Debate critics may have thought it was unsophisticated of Bush to keep harping on Kerry's "mixed message". Some critics felt that Kerry has settled of a position. I for one, honestly have no idea where Kerry stands in terms of commitment to the success of this war.
He says he wants to close the boarders to Iraq to stop the importation of terrorists.
Why does he think that is a good thing? As I see it, that's right where we want the terrorists to be. I'd rather have terrorists fighting our troops in Iraq than our civilians on planes.
I supose Kerry's argument would be that we created more terrorists by invading Iraq. How does one go about proving or disproving such a thing? Did he happen to know the number of terrorists around the world prior to the fall of Bagdad? Does Kerry think these were otherwise nice people who are so outraged now about Sadddam that they decide to kill not just soldiers, but innocent children in a country that is not even their own?
We know that based on the information we had, we had to overthrow Saddam. If we had found WMD's as we expected, the terrorists would be pouring in now just the same. I mean, I don't think they're avenging Saddam. They're coming to take advantage of the power vaccuum. Is it a viable argument to say that we can never overthrow any regime because the power vaccuum will draw murderous opportunists?
Besides, if we close the Iraqi boarders, then perhaps that's where the terrorists will engage us. The fact is that they'll engage us wherever it is easiest. If they fight us at the boarders, then what will he do . . . just pull out?
I think Kerry sees stability as the goal, the outcome by which this war is judged. I think that's why he thinks this is the wrong war. I think he doesn't value democracy enough to see it through.
I'm frightened by his lack of purpose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment