SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (76830)6/4/2006 12:52:42 AM
From: Nadine CarrollRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
There has to be some basis for your assumption that Kerry would not be as good or even better and "effective" against Osama

Kerry has publicly regretted that Bush abandoned the law enforcement approach to Islamic terrorism that Clinton used.

Clinton on the other hand went about very quietly and effectively and tracking down Osama

Say WHAT? Sudan offered to hand Osama over in 1998, and Clinton couldn't be bothered! His "efforts" consisted of symbolic gestures, of blowing up empty tents from which Osama was long gone. Osama began plotting 9/11 in 1996. We know that. He had 5 unhindered years to do that under Clinton.

I do agree that the Bush rhetoric served one of its purpose and that is convince people like you that Bush is on a mission to fight terror, whether his approach is effective or not is not an issue with you I suppose.

Whether the approach is effective is very much an issue - but if the other side persists in denying that terror needs to be fought, if they keep saying 'it's just a tiny handful of people; all we need to do is catch Osama bin Laden', then I don't have much of a choice besides Bush, do I?

When 9/11 happened, two camps had thought about the problem and proposed reactions - the realists and the necoons. As it happened, they were both Republican camps. From the Democrats I heard confusion, denial, and avoidance of the subject.