accused of. To date no formal request for his extradition has ever been made, either to the Sudanese government that once housed him or to his current hosts, Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders.

As for the OP, I have no idea who would be “tougher” on terrorism between Bush and Kerry. I would hope Kerry’s means and methods for combatting terrorism would be dependent on the circumstances. And more than that, it doesn’t look like Kerry has had time to fully develop a coherent foreign policy.

But Kerry frequently talks about acting only with international consensus in foreign affairs, and in waiting for and relying on the support of the UN. And the international community and the UN has a track record for being softer on some issues than I would have liked them to be.

[annaplurabelle]

@Age Quod Agis

And more than that, it doesn’t look like Kerry has had time to fully develop a coherent foreign policy.

But Kerry frequently talks about acting only with international consensus in foreign affairs, and in waiting for and relying on the support of the UN. And the international community and the UN has a track record for being softer on some issues than I would have liked them to be.

This is just GOP spin talk. Do you have a cite where he has said this? From Kerry’s website:

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done. As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake. But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

And please explain what is so incoherent(?) about the foreign policy laid out here:

John Kerry’s plan to fight the war against terror:

I. Use Direct Military Action: Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. He will also increase active duty end strength and tailor forces to be better prepared for post-conflict and stability operation.

II. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Kerry will strengthen communication networks between intelligence agencies, build cooperative capacity with international law enforcement agencies, increase the number of linguists trained in critical languages and create a real Director of National Intelligence with budget and personnel power.

III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds: Kerry will impose tough financial sanction against banks or nations that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it and will launch a 'name and shame’ campaign against those that finance terror.

IV. Control the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to lead the effort and expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.

V. Win the Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan: Kerry will bring real security in Iraq by broadening the coalition, including the United Nations, and creating a real Iraqi security force that can take care of itself and the people it is supposed to protect. In Afghanistan, Kerry would put forward a major increase in security and fund the promised a Marshall Plan for reconstruction.

VI. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Young Generation: Kerry will build bridges to the Arab and Islamic world by supporting and assisting human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture.

VII. Secure America’s Homeland: Kerry will restore funding for the COPS program, add 100,000 firefighters to our streets, secure and protect our nuclear and chemical facilities, bolster port and aviation security.

[Squink]

IV. Control the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to lead the effort and expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.

An administration that’s serious about nuclear non-proliferation ???
Say it ain’t so!

[Tigers2B1]

@Squink

An administration that’s serious about nuclear non-proliferation ???
Say it ain’t so!

It probably ain’t. It would be nice if the North Koreas, India, and the rest sit down with Kerry and give it all up. One of the benefits of being a candidate is that words come very easy. Saying what you’re going to do is a whole heap different than getting it done in real life. But let me say this, if Kerry is really Superman than he is the man for the job. Wonder just how long it will take him to finish up on items 3 through 7 once he gets into office?

III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds

IV. Control the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

V. Win the Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan

VI. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Young Generation

VII. Secure America’s Homeland

[annaplurabelle]

@Tigers2B1

One of the benefits of being a candidate is that words come very easy. Saying what you’re going to do is a whole heap different than getting it done in real life. But let me say this, if Kerry is really Superman than he is the man for the job. Wonder just how long it will take him to finish up on items 3 through 7 once he gets into office?

III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds

Yes, talk is cheap, but Kerry has a 30 year record to examine to back it up. Let’s start with #3:

Kerry’s highest-profile victories have been fairly solo, executive actions: helming the controversial Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, using Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee powers to investigate Gen. Manuel Noriega, uncovering the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) scandal, unearthing Lt. Col. Oliver North’s private aid network to the Contras which eventually led to the Iran-Contra affair. Kerry sees this as part of his record of holding the system accountable, but these boat-rocking investigations – especially the BCCI scandal, in which he went after D.C. icon Clark Clifford – did nothing to endear him to the Washington establishment. Clifford, a former secretary of defense and key Democratic advisor to four presidents – eventually faced charges of fraud, conspiracy and taking bribes in the BCCI affair, the biggest banking scandal in history. Indictments against him were ultimately put on hold because of his failing health.

“He was the first one to say about Clark Clifford that the emperor had no clothes,” says a former senior-level Kerry staffer. "And that was a lonely place to be.

My bolding. From this article.

[Tigers2B1]

And that relates to Kerry’s promise to dry up world funding used by terrorist – how? Look, you don’t know and neither do I since neither of us, Kerry, Bush, Clinton, or any other former knows the sources of all terrorist funding. If enough funding is out there, anywhere in the world, to train one terrorist to fly a plane, or make a bomb and rent a truck, than there is enough. Kerry making the statement that he is going to cut off the flow of terrorist funding - again is easy. Don’t you think that major funding sources and channels are already being monitored for money which might be flowing to and from known and suspected terrorists? And mind you, we can always ‘monitor’ more and look deeper but that typically comes with an expense to the privacy and freedom side of the ledger.

[annaplurabelle]

@Tigers2B1

And that relates to Kerry’s promise to dry up world funding used by terrorist – how?

Huh? Do you know anything about those investigations? Maybe you should do a little reading and catch up. Suggested googles: Noriega/Panama; Iran-Contra; Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)…

[Tigers2B1]

@annaplurabelle

Huh? Do you know anything about those investigations? Maybe you should do a little reading and catch up. Suggested googles: Noriega/Panama; Iran-Contra; Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)…

Look annaplurabelle, if Kerry has some secret method that will allow him to discover the sources, methods, and timing of terrorist funding - than more power to him. But let me say this - the administrations of all the former living presidents, along with Bush, haven’t been able to stop terrorist activities and probably for the reasons in my prior post. This: It takes one person and a credit card to bomb a building in Oklahoma City an kill a few hundred innocents. If you want to train a person it takes a little more money. If you want to support a person for a year it takes even more. But all of these methods - one guy with a rental truck or twenty guys with flight school all get the job done. Dead is still just as dead if you killed by one rather than many. Again, if we want to give up more of our privacy and freedoms than most certainly, our society will be more secure. Hell, we could probably catch a few and save a few lives if we allow the government unfettered access into our private lives. But there’s no way any of us want to go there - so, again, if Kerry knows something the rest of them didn’t and don’t, than maybe he should tells us now before the next terrorist murders. Seems like the moral thing to do. I doubt that what he has is more than mere words however –

[Tigers2B1]

I suppose that should be “living former presidents” — not that it makes much difference –

[Squink]

@Tigers2B1

It probably ain’t. It would be nice if the North Koreas, India, and the rest sit down with Kerry and give it all up.

Kerry’s bit referred specifically to the Nunn-Lugar act, which Bush has neglected shamefully.

President George W. Bush Feb. 11 offered a strong endorsement of U.S. programs to safeguard or destroy the arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials formerly possessed by the Soviet Union. However, in his fiscal year 2005 budget request to Congress, released just a week earlier, Bush did not substantially increase funding for these programs and actually proposed cuts to the Department of Defense component as well as suggested spending shifts in programs in the Departments of Energy and State.

Bush Stresses Importance of Nunn-Lugar Programs but Cuts Funds in 2005 Budget Request

As the United States presses Iran and other countries to shut down their nuclear weapons development programs, government auditors have disclosed that the United States is making little effort to recover large quantities of weapons-grade uranium — enough to make roughly 1,000 nuclear bombs — that the government dispersed to 43 countries over the last several decades.

U.S. Lags in Recovering Fuel Suitable for Nuclear Arms

Had we devoted the past year to capturing bi Laden, instead of farting around in Iraq, we could have slammed Pakistan for its nuclear proliferation program instead of giving them a damned pat on the head.
If we didn’t need North Korean missiles to justify Rumsfeld’s antiballistic missile program, we could have come to a negotiated settlement last year, instead of dragging the whole crisis out interminably.
Iran? What have we done besides make a lot of noise, and make it hard for the Europeans to get the Ayatollahs to stand down?
I keep hearing right-wingers wail about how awful it would be if Osama got himself an atom bomb and took out New Orleans, and how Bush is strong on defending the homeland from WMD’s, but truth be told, his administration has been a real dud in terms of reducing the actual nuclear threats we face.
Since Bush has shown he can’t do it, we need to get someone who can.

[flickster]

@flickster

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

Survey finds optimism in Iraq

Too bad they didn’t run this poll in Afghanistan as well.

@annaplurabelle

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

Both Afghanistan & Iraq are part of the war on terror and the quality of life has vastly improved for much of the population in both countries. As their quality of life continues to improve, then it would stand to reason that it will make it all that much more difficult for AQ to recruit. I’d wish it would make it impossible, but I’m not that naive.

[jshore]

@Squink

Bush Stresses Importance of Nunn-Lugar Programs but Cuts Funds in 2005 Budget Request

Well, what’s more important…Funding this namby-pamby stuff or deploying an antiballistic missile system which actually has a 50-50% chance of shooting down a North Korean missile if they actually do have a bomb, are suicidal enough to send it on an ICBM (so we know definitively which country to obliterate in retaliation), and are kind enough to send us a full description of it and any decoy they might send up with the warhead (which must differ considerably in appearance from the warhead itself!), tell us when and where they will launch it, choose good weather and the right time of day, etc., etc.?

[annaplurabelle]

@flickster

Too bad they didn’t run this poll in Afghanistan as well.

Speaking of polls:

Tradition and inexperience threaten Afghan poll

In the post-9/11 world, Afghanistan’s presidential and parliamentary elections are a crucial milestone, and not only for Afghans. They are intended to show the feasibility of democracy in a broken society, vindicating the US policy of toppling unsavoury regimes without colonising the mess they leave behind.

Throughout, the UN has struggled for cash, and still needs £15m to complete registration. “Money is a major problem,” said Reg Austen, the UN’s chief electoral officer. “We started at least two months late because we couldn’t raise the funds we needed, and we still can’t.”

Worse, a Taliban resurgence has put most of southern Afghanistan out of bounds to UN staff; a French UN worker was murdered by the group’s assassins in November. A subsequent plan to use mosques as registration and polling stations was shelved after the Taliban threatened to kill mullahs cooperating with the plan.

And, to the UN’s despair, the election date has been brought forward. In January President Hamid Karzai announced polls would be held in June. There was just one reason for the change, according to diplomats in Kabul: pressure from the US. With an election of his own due in November and Iraq in flames, President George Bush needs a positive foreign policy to sell to American voters.

“Even the Americans recognise that the elections are being rushed,” a European diplomat said. “But that’s too bad: Bush wants elections in June.”

Two years after the fall of the Taliban, most of Afghanistan is ruled by warlords with little regard for Mr Karzai’s government in Kabul. They have little to gain from a unified, democratic and centrally governed Afghanistan.

“If anyone thinks we are ready for elections, he’s lying,” said General Daoud Khan, the powerful commander of northern Kunduz.

Link.

@flickster

Both Afghanistan & Iraq are part of the war on terror and the quality of life has vastly improved for much of the population in both countries. As their quality of life continues to improve, then it would stand to reason that it will make it all that much more difficult for AQ to recruit. I’d wish it would make it impossible, but I’m not that naive.

I’m glad you’re not that naive:

Arab News

Experts Say the World Is a Less Safe Place After Iraq War
Alistair Lyon, Reuters

“Iraq had never been a center for international terrorism before the war and Al-Qaeda was never able to operate there,” he said. “Terrorism has a new field and recruitment center.”

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/15/alqaeda.splinter/index.html
Experts: War on terrorism could spawn new enemies

Now, counterterrorism officials say one of their biggest concerns is how U.S. actions such as the war in Iraq are motivating new recruits bound by a common goal: to destroy Western secular society.

[rjung]

@Age Quod Agis

The main focus of Bush’s presidency has been combatting terrorism.

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
– G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
– G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

From “number one priority” to total indifference in six months – let’s give him a round of applause, folks!
…oh, I’m sory, Age, did I interrupt your manure-spreading session there?

[rjung]

@flickster

Both Afghanistan & Iraq are part of the war on terror

Since we have found no Iraqi WMDs, no unmanned Iraqi weapons drones, no Iraqi mobile bioweapons labs, or anything in Saddamland more threatening than a rusty centrifuge buried under a rose bush in Iraq, I’d like to see a cite for the assertion that “Iraq [is a] part of the war on terror,” please.