Quote:
Originally posted by jwd
His war on terror IS the most important thing. As commander in chief his main responsibility is defense of the country. Everything else is secondary imo. We haven't been attacked again, Hussein is out of power with the chance of a democracy in the Middle East very much a reality, Khadafi is giving up his weapons of mass destruction, and we are in negotiations with North Korea multi-laterally. Afghanistan is a liberated country with the taliban scattered. I think those are pretty good marks. Anyone can spin it any way they want, but those are the facts.
|
But, Joe, it's a completely different ball-game since 9/11.
Anyone in the White House now would
have to be "tough on terrorism." There's no choice.
I still don't feel that the Bush Administration has been as effective as they claim.
We're pretty much
always in peace negotiations with some country somewhere... that doesn't mean anything will necessarily come from it. So you can cross that off the list of accomplishments.
And nothing changes the fact that the mastermind behind 9/11 is still free, and nothing changes the fact that his al-Qaida organization continues plotting more attacks against our country, to this day (2.5 years after the terror attacks).
The guy they
did manage to catch had no weapons of mass destruction (and apparently hasn't had them since 1994 - when Clinton was in office), and didn't play a part in the attacks that cost us thousands of lives (the event that sparked the whole "War On Terrorism" in the first place).
So again, I feel that
anyone in office now would
have to be tough in regards to National Security... but we need someone who will be effective in
additional areas as well. And Bush isn't that guy.
Period.