The 'We' Part of the Global War on Terror

[goofticket]

While Republicans chant 'we' haven't been attacked since 911, they still claim a 'global' war on terror.
At nearly every opportunity, Bush & his loyal pundits, prop up a global perspective, a unified front by the free nations of the world, against terrorism.
But, they only defend the spin that 'we' haven't been attacked, as the only reason to allow the GOP to retain power in Congress.
At this point they shoot themselves in the foot, which if firmly planted in their mouths. Discounting the attacks on our allies, the 'we' part of global, only shows there is no defense of the Republican argument.
Attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, the Philippines, India, Jordan are all attacks on that 'global' communities of allies, who are significant parts of that 'we'.
For the Republicans to isolate the 'we' to our own borders is an insult to the American voter's intelligence, and even more destructive to the support Bush needs to fight any war.
'We' has included the French Resistance, the White Rose, the Red Orchestra, the Forest Brothers, the Dutch Valkenburg, the Hmongs, the millions of people who fought as allies, behind what they saw as Americas' greatest asset...
The ability for our soldiers to lay down their lives for others to be free and safe.
So when you hear someone say, 'we' haven't been attacked, let them know that 'we' have been, many times and that you consider those allies homelands to be as important as our own.
'We' means far more to the American people's respect for our allies, than protection within our borders.
It means far more than Republicans understand.

[mariema]

1. Exactly right

Either it is "global", in which case "we" HAVE been attacked, or it is just the "we" here in the US, in which case it isn’t "global".