Nigel Stark says that terrorists may attack us in order to influence how we vote. So if they do attack, what does he suggest? That we vote a certain way to send them a message. Uh...OK.
Putting aside the obvious problem that that would, in fact, be allowing them to dictate how we vote, this argument assumes that Bush would be the better candidate to fight terrorism. This is not automatically true.
Without endorsing Kerry, let me just say that Kerry has stated clearly that his problem with Bush isn't that Bush has done too much to fight terror, but rather not enough. That doesn't sound like a "friend" of terrorists to me. And Kerry's criticism of Iraq is justified--we diverted resources and time into Iraq that could have been used to fight terrorists abroad, and fund first response units here.
Even if Iraq did have very minimal ties to al Qaeda, which it didn't, it certainly wasn't top on the list of terrorist supporting regimes, or dangerous nations with WMDs. Further, thanks to our forcing change through war and democracy via US occupation, Iraq is actually now more of a breeding ground of conflict and terrorism than before. Arguably, that makes Bush the preferred candidate of terrorists.
Who would be better fighting terrorism is for you to decide in November, as is who will take better care of our money, our health, our education and more. It should not be determined by a terrorist attack, as Nigel first warns against, then ends up recommending.
I must say though, Nigel is doing a fine job of staying on message, and playing right into the Bush fear-mongering strategy. Vote for Bush, or terrorists win. Sure.
Written by Randy Henderson of NEXT
Respond to this posting
Back to top