"Let me correct that for you.
Because Clinton decided not to deal with the Bin Laden when he had multiple chances, over 3000 of our citizens are dead. "
That is an asinine thing to say. The technology(armed predators) to accomplish this were not available until Bush was president. And it was Bush's job to use them, and to respond to the Cole attack, but because he decided to come up with a new plan( a good idea), but did not follow the old plan in the mean time( very bad idea), essentially we did nothing about terrorism for months before 9/11.
Now I'm not going to stoop to your level and blame Bush for 9/11, but the fact is he did even less than Clinton did about terrorism, before 9/11.
And then after 9/11, when we had a large number of boots on the ground in Afghanistan and had by far our best chance to root out Al-Keida there, we turned away prematurely and focused on Iraq instead.
Bush's problem is he has done a number of things prematurely and half-assed.
1.We should have finished the job in Afghanistan first, then have focused on Iraq.
2.We should have had the patience to continue containing Saddam, at least until there was some world consensus to go to war. Not doing so has cost us a fortune, and even more imprtantly, alienated a lot of countries whose help we need to fight terrorism.
3. We shouldn't have cut taxes until we were ready to cut spending, either by reducing interest payments on the debt by reducing the debt, or by whatever other means.
It would be impossible for Kerry to be worse.
Facebook
Twitter