Bush 7 - Kerry 40

CAUTION:

Did he attack Saudi Arabia (the number-one supporter of terrorists)?

And, IIRC, our biggest importer of oil. How does $25.00/gallon for fuel sound?

Did he get a formal declaration of war?

Oh, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force. I must've been mistaken.

Did he revoke the visas of all citizens of terror-supporting states?

I didn't know all of them were terrorists. Can you imagine the lawsuits?

Did he direct the CIA and FBI to work together and begin a massive wave of targeted assassinations of known terrorists and their leaders?

No, he mobilized the military, you know those guys with tanks, helicopter gunships, .50 caliber machine guns, and Tomahawk missiles. Last time I checked, the FBI didn't have a Tomahawk missile.

All that being said, we're on the same team, you and I. We both want these terrorists to take the permanent dirt nap, but we need to criticize the President after the election on these issues. Doing so pre-election only divides us and gives a morale boost to the dims.

Kerry is the most unqualified, inept, joke of a candidate that we have seen in a Presidential election. He is a know nothing, do nothing, flash in the pan, who wants to be in charge. We must stick together and defeat him first, then we can get our own house in better order.

that people like Kerry and Moore can even say this [self-deleted] without being literally howled off the stage by a horrified public and hounded out of public life, is a genuine cringing embarrassment to me as an American

I'm getting the impression from some Dems that they didn't think that was too cool a statement by Kerry -- especially after Giuliani's response (calling it "monday morning quarterbacking") got a lot of publicity.

True, Dems didn't literally howl him off the stage -- they've got too much at stake with their anybody-but-Bush mania.

But I think a lot of Dems are embarrassed. They're also concerned that smug pronouncements like that from Kerry will turn off those cherished "undecided" voters.

"Oh, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force. I must've been mistaken."

It was not a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

" I didn't know all of them were terrorists. Can you imagine the lawsuits?"

Firstly they have no standing to sue. A visa is an "invitation" to visit the U.S.--for a limited time. It can be revoked at the pleasure of the President anytime. The logic of revoking visas for citizens of known terror-supporting states on 9/12/2001 was--and is--that we don't have time to check them individually. Individual deep background checks should be reserved for "naturalized citizens" originating in terror-supporting states.

"No, he mobilized the military, you know those guys with tanks"

Which are notoriously ineffective in targeting individual guys with rags on their heads. We should have sub-contracted the job to the Mossad; they know what they are doing.

Interestingly, your post was silent on the fact that we are still issuing visas to citizens of terror-supporting states and still training pilots from those nations. All I can say is may God have mercy on us--because we refuse to take necessary and prudent steps to protect ourselves.

--Boris

"Oh, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force. I must've been mistaken."
It was not a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Now that is true sarcasm!

We haven't had a formal declaration since WW2. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War One, Bosnia, Gulf War 2 . . . at this rate, I don't think we will ever get another one.

" I didn't know all of them were terrorists. Can you imagine the lawsuits?"

Firstly they have no standing to sue. A visa is an "invitation" to visit the U.S.--for a limited time. It can be revoked at the pleasure of the President anytime. The logic of revoking visas for citizens of known terror-supporting states on 9/12/2001 was--and is--that we don't have time to check them individually. Individual deep background checks should be reserved for "naturalized citizens" originating in terror-supporting states.

How many visas are we talking here? What would the impact be of sending thousands of people packing? It sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What would keep terrorists from simply going to another non-terror state, and immigrating from there? What about tourist visas? Work visas? It would require a whole other branch of government to do a decent background check.

Just because they can't sue, doesn't mean John Edwards won't be filing the suits, either. For Pete's sake, they're trying to give illegal aliens the right to vote!

"No, he mobilized the military, you know those guys with tanks"

Which are notoriously ineffective in targeting individual guys with rags on their heads. We should have sub-contracted the job to the Mossad; they know what they are doing.

Can you contract out the Moussad? Interestingly, those "ineffective" guys with the tanks have liberated two countries, destroyed the Taliban, put bin Laden on the run, destroyed a brutal regime, liberated 25,000,000 people, and captured an estimated 75% of al Qaeda's leaders.

I agree with you that we need to be more diligent in issuing visas. I'll go a step further -- I think we need to seal our borders and use the military to do it. Only legal entry should be allowed.

There are risks in life, and you cannot eliminate or even reduce all of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.