Another Troubling Kerry Pattern ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? OR - "KERRY & TYRANNY: natural together"

1 - In 1970 (and through 1975), Kerry returned from Vietnam and publicly, repeatedly - even famously under oath - opposed the war-time foreign policy of his own nation's duly elected president of the USA, and instead took the same exact position on the war as the communist North Vietnamese Government. Kerry parroted the NVG claims that the USA military were war criminals, and testified that he felt that it made no difference whether Vietnam went communist, or not.

Since 1975 - (when the Democrat majorities in the Congress pulled the plug on supporting the South Vietnamese government), 65 MILLION Vietnamese have lived in poverty under the tyranny of communism -- much more like the North Koreans, than the South Koreans.

(One can only wonder that if the Democrats has NOT pulled the plug on the SVG whether or not we'd be driving cars made in a democratic and prosperous South Vietnam, as we are from a democratic and prosperous South Korea - a nation we did NOT ABANDON.)

2 - In 1985 Senator Kerry opposed the foreign policy of the duly elected president of the USA - who supported the Contras, and instead publicly supported the communists led by Ortega - even visiting with Ortega before a crucial vote in the Congress (with Tom Harkin - see photo with this link).

3 - While first running for the Senate in 1984, and while in the Senate - from 1985-the collapse of the USSR in 1989 - Kerry supported the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and opposed every major weapons system and deployment during the Cold War - ONCE AGAIN agreeing with the USSR - our communist enemy - that the USA's weapons buildup was destabilizing. (Boston Globe Online John Kerry: A Candidate in the Making "... Kerry tried to stand out ... as a crime-fighting former prosecutor with progressive credentials, but also as a champion of a nuclear weapons freeze."

4 - Kerry sided with SADDAM in the 1991 war and voted AGAINST authorizing the president to use force to expel SADDAM from Kuwait. If Kerry's position had prevailed, then Saddam WOULD STILL BE IN KUWAIT! (SEE: MSNBC - What Kerry's 20 years of Senate votes reveal .Kerry voted against use of US military forces in 1991 after Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait.www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4741992)

5 - NOW, in 2004 - THREE YEARS AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED BY JIHADOTERRORISTS - Kerry calls the Iraq War a sham built on lies, a QUAGMIRE and a diversion; and one of his spokesmen calls the official UN-designated interim Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet" of the USA, http://instapundit.com/archives/018015.php).

And now - in 2004 - Kerry is taking the SAME POSITION AS KIM JONG IL: KERRY AND KIM both want bi-lateral talks.

IS THERE A PATTERN HERE?

I suggest there is. I suggest it is OBVIOUS and INESCAPABLE:

Kerry consistently takes the position that American military power is bad, and that it should not be used to support DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTS WHEN THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK BY TYRANNICAL FORCES, and that that USA military should NOT even be strengthened, and that our enemies - (first the North Vietnamese, then the CONTRAS, and then the USSR, and now the Jihadoterrorists who we're fighting in Iraq and Kim Jong Il of North Korea) - were (or are) in the right, and that we - the USA - are in the wrong.

(It is interesting to point out that the chattering classes, HIP LEFTIST LITERATI, and other assorted lefty luminaries from Europe and the UN also opposed the USA on each of these points; Kerry has CONSISTENTLY taken the EU's position against the USA's for his entire political career. It is also important to note that the USA was right in every case.)

YES: History has already proven that Kerry's track record on foreign policy reflects BAD judgment. But as 1-Senator-out-of-100, Kerry did NOT do too much harm, thank God.

As president, and COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he would be a DISASTER. WHY?

(A) One would reasonably expect Kerry to ABANDON IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN
as they begin their journey toward democracy and prosperity.
(B) One would expect him to weaken our military.

(AT BEST, one might hope that Kerry would keep our military at its present strength. REMEMBER: in the debates, he said he would UNILATERALLY give up our quest for bunker-busting nukes that might be able to destroy the secret undergorund WMD programs of tryannical rogue states, like Iran and North Korea! Does this sound like someone who - as president - would ensure that the USA military would be as strong as possible?!)

