...Just finished reading the speech that Edwards made at the convention last night.
I can see how he made lots of $$$ as a trial lawyer, he really tugs at the heart strings, like a good prosecutor should.
I have stated on numerous posts that I want to hear what exactly the Democrats are proposing to do either better or differently than Bush to defeat the various Islamic terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies. Saying "we will fight terrorism" is not an answer. I want to hear specifics.
Here are some of the specifics that Edwards proposed-
"We are approaching the third anniversary of September 11th, and I can tell you that when we're in office, it won't take us three years to get the reforms in our intelligence we need to protect our country."
Really? Because the last Democrat in office was responsible for creating walls between each security office within the government, and it took the Patriot Act to tear them down. Put me down for a vote of no confidence on this first proposal.
Edwards then proposes a list of things that Bush has already been doing.
"We will build and lead strong alliances and safeguard and secure weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security and protect our ports, safeguard our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers and EMTs. We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe."
Nothing new or different or better than the current strategy. No points for this. Edwards proceeds to mention about 87 times that because Kerry served in Vietnam, he will be able to use the military more effectively. History shows that most former military presidents were horrible war-time presidents. FDR was never enlisted in the military, for example. Serving in Vietnam wasn't a litmus test for the democrats before, why now? Oh, because Kerry served in Vietnam and Bush didn't. Right.
"We will double our Special Forces, and invest in the new equipment and technologies so that our military remains the best equipped and best trained in the world. This will make our military stronger so we're able to defeat every enemy in this new world."
Doubling our special forces sounds good, but our military already is the best equipped and best trained in the world. I suppose we could do more, but this still isn't really a big difference from what Bush would or is doing. After this, Edwards ventures in to fantasy land...
"But we can't do this alone. We have to restore our respect in the world to bring our allies to us and with us. It's how we won the World Wars and the Cold War and it is how we will build a stable Iraq. "
Again, John-John, we have allies dying with us in Iraq attempting to build this stable government. And everytime either of you make the accusation that we don't have allies helping us, you insult those foreign forces who have helped us. This has to stop. If I was Australian hearing this I would be pissed.
"With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq."
NATO? Um, John, Bush already tried. There are numerous NATO troops in Afghanistan already, and they are stretched thin as it is. NATO doesn't really have anything to offer us right now.
This one got me all excited, then I felt like I was stood up by my prom date-
"We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq."
Because, oh I don't know, we'll liberate these countries too? No? We'll just ask nicely then. Just like Iran has been so obedient with its Nuclear programs, and reforms for Human Rights. See? Just ask real nice and everything works out. That was easy enough.
"We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction."
Again, nothing that Bush isn't doing already.
The big problem I have is that Edwards doesn't give any specifics to how we are going to solve these problems, he justs says he will solve them.
"With our credibility restored, we can work with other nations to secure stockpiles of the world's most dangerous weapons and safeguard this dangerous material. We can finish the job and secure all loose nukes in Russia. And we can close the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows rogue nations access to the tools they need to develop these weapons."
John-John, unless you plan on emliminating the Iranian regime, this is a freaking fantasy. And how do you propose to get Kim-Jong on board with this program?
I hope Kerry has more specifics, because this speech did nothing to convince me that the Democrats are planning to approach the war on terror any differently than Bush is already doing.
Update: This cartoon will fit nicely in this post- Cox and Forkum doing there thang...........