my feelings are sort of like this article posted here this afternoon from the ralph peters ny post. bush does a lot of things i don't like, but he does some things right. one of them is to take care of the usa and usa interests against islamofascists and their tactics. unlike the 1990s it is being handled as a full-court press rather than some police action. that is being handled correctly.
unlike kerry i don't think bush lied. cia, nsa, russian intelligence, french intel, etc., etc., told him about wmd in iraq. imho unknown to bush, bush made a decision based on false or way-flawed info, and that is not lying. i don't think bush knew secret info otherwise, and that he went to war regardless. i don't think he set up his advisors in a credible deniabilty lie. he is not that smart and not that devious.
when i watched the kerry testimony before the senate in 1971, what kerry wanted was to pullout Immediately. you have got to watch this testimony. it seems each time kerry has had to decide in public life whether to use american force or simply reduce it, he votes/decides not to use it. based on what i have read, observed, heard about kerry lately, i expect him to whimp out in any conflict requiring something other than spoken or printed words.
to win wwII many innocent japanese and germans were killed. there is no negotiating with islamofascists, and i feel sure lots of innocent people will be killed in defeating islamofascists over time. i am in favor of as few innocent americans being killed as possible, and i think we are prosecuting the situation against the islamofascists now better than kerry would do it.
Message 20442313 |
