"DSK" wrote in message

Bart Senior wrote:
America is a safer place, liberals are not happy about it.

I am not a liberal,

Really? Could have fooled me and anyone else here.

and one of the reasons I am against President Bush
is that he has made the U.S. far less safe. In fact, I cannot see how
you would claim we are safer.

One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

The gov't is in deep debt and could not
afford another major military operation. The Army is stretched to the
limit, or slightly past, and doesn't have the manpower to conduct any
further major operations anyway. Intel & counter-terrorist efforts are
all centered on Iraq, leaving the rest just hanging in the wind.

The above paragraph was basically true, until your last sentence, which
holds no basis in fact. Just because the media fail to report on ongoing
actions and efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan, USA, Canada, Mexico, for
example) doesn't mean such efforts aren't being made. Have our intel
resources typically reported to the media everything they're doing???? You
rely far too heavily on the left-leaning media for your "gospel."

True conservatives are in favor of a strong national defense. This
includes defense against terrorists. Bush & Cheney manipulated us into a
war so that their buddies (and Cheney himself, I believe) could reap
enormous profits.

Prove this. While it was extremely bad form for Halliburton to even
participate in the post-war contracts, let alone grossly overcharge for
them, you cannot provide one piece of evidence that this was Bush's original
intent. Speculation at best, and shaky at that. Liberal dogma.

In doing so they have turned world opinion against us,
alienated many former allies,

Like France? Russia? China? Now who's been lacking in historical accuracy?
I'm wondering who all these new "enemies" will turn to when they need either
financial or military assistance. I think we both know the answer. It
never ceases to amaze how quickly enmity is discarded when the chips are
down.

and provided motivation for 3 more
generatins of suicide bombers. Not to mention the killing of 10,000
Iraqi civilians... I suppose you believe Sept 11th morally justifies
killing huge numbers of indiscriminate foreigners? Or just Muslims?

Did WWII justify the killing of millions of civilians? War is what it is.
So what is the alternative? If attacked, should we lick our wounds,
appologize to those who attacked us for ****ing them off for whatever
unknown reason, and wait for the next attack? Pacifism never solves
disputes. War does, sadly. History confirms this. That's the human
condition, and it's not likely to change.

He is not tap-dancing at all. Kerry supported the war becaue he was told
that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. He was told that Iraq had
ties to Al-Queda and had helped plan the Sept 11th suicide attacks. He
was told that the war would be short & sweet and that we would not get
involved in "nation building." He was told that the war would cost far,
far less than it has.

Would you have been more approving of Bush if he'd recently said, "Ya know,
I think this whole Iraq war thing was a bad idea. We're pulling out."
Wouldn't that make him a great leader?!! Everyone makes decisions, good
and/or bad. The one's with spine and integrity stick with them, despite the
resulting popularity or lack thereof. And let's not forget the political
equation: Kerry would look foolish to support Bush in anything at this
stage of an election year, no?

You are eager to denounce Kerry for being wrong, and don't even mention
the wrong done by those who lied about all the above. That is rather
strange logic.

It is easy for liberals to accuse Bush of lies, while discarding out-of-hand
that he might have been mislead by faulty intel as well. But that seems to
be the gold standard for liberals currently.

Blaming someone for believeing lies, and not blaming the liar, is a very
bad double standard. Can't you come up with anything better?

I think Bart covered it rather well, replete with quotes and such. That you
disagree doesn't make him wrong--only in dispute with you.

Max