Boy that Ann Coulter is good. Al's speech is at least 4-5 times more wordy than her little article you posted it in response to, and yet it doesn't manage to counter ONE of here points. So much silly talk, Al suggests a more expensive war would have been better, then complains about us shouldering the costs (which would have been much higher if We'd decided as he wishes we had). His only out would be to say we simply shouldn't have taken action without the level of financial support we had in the Gulf War. So Gore would have done nothing, unless you presume he would have successfully persuaded others to offer us that kind of support....but the man simply wouldn't have been so inclined, IMHO.
Basically, if you just go back to Ann Coulters article, you see that Al's speech just flies in the face of results and discovered realities concerning Islamic extremists who fight in Iraq as sure as they may well have been trained in Iraq, under Saddam's watch.
But unless you believe Gore would have spurred the world on into Iraq (you'd have to be nuts) so much better than Bush did, Gore would have done nothing there.
I'm glad we went. Hopefully, we'll never see 400,000 Americans dead in the war on terror as we did in WW2. Well, maybe if we have to fight terrorist supporting regimes for the next 400 years, the death toll will reach that number (though that number would represent a significantly smaller percentage of our increased population than in WW2, at that). Do we know the enemy is determined and ruthless? Yes, eh? Should we rather sit still because some in the world don't think we should bother? No, eh?
By the by, did Clinton lie about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? If you think Bush did, Clinton must have (just read him). You on the left are rather short-sighted with your damning unfounded claims, IMO.
I could be wrong, but I suspect an opinion backlash against Democrats is brewing, and as a result Bush could wind up winning easily in a landslide.
Dan B. |
