Replies

"I will ask you. Who should replace Bush, regardless of party?"

Jumping in here with my personal choice, Tancredo. He's very conservative, yet knows how to hammer out a compromise that doesn't give away the farm, he is for controlling our borders, and he would do a great job conducting the war on terror. Why won't the Republican Party run a candidate like him? If we keep bowing to their leftist leanings, what chance is there that a Tancredo will ever be presented for a candidate?

I know I sound like a broken record, but regarding "The War on Terror" ... when do we know when we've won? Fight we must, but who, where, why, and how? I don't want to be right about this prediction, but it is an easy one to make: it is far from over in Afghanistan, and the way we are going about it, it is impossible to "win," even there, in the long run. This "terror" has been going on for thousands of years, with the invasion of Europe by Mohammadans, and piracy by them on the high seas. Are we really willing to end this terror? Based on our lovey-dovey attitude toward Islam, it doesn't seem like it.

What I'm saying is that wars need to be finite, and against a determined group of people, with a recognizable victory its goal. Wars on Terror, or Crime, or Drugs, or Poverty, or Cockroaches aren't won, they are fought indefinitely, at great cost to life, limb, property and, most importantly, freedom.

A war on Al-Queda I support, but not a "War on Terror." A "War on Terror" terrifies me as much as any terror attack, especially given who conducts it (many of them part of the same crime machine Clinton is a prominent part of). Even the defeat of Al-Queda (may God grant it) will not have much of a long-term effect. The defeat of "multiculturalism" would have a much more efficacious effect.

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.

Alexis De Tocqueville

Thanks for reading my rant!