Quote:
Originally posted by theking
I for one approve of his declaration of war on global "terrorism"
|
The war he said was unwinnable in a television interview aired on August 30, and then said would be won while giving a speech to veterans on the 31st?
Quote:
...and his doctrine of pre-emption...his forward thinking on attempting to redefine the face of the mid-east.
|
Places that were once safe for Americans, like Saudi Arabia, no longer are.
Quote:
Basically his strong military stance.
|
Do you mean by avoiding Vietnam? Or by admitting "serious miscalculations" in the outcome of the Iraq war? By backpedaling in presenting Iraq as an imminent threat to Congress even though the CIA had repeatedly claimed otherwise? That doesn't sound strong to me at all. Just confused.
You now have the greatest deficit in your history, and billions go missing in the non tendered contracts to rebuild Iraq.
Mission Accomplished?
Quote:
Kerry's weakness in this area is troubling to me...and it is because of this weakness in Kerry as well as his constant changing of positions (which means he does not really have a conviction) that I think he sucks as a candidate.
|
How can you assign changing positions to Kerry when you have a man who said he was a war president and a peace president within two days of each other, claimed the war was both winnable and unwinnable within 24 hours, who claimed to do whatever ti takes to find Osama Bin Laden. and who gave a deluge of "reasons" why the US armed forces were sent to and are still in Iraq. Indeed, tell me what George HAS stuck to other than deficit spending like a crackwhore with a stolen visa platinum card.
Quote:
Since I disagree with almost all of the Presidents policys other than his military stance.. I cannot vote for him. Since I think Kerry is not a good candidate for the Presidency...for the first time since I have been old enough to vote I am considering abstaining...as I fear that there is not a lesser of the "two evils". [/B]
|
If you think the key to American prosperity is to send the army all over the place, then I'm wondering what you're basing that on.
Fighting terrorists isn't done with tanks and bombs. It isn't done by invading countries (especially with those not linked to supporting terrorism, why not invade Belgium?).
Americans are now less safe abroad, much less safe than if no military action was taken in the first place. The goodwill the US received worldwide after 9/11 has been pissed away and then some, for both giving the finger to the UN and then demanding its assistance within months of each other.
Osama's still not found, and if you think Bush can secure a country, look at how many protesters have invaded the RNC. One was less than 10 feet from Cheney.
If they can't even secure the VP at the RNC, do you think they'll be able to keep you safe in your own country?