Quote Originally Posted by Todd Patten
Are you serious?!? You think that after the worst attack on American soil in the HISTORY of the country, Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have done NOTHING?!? Do you really believe this? Come on. You think that any administration would have let that slaughter pass by as a tragic crime? You truly believe this? I can't even grasp this line of thinking. I don't care what party our leader had been from, there would have been hell to pay one way or another. It transcended politics. It was irrelevent to politics. The country would have been behind attacking the enemy with every element of force we could bring forth -- and was behind it.

You post this as the man who really attacked our country still roams free to attack once again. You post it as if Bush did a great job in retaliating against those who slaughtered American fathers, mothers, baby's and friends. Honestly, what has his retaliation to the attacks of September 11, 2001 accomplished? Not Iraq -- specifically Afghanistan. Are we safer? Has the enemy been defeated? Is the mastermind eliminated? Lets face it, Bush might as well have done NOTHING in retaliation. His results equal the bizarre theory you propose about Clinton, Gore and Kerry's approach.

Bush has done nothing to earn being re-hired for his position. Unfortuantely, I believe he will be.

BTW -- Trevor, you have the option not to read, reply or even comprehend this post.
Again, I ask you why you feel the need to post this on a photography site. Isn't there a board somewhere you can go to?

But since it's here, let's examine some of your twisted logic.

1) Bush cutting federal taxes causes your local taxes to go up. Huh? That is patently ridiculous. Are you also suggesting that if Kerry raises your federal taxes, your local taxes will go down?
2) First you say your are an isolationist and that the cold war was won without a shot fired, then you say that of course any pesident would have invaded Afghanistan in full force and would have produced better results. Do you find that as inconsistent as I do?
3) What would satisfy you in Afghanistan? You're saying that Bush can't claim credit for having stopped attacks from occuring after 9/11. Isn't that reverse logic, too? Certainly if there was an attack, wouldn't you say it was Bush's fault? Other than Osama Bin Laden, what else could have been done in Afghanistan?

To answer your question, yes, I believe Kerry et al would have done nothing. He would have wrung his hands and gone to the UN, but in the end he would have done nothing. Bush has gone after the terrorists and sent the message that wherever you are, we will come. Don't you think that will make some of them think twice?