I'm a little confused. Bush is President for 9 months and takes a vacation before the most catastrophic terrorist attack in the history of the world and then proceeds to paint the Democrats as weak on national security. He's President for 6 years and the BRITISH police stop a plot at least on par with 9/11 and Bush attempts to take credit for their success and again implies that Democrats are soft on national security. Maybe the Democrats are soft on national security but we wouldn't know because the Republicans have controlled all 3 branches of the government for the past 6 years. Even when the Democrats have had the ability to stop the Republican agenda they've almost always capitulated. So the jury is still out on whether or not the Dems are soft on national security.
But how does a guy who missed 9/11 and had nothing to do with the foiling of another major plot take credit for being strong on national security? Doesn't he see the irony in that the Brits were successful in breaking up a plot by using the POLICE and not the military? Where is his credibility on national security when it's clear to the other 6 billion people on Earth that using a conventional fighting force only inspires more people to become radicalized? Can't he see how ignorant he looks when he uses terms like "Islamo-fascists," that he obviously doesn't understand and doesn't make any logical sense (they're Islamo-theocrats if anything)? How can anyone who's so ignorant and who has caused so much instability and radicalization in the world even open their mouth on the subject of national security? Why does anyone even take this guy seriously? We are certainly not safer and God do I pray that I'm not right.
Doesn't a good leader seek to settle people's fears in times of crisis? What kind of a guy purposely tries to stoke fear for political purposes?
We can do better.
Islamo-fascists?! He cracks me up!
About the Author
The Indy Voice is a place to find like-minded truth seekers, where everyone holds a piece to the puzzle.