(II) This is why I would have succeeded where Edwards failed...
"Are there fewer terrorists now than there were four years ago?"
Bam. Debate's over.
Bam. Election's over.
Hoo-aah! Kerry 2008!
Bam. Debate's over.
Bam. Election's over.
Hoo-aah! Kerry 2008!
posted by sherifffruitfly | 8:11 AM
3 Comments:
For every new one we created since 2001, we had to have killed at least one right? right?
"For every new one we created since 2001, we had to have killed at least one right? right?"
Um, I think you left out the part where you explain why on earth would anyone think that?
Quite the opposite thought strikes me as much more natural. If martyrdom only got you *one* believer upon the martyr's death, there wouldn't be much point in martyrdom, would there? No, the point (well, one point at least) of a martyr is that his or her death rallies and mobilizes *many* people.
Terrorists think of themselves as martyrs. Unfortunately, they have similar death/rallying characteristics as well.
This is all the case, however, only in an environment that permits it. While it may satisfy a redneck's bloodlust to go pop some towelheads, it doesn't do all that much for American security if you don't also do something to prevent, or at least inhibit, the creation of new terrorists. At this point, you have to start looking around, and find out exactly what the conditions are that result in terrorist-creation. And then change those conditions.
So my point is: gdub has failed us terribly in 2 respects: (1) he hasn't killed very many terrorists - including bin Laden, and (2) he's done absolutely nothing to prevent the creation of new terrorists. In fact, gdub has played an active role in their creation with his idiotic invasion of Iraq, with his allowing North Korea to get nukes, by not doing anything about the Pakistani dude who was selling nukes, and lastly, by being a complete and utter failure with the Israeli/Palestine issue.
Oh god oh god, you blame Bush for the Palenstinian Isreili conflict? Jesus christ that is amazing. No president has done a damn thing in 50 years, but all of a sudden Bush has failed? Thats amazing. What about Clinton's failures? Bush the Prequel's failure? Ronnie's failures? Carter got a noble peace prize for his failures. Nixon? Ford? Kennedy? Johnson? I mean really, do you honestly think Bush the Sequel has actually failed? What was he suppose to do? What would you do? Me, I would disengage because I do not see any advantage to being involved. But when it comes to Palenstine and Israel, the rest of the world wants us to solve it casue it suits them, but when it comes to maniacal leaders taking part in a new hollocaust, the world wants us to keep out cause it interupts their kick backs from Mr. Hussein.
(spell checked for your approval)
Post a Comment
<< Home