Replies

OK...I will ask why you think Kerry would prosecute the war on terror. I am looking forward to your explanation.

Kerry would not prosecute the WoT as well as Bush, but I believe he would do about 70% to 80% of the job.

Bush is quite politically correct, so we are not investigating US-based Madrasses and Mosques. Kerry would parallel this performance.

Bush attacked Iraq. Now, Democrats despise oil interests -- I suspect he would attack or intimidate Saudi Arabia. The core of Wahabbist extremeism can be found in Saudi Arabia. Attacking or intimidating Saudi Arabia is something I could agree with.

Both Bush and Kerry would definately have gone for Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was based there and emotions were hot after 9/11.

Bush and Kerry both have had military service. Both served honorably. Both recognize that a strong military, and the will to use it, is essential for national security.

Unfortunately, because Kerry would be somewhat beholden to the left of his party, he'd pull some punches, thusly my rating him about 70% to 80% of Bush's WoT performance.

Hillary Clinton would be an unmitigated catastrophe in her prosecution of the WoT.

I'll take a shot at this:

There are many here who cite GB's war on terror as his defining moment; his biggest accomplishment. In the main, I agree. I would like to see more aggression, but all in all, he's done a perfectly satisfactory job. However, given 9/11, I would submit that almost anyone, even Laz, could have prosecuted the war as well as GB. As far as John Kerry is concerned, who knows? He has combat experience, GW does not. That could be a factor.

Anyway, when you have a nation fully united behind their leader over the outrage of the WTC attack, then mounting a response really is fairly simple. The only concern is the calibre of people the President has tapped as his advisors. GW is blessed, with the probable exception of Karl Rove, with a great team, as far as I can tell.

Obviously the President can't know the myriad details of an operation such as this. He's not paid to. He is to provide a goal and approve a plan. His underlings handle the strategy and tactics. That's why I contend that almost anybody could handle this, since the goal in this case is so patently obvious and is anchored by the full weight of public opinion.

All that being said, it really is an exercise in futility to speculate how any of the main players would handle the war on terror, should they be in GB's shoes. Nobody can know for sure. But, even given the disagreeable history of so many of them, I would bet that many here would be surprised. I, for one, would be much more concerned about all the things, other than the WoT, that they would do while in office.