Kerry has been a leftist Dove his entire life - one who has DEMONSTRATED a penchant for attacking the USA and the US military while we are at war.

And he has shown an indisputable penchant for supporting tyrants.

Or at the very very very least: shying away from confronting tyrants

and from using the military to defend democracy.

There is NO LOGICAL reason to think Kerry has suddenly become a Hawk,
or to trust that if he is now a Hawk that this "election-year-conversion" is genuine.

KERRY AND TYRANNY - SINCE 1970, NATURAL TOGETHER:

Kerry & Ho Chi Minh 1970...

Kerry supported the Vietcong demand for our immediate withdrawal!

Kerry & Ortega 1985...

Kerry supported the communists in Nicaragua!

Kerry & Breshnev (ET AL) 1984-9...

Kerry aped Soviet position on arms control - supporting a freeze!

Kerry & Saddam in 1991...

Kerry voted AGAINST the first Iraq War!

Kerry & Saddam 2003...

Kerry voted against funding the second Iraq War!

Kerry and Zarkawi 2004...

Kerry and al Qaeda BOTH call Iraqi P.M. Allawi a USA puppet!

Kerry and the mullahs in 2004...

Kerry would GIVE IRAN nuclear fuel!

Kerry & Kim Jong Il 2004...

Kerry and Kim BOTH want bilateral talks!

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:

THERE IS A PATTERN HERE.

TOP TEN KERRY DEBATE HORRORS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

At least 10 (ten) times,
on 10 (ten) DIFFERENT subjects
KERRY GAVE IRREFUTABLY HORRIFIC ANSWERS:

1 - Kerry would have the USA join the ICC, and make US citizens - AND US SOLDIERS - subject to foreign laws we didn't vote on to be tried by judges we didn't elect.

2 - Kerry would re-start BI-LATERAL TALKS WITH NORTH KOREA. As Bush explained, we gain leverage on North Korea when we put multilateral pressure on Kim Jong Il - especially from China, whose material support to North Korea is essential to their survival.

3 - Kerry said Iraq was a diversion, but (a) Tommy Franks has written that THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF MATERIEL FROM AFGHANISTAN TO IRAQ; and (b) Subsequent to the Iraq War LIBYA has "voluntarily" given up its DECADES OLD WMD PROGRAMS, and SYRIA has withdrawn after nearly 30 YEARS OF OCCUPYING LEBANON!

Since these beneficial results were in large part a result of the IRAQ WAR NO ONE CAN REASONABLY ARGUE THAT IRAQ WAS EITHER A DIVERSION FROM OUR OVERALL OBJECTIVES, or REQUIRED A DIVERSION OF MATERIEL.

Kerry is flat out WRONG, AGAIN...

4 - Kerry criticized Bush's stance on Kyoto, and claimed it's a reason why the USA is "isolated".
BUT: (a) The USA is NOT ISOLATED (NATO, France and Germany are in Afghanistan; NATO is training police for IRAQ; the USA is in MULTILATERAL talks with North Korea, and using multilateral avenues on Iran); (b) KERRY VOTED AGAINST KYOTO on July 25, 1997.

5 - Kerry said he visited the KGB in Moscow, under Treblinka Square, BUT TREBLINKA WAS THE NAME OF A INFAMOUS NAZI DEATH CAMP, NOT THE NAME OF A SQUARE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, let alone MOSCOW, who fought against Hitler in WW2!!!!! Kerry was trying to show-off his longtime foreign policy knowledge and experience, instead he showed he is a phony. This is NOT just a mis-speaking flub; for ANY(ONE - let alone a presidential candidate with Jewish Heritage - to confuse Treblinka with anything else, ANYWHERE is UNACCEPTABLE.

