Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Suma who wrote (75083)	10/5/2004 7:05:42 PM
From: tbancroft	Read Replies (1) of 793917

Barnett offers such good insight, but his assertion that it doesn't matter whether it is Bush or Kerry as POTUS (or actually, that Kerry might be better than Bush) absolutely astounds me. Kerry can and will abandon critical strategies if he senses sentiment running against him, regardless of the long term implications and/or results. He's shown no compunction about making statements slandering allies, nor about discouraging our soldiers. (At least he's not actively disparaging them, as he did in '71.) Here’s what this splitting of the U. S. military means to the American people: The National Security Act of 2005 tentatively sits on the far side of this national election. I fully expect that if Bush is reelected, this piece of legislation will be profound, moving America down the pathway of seriously reordering its national-security establishment for the better. Does that mean a Kerry administration wouldn’t do the same? Not at all. In fact, that administration may well be the far better choice to pull off such a dramatic reorganization, given the growing distrust of many Americans and the world regarding the Bush administration’s integrity on matters of security.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next