Well, I have always said that I am an undecided voter, and I would have to say that my mind may be changing. (don't everybody go overboard and immediately and assume that I have switched to the "dark side" on the basis of a couple of conventions that I know arefor show...that insultsmy intelligence) However, upon review, I do not believe my mind has changed all that much. Despite how it may sound, whatI am about to write is not a dismissal of John Kerry as a possible recipient of my vote. However, some concerns about JK have come to mind recentlyand I thought it would be wise to hash those out with the help of my friends. As Inigo Montoya once said "Let me explain. No, there is too much....Let me sum up"
As I have said in my previous posts, I want a commander and chief who puts intelligence reform at the very top of his agenda. Now, as it states in my title,I may not always be thinking rationally when I post, so I'd love some discussion on what I am about to say. I give Bush no pardons for leading us down a path that I believe to be wrong. The Iraq war has cost far too much in terms of innocent human life to give him a pass on the basis that he was led astray by faulty intelligence. Also, I fully believe that such military action in lieu of increased focus on intelligence gathering at home puts us in danger. However, and here comes my current dilemma... Has John Kerry, either in his rhetoric or his 20year senate term, given me any reason to believe that he will pursue the path in the War on Terror that I have proposed?
The answer is...save a few exceptions, "no"
Let me first give credit to JK for the one WOT intelligence issue that I think we're in sync on, his support for first responders. JK has made it very clear from the start of his candidacythat oneof his prescriptions for the war on terror was a significant increase in the number of policemen, firemen, and emergency medical responders. Also, Kerry has proposed asignificant amount of funding be dedicated to the training of these new civil servants in anti-terror methods. President Bush, on the other hand, has approved cuts in funding to first responders, causing many precincts tobecome under-funded, under-staffed, and under-trained.
That said, John Kerry's Senate record with regards to intelligence legislation is less than stellar.While he did serve for a number of years on the Intelligence Committee, his absenteism to their meetings (75-77% of meetings missed, depending on who you ask...and 100% of the committee meetings for one year following the 1994 bombing of the WTC...100%...)One year later in 1995, Kerry proposed an amendment to cut intelligence spending by 1 billion dollars (granted, this was only 1% of the budgeted amount and it stemmed from Kerry's concerns that intelligence spending had become corrupt, but the proposal was thoroughly trounced on both sides of the aisle for being short sighted and unneccesary) Now, this is not quite the"gutting" of intelligence funding that currentBush ads would have voters believe ittobe...but it hardly shows the mindset of a man particularly devoted to anti-terrorist intelligence gathering even one year after what should have been considered aserious warning sign from Al-Qaida. Not tomention the fact that John Kerry is a man who hasmade it clear that he wants to limit some of the powers givento the intelligence communityby the PATRIOT act by adding greater oversight by judges astowhether or notsecret tappingof certain suspects can continue without "enough" evidence (Kerry even supports a planthat would require such evidence after only one week of tapping conversations for any individual) Many many people have rightly stated that the PATRIOT act takes too many liberties with our 4th amendment rights (most will only be felt by Arab-Americans and others unfortunate enough to make it onto a watch list), I am just concerned that John Kerry would be overly cautious and make the restrictions too tight.
Like I said in an earlier post, I believe that our funds, national guardsmen, and attention would be of better us eto us here at home in the form of better intelligence. However, John Kerry has given me little to no sign that my "plan" is actually in accordance with his plan.
Now...I'm going on here, but there is a lot to cover tonight...John Kerry also supports an international alliance as a means by which to counter terrorism. I fully agree with that. I fully support any effort the United States can make to return ourselves to the moral highground and international admiration we enjoyed Post-WWII (My girlfriend who recently traveled abroad relayedmanystories of peoplefinding out she was American and immediately responding with "I hate what Bush has done"or, more frequently "I hate Bush")LikeI've said, the Iraq war is largely responsible for that and most, if not all of the blame in that regard falls sqarely on Bush's shoulders. However, as many speakers at the RNC said tonight, and Iagree with them, we shouldn't allow Paris to tell us where and when the United States can appropriately use force. (In the caseof the Iraq war, more concern for international approval would'vebeen prudent)However, should we ever have serious evidence of a plot against the united states (garnered through said improved intelligence) I NEED a president in office who will not rest the entire case for war on the basis of the UN's approval.(On aside note, I don't think Bush's approach to the UN is particularly great. We need something between "It's irrevocably corrupt and broken so 'fuck it'" (Bush) and"It's agreat international body that should have last say on the actions of every country in the world, no matter how inefficient it is'"(Kerry))
Now, all that said, let me layout some basics that make this particular election even more difficult for me.
1. I'm against raising the minimum wage and against socializing healthcare anymore than we have. (Both things Kerry wants to do that I think will hurt the economy immensely)
2. I'm Pro-Choice, pro-gun control (not more controls, just better enforcement...and keep the BradyBill), and pro Gay Marriage (we all know where Bush stands there, and these are big issues for me)
3.I believe in a FIRM separation of church and state. I'm a man of faith, but I don't give a damn if my elected officials are, and I certainly don't want them pushing their or my religion on anyone else through any means(again, Bush and I differ there)
4. I'm pro-tort law reform (minus one for Kerry)
There's A LOT more, but you all have probably stopped reading at this point. (most of it deals with how much I hate Bush's relations with oil and defense companies and his distancing from the "small government" economic pillarof the republican party) Further issues will be hashed out in the comments section I'm sure. What it seems to boil down to is that I would vote for ANY ofthe moderate republicans we've seen showcased at the RNC this year over Kerry OR Bush (so loing as they toldme that improving intelligence is the most important issue in the WOT) . Any Third Party suggestions....Sam? (I am voting in GA, which is firmly in the Bush League...might as well make a social commentary that the Repubs need to start moving towards moderates if they want my vote...not that it counts much against the entire religious right...)
COMMENT AWAY! Pretty crazy post, I know...thanks for reading and I really look forward to input.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment