Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Two definitions of War on Terror

It amazes me how there are apparently two definitions to the "War on Terror".

Kerry apparently believes that you only eliminate the terrorist organization that has struck at you. Take out bin Laden and that's pretty much it.

Bush believes that you eliminate all terrorists.

At least that's what I got out of the debate last night. It was pretty clear when Bush outlined his plans in 2001 that bin Laden and Al Queda was just the first target.

Now, if you have had the opinion that you only needed to take out bin Laden in 2001, then good for you, I'm glad that you know where you stand and haven't budged. I disagree with you, but it's good for debate.

What gets me is the way the media and some Americans have suddenly shifted their thinking pover the past 9 months What will it take to get them to realize that what we're doing is the right and just thing for our security?

It's not about getting rid of Al Queda. It's about going into a place that you have a chance of being successful. Edwards brought up Iran last night. Gee Johnny, do you think we're all morons? Of course Iran is a freaking problem, but it's a much more difficult place to have a chance of success in. We needed to go in where you not only had the legal right...Iraq shooting at our planes for 10 years, ignoring the UN, etc....but you had a chance of success.

If you think Iraq is the last place we will go, then you're wrong. If the two Johns win the election, we will revert back to being an easy target. This is no longer about punching back when you've been punched.

This is about getting kicked in the groin, and seeing a line of people waiting to kick you again when you get up. Only this time, you crack the kneecaps of the next guy in line before you get up.

Is it that hard to understand the Bush Doctrine? Or is everyone so scared of the reality of the world that they're trying to ignore it all?

No comments: