Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (35904)	3/21/2004 10:35:17 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793928

Post editorial The Terrorism Debate Sunday, March 21, 2004; Page B06 THE RECENT wave of bloody terrorist bombings, from Madrid to Baghdad, underlines the special importance of the war on terrorism as an issue in this year's presidential campaign. It is vital that voters hear a robust debate between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry about how the war has been conducted since Sept. 11, 2001, and how best to manage it in the coming four years. But that argument should convey a message of fortitude and not weakness to America's enemies -- especially the Islamic terrorist groups that may dream of reversing U.S. policy with a single, traumatizing blow. That, sadly, could be the outcome in Spain, where the winner of last weekend's election, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has responded to his upset victory with a message of retreat from Iraq that the authors of the Madrid train bombings will claim as a success. By that measure, President Bush's national security address Friday, and the earlier exchange of broadsides between the Bush and Kerry campaigns last week, offered a good beginning to the American debate. The rhetoric may have been tough and some of the charges overheated. But both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush started from a common point: The United States must not shrink from the challenge, either in Iraq or elsewhere. Though he condemned what he described as a failed policy, Mr. Kerry declared in a speech Wednesday that "having gone to war, we have a responsibility to keep and a national interest to achieve in a stable and peaceful Iraq." And though Mr. Bush might perceive a benefit in promising to wind down the mission, he sent the opposite message: "We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction," he said. "We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq." That there are irresponsible alternatives to these positions has been demonstrated by both Republicans and Democrats in recent days. The Democratic version came from former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who implied that Mr. Bush was somehow responsible for the terrorist attacks in Madrid. Mr. Kerry, who had unwisely recruited Mr. Dean as a surrogate spokesman, quickly and rightly repudiated him. A couple of days earlier, Vice President Cheney charged, not for the first time, that Mr. Kerry advocated returning to the pre-9/11 policy of treating terrorism primarily as a problem of law enforcement. The implication was clear: A vote for Mr. Kerry would be a vote against a war on terrorism. The claim was missing from the vice president's subsequent and broader assault on Mr. Kerry on Wednesday, and appropriately so: It simply isn't true, as Mr. Kerry's own speech made clear. That there is much to legitimately disagree about was manifest in the week's speeches. Mr. Kerry argued that Mr. Bush overstated the Iraqi threat, that he failed to build a strong alliance for the war or prepare for its aftermath, that he sent too few troops and then did not give them the body armor they needed. He promised an expanded army, an expanded alliance in Iraq and a long list of benefits for soldiers, reservists, veterans and their families. The essence of the Bush offer, as Mr. Cheney described it, is to stay the course; the suggestion is that Mr. Kerry might not. The vice president pointed to the senator's shifts of position on Iraq and his past opposition to weapons systems and mocked his stance on alliances, saying only those countries who oppose the United States seem to have Mr. Kerry's respect. There are real differences here. As Mr. Cheney said, Americans may have the clearest and most meaningful choice on national security in any presidential election during the last 20 years. But that choice should be about how the United States can win the crucial battles now underway -- not whether they should be fought.