Strong or Smart: If ya had to pick one...
Which would you choose?
A leader that's "strong" on national security? (In the way repubs apparently understand it)ie. Uses the tactics of fear and intimidation, refuses to talk let alone negotiate, unable to acknowledge mistakes, or that the political or military situation has changed, stubborn refusal to listen to experienced professional advice from anyone in the reality based community,
or
one that's "smart and strong" on national security... as in knowledgeable about history, military science and tactics, has negotiated directly with heads of state to end a war, and is respected by millions of Muslims around the world.
Of course in my mind I feel there is only one potential candidate for 08 that fits the category "Smart and Strong" and that is Wes Clark.
I would be interested in hearing comments on why you feel your particular candidate also qualifies as both Smart and Strong on national security. Also different ideologies apparently have different ideas about what the term "national security" covers.
My definition of national security does not include acquiring fossil fuels in any manner other than buying them on the open market. It does not include exporting democracy via bullets and bombs. It does not include destabilizing sovereign nations to via covert (CIA) or overt (World Bank) means to allow global corporations to exploit their ensuing weaknesses for profit.
My definition of national security DOES include providing disincentives for illegal immigration, corporate tax avoidance, and the export of jobs due to tax incentives.
It DOES include military intervention in cooperation with the united nations to protect ethnic minorities from genocide (Darfur). It DOES include use of the classic diplomacy strategy of using both carrots and sticks rather than either one alone. It DOES include reducing the amount of debt we as a nation, expose to the potential destabilizing influence of the world market.
Whats your definition?