I'm saying Pakistan was spreading nuclear weapon technology all during the Bush presidency. N. Korea bought/traded their current technology from Pakistan, in exchange for missile tech. On Bush's watch
Hey, I'm open to voting against Bush. Give me some links that would document that Musharraf was exporting his technology to N Korea after he signed on to Bush's war against al Qaeda, and I'll weigh it in my consideration on the election.
How would Kerry be different? No unneccesary, elective wars fought on bad intel without real allies
Real allies? Great Britain, Italy, Australia, Spain, and quite a few other countries don't count as real allies? Admittedly, they didn't pay the price we did, but their leaders put their credibility on the line (and in many cases will have to pay the price, sad to say). Or would the "real allies" be France, Germany and Russia? Those countries have certainly made a significant contribution to world stability in the 20th century.
And you've said what you think Kerry wouldn't have done (despite the fact that Kerry seems to say that he would have done just what Bush did). What would he have done? You don't sound like you think Islamic terrorism is as serious an issue as Bush supporters do.
Lybia's "nuclear program" was a sad joke that would have never come to fruition. It's strictly a Bush/Rove PR play that you have bought hook, line and sinker.
I never said I thought Libya's nuclear program was a major threat, though I'm unwilling to assume it was truly a "sad joke". What is significant is that Qadaffi has abandoned his antagonistic attitude. Even if his nuclear efforts were a "sad joke", his support of terrorists has had some devastating consequences for hundreds of American families. |
