Yes, Bush’s speech was, I guess, better. But he wedged in his own political message—with which I firmly disagree.
He advocated for our fighting for “freedom” around the world and sounded an awful lot like a young Barack Obama in 2001 when he essentially argued that it was poverty and lack of opportunity that turned innocents to terrorism.
We know full well that it tends to be not the “deprived”, but if anything middle- to upper-class Islamists with college educations who fight the infidels. It is the Islamic ideology, not global pockets of poverty, that is the root cause.
I also disagree with Bush that a neocon global war for Islamic “democracies” is the appropriate answer.
He advocated for our fighting for “freedom” around the world and sounded an awful lot like a young Barack Obama in 2001 when he essentially argued that it was poverty and lack of opportunity that turned innocents to terrorism.
We know full well that it tends to be not the “deprived”, but if anything middle- to upper-class Islamists with college educations who fight the infidels. It is the Islamic ideology, not global pockets of poverty, that is the root cause.
I also disagree with Bush that a neocon global war for Islamic “democracies” is the appropriate answer.
So you're voting for Ron Paul.
I agree with him that freedom is worth promoting.
His speech was about courage and sacrifice.
By the way "neocon" is a code word for Jew, which also makes me think you're with Ron Paul.