6 - Kerry would UNILATERALLY DISARM THE USA of potentially life-saving and war-preventing/war-winning weapons systems: he would not deploy National Missile Defense, and he would halt all research into Bunker-Busting Tactical Nukes. Both of these weapons systems are ESSENTIAL if we are to effectively confront rogue states like North Korea. And that means AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, as well as - God forbid - if there is a war.

These two weapons systems are ESPECIALLY useful against rogue states who try to hide their illegal WMD programs underground (like North Korea and Iran) and they might prevent their missiles from reaching the USA - or our allies. Kerry's UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT is a throwback to the failed DOVE POLICIES of the last century; Reagan proved appeasement doesn't work. Strength works. Kerry would make us WEAKER; that would make us MORE VULNERABLE and MORE LIKELY TO BE ATTACKED.

7 - Kerry would GIVE RADIOACTIVE FUEL TO IRAN! This APPEASING ACTION failed in North Korea, and it will fail with Iran.

8 - Kerry claimed he just MIS-SPOKE when he said he voted for the $87billion before he voted against it, but the PROBLEM IS N OT WHAT KERRY SAID about the vote; THE PROBLEM IS HOW KERRY VOTED!

9 - Kerry claimed we outsourced the Tora-Bora battle to warlords and Pakistanis, when we should have used ONLY the USA MILITARY, because ours are the best in the world, AND that as a result UBL is STILL in Afghanistan, BUT.... Kerry then criticized Bush for not signing up more allies in the Iraq War, as if a few thousand foreign troops who are less well trained and less well equipped than our troops would have actually helped us. SO: Kerry is hypocritical on this issue. Furthermore, we actually have more troops in Afghanistan now than at any time, and UBL is in Pakistan.

10 - Kerry AGAIN repeated the canard -- and THEREBY MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC -- about the 16 SOTU words, CLAIMING THAT BUSH MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PUBLIC when Kerry said in last night's debate: "First of all, we all know that in his state of the union message, he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist."

THE TRUTH IS THAT Bush said the following in the SOTU: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." And according to FACTCHECK.ORG, these words are TRUE. The British Government STILL stands behind their intelligence that Bush cited.

SO... this CANNOT POSSIBLY BE AN INSTANCE OF BUSH MISLEADING ANYONE.
I repeat: Kerry is the one misleading the public on this point.

That's just my TOP TEN. There were many other instances of Kerry hypocrisy and obfuscations.

In summary: In last night's debate, Kerry CLEARLY stated some of the WORST policies ever advocated by any candidate ever. Other times he advocated bad polices less clearly.

Anyone examining the substance of the debate MUST conslude that Kerry is STILL UNFIT FOR OFFICE.

KERRY: a stronger USA threatens world peace. OR: "it's okay to be unilateral when it means disarming!"

KERRY (in yesterdays's debate): "Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I 'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

So... if the USA's effort to maintain military superiority includes adding a small tactical nuclear weapon ( anuclear bunker-buster) that might deter ROGUE STATES (such as North Korea) from hiding their WMD programs in underground bunkers, then the USA is destabilizing the world, and setting a BAD example?!?!?!?!?!?

WHOSE SIDE IS KERRY ON?!?!

DOES KERRY BELIEVE THAT A STRONG USA, WITH AN INDISUPUTABLE MILTARY EDGE -- WHICH MIGHT INLCUDE AN INDISPUTABLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EDGE -- MAKES THE WORLD LESS SAFE!?!

DOES KERRY PUT THE USA IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS IRAN?
It sure sounds to me like he does!

I BELIEVE A STRONG USA MAKES THE USA SAFER, AND THE WORLD SAFER, TOO.

Kerry loses my vote on this issue ALONE.
I do NOT want my president to unilaterally DISARM.
Especially in war-time!

LEHRER: DOES THE IRAQ WAR MAKE OTHER, FUTURE WARS MORE LIKELY?

After Iraq, Is War more or Less Likely? Is the World a Safer Place?

Lehrer asked the president if the Iraq War made it more or less likely that the USA would have to go to war again.

Bush said (in part):

"... So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I would hope to never have to use force. But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way. Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs. Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine and that the world is better for it. So to answer your question, I would hope we never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it is less likely we have to use force."

The central part of Kerry's rejoinder was ENTIRELY non-germane - in fact it was a clumsy SLIGHT OF HAND; Kerry said, (in part):

"Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us." Kerry went on to argue that the Iraq War was a diversion.

IN FACT:

Libya's voluntary WMD disarmament, and serious withdrawal of troops from Lebanon PROVE that Bush's Iraq War and his forward-leaning foreign policy (which DOES NOT SEND "MIXED SIGNALS" and which clearly shows there are "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" --- the very words used in UNSCR#1441 --- for threatening the national security of the USA and our allies) WORKS!

These two actions - accomplished by Bush WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE,
(but certainly accomplished because Libya and Syria have greater reason to fear American RESOLVE and USA military action) - HAVE MADE THE ENTIRE WORLD SAFER!

Which PROVES TWO THINGS: (1) Kerry is WRONG; Iraq was NO DIVERSION; and (2) more wars are less likely.

Bush: Running for POTUS. Kerry: running for "MGP" = "MR. GLOBAL POPULARITY"

Bush: Running for POTUS.

Kerry: running for "MGP" ("MR. GLOBAL POPULARITY")

OR

BUSH versus KERRY on the ICC.

BUSH: "... My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America."

Kerry: FLIP FLOPS ON KYOTO

Kerry tried to paint Bush as a unilateralist. (Ignoring that we have allies in Iraq - and that even the French, the Germans, and NATO have TROOPS in Afghanistan! AND further ignoring that we used trilateral negotiations with Libya, and are in 6-way talks with North Korea!))

One tactic Kerry used was to imply
that Bush's rejection of certain international treaties
has isolated the USA. For example:

KERRY (in last night's debate): "You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, ..."

Urr... uhmmm... but... Kerry voted AGAINST Kyoto (when presented as the BYRD/HAGEL ACT )- on July 25, 1997.

KERRY MAKES NO SENSE ON NOKO

LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?

BUSH: Right.

LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...

KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.

LEHRER: And you're opposed to that. Right?

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.

OF COURSE, BUSH IS RIGHT, AND EVERYONE INTUITIVELY KNOWS THAT!

THE WORLD IS A STAGE...

The Left used to constantly criticize Reagan, and berate him as a hollow man - a fake; after all Reagan was just an actor reading his lines - the REAL brains were his handlers: Deaver and Baker and whoever...

The Left says the same now about Bush - that bulge in his suit jacket was a small radio receiver giving him answers to the debate questions; after all Bush is a moron and Rove and Cheney really call the shots; just like Reagan: Bush only just "plays" president for the cameras.

AND,THEN WHAT? The Left trots out ACTORS to be their leading lights; Ben Affleck, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Susan Sarndon, Garofolo, Danny Glover, Jessica Lange, etc., etc., etc. and so on.

WEIRD, AIN'T IT!? The Left criticizes real, experienced political leaders (Reagan had been a politician for decades before becoming president, and the Governor of California; Bush had defeated sitting governor Ann Richardson to become a two-term Republican Governor of Texas) - who lead boldly and who courageously confront and defeat tyranny, and the Left derides them for being mere "ACTORS."

And, then in their place, the Left gets their political cues from REAL, PROFESSIONAL ACTORS - MOST OF WHOM NEVER EVEN GRADUATED COLLEGE.

The Left: they have it exactly 180 degress wrong on just about EVERYTHING!

TREBLINKA SQUARE?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

In answer to a question from Lehrer (in tonight's debate) Kerry - as if to PROVE his LONGTIME foreign policy experience, and his superior foreign policy knowledge - recounted how he had (with former Senator Smith (R-NH)) gone down into the bowels of the former KGB under TREBLINKA SQUARE.

ONE PROBLEM: Treblinka was the name of a NAZI EXTERMINATION CAMP.

