Does anyone really think that weakness is a formula for peace? My experience has always been that the guy who has a reputation for toughness or who looks intimidating is less likely to be involved in a fight. Remember, the attack on 9/11/2001 was not even the first attack on the WTC. For eight years, Bill Clinton had done nothing except throw a few cruise missiles around in response to one attack after another. The USS Cole was bombed and nothing was done -- an attack on United States Navy ship, and it brought no response. The enemy was emboldened. They made the mistake of thinking they could do Bush the same way.
Three thousand innocent people had to die. What will it take next time? What will it be when Iran has nukes? What will the enemy think when we flee from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Who is it again that's going to get us in trouble? The old fighter pilot who survived everything the Commies could throw at him, or the metrosexual community organizer? Who will be more intimidating to our enemies?
The Islamic fascists know that McCain will not back down. They have nothing to gain by killing our troops. They are certain that Obama will back down if they can perpetrate a few more suicide missions and IED attacks. Whether the enemy's belief is true or not, more American soldiers and Marines will die needlessly if Obama is elected.
You don't tug on Superman's cape,
You don't spit into the wind,
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger,
And you don't mess around with Jim.
3 comments:
Wonderful post. Great analysis and examples to support your point.
Wonderful post. Great analysis and examples to support your point.
Sorry, I got distracted. I asked my kids who the terrorist would be more likely to attack, and that provoked a long discussion. Three people picked Bambi, but one argued for Godzilla, because Godzilla was stupid, but Bambi was smart enough to hide.
Post a Comment