He's strong on the "best" defense.
Focusing existing terrorists to swarm over to Iraq is not "creating" terrorists. You can hide under your bed and pretend it does, but that still does not make it so.
As for the best of our sons and daughters sent to the fray, leaving our flanks open will always be a possibility, regardless of what we do. The tact is to take the battle to the enemy, and this we have done. The enemy is generally poor, and they prefer the local fight to the trip into the West. And our flanks are far from open to attack. We have countless eyes, and our back is never turned. Sure, there do remain holes, as we are a large nation, but we are not alone in the war -- regardless of what the current Dem candidates and pundits insist, and/or hope.
And Bush is a joke. A spoiled preppie with too much money, too much influence and too much power. He buys and sells this power while he gropes his way to the top. And he's arrogant and believes he's protected by his God to succeed on this "war on terrorism".
Just a meaningless rant, which does nothing for your argument. Spoiled preppies with too much money, too much influence and too much power often win, as do persons who buy and sell this power while groping to the top. And when did arrogance and religious belief start equaling loser? Advances throughout history are littered with arrogant believers who have won over vast odds, for it is this same arrogance and belief that drives these leaders to victory.
I do agree that we shall have to wait and see, but I believe we will see success in this, for we must, and anything less will mean an end to the West in general, and the United States of America in particular. And I do mean an end. Total. Complete. And we shall not allow this to be, ergo we shall win. Nothing less will work.
Dan (at least as arrogant as the CinC)
Off Topic » in reply to Because he's strong on "defense"?
re: yada-yada . . .
