|
Edited on Sun Oct-31-04 10:41 AM by Nicholas_J
Or just from the point of view that in polls, the public opinion is that Bush is the better man for dealing with terrorism (although a number of recent polls indicate that this is tightening up,withe Kerry getting lower numbers on terorism, but within the statistical margin of error).
Though this fact itself even amazes me, and not just from the standpoint of being a Kerry supporter.
THe problem itself has been pointed out in polls that determined who had a firmer gras on reality, Bush supporters or Kerry supporters, with regards to the political realities. THey recently did polls asking people simple questions about Iraq and Terrorism and such, and the findinswere that Bush supporters beleved that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, that there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that there were terrorists in Iraq before Saddam was overthrown, THat we have freed Iraqi women from having to wear burkas and now they can get an education.
Even though all of the facts point to Saddam not onnly not having links to Al Qaeda, but that sama wanted to destroy Saddam as much as he wnted to destroy the U.S., or even more so, because Osama does not want to destroy the U.S. he just wants the U.S. out of controlling Middle Eastern Politics, wheras he wanted Saddam executed as an Islamic apostate and wanted his government overthrown. No WMD's anmd they have had to fall back on the "well he wanted them and was going to start the programs oce the sanctions were lifted", whic simply prooves we could have left Saddam sit and stew for several more years while we used all out resources to hunt down Al Qaeda, by leaving the sanctions in place. Since there were no WMD's he had none to give to Al Qaeda, so the reason for going into Iraq vanishes. Ebven the stuff about women's rights in Iraq were balderdash, as in Iraq, there were more women in the higher profesions as a percentage than even in the U.S., so in some ways womens rights were more advanced under Saddam than the new government.
This is the problem. The ignorance of those who support Bush have allowed us to be placed in far greater danger than even Bush himself.
The fact that these fools will beleive Bush in spite of ALL evidence to the contrary is the equivalent 0f Germans beleiving Hitler about the roots of economic problems in Pre-Nazi Germany. The Bush suppporters are every bit as dangerous as the Nazi Supporters.
The very worse thing is the superficial reasons for believing that Bush is stronger on terrorism that Kerry because of the tough guy talk and image. It wold be hysterically funny if it were not so grieveously dangerous. Anyone who went to Vietnam, or in fact ever served in a war zone knows that tough guys dont talk tough. Its just cowlarly little weasels who talk tough. Tough Guyd dont talk, they do, adn Bush hasnt done. Iraq itself is the evidence of Bush's cowardice. RAther than stick to the tough job, the diffivcult one, the one against the guys who over and over again have proven their ability to strike the United States hard,that is Al Qaeda, he decided to strike some pathetic loser of a dictator who was only good at bullying his own people, but was a dismal failure in every military action he ever atempted, What didthe wimp do when Israel destroyed his nuclear reactor, he ran and went crying, too afraid to attack Israel, because they could kick his ass in any war. Saddam, as all cowards do, only attacked those weaker than him. Regardles of the tons of weapons and explosives and even trhe WMDs he once possesed, he would never have attakced the U.S. or even given terrorists the means to do so. As a coward, he feared the consequences of such actions.
Al Qaeda on the other hand, is a small oprganization that has on numerous times attacked the much greater might of the United States, worlds greatest supoerpower. They have done so without fear, they have done so repetatively, and they have been sucessful at striking us hard, and doing us great damage. At least Clinton pursued, captured and jailed the perpetrators of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Bush is simply too afraid to go after bin Laden as there is a chance of failure there. Bush needed an opponent that he could stand a chance of beating. Like Saddam, Bush chose to go after a weaker, smaller, and incompetant opponent, and has tried to make it loolk like a great cause, with that taking the fight to the enemy bullshit>And his supporters actually buy that bullshit. Taking the fight to what enemy. It wasnt in Iraq, and what is now in Iraq has been a new group of terrorists formed in response to the attack on Iraq, who have only just decided that they have common cause with Al Qaeda. Finally there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Unfortunately it took overthrowing Saddam Hussein to create it.
Americans are easily swayed by talk, even if there is no action to back up that talk. Bush is afraid of Osama, no two ways about it.
And his supporters are simply dumber then dirt. From day one, Kerry stated that Osama was our priority, and our first prioirty. He stated that unless a link between Saddam and Osama could be found, a linke between Saddam and 9/11, and the existance of WMD's, Saddam should be left under sanction, and we should pursue Osama and Al Qaeda, do the tough and dangerous job first, and then worry about theBully of Baghdad.
Bush and his supporters endanger the rest of us. They need to be put in their place.
Osama and Al Qaeda on the other
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
