Quote:
Originally Posted by scaeagles
And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone. |
It sounds to me like she said something slightly different. She supported going into Afghanistan when we were targeting al Qaeda. Now that al Qaeda has moved elsewhere (according to her), she is all for pursuing them to wherever they have run. She never said Afghanistan is terrorist-free. I don't know if she's right about al Qaeda, but I agree that they should have been our focus for a long long time now. (They are the ones who actually attacked us.)
I don't have an opinion about what we should do in Afghanistan. I don't know if they want the Taliban removed. I don't know what our chances of success there are, or even what success there means. So, I can't comment on that end of the equation. But I do remember a brief time when the whole world was united against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and I often wonder why we are still so far away from finishing that initial fight.
The unending rhetorical battle about the "War On Terror" is a useless one, with limitless empty phrases easily hurled at whoever you don't agree with. It also seems to cast everyone in a harsh binary all-good or all-bad way that just doesn't lead to much reason or understanding.
And on the other matter, is there any response from the dems that would not seem like spin to you, sca? (And really, if your side wins, will you really care? Don't you WANT dems to say and do dumb things? Heaven knows the dems had no end of joy watching repubs in the aftermath of the last election. It's not noble or grand, but it's unavoidable.) Also, I don't get the predictive criticism. Why demonize your opponent in advance? Why not wait until they actually do something?