Bush and other republicans are claiming that Kerry and the democrat's comments are "emboldening the enemy".
I would like to set this discussion straight. It is especially important as this is the topic of this morning's discussion on C-Span, MSNBC, Fox and CNN. Once again the statement "emboldening the enemy" is not backed up with any reasonable explanation as to why or how this emboldens them.
If logic is to prevail, we would first have to ask, why are terrorists attacking us? Logic would tell us that statements that "embolden" terrorists would depend on the terrorist's gripe with us and what their ultimate aim is. For instance, Nazis wouldn't have been emboldened by someone calling them Jew haters. They would simply say, "yes we are". However, any challenge to their belief system would certainly "embolden" them. Hey, people who attack you are already emboldened especially if they already know you have nuclear weapons, have used them and have waged other wars and are still willing to take the risk you might do the same to them. Any statement we might make following 9/11 can't possibly embolden the terrorists any more than they already are.
For instance, it is claimed that terrorists are a fraction of Islamasists who are ultra-fundamentalists who see the U.S. as embodying all that is evil and threatening to fundamenalist Islam. They believe that the United States behaves in the world, in ways, that are in direct conflict with fundamentalist beliefs and are therefore a threat to their lives and their God. If this is truly the reason that some Moslems become terrorists then which is more emboldening, Bush's attack on a predominately Moslem nation or Kerry's criticisms of Bush's decisions?
By the way, which would be more threatening to terrorists; waging war on an Arab nation or infiltrating their training camps and secret cells? Attacking Iraq or launching an all out, well structured and persistant search for Osama bin Laden?
I am tired that these declarations from Bush go unchallenged. Not one person on C-Span this morning bothered to discuss the view of terrorists and how Bush's attacks are very emboldening to terrorists in their own right.
Another discussion that shouldn't be one is, "we invaded Iraq so that we could fight terrorists on their own soil rather than here at home". Either these people believe that there never were terrorists already in the U.S. before 9/11 or they are naive enough to believe that the war in Iraq drew them all out of the U.S. like robots attacking you in a video game.
Terrorists know that their ultimate aim is better served by staying here, already in place, rather than to leave the U.S. and then find they can't get back into the country.
By the way, where is Kerry today? This conversation has gone on long enough. Once again, Kerry's late to the dance. And if he doesn't attack Allawi as a handpuppet for the Bush campaign then he's missed two opportunities. Please, John, please. You have been attacked in the most aggregious way - fire back, quickly and decisively.