Thursday, June 17, 2004

Are we safe from terrorism?

My other hot topic (see women's rights, below) is international policy. Being that I'm married to an airline pilot and have two small children, I feel it's my duty to protect.

So, which presidential candidate will win my vote in November? Here's some things Kerry had to say in January 2004....

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." The front-runner for the Democratic nomination said he would engage other nations in a more cooperative fashion to quell terrorism.

Now, here's where I get confused.

This one is dated March 2004:
The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

And this one in June 2004, where Kerry states "As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing [terrorist] networks," ... "We will use every resource of our power to destroy." and he criticized Bush ... for taking a "kid glove approach" to hunting down terrorist money and for coddling Saudi Arabia.

Can anyone clarify his position?


Michael said...

Maybe he think people will be less likely to vote against him if they don't know what his position is.

I said that tongue-in-cheek, but the more I think about it, the more true I think that is. He's the "anti-Bush" candidate, and taking a strong position on *any* issue can only alienate potential voters.

Courtney said...

I agree. That is the reason I hear most- vote for Kerry because he's not Bush.

The Bat said...

The reason you are confused is because this Insight magazine from which you are getting rather a unsubstaniated, untrue statement ("The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror") clearly has a conservative agenda meant to spin Kerry's language into something that makes him look ineffectual.

Do you really believe that someone running for president in this day and age would abandon the "war on terror?" Of course not. Terror is a tremendously complex problem that DOES, in fact, need a much more nuanced hand than the current White House's ham-fisted response. We need international support to fight terrorism. We will not get that if we are anger countries left and right. We need more diplomacy, which is really the only thing Kerry and other democrats are saying. Not that the war on terror will be abandoned.