Breaking it down - National Security

This is the first in a series of 'Breaking it down' posts I plan on making in the couple remaining days before the US Presidential Election.

I plan on trying to cut through the clutter of finger-pointing and fear-mongering that has done nothing but confuse the issues facing the US. I hope that in some small way, this might help people get a clearer view of the issues at hand and help them make their final choice.

In this posting - I'll talk a little bit about National Security.

National Security - what we are really talking about is safety. A freedom, if you will, for you and I to feel safe walking down the street.
A freedom from fear of attack.

So, how do the candidates stack up when it comes to security? Let's take a look.

Bush:

GWB happened to be unlucky enough to be president on September 11, 2001.

As a result, he had to take action. Many of the actions taken are no different than if most other men had been in the office (going after the terrorist group that planned the attacks, reforming immigration rules, taking actions to secure borders and ports).

Some actions taken, however, are a little harder to defend. For example, the invasion of Iraq.

Given the investigations that have happened in the months since the invasion, we now know that invading Iraq was supported more by the administration's desire to confront Iraq, even before September 11, 2001, than by solid intelligence or imminent treat.

The fear of terrorism provided a way to sell the idea to the American people.

Remember, the invasion was sold as a way to prevent Iraq from assisting Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destructions. However, the actual evidence of Iraq having any Al Qaeda ties is now known to have been sketchy as was any evidence of WMD programs (note, not just after we got there and looked around - the administration knew the evidence was slim when they made the decision to go in).

Also, UN inspectors had given the US the locations of known weapons stock-piles in Iraq. However, no priority was given to securing these stock-piles from the terrorists the administration told the American people were given safe haven in Iraq.

This speaks to an invasion more about getting a friend in the middle-east (not necessarily a bad end in and of itself) rather than a reaction to the imminent threat of attack from Iraq or its allies.

So, all in all, Bush's anti-terrorism work has been hit and miss.

Domestically, there has been some work done to increase funding for and encourage modernization of 'first responders'. Money has been spent to get systems upgraded to help coordinate the various agencies responsible for dealing with local crises.


Kerry:

Senator Kerry has been slammed as of late for a supposed weak stand on defense. The argument being that he voted against several key weapons systems...reality check...what is actually being talked about is the times he voted against a defense appropriations bill (which contains funding for all military programs)...he also has voted for defense appropriations bills (which means that no only has he at times voted against weapons program, he has later voted for them when his concerns with a bad appropriations bill have been addressed). Really it is a strange semantics game meant to make a voting record look worse than it really is.

Senator Kerry has advocated during this campaign a strengthening of border security with a significant increase in inspections of cargo containers as well as cooperating with Mexico and Canada to strengthen the security of our common borders.

Senator Kerry has also advocated re-establishing a positive working relationship with other nations. His view is that the war on terrorism is best fought when we can bring the resources of as many nations as possible to bear in the fight.

Domestically, Kerry has proposed further improvements to first-responder readiness (much like his opponent) with additional proposals to harden chemical and nuclear facilities against possible attack, improve the warning systems so that citizens are better informed in case of an attack, as well as set benchmarks that local and states would need to be meet to allow for more consistent response to a local crisis.

Next up: Taxes and Jobs

-Scott K

A little more light-hearted fun

The folks over at JibJab.com have put together another satire poking some good natured fun at the presidental candidates.

Take a look over at JibJab and enjoy.

Okay, let's everyone just calm down and think about this for a minute.

I know the current presidential campaign has made many draw a line in the sand and vilify the other side of the political spectrum.

Dems have George W. painted as a big-business loving, environment hating, right-wing Christian flunky.

Republicans see John Kerry as a threat to the safety of the nation and to their moral and economic values.

Tonight on PBS, Frontline is airing a 2-hour documentary called The Choice 2004 that tries to take a balanced look at what makes each candidate tick.

Check it out, I know I will. Perhaps it will help us see the candidates a little more objectively.