Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, maybe if we repeat this enough times you’ll finally get it.
Try and think outside the box there Andrew, Bush’s choices weren’t:
A) take out Saddam now
B) never take out Saddam ever
Kerry did not say that he would NEVER have gone to war against Saddam. He said he wouldn’t have gone to war against Saddam AT THAT POINT. This is not a situation where there are only two options. I know you have troule distinguishing between more than two choices, but try, just try, this once.
Plus this whole idea that just because Saddam is gone Bush did the right thing is absolutely absurd. The ends don’t justify the means. And even if they did, why the heck did Bush wait so long after he was elected to go to war? Why didn’t he attack Saddam the day he took office? If Saddam was such an awful guy why didn’t his father take him out? Why did Ronald Regan take him out instead of supplying him with weapons? For that matter why haven’t we taken out Kim Jong Il or Hu Jintao (China) or any of a number of brutal warlords in Africa.
Why? Because its not as simple as “He’s a bad guy so we should take him out”. But if thats the standard you want to hold Kerry to, the standard than why not Bush?
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
October 31st, 2004 at 4:55:05 pm
So, if you lived in Ohio, who would you be voting for on Tuesday? :)
November 1st, 2004 at 12:58:05 am
Alright, I’m off to bed, but before I go, here’s your candidate in all his glory. I hope you feel proud.
November 1st, 2004 at 2:07:56 am
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, maybe if we repeat this enough times you’ll finally get it.
Try and think outside the box there Andrew, Bush’s choices weren’t:
A) take out Saddam now
B) never take out Saddam ever
Kerry did not say that he would NEVER have gone to war against Saddam. He said he wouldn’t have gone to war against Saddam AT THAT POINT. This is not a situation where there are only two options. I know you have troule distinguishing between more than two choices, but try, just try, this once.
Plus this whole idea that just because Saddam is gone Bush did the right thing is absolutely absurd. The ends don’t justify the means. And even if they did, why the heck did Bush wait so long after he was elected to go to war? Why didn’t he attack Saddam the day he took office? If Saddam was such an awful guy why didn’t his father take him out? Why did Ronald Regan take him out instead of supplying him with weapons? For that matter why haven’t we taken out Kim Jong Il or Hu Jintao (China) or any of a number of brutal warlords in Africa.
Why? Because its not as simple as “He’s a bad guy so we should take him out”. But if thats the standard you want to hold Kerry to, the standard than why not Bush?