10-26-2004, 02:54 PM
The difference is that Bush HAS kept our country safe since 9/11. He has kept us safe all the while he never makes outrageous promises like 'we will be completely safe'. He is being realistic. If we were to be attacked then he would take blame. He'd have to.
The point is that Kerry is making the claim that under his leadership he will keep the nation safe. That implies that he can do this in spite of what already has occured. He cannot make such a claim then blame Bush if something goes wrong and have any credibility.
The point is that Kerry is making the claim that under his leadership he will keep the nation safe. That implies that he can do this in spite of what already has occured. He cannot make such a claim then blame Bush if something goes wrong and have any credibility.