Are You Safer Now?
This question was asked of the Republican candidates during a recent debate. Almost to a man they said yes. And it is because we are in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting against al-Qaeda, et al. Also almost to aman they said that if the US pulls out of Iraq, the bad guys will follow us home and we in turn, woulod be less safe than we are now.
May I see a show of hands of those who feel the way that the candidates do?
I have two things to interject here. One–those looking into that crystal ball are the same people and the same crystal ball that sent us to Iraq in the firsat place. They wrong then and possibly are wrong now. Two–If you believe that the bad guys will follow us home I would like to ask, whay of the two plots discovered in the US?
I would say that they do not need to follow us home, they are already here. These people both have al-Qaeda links, at least that is the story fed to the media. For the sake of argument, why would they follow us homee, if they are already here?
I am not saying that these guys are innocents but that it comes at a most advantadeous time for the admin. Someone needs to call their bluff on the follow us home diatribe. But I do not think it will happen. And some journalists, if there are any left, should pursue these stories and find out all they can, without using the DHS line.
So, do you really feel safer now?
Today while the Pope was riding in his “pope-mobile” across the square and unknown assailant tried to jump into the car. He was thwarted in his attempt by the Pope’s security dudes.
After hearing this I got to thinking about world events. If Osama’s words cause others to attack, then it is possible that the words of the repub candidates on religion, empowered this guy to attack the Pope.
Just a thought!
The Repub candidates took to the stage for a CNN debate–and as usual they all got their talking points in on abortion, religion, immigration, gays, and of course terror. The debate was about as stimulating as watch flies mate. My breakdown as I saw it:
Mitt as usual look and sounded presidential, but not much to sink your teeth into.
Rudy–Believe it or not he got to play his ONLY trump card, 9/11, at least twice. other than that he was flat.
McCain–he finally calmed down and actually had something to say. Especially on immigration and his usual line on Iraq.
Paul–Once again Paul brought subjects and ideas that the others cringed to think about.
The also rans–
T. Thompson actually had something to say about healthcare. Huckabee was well Hucka……. Brownbeck has a new plan. Tancredo tried to show some passion, he failed, but at least he tried.
Nukes were envogue for an alt energy; all seem to support it as a clean alternative. Just when you thought it was safe to take a nap–BAM! They actually talked about a real issue–healthcare. Not one of them had an acceptable plan, but at least they talked about something that concerns the majority of the country.
OKIE DOKIE! Who won, Professor? (drum rolling and a rim shot) I gave it a tie to Romney and Paul. Mitt because he did not screw up and was well rehersed and Paul for actually talking on topices with an actual idea and not some rehash of conservative ideology.
The others were just there to make an appearance and keep the peoploe guessing.
I am CHUQ and I have no idea who approved this message.