2004-10-01
The Value of Uncertainty
After mulling over the things that President Bush and Senator Kerry were saying about anti-terrorism tactics, I decided that the discrepancy could be fairly well captured with the following allegory: If Bush and Kerry were trying to protect a house from a gang of armed robbers, Kerry would grab a shotgun and patrol the house, moving from room to room, checking all the doors and windows. President Bush would take a bazooka and keep it trained on the toilet. Kerry would acknowledge that yes, a toilet could prove to be a breech in security and yes, it is a pretty nasty little hole, but he'd stress that it's not the opening to be concerned with just now. And I suppose Bush would in turn call Kerry's cautious patrolling of the house "flip-flopping."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
James- Get a life and learn about the issues. Your comment about foreign policy is baseless and stupid. You think you are so clever, but you're not. I know you honestly think Kerry would do a better job as President. However, it is difficult for me to think Kerry’s number one priority would be the safety of America, when he would be looking at poll numbers or being a lapdog for the UN when making decisions about the safety of the US.
I think that your anology is overplayed. As Mr. Kerry said he would want to check world opinion first, before deciding upon action of the security of the United States. Kerry also said that he supports bilateral discussion against North Korea. This would be another mistake, because in a one on one 'discussion' NK would just walk away. It would always be better for the US to use peer pressure against NK. I would like to know what you consider Seantor Kerry's actual terrorism tactics. Because last time I checked he didn't have any tactics. What to do is, if you attack America, no matter where you hide, we will come and get you.
I will admit that I, like most people, do not have sufficient understanding of the North Korean situation to be able to give a truly informed opinion. Like the second commentator, I would simply be regurgitating party rhetoric. I'm willing to let that go. We can agree to disagree.
However I feel that I am sufficiently informed to see that Kerry has a far more intelligent stance on Iraq and Afghanistan. I note that the second commentator finished saying: What to do is, if you attack America, no matter where you hide, we will come and get you.Okay then. I'll buy that. So why did Bush divert our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq? Shouldn't we get the people who actually attacked us?
Post a Comment