I read allot of message boards with strong opinions on who would better handle the war on terror; some say Bush others Kerry. The issues that are effecting this country have divided a vast majority of American people; so much that some people I know are so confused on who to vote for will not vote at all on Nov. 2. Which is a sad to think that they are choosing to waste there vote, simply because they feel they might choose wrong. However, I look at it this way in order for democracy to continue in America sometimes you have to take that chance and vote even if you do not like the candidates. Anyway, after realizing that both Bush and Kerry have questionable leadership skills on how to handle America I wanted to ask you the American voter or non-voter if you were elected President how would you handle the serious issues concerning American at this present moment?
The war on terror is complex. Certainly putting limits on our own liberties is never the solution. I would put into place a immediate program to enhance our special forces. Set up a number of cross functional, cross military service teams of elite to handle special cases. Repeal the law prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders. Enhance the power of the CIA. Utilize technology better. Offer better incentives for top scientists and engineers to work for the government (sorry, with the bureaucracy of our government, combined with the low pay and low incentives to do a better job, most top scientists and engineers would rather work for the private sector) As stated numerous times, I question Kerry's ability to lead. However, it is very apparent that our current leadership has failed miserably. To stay the current course is suicide - we need to enhance our leadership in the world by example and by our economic presence. (beleive me. most of the crap coming out of China is bought by us - without us, China would be back in the 40's again)
Oh - I would reorganize the DOL and have their statisicians (sp?) retrained. When figuring out job growth, have it based more on the quality of the job (living wage, etc) and not just the mere presence of the job. I suspect that most of the jobs created recently are WalMart type positions where you can barely make a living. I can tell you that the high tech jobs - the jobs that require the education and expertise (and pay well) are still being drained from the valley. The Silicon Valley has had net tech job loss of just over 200,000 jobs since GW took office. Of course, the valley has also opened 3 more WalMarts in the same time frame. (and at least one more Fry's). Before any comments about the DotCom bubble: Only 1-10 jobs lost had anything to do with the dot com industry.
You posed a very interesting question that requires a lot of thought. It would make for a great topic for a Political Science term paper.
I believe that calling it the War on Terror is the first mistake. We constantly annoint as "Wars" governmental actions that are simply NOT "Wars" in any meaningful sense. (Drugs, Poverty, Illiteracy, Cancer) Terrorists act as individuals and in small groups. The acts they commit, such as 9/11, do not become acts of war simply because of their size and horror. Murder is murder and it is a CRIME. I think you would find that the British in Northern Ireland, the French and the Germans in Europe itself, and even the U.S. treat terrorists and terrorist groups as CRIMINAL organizations and utilize what is basically a criminal, police approach. The attack on Afghanistan was necessary, in my estimation, precisely because the Taliban regime would not co operate with this international criminal approach. If they'd handed over Bin Laden, they'd be in power today, I suppose.
