What they won't tell you is that Kerry voted against the bill, not because of the bullet proof vests, but because it contained $3 billion for the Crusader field artillery system - which was later cancelled by Rumsfeld anyway.
But that's the nature of most bills; they contain a lot of essential expenditures and a few that aren't. I don't think anyone's claimed that Kerry voted against the bill because of the vests. However, if his vote had been in the majority, then there would have been no funding for them. Sometimes you just have to accept the wasteful in order to get the necessary.
As for your other points, if I shared your optimism, I'd gladly vote for Kerry. I just find it hard to believe that someone who has run as awful a campaign as Kerry has could effectively deal with a very irrational enemy. I'm not sure anyone can, but at least now the battle lines are in Iraq. I'd rather see al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists focusing their energies there than on planning more attacks on the US.
I agree that there's been too little done to make the borders safer, but as events have shown, there's a lot of opposition to anything that seems to curtail civil liberties. Plus, I can't say that I've seen any indication that illegal immigration from Central America has been related to any acts of terror in the US. Now, if Kerry were to come out and say that, as unfortunate as it may be, racial profiling will be employed more emphatically, then I'd consider supporting him. |
