Sorry, Bush is the softy!

UPDATE: It all comes down to Bush sucks. He did this, he didn't do that, he didn't do it the right way, etc. etc. etc. Someone indicate how turning over a war effort to a someone so hostile to the US military makes sense. Wasn't Clinton that way? How well did he defend us against islamofascists? Against direct attacks against our embassies, ships and the World Trade Center? Did he ever have any clue how to attack Afghanistan? Would Kerry? Argue with me, show me what facts, assumptions, conclusions, track record, votes I'm missing. The guy voted against the Gulf War, against Reagan's arms build-up. Hello? ORIGINAL COMMENT (7/20/04): He is absolutely soft on terrorism, as are most democrats, especially liberal democrats. Name the last liberal democrat hawk, and remember, he has the highest liberal voting record in the Senate. Edwards has the fourth. Liberal hawks, hmm, Dukakis? No, no. Ted Kennedy? No, no. Gore? No, no. Carter? No, no. Keep trying, we have all night. Also, BIGBABY has it right. Terrorism is a national defense issue, not a criminal issue. You fight it with the strongest military force in the world, not with one of the most de-masculated (by the liberals, of course) intelligence communities in the history of the US. Bush has it right, Clinton (and all other liberal democrats, including Kerry, even now) have it wrong and will never catch on. The UN has neither the will, nor the agenda to help in containing the terrorist threat. They will never be a player, they will never be any help. The war is on. And, just for giggles, Opie, Kerry will make the terrorists hate us less? Do you understand the term jihad?

John Kerry's proposal for a more sensitive war on terror is quite disturbing. In case you don't remember, John Kerry, we were attacked on our own soil in 9/11, which led to the deaths of more than 3000 innocent American lives. We must fight the forces of evil with every available method at our disposal!

Senator Kerry claims he would be tough of terrorists. He has had many years in the senate with which he could back up that claim. Taking the position that he is telling the truth, I can only guess that Senator Kerry has a new and innovative way to fight terror. President Bush has caught a lot of heat because he, along with Democrats that I have named in another post, received and believed intelligence reports that Iraq had WMDs. Therefore it is vitally important that we have accurate and dependable intelligence. To that end, Sen Kerry has supported slashing $2.6 Billion from intelligence funding while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He must believe that strength comes from less funding because he voted to cut funding of the FBI by 60% and for the CIA and NSA by 80%. His game plan must be for the United Nations to be our strong arm because he voted to increase our funding for UN operations by 800%. The fact that the UN has never prevented or halted a single war since its inception must be nothing more than a small inconsequential annoyance. Getting tough or terrorists, in Senator Kerry's view, must mean fighting them with the same weapons which they are using against us. Suicide bombers and flying commercial jets into buildings would be our only options had Mr Kerry's past senate votes prevailed. After all, voting against the MX missile, the Trident Submarine, the Bradley Fighting vehicle, the M-1 Abrams tank, every aircraft carrier since 1988, the Aegis anti aircraft system, the F-15 and the F-16, the P-3 Orion upgrade, the B-1 and B-2, the Patriot anti missile system, the F-18 and the F-117 will surely put us on a level playing field with the terrorists and show them how tough he is on terror. I guess to a liberal like Sen Kerry that is the definition of being tough. Too bad it would be tough on the free world and in particular, tough for the USA.

Hes just soft period.

This would top the list in my opinion. He would remind me of Clinton. Not attacking terrorists, simply refusing to admit the threat is there and having a good economy that is not at all because of him. Kerry has always voted against defensive measures. The biggest threat is that Kerry views terrorist attacks at CRIMES, not acts of WAR, which they are. That's why Clinton's presidency will go down as one of the worst.

And the idea that Kerry would be soft on terrorism is based on what??? Also, Kerry might make us less hated, make us less of a target. An ounce of prevention...

John Kerry is indecisive, however Bush's last war had nothing to do with 9/11 so he's not actually fighting a terrorist threat (proven by CIA, FBI and former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke). John Kerry is passionate about post war Iraq, I believe he has more of a plan, plus he will defend this countries borders. Remember, almost every country in the world hates the US right now, that can't be good for terror.

john kerry's indecisiveness on almost every aspect of the war on terrorism makes him most vulnerable.

Can He be tough on anything he goes with whatevers blowing in at the moment?

A good tactic for Bush simply because I think it is Bush's strong point as a leader. It's not Kerry's most vulnerable area, but they clearly have different views. Bush's strength is that he is clear and well-defined on how he will continue to deal with terrorism as president. Kerry is vague, not well-defined and has already flip-flopped on the issue. His wavering makes him appear vulnerable as a leader and strengthens Bush as a candidate for re-election in the eyes of most Americans.

The fact that the US has not been hit by a terrorist attack since 9/11 is impressive. There's no reason for GWB not to flaunt this, and at the same time, raise questions about whether we would be as safe under a Massachussett's Liberal like Kerry.