Let's examine the various claims being made that
the Bush policies have made us more vulnerable to terrorists
and the corollary that we were "safer" under Clinton,
who, according to Chinu, was the recognized leader among
European nations during his tenure.
If the premise is true, then why is it that the
WTC was the subject of a 1993 attack, the Cole was bombed,
and a U.S. embassy was bombed? All well before Bush was elected.
Further, since 9/11 occurred before the invasion of
Iraq, what was it that lead the terrorists to conduct
that attack? Bush policies? I think not.
The reality is that these terrorist types hate us,
pure and simple. If we coddle them, as Kerry proposes
(i.e., going around and apologizing to everyone), or
rattle a few sabres at them, like Clinton did,
without accomplishing anything meaningful, how would--or did-- any of this prevent 9/11?
Answer: it didn't and couldn't.
If anything, the lack of prior effective response emboldened terrorists.
The notion that "if we don't make them mad, they'll
leave us alone," is ludricrous, IMO. It's like
a world wide case of Stockholm Syndrome.
If leaving terrorists alone worked,
9/11 would not have happened because, during Clinton's watch, they were effectively being left alone.
In sum, there doesn't appear to be any logic to
the arguments being put forth.
Perhaps you can explain it. |
