I have a question for everyone who said they thought it would unite people behind Bush because they know "he'll do something."
I can understand the "don't change horses . . . " mentality of trying to keep Bush in office (Although I strongly disagree with it) but how did the seemingly widely held assumption arise that Kerry will somehow be soft on terrorism? So many people assume that Bush will have a better "reaction" to a terrorist attack. Why do you think this? What will his reaction be? Attack Iraq again?
I'm serious - why do so many of you assume Bush will be tougher on terrorism than Kerry? Just because he disapproves of war without justification? I would say another attack on our soil is plenty of justification, and I'm sure Kerry would respond accordingly.
If anything, I would think taking $100 billion and a quarter million troops away from the <b>real</b> war on terrorism is <b>not</b> the best solution.
__________________
If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors:
"If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too."
It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.
Last edited by yournamehere; 04-19-2004 at 06:58 AM..
|