Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
If only this were true.
I think if you were to go back and look, you'd find that your strawman of "do nothing and hope" doesn't actually have a lot of support on the liberal side here. There was huge (board) bipartisan support for Bush going into Afganistan, for example.
But many of who are less predisposed to root for Bush on reflex wonder if he didn't pursue the most expensive (economicly, and worse, in cost of lives) and least likely path toward eliminating terrorism.
200,000 soldiers (not enough). How much money now? $100B? Imagine all that trained on the man who actually has attacked the US.
Do not get us wrong: the Dems, at least on this board, don't think Bush is wrong because he's killing Arabs (although killing anybody - not our favorite thing). He's wrong because he's wasting time and resources not making us any safer, and, indeed, increasing our threat by creating a new training ground for terrorists, complete with huge stocks of live ammo.
This ultimately is what causes so much rage in liberals against conservatives right now. We have a legitimate difference of opinion as to what the best course of action is to decrease the threat of terrorism and protect America. The response is not a discussion, but a shrill cry of treason. It's getting a little old.
|
1 man did not attack us. Killing 1 man in 1995 might have gone a long way to ending the problem, but we passed. Instead he was able to train 20000 terrorists in the Afghan camps. Since we cannot go into Pakistan we don't need 200k troops there. 20000 terrorists is enough to do us harm. Combine that with the possibility that Iraq would have/ could have given them chemical weapons and you have 1000s more dead. That justified attacking Iraq.
I have never called anyone treasonist for voicing an opinion. However, I believe some of the arguments used by the Dems politicians to generate dis-satisfaction with Bush are harmful to the Country, and when a politician harms my country to try and generate some desparate sliver of political gain, that gets close to treason.
Example: Cindy isn't against the war in Iraq- she is against wars that are fought for the Jews- she is against Iraq
AND AFGHANISTAN .
So here is a party which pushes a media darling because it might cause some harm to support for Iraq (and to what end given that you all believe now that we're there we have to leave something workable), but none of you are acknowledging that she isn't just against Iraq, or that her motivation isn't hate induced. And guess what? the anti-afghan war and anti-Jew chunk of your party is sizable.
Problem- if you ever got back in power the substantial portion of your party which WAS and IS against any action anywhere will block you from taking out the future OBLs. I say, why change horses in midstream?
Oh, and Bush did warn everyone that there were no easy steps, and did not imply that some TRO-like thing could be done (of course if Clinton had killed OBL in 1995 that might have been effdectively a TRO).
