Fox News: Al Qaeda Increasing in Strength. This is scary stuff. For all of you who have told me that I should vote for Bush because of security matters, and there have been a few of you, in what way has he managed to deplete this threat? It seems like, by invading Iraq, he has made this threat worse.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It all depends on if you think the threat would be less if we have not attack Iraq. As of now Al Qaeda’s leadership is mostly dead or captured, they have no safe place of operations in which to train or even sleep two nights in a row. While there numbers may be at 18,000 (unable to prove either way), they have no training, leadership or ability to mount any kind of coordinated attack.
But the bigger question to your post is where would the treat be if Bush had no been the president or if we had not done what we have done? Would the threat be any less, would we seem weak if we have held back. Being in the military myself I know that being in constant combat against a stronger force is extremely demoralizing. Also when Iraq does gain control of their government again and democracy does take foot, is it not worth it. Is freeing 50 million people not a moral goal. Should a few religious zealots be able to control the masses or be allowed to topple a government as they did in Spain???
Here is my question to you, Are you voting for Kerry or just voting against Bush… All you hear is Bush bashing and how bad he is, you never hear that Kerry is better in any way shape or form. I am not saying Bush is the best thing since slice white bread, not even close. But you have to respect someone who stands for something, and not just what seems to be popular at the time of the latest poll. But what makes our country so great is that every four year we have a change in power with no shots fired, the only thing it takes is your vote.
I think I have gone off on a rant so I will stop now.
I wanted to respond by asking if you had read the article because, based on your response, it seemed as if you hadn’t. It appears, however, that Fox has removed the article themselves, and replaced it with another article. I am going to look into this later and get back to this post.
A few oddnesses here before my comments. First, it seems, as anonymous points out, that Fox has removed the story I originally linked to, making the discussion of that article impossible. I looked to see if I had a cached version, and I do not.
As far as your question Darrin, “Are you voting for Kerry or just voting against Bush?” I would have to say, at this point, that I cannot say whether I will be enthusiastic about voting for either. Kerry has not revealed enough of his plans for me to get a good enough judgement on him. Bush, as you know, seems to keep doing things that I am not a fan of in my fiscally conservative, socially liberal set of stances. The point that I was trying to make was that neo-conservatives keep telling me that I should vote for Bush based opn security concerns. Information, apparently credible and non-partisan, was presented that showed that the terrorism network had grown since we attacked Iraq. My point was, is he really doing such a good job if the threat has grown?
You go on to say “But you have to respect someone who stands for something..” Here, I definitely have to disagree with you. I respect people who stand for something, but are willing to admit when they are wrong and rethink their stances when they have been proven wrong. Bush seems incapable of either at this point. I am willing to rethink my opinion, and I will be watching all of this stuff very carefully over the next few months trying to make an informed decision.