Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gemoore
I think we need to define terms. Is "terrorism" synonymous with the "war on terror"? What is the "war on terror"? How do YOU define the "war on terror"? And do YOU think it can be "won"?
I thought Lauer's question was stupid, and the president should have been quick enough to ask Lauer what he meant.
Frankly, I don't think we'll ever be able to prevent terrorism. If that's not winning the war on terrorism, so be it. But I think we can neutralize Bin Laden and al Qaeda. If that's winning the war on terrosim, so be it.
I don't think you should hang your ideological hat on a few words taken out of context in response to a dumb quesiton. To do so indicates that you're just looking for an excuse to vote against Bush.
If that's what you want to do, go ahead. Me, I'll pay more attention to the overwhelming body of evidence and actions since 9/11. That seems more reasonable and offers a better basis for how I cast my vote. (For Bush.)
|
At first I thought you were joking, kinda like asking us to define "what is, is" .
Then you go off on a tangent saying it's a dumb question, well if the president isn't smart enough to not respond to a dumb question what does that make him? Personally I didn't think it was a dumb question, and his answer was honest. I'm sure that won't happen again (sarcasm added)
As to Bush's actions since 9/11 I too will be casting my vote on those. Record setting deficits, attacking the WRONG country (see 9/11 report), a net loss of jobs for the first time since the Great Depression, 1.3 Million MORE Americans living in poverty, an assualt on the civil liberties of Americans (Patriot Act & Gay Marriage Amendment) etc,etc.
You want to judge John Kerry on his record, well let's judge Bush ON HIS.
A failed presidency that can only pander to the masses and buy their votes while burdening my children and grandchildren with the debt of his mismanagement. Bread and circuses, while Rome burns.