The KGB was on Lubyankaya Square.

How could a presidential candidate - with Jewish heritage - confuse the name of a DEATH CAMP WITH ANYTHING ELSE!?!?!?!?!?

Instead of showing off his experience and knowledge, this exposes Kerry as a shameless ignorant fraud.

KERRY: "Passing the Global Test" = Passing the Buck!

Kerry said he would NOT act preemptively UNLESS the action "passed the global test."

Bush RIGHTLY smacked him down, stating that the POTUS must act in the USA interest, and NOT in the interest of the UN the EU or any other international entity.

Kerry's statement clearly exposed him as a man who would put multilateralism ABOVE and AHEAD of America's national security.

Remember - as the sign on President TRUMAN's oval office desk said: "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!"

The buck doesn't stop in Turtle Bay,
and not on the Champs Elysee,
and not under "Treblinka Square"
(wherever the heck THAT REALLY is! I GOOGLED it and came up with ZIPPO!).

Debate Drinking Games

I have THREE GREAT ideas for DEBATE DRINKING GAMES:

1) Drink every time Kerry sticks out his tongue. (CAREFUL: he stuck it out 155 times during his Convention acceptance speech - and yes...I counted them... and yes: that was how many WERE ON CAMERA!!! No telling how many MORE were off camera...

2) Drink every time Kerry does his "shuffle like a bull"-thing: you know, he kind of moves side-to-side as if he were a bull getting ready to charge, and he does it when he's winding up to deliver some tough sub-clause, like"... and if attacked [shuffle-shuffle-shuffle] I WILL FIGHT BACK!"

3) Drink every timer Kerry exceeds his time allowance.

These THREE items guarantee y'all will get totally smashed!

ENJOY!

PS: I THINK WE SHOULD ONLY SIP FOR EACH KERRY INFRACTION;

we don't want to get too loaded!

Running away from Kerry

According to the AP, many down ticket Democrats are RUNNING AWAY from Kerry.

Which means - unless the unthinkable happens (something bad that most people would blame on Bush) - it is OVER.

Like father, like son

Kerry wrote:

"Americans are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white." [According to Kerry:] They [Americans] celebrate their own form of government and denigrate all others, making them guilty of what he calls "ethnocentric accommodation -- everyone ought to be like us."

As a result, America has committed the "fatal error" of "propagating democracy" and fallen prey to "the siren's song of promoting human rights," falsely assuming that our values and institutions are a good fit in the Third World. And, just as Americans exaggerate their own goodness, they exaggerate their enemies' badness.

- Frank Foer, "FATHER KNOWS BEST" The New Republic 3/2/04

The Kerry who wrote those words and expressed those sentiments - (in a book titled "The Star-Spangled Mirror" 1990) - was NOT John Forbes Kerry, but his father: Richard Kerry, a career diplomat and "devoted Europeanist" who worked in the US State Department - for a long time in the UN liaison area in Europe.

But those words could have been written by his son, John.

In my opinion, this view is essentially a culturally relativist worldview and it's inextricably bound to moral relativism and inevitably leads to international policies of appeasement and accommodation, and to overvaluing multilateralism as an end in-and-of itself, (rather than as merely a preferred means to other ends).

This relativist worldview - of Richard and John Kerry - stands in stark contrast to the worldview of Bush, who believes - like FDR and his wife Eleanor believed - that all humans everywhere are entitled to their innate human rights because these rights are endowed to them by the Creator, and not by any government or any local culture.

I think this is a true CORE difference between Bush and Kerry, a difference which highlights the divergence of their core beliefs and how these beliefs impact public policy.

And I think Bush - and FDR and Eleanor - have it right. Promoting Human Rights is NOT a siren's song. And the USA - as the oldest and richest and most powerul democracy in the world - has a solemn duty to promote and expand and defend Human Rights EVERYWHERE.

Use the link; RTWT.

MORE FRENCH NONSENSE

FROM IHT
(http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=540813.html )

"Asked about his view of the American presidential election, Chirac's former foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, who first described U.S. unilateralism as a central global problem during the eight "hyperpower" years of the Clinton administration, said it was a shame the rest of the planet could not vote.

It was "sad" to see, Vedrine said, how these Americans, this "nice people" ("peuple attachant" in French), were drowned in propaganda and "cut off from the rest of the world." The term is used in French travel literature, with seeming condescension, to describe interesting savages or exotic but childlike ethnic groups. "

AU CONTRAIRE Monsiuer Vedrine....

FACT: The USA is the most diverse and open society – and the least insulated culture – in the world. The least "cut off from the world." American culture evolves however the people down below (mongrels and savages like me) make it evolve as we exercise our freedom of choice; our culture is not the exclusive province of the academy who deem from on high what is good and proper.

This consumer driven culture – and the competition this culture engenders - makes EVERYTHING we produce better than anything produced in a closed society; everything. Everything we design and/or manufacture: our cars; our movies; our music; our media; and yes - even our politics.

Politicians here in the USA come from diverse parts of society and are schooled in diverse parts of culture, and they must appeal to a diverse electorate (or find some way to cut through the clutter and carve out a majority from an extremely diverse whole); not an easy chore.

In France, nearly all the politicians went to the same school (ENA), the political parties are crooked shams, and their national elections are two-stage farces.

Rather than look at us with snarky self-satisfied disdain, Vedrine - and his comrades in the French elite, and his countrymen - should look toward the USA with admiring eyes, and emulate us as much as they can.

France tries to meddle in Iraq-USA Bilateral Arrangement

From the BBCNews:
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3694142.stm)

"Mr Barnier said US withdrawal was a central issue, one "which should be on the agenda of such a conference, if we want it to take place'. [...] The French minister proposed that all political groups in Iraq, "including a certain number of groups or people who now have chosen the path of resistance by arms", should be included in the talks."

1 - It strikes me as very bad form for the French to assert that they or the UN have any right to interfere with the bilateral military arrangement between the Iraqi Government and the USA.

2 - It strikes me as beyond absurdity that the French would suggest that the Jihadoterrorists we - and the Iraqi Government - are currently fighting should be involved in any international conference.

STRIKE THAT: it makes perfect sense that such an awful, stupid, cowardly appeasing suggestion should come from the French.

ORANGE YOU GLAD TO SEE ME?

In a newly posted photo (see http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc55.htm) Kerry's face is VERY orange COMPARED TO HIS HAND.

He has colored his face with either cosmetics or perhaps with a METROSEXUAL tanning session.

WHY is he is especially pale now?
Is his paleness related to his laryngitis?
Or is it because he is more seriously ill?
Or is his paleness a result of his cancer therapy?

AND WHY DOES HE LOOK MUCH THINNER AND SO GAUNT?

We have a right to know Kerry's full health condition.
This is another reason Kerry MUST release his medical records AT ONCE.

FOR ADDITIONAL REASONS PLEASE SEE:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3789

IRAQ: One Mission or Two?

This week, Kerry and his cohorts in the MSM once again ripped Bush for his May 1st flight-deck speech in front of the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner
(see: http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=927242&tw=wn_wire_story ).

This attack - like all of Kerry's hollow attacks against Bush - is failing.

Why is it failing?

Because most Americans realize what the Kerry campaign, the Left, and the MSM refuse to accept: The fact that there are TWO missions in Iraq; the first mission WAS ACCOMPLISHED - it dethroned Saddam; the second mission is on-going - the mission to establish democracy in Iraq, and to do so we must destroy the Jihadoterrorists in Iraq who (like all Jihadoterrorists everywhere) oppose all democracy everywhere.

Bush said as much in the speech; (read the whole thing yourself - the complete text is available at whitehouse.gov) - and you'll agree - here's an excerpt: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." )

Most Americans see the difference in these two missions - in their goals, and in how they were fought, the tactics