1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

The naysayers, et al.

Reader comment on item: 9/10 vs. 9/12 on [Election Day] 11/2

Submitted by Pavel A. (Canada), Oct 27, 2004 at 15:53

Mukesh Gupta, made two crucial arguments against the current Administration.
Firstly, Mr. Bush's religiosity has percipitated in him a reluctance to fight the full ideological battle that this war requires. Mr. Bush still believes that the faith of Islam, like any other faith, is essentially correct, and that the terrorists are simply a fringe element, using an evil tactic to spread their control i.e. terrorism.

Second, that Mr. Bush has fought a rather disoriented war, without clear targets (beyond Afghanistan), and no clear steps formulated to actually bring this conflict to a close before America simply falls apart.

The problem with brining up these two valid points, is, of course, context. Mr. Kerry is the only alternative (Nader is worse, and the Libertarian party has lost the will to live), and as such is worse on all accounts.

By his own admissions, Mr. Kerry does not view Islam, Islamism or any of their connects as a threat of any significance.

Furthermore, he empathically has not a clue as to what he would do better, or how he would wage the conflict, beyond appealing to Europe, resolution, etc. The alternative is unable to think beyond the naked interest in the seizure of power.

As such, it is becoming more clear that Mr. Bush is the better candidate. He, at least, is interested in fighting some sort of battle for the defense of this nation.

Furthermore, Mr. Bush can boast a better cadre of advisers than Mr. Kerry. Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld are better at their jobs and the task of defense than the men that Mr. Kerry would surround himself with, if current company is of any indication. Moore, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Edwards... all men of resoluteness, sound mind, American values and integrity? Frankly, the answer is no.
If only for the staff of competent advisors, Mr. Bush is a more obvious, and valid choice.

-P.
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to The naysayers, et al. by Pavel A.

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)