Tweet
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - John Kerry is offering American voters a far different vision of the U.S. role in international affairs than President Bush, one that much of the world may find more familiar and more comforting.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts, now leading in the race for his party's presidential nomination, has accused Bush of extremism in waging the "most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."
While insisting he would never cede U.S. security to any nation or institution and will use force when necessary, Kerry envisions a "new era of alliances (because) even the only superpower on earth cannot succeed without cooperation and compromise with our friends and allies."
Following the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, national security has become a focus of the 2004 presidential campaign and some analysts predict the November election could turn on which candidate persuades voters he will keep the country safe and best fulfill the role of U.S. commander-in-chief.
This is a far cry from four years ago, when domestic matters dominated the presidential debate.
Republicans usually score higher with U.S. voters on national security. They to exploit this tradition with Bush, who increased military spending and led the nation through conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the anti-terror campaign.
Kerry aims to blunt that record by promoting credentials as a decorated Vietnam veteran who plunged into politics on returning home by protesting the very war he fought in.
SENATE CAREER
During a Senate career spanning 20 years, Kerry, a liberal, emphasized foreign affairs and played a major role in restoring U.S. ties with Vietnam.
He voted against sending troops to the 1991 Gulf War and sought to cancel major weapons systems like the Patriot missile and the F15 jet fighter.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts, now leading in the race for his party's presidential nomination, has accused Bush of extremism in waging the "most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."
While insisting he would never cede U.S. security to any nation or institution and will use force when necessary, Kerry envisions a "new era of alliances (because) even the only superpower on earth cannot succeed without cooperation and compromise with our friends and allies."
Following the Sept. 11 attacks and the Iraq war, national security has become a focus of the 2004 presidential campaign and some analysts predict the November election could turn on which candidate persuades voters he will keep the country safe and best fulfill the role of U.S. commander-in-chief.
This is a far cry from four years ago, when domestic matters dominated the presidential debate.
Republicans usually score higher with U.S. voters on national security. They to exploit this tradition with Bush, who increased military spending and led the nation through conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the anti-terror campaign.
Kerry aims to blunt that record by promoting credentials as a decorated Vietnam veteran who plunged into politics on returning home by protesting the very war he fought in.
SENATE CAREER
During a Senate career spanning 20 years, Kerry, a liberal, emphasized foreign affairs and played a major role in restoring U.S. ties with Vietnam.
He voted against sending troops to the 1991 Gulf War and sought to cancel major weapons systems like the Patriot missile and the F15 jet fighter.
Fair or unfair assessment?
In any case, the above blurb from reuters brought to mind the only relevant question for me vis a vis the election;
If elected president, would Kerry do anything concrete if the USA was threatened/attacked or would we back to the Clintonian "fire a couple of missles and pretend like the problem has gone away".
He talks about not ceding US security away but I dont see it. Who are these new allies gonna be, stalwarts like the French?
Comment