Quote:
|
Originally Posted by strandinthewind
But, Johnny - what was the alternative. We could have killed every living soul in Afgan. or we could have never invaded Afgan. (which many liberals still suggest  ). So, do you honestly think anyone could have handled it any better. I mean W and crewe are FAR more hawkish than any D. So, I think they did a good job. Yes, they should have caught OBL (shut up Dissention  ) - but they did not. Instead, they destroyed or captured most of the upper eschelon of Al-Q. That is a good thing. I mean it is not like we are fighting one country here. Al-Q is everywhere and in every country. So, again, what is a better plan than what W did? And, more importantly, what would Kerry do that is better? I submit nothing. They are essentially the same. But, people villify W and let Kerry get off for free. |
I'm not exactly sure what Kerry has done that is deserving of vilification. Is it because he supported his President? Hell, if he hadn't, he'd have been written off as another traitor like anyone else who opposed the war was.
And again, I can't say what Kerry would do... the man isn't even in the White House (yet). Hopefully though, he wouldn't have overlooked evidence, and/or invented other evidence, to support an unnecessary war against his family's arch-enemy.
I have to say that I was not against the War On Terrorism in theory. I think 9/11 made it all too obvious that this a very real threat, and something needs to be done.
However, in execution I believe they have totally bungled things and have only made matters worse.