Quote:
Yeah, I shudder to think. Kerry probably would have been too chicken to commit US ground forces


PBS Frontline, last night, had a two hour special with the political history of Kerry and of Bush, going back before either held political office. Kerry's refrain has always been that he, indeed, doesn't want to commit U.S. forces except as a last resort, but he was also quoted on September 12 as being "angry" and wanting to do something right away. I imagine that, under a Kerry (or Gore) administration, the Afganistan invasion would have begun largely the same way as it did under Bush.

Interestingly, when Bush ran for Texas governor against Ann Richards, one of his more effective ads criticized Richards for being soft on crime and presiding over a large increase in crime. In fact, crime had gone down during her tenure, but the accusations still stuck. Now, we're hearing accusations that Kerry will be soft on terror. Really, it's the same "weak on crime" arguments respun for a new political environment.

This year's election completely defeats the usual third party arguments that the two major candidates are indistinguishable. You can distinguish them on anything from tax and education policy to healthcare and environment. Trying to distinguish them on how Kerry might have responded to 9/11 by assuming that Kerry would have botched it is unfair to Kerry and distracts from the real issues that separate the candidates.