GMAN said:
The least capable, most dangerous President is the one who just sits there
and
does nothing when attacked. Sorta like Billy Clinton and the Cole attack,
the
Marine base, The 1st WTC attack, etc............
The perps on the first WTC attack were captured and prosecuted. Clinton
sent missiles flying to an Osama training camp and missed him by hours.
After the Cole attack several of the perps were cought and, more important,
our security for ships in foreign ports was beefed up. The Marine barracks
in Lebanon? Best response was to get out guys out of harms way and let the
people on the ground fight out their own civil war. The question is, who do
you attack if the terrorists are not a country or government? Bush, on the
other hand had Osama trapped in Tora Bora but had outsourced his capture to
local war lords who let him slip through their fingers. So much for
privatizing or outsourcing everything, including our national security!
Takes logic to respond with force and attack the people who attacked you.
Nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. I guess that the picture of
Bush holding hands with a Saudi prince tells it all. Makes perfect sense to
make war against Iraq, right? Sadam was a bad guy, but he had nothing to do
with 9/11.
As a veteran/Air Force officer, I appreciate the need for a military to
defend our country when necessary. I don't agree with Bush's preemtive war
on Iraq or the fiasco he has produced with the war's mismanagement. Better
he would have figured this thing out before committing our precious troops
and resources. No use continuing this dialog as we are on opposite poles of
the political spectrum.