Bush With 9/11 vs. Kerry With Vietnam

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36893-2004Mar6.html

HOUSTON, March 6 -- Illuminating how dramatically Sept. 11, 2001, has reshaped politics, George W. Bush and his Democratic rival, John F. Kerry, are kicking off the 2004 campaign with a heated, and sometimes highly personal, fight over national security and terrorism.

Bush, breaking away from the historical mold of touting domestic accomplishments, has launched his reelection bid with ads highlighting how the threat and consequences of terrorism have affected his administration. The president defended his ads Saturday and promised a spirited debate on terrorism and 9/11 during the next eight months. In preparation, Bush allies spent weeks bashing Kerry for voting to cut defense and intelligence programs before September 2001.

Kerry complained this week that "George Bush wants this whole deal just to be about the war." Yet the Massachusetts senator has spent his first days of the campaign criticizing Bush on national security, terrorism-focused ads, overextending the military and shortchanging veterans.

One day after the Labor Department reported anemic job growth, which many Democratic strategists consider Bush's softest political spot, Kerry used his first Democratic radio address of the one-on-one campaign to call for 40,000 additional U.S. troops and better supplies and benefits for those already serving. "In the midst of the war on terror, no job is more important for a president than the duty of our commander in chief to provide for a common defense," Kerry said Saturday. "I believe we need new leadership that will work to make sure that America's military is prepared for the challenges ahead."

...more...

Bush's actions on September 11 were cowardly in the extreme. His supposed sterling "leadership" in the aftermath of the attacks is an illusion created by mass hysteria. What did he actually do in that time period? He authorized and pursued the invasion of Afghanistan, for the presumptive purpose of displacing the Taliban. This action has been moderately successful, though the Taliban still control large parts of the countryside. The question is: Would any democratic president have done otherwise? I don't think so. I think Gore invades Afghanistan in the wake of September 11 as well. That wasn't leadership on Bush's part, but rather performance of the obvious. In fact, he was led by public opinion, and not the other way around.

But the so-called success of the Afghanistan operation slipped through their fingers, and Bush really hasn't done anything of value since. He's splintered the coalition that naturtally formed of the hegemonic Western nations, content to pursue American hegemony rather than traditional "Western" (i.e., white Euro-American colonialism) hegemony - a choice that has damaged the life of Americans in innumerable ways. This is a miscalculation of catastrophic proportions. The Bushes really don't understand the developments of the last 30 years. They simply don't get the global change. He has invaded Iraq on pretense and lies which - now that they have come to light - will make any true action difficult in the future, all the while racking up global animosity that can only intensify the terrorist threat. His foreign policy "leadership" is a disaster for us; we just haven't seen the full fruits of the disaster yet. Now, Mr. Bush has so much supposede clout that he can't even stop the Iraqi Shiites from embarrassin us on a global stage, leaving their pens sitting on the signing table of the Iraqi puppet constitution. Here's the key: Everyone in the world is playing the foreign policy game better than we are. Bush's hubris and foolishness is dangerous in the extreme...because it is incompetent in the extreme.

As for the comparison itself, Kerry was actually in combat and distinguished himself in combat; Bush used his family connections to avoid combat, and disgraced himself in avoiding combat. Kerry points out his real connection to veterans; Bush plays on his phony connection to the military and first-responders.

...is how fucking hypocritical it is for the Ass-in-Chief to run on his "9/11 record" while refusing to cooperate with the 9/11 commission. If that son-of-a-bitch really wants to be a hero in regards of 9/11, he (and all members of his administration) should release every document asked of them by the commission, and should testify unconditionally and under oath!

in BOTH 911 and his his "military" time...Now he has the balls to exploit this! Take this sucker down fast and furious!

Fuckyou!!! I hope you end up as this country's worst ever for a: doing nothing by cutting funding for anti-terror opts. B: letting it happen as the 911 commisson would show if the real truth was let out. C: For exploiting the deaths of 3000 people. I hope you rot in your own vomit. Fuckyou!!!