Cheney says we are more likely to face another terrorist attack if Kerry is elected. How could he say such a thing? How unamerican! How hateful! How dare he!! The dems are appalled.
The dems like their candidate are two-faced.
It's horrible of Cheney to say what he said, even if it is the truth. But it's ok if the dems screech at the top of their lungs that Bush "betrayed" us. . ."mislead" us into war. . .is "unfit" to be commander in chief. . ."stole" the election of 2000. . .was AWOL from the National Guard when he served during the Vietnam war.
The facts are: He was not AWOL. . .nothing was stolen in 2000, although the dems tried in Florida. . .Bush has already proven to be a fine commander in chief. . .he did not mislead us into war (we are in a GLOBAL war as we speak and I would prefer that we err on the side of caution where WMDs are concerned). . .Bush has not and will not betray this country. . .and finally. . .we will be more vulnerable with Kerry in the Presidency. His "flexible" interpretation of the truth (so handily trumpeted by the dems as "nuanced") will surely, if given the chance, make for a much more dangerous world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi, you commented on my Iraq/Vietnam comparison post saying, "It's not someone else's war. It's a war that has already reached New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania." I live in Washington DC and am unaware that any Iraqi war operations have taken place here, or in any of the other two areas. I believed them to all be occurring overseas in.... well, Iraq. You are correct in noting that my assertions do not reflect reality... that is the purpose of my post in the first place. In reality, nations solve problems by fighting and using violence. In reality, many PEOPLE solve problems by fighting and using violence. These are base, primitive, and unfortunate ways the human race has developed. You are correct, my desire for all world disputes to be solved at a negotiating table is EXTREMELY unrealistic at this point in time. However, that was the unfortunate, depressing message of my post. Lastly, just because you disagree with someone's views doesn't mean their message is "glib", or that it signifies their lack of understanding of the topic... we obviously disagree, but do not discredit my research and opinions; There is always room for an intellectual debate. You are a teacher, I would assume you understand this. Anyways, thanks for your thought provoking response.
Since when is Iraq "an extension" of 9/11 or the "war" on terror (if you can, in fact, declare war on a noun)?? Didn't we go into Iraq to prevent the human rights violations going on there, and stop a nuclear development program, and rescue its people? If anything, the terrorism problem in Iraq began SINCE the US lead war and invasion... we provoked it. Even if I'm wrong, and we DID go into Iraq to fight and prevent terrorism, its blatantly obvious that we failed. How many suicide car bombers were blowing themselves up outside of Saddam's palaces? How many have blown themselves up outside of US headquarters. Fuck Kerry, fuck Bush, fuck the US government (for the most part; I like that the Air & Space Museum is free). A little over the top, yes, but those comments were meant to make a point: when are we going to have a politician running on a "world peace, negotiation, and open mind" platform??? Jobs, the economy, health care, social security, the school system, and taxes aren't going to matter when we are all dust and ashes after a nuclear attack.... or dealing with a devastating one overseas. Whatever, go flip on CNN and see how Bill Clinton is recovering.... you know, breaking news...
First: "The global war on terror was started by the terrorists that killed 3000 people on 9/11/01." Wrong. The U.S. WAR on terror began then... once it affected us. It COULD have started in 1933, when Stalin's forced famine genocide killed 7.5 million to stop the Ukraine independence movement. It could have began in 1946-50, under Mao's regime, when 2.5 million were killed. Maybe even in 1985-99 when 1.5 million died in Sudan because of religious related attacks. How about the 1.5 million Armenians killed by Turkish genocide; or the 1 million in the 1941-44 genocide in Yugoslavia? From 1966-76 1 million Tibetans were killed in Mao's Cultural Revolution. How about the 50-100 thousand Kurds gassed in Iraq. And all that stuff going on in, well, pretty much anywhere in Africa throughout recent history... Did any of these start the global war on terrorism? Nope. Only once the US was directly hit did we suddenly have a vested interest. The global fight against terror has long been an issue... just one the US didnt care about until Sept. 11 2001 (I wonder why?). Second: Saddamm was obviously a terrible human being and I'm glad a side-effect of the Iraq invasion has brought him to justice. Third, yes, we both agree that dealing with global terrorism is a top priority, except we choose to deal with it in different ways... Your method: unilateraly going into Iraq, killing more people, sending billions of dollars to Israel each year(a terror inflicting state itself), and consequently, making MORE enemies.... enemies that are now more likely to start, or join existing, terrorist organizations. My way?? Stop the killing. Begin examining WHY these terrorists hate us in the first place. Get to the root of the problem. Most importantly, someone, sometime, has to stop the vicious cycle of killing and retaliation. We were attacked on 9/11, yes. Why must we come right back with force, and promise to kill those responsible. The vicious cycle will then only continue. Unless we want to demolish global civilization as we know it, someone, sometime must stand up and be the bigger man and not retaliate... they will undoubtedly become angry, but should instead open their eyes and ears to negotiation. What nation, or attacked group, can fill this moral role... why not us, the most powerful, greatest nation in the world? Instead, we choose to continue on the path of hate and destruction, and the vicious cycle continues. You mocked my: "world peace, negotiation, and an open mind platform" saying "Tell that to the people that died on 9/11/01." I can't speak for any of them, but if I was one of the victims, I would want the US to choose MY WAY of resolution, not yours, so that future innocent Americans had less of a chance ending up like me... a casualty in a terrorist attack. We would have to suffer our losses from an attack, but refrain from military action. End the cycle. Most Americans dont realize how extremely well Arab nations would receive just one speech from the US President saying: "We condemn these attacks, but see no use in continuing the violence. All sides in these matters have made rash, harmful decisions, and these only end up being counterproductive. We have open ears to what you have to say, will be receptive of your feelings regarding our policy, and want to pursue civilized talks and negotiations. The current world order must end, for ALL of or our benefits." We don't understand how well this would be received in the Arab world... a world that believes they have been left behind, and that we care nothing for them. I guess I'm preaching compassion here, is that so bad?? Isn't that what the world needs? Some nation must suck up a loss sometime, and not retaliate; and even if it didn't work out, at least that nation would have the benefit of moral strength (a virtue that has lost meaning in todays world)... but if everyone continues to attack when attacked, and so on and so forth, there is only one end result, and Mahatma Gandhi summed it up well: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Then again, what did he know???
Post a Comment