KCFlyer said:
You know, if Kerry were FDR and did as you said, at least he would be hitting the country responsible for it and not some "third party" target that was "justified" by using blurry information.
That's the liberal's problem. They think that the only enemy is Al Qaeda. They don't realize that the various Islamofascist groups, whether they be Palestinian, Chechen, Arab, Pakistani, Afghani, etc all have the same goals in mind (Holy War against the infidels), whether they are fighting the Americans, Russians, Israelis, etc. and all use the same barbaric methods. Bush gets this simple concept, but the libs fail to see the big picture.
KCFlyer said:
I believe that Kerry would rather spend billions of dollars protecting US citizens right here at home
Exactly the problem. I heard him state that he will respond to attacks on the U.S. by terrorists. He doesn't quite understand that the war has already started. In fact it started in the early 90s. I don't want a President who will respond tit for tat. I'd much rather have a pro-active President who is on the offense, carrying the battle to the sc*mbags where they live rather than having blood shed on American soil, as on 9/11.
KCFlyer said:
rather than stir up a hornets nest of hatred in the entire middle east
Ah yes, the constant mantra of the libs, don't do anything to pis* off the enemy. I have news for you, if they're not po'd, that means your program against them isn't very effective.
KCFlyer said:
and then claiming we are somehow "safer" since it's been 3 years since 9/11 and we haven't had a second strike on US soil.
It's hard to argue with success! That's no guarantee though. It's been said that the terrorists have to get lucky just once.
KCFlyer said:
You call Clinton a failure because the WTC was downed 8 years after their first attempt. Yet you are quick to proclaim Bush's strategy as successful after only 3 years.
I call him a failure because it wasn't only the '93 WTC bombing. It was the USS Cole, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, the Somalia debacle, the Kovar Towers bombing. All Clinton did was launch million dollar cruise missiles to blow up empty $10 tents or destroy aspirin factories. That's when his minions weren't papering the enemy with writs, subpoenas and indictments (Ouch! That's gotta hurt!). Even after the attempted assasination of Bush 41, all Clinton did was launch a strike against Iraqi intelligence HQ, but he made damned sure to do it in the middle of the night so few, if any, Iraqis got killed.
KCFlyer said:
Tell you what though....if every US soldier is back home and we haven't had any strikes on our soil after 5 more years, I'll tell you that Bush was right. But I don't think our troops will be home anywhere close to 5 years from now. And I don't think we've seen the last attack on our soil either.
Unfortunately you're probably right. Iran and North Korea will require force. Negotiation
NEVER works with dictators. Neither does appeasement. The libs always like to argue that we can't "only" go after Iraq. "What about Iran and North Korea?", they whine, as if it has to be an all or none strategy and as if we have the resources to do it all at once. War is a terrible, horrible undertaking and only a total idiot or violent dictator relishes resorting to it. But what's the alternative? Wait until they nuke an American city or spread smallpox/anthrax/whatever? Or perhaps take over some elementary school in Peoria and shoot a couple of hundred 3rd and 4th graders in the back? If you think these Islamofascist monsters won't do it, think again. The libs trust in human nature and their looking at the world through rose-colored glasses is all well and good but it's terribly unrealistic and could cost millions of American lives.
