Thursday, October 21, 2004
Hmmm....who does Kerry really think is better?
Is it credible to argue, as Kerry does, that the diversion of American manpower and materials to oust Saddam in Iraq significantly weakened our ability to pursue al Qaeda in Afghanistan — and also to argue, as Kerry does, that the diversion of al Qaeda manpower and materials to Iraq to combat American forces did not significantly weaken the terrorists' ability to strike the United States?
Isn't Kerry arguing, in effect, that the United States military, with its resources of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars, cannot effectively sustain two campaigns, but al Qaeda, with far fewer soldiers and far, far less money, can?It's a paradox Kerry has yet to explain.
Kerry has clearly spent a life-time insulting the US military, by his votes, his testimony and his actions.
How can a man who is so busy putting down our military ever think he can be commander in chief?
Can a fox be queen of the henhouse?