Bitching about 9/11?

Over in the comments to my recent post of exit poll results, Ross had this to say:

So we can have more Bush? Give me a break. The man can't add (budgeting), can't spell (never written a damn thing), and can't read (intelligence or treasury reports).

Three straight years of being dead wrong on budgets. Three years of being dead wrong on the economy. Federal revenue is down by 25%, and spending is up by more than 25%. You can bitch about 9/11 all you want to, but that fact is that the GDP hasn't shifted around all that much. What's changed is the massive tax breaks given out, in the name of vote buying.

He's not exactly a "buck stops here" kind of President, either. You can be honestly wrong about something, but you're still wrong. Bush's style is to blame everyone else; the GOP's style is to eat that crap up.

There is no question that John Kerry would make a significantly better President than Bush. So would Edwards, and so would Clark or Dean, for that matter.

Really Ross? No question? I think there are many here who would question that. As I've said before, questioning his policies is one thing - and I do that myself. But making ridiculous accusations of illiteracy is, well, ridiculous. This is the same kind of rhetoric that got you involved in that frank exchange of views over at Winds of Change.

I'll give you wrong on budgets - he has spent far too much on programs that you advocate. He's half wrong on the economy - he increased farm subsidies, steel tariffs and other departures from free trade thinking are all very bad - though not disastrous. Clinton doesn't get the credit for the good economy in the late nineties, and Bush shouldn't get the blame for a cyclical downturn in the economy that started before he entered office. Tax cuts are recognized by nearly all non-Marxist economists as an economic stimulus. They may argue about their efficacy related to other measures, but there is little argument that they are a stimulus. And they are cuts, which help people because their money is in their pockets and isn't feeding the beast in Washington. That revenue is down is not a bad thing, and in any event will go back up with the economy. We do need to control spending.

And I won't stop "bitching" about 9/11 - because it is *the* issue confronting us right now. How do we protect ourselves from ruthless individuals that have declared us their enemy? How do we stop them, and how do we promote peace and freedom in a region that is violent, poor, and halfway to insanity?

9/11 trumps every other issue facing this nation. We can muddle through with our mostly ineffective educational system. The old can get their kids to buy them drugs. We can put off the reckoning with social security. But we can't sit back and do nothing while people with a proven capacity and intention to commit massive violence against American citizens plot their evil. Not being serious about the defense of our nation is unacceptable. Bush will continue to prosecute the war on terror. He will work against terror groups and the states that sponsor them. There is an international network of terror - as the recent revelations that Pakistan's premier bomb designer sold the technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The terror groups shared training facilities throughout the Middle East for the last several decades. Al Qaida connected group Ansar al-Islam just hit two of the Kurdish political parties - the groups that are working to make Iraq into a sane and liberal society.

We leave this alone, and go back to launching random cruise missiles and trying to arrest terrorists, and we'll lose a city.

Kerry seems to think that the terror threat is overrated, and that civilian police methods are adequate. Well that kind of thinking led to the death of 3000 of my countrymen. That, and John Kerry, are unacceptable. Clark is a micromanaging general officer who is roundly disliked by everyone he served with. Carter on steroids, and also not good enough. Dean's national security credibility is fractionally better than Kucinich's - he thinks that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. Personally, I think freedom from arbitrary murder and torture is better. But remember, just like in Cuba, everyone had free health care. Edwards has yet to say anything substantial about national security beyond bland platitudes, and that is hardly encouraging.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 4

§ 4 Comments

1

Buckethead, I don't mean to stir the pot here, but your last paragraph merely regurgitates the most popular canards against the Dem candidates without reference to what they're actually about.

Kerry has said some not-great things about the War on Terrah, but is that worse than answering any criticism with "Dont you know there's a war on??!?" as the current administration has done? Furthermore, he has also said some eminiently reasonable things about what's going on in the world. Do you think Bush is being reasonable in not shaking up the intelligence community in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq WMD Debacle?

Dean never said the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. Never. He never. Said. That.

Clark... well... Clark made enemies over Kosovo, and Ross already">http://old.perfidy.org/comments.php?id=P1380_0_1_0_C]already addressed this the last time you brought it up.

I'm no closer to voting for Kucinich or Sharpton than you are. But the sitting President is profoundly unserious about a great many important things, even as he rightly makes terrorism the most important issue facing the country, and I'm not willing to sell the tractor to save the farm.

Mark my words, and listen carefully. A vote against Bush is not necessarily a vote for al-Qaeda. It's merely a vote against Bush.

Like I said: I'd vote for a zucchini first. Does that make me a Yellow Zucchini Democrat?

2

Follow the links - These quotes are indicators - little glimpses into the mind of them that uttered 'em. And I don't like what I see. If Kerry is mumbling about arresting terrorists, he is completely off track. Dean didn't - quite - say that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam, but dwelling on their standard of living to try to distract from the fact that his political opponent just freed them from a brutal tyrant indicates a rather perverse take on national security.

Bush is not perfect - but I know that he will continue to take the fight to our enemies. Maybe not as fast, as efficiently, or as eloquently as I would like - but he'll do it. Unlike his opponents.

3

The terror threat is overrated. How do I know this? Every security reaction I am aware of is stupid, and does nothing to inhibit terrorism.

Now that we've blown our military wad in Iraq, exactly how well positioned are we to deal with the very real nuclear threats we find elsewhere in the world? Badly, of course.

There are two effective things we've done against terror: Take out Afghanistan, and investigate the Saudis. We need to press on in Afghanistan and surroundings, and we need to open up on the Saudis.

Of course, it'd help if we weren't all driving around these dumb-ass 10mpg SUVs, making us vulnerable to the whims of the terrorism/oil states.

Talk about a product that kills. Maybe we should hire those guys from thetruth.org to do a few ads on oil.

Any reasonable president is going to continue the hunt for bin laden, and is going to continue to invest in intelligence assets.

I don't call picking a random Arab on the street and beating the shit out of him "taking the fight to our enemies". I call that random beating the shit of some guy. I think Bush was told it was the right guy. I think Bush needs to look at the people around him very carefully, and decide who he can trust. They're making decisions for him.

4

So the mere fact that you think our security decisions were misguided means that there is no threat from terrorists? That's verging on solipsistic.

Hunting for bin Laden isn't enough - he is only one instance of the class of terrorism. We need to do everything in our power to eliminate that threat. We've been hit by terrorism incrementally for the last thirty years. 9/11 was only the worst. Letting the problem grow (as five presidents in a row did) only makes it worse. Terrorism is immoral, unethical, antithetical to everything good about civilization, and frankly evil.

Hunting bin Laden is merely expedient. We need to stamp out terrorism, and that's a hard enough road without apologists for terror getting in the way.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]