<<If President Bush did not take the aggressive action that he had after 9-11 there would have been even more attacks. >>
You have absolutely no way of knowing that. Personally I believe the real reason that there were no more 9-11s so far is that it's such a hard act to follow. If they come up with anything less spectacular, they look like they are losing ground. The next attack has to be really, really colossal. Otherwise, they'll just look like losers.
<<Khalid Sheik Mohammad has even said this. >>
Since the strategy is to get the U.S. to radicalize the Arab populations of the puppet rulers, KSM will say anything that keeps America following on the path that Bush has opened up. I believe that Bush, his administration and the neo-cons in particular are the greatest gift that "militant Islam" could ever hope for. Certainly the greatest recruiting agents.
<<Bush has prevented 10 major, catastrophic attacks against U.S. targets.>>
Funny how he seems to get all the credit for preventing "major catastrophic attacks" that never occurred and none of the blame for failing to prevent the one certifiable major catastrophic attack that DID occur.
<<Calling Dr. Rice "Condibird" is extraordinarily racist, and you should be ashamed.>>
It didn't look racist to me, I thought it was just wordplay about a bird in the bush.
<<Obama is too inexperienced and naive to handle a catastrophic attack like 9-11. >>
McCain's an idiot. He had no constructive proposals to make in the wake of 9-11 and he very stupidly backed the invasion of Iraq which Obama had the good sense to oppose. Besides, there isn't much to "handle" once the enemy lands his sucker punch. The damage is done, the attackers are dead so they can't even be caught and tortured, and the rest is basically clean-up and hospital visits.
I personally would be a lot more concerned about which candidate is more likely to defuse the anger that motivates the attacks by examining America's traditional policies and seeing where they can be improved so as to generate less hatred of America and its people. In that regard, Obama is obviously more likely to deliver change than McSame.
<<Obama's willingness to have sitdown meetings with our worst enemies without preconditions is also very dangerous and would put us as well as our allies further at risk. >>
A man who isn't afraid to talk to anyone has a lot better chance of finding common ground, resolving animosity and getting past the past than some ass-hole who sits on his high horse and lays down "conditions" under which he will condescend to speak with you. The arrogance and chutzpah of the latter position is absolutely mind-boggling and it's amazing to me that any candidate would actually want to boast of such a regressive and counter-productive mind-set.
<<And would also grant legitimacy to the world's worst dictators by giving them the prestige of a sit down with the President of the United States.>>
He would have to have an extremely hight opinion of himself, and completely unwarranted as well, to think that he is conferring prestige or legitimacy on a dictator by sitting down to talk to him. Most of the world's people by this point have a fairly low opinion of American leaders and their friends, and probably wouldn't award Brownie points in legitimacy to "the world's worst dictators" just because they sat down at a table with the President of the U.S.A. Oftentimes the "world's worst dictators" owe their position exclusively to the U.S. anyway, so no one who knows the score will add anything to their "legitimacy" by seeing them conferring with the Prez. Pretty soon the time will come when the world's worst dictators will wonder whether their reputations won't be further besmirched by sitting down with a low-life like the President of the U.S.A.
<<It [the campaign shield] goes to his poor judgment. His notion that it wouldn't be seen as arrogant or even shameless, as you yourself admitted, shows very poor judgment . . . >>
It's about on a par with picking a tie that's too loud, or a lime-green suit. It's a picayune error in judgment compared with the errors that led to leaving the war-making powers in the hands of George W. Bush. Nobody is error-free in making judgments, but I think by now everyone knows who made the big errors that cost three trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives and who made the small error of picking the wrong tie to wear.
<< . . . just as his friendships with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Father Pfliger showed very poor judgment.>>
Yeah, let's get into that a little more. What kind of judgment did it take to get involved with that crook Charles Keating and visit government regulators on his behalf? That's not "poor judgment," that is a character flaw, like BEING CROOKED.
