Quote:
Originally posted by yournamehere
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.
|
1) Kerry is a pollster, plus he has been wish washy on his voting record. Plus If some shit went down I know Bush would act for America and its interests, he wouldn't get a permission slip from the UN.
2) The war was justified, there are a great many justifications, as pointed out in other threads by people on boths sides of the fence.
3) If you think Kerry is being level headed and not some cowboy in opposition to Iraq now, which btw he "voted for, before he voted against it", you should dig up some quotes from the Dem war drum beating in 98'. The man is a pollster through and through.