Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Hunter or Hunted?

In war, politics, or any other event that requires conflict, there will always be a choice. Will you be the agressor or the defensive. Both have their merits in certain situations. A small force can not hope to win against a large force that is agressive. Likewise a large force that is defensive to a fault, has no hope of winning because they lack the nessisary gumption stamina or whatever else to take an objective. You can not win if you do not take risk.

So now the question is one that this country is struggling with now. Where do you draw the line? When have you bitten off more than you can chew? And when are either the "Hawks" or the "Doves" right, or wrong? The comming general election will determine what will happen. On one side you have one of the most liberal senators in US history, a one time senator that has somehow had an amazing rise to power, or an old vetran, that is plain spoken, and had experience that most of us would rather not even think about.

As for me the choice is very clear. Having to implemnt policy Senator McCain's policy of stopping judicial activism, his clear way to reach out and build bridges. While his not supporting the "New" GI bill is a bit troubling, it is also clear that he had sound finacial reason not to. I would far more trust a CiC that has litterally borne the horrors of war (having survived BOTH the USS Forrestal fire, and 6 FREAKING YEARS in the Hanoi Hilton). I know that he WILL have my best intrests at heart because in the end Vets know Vets.

No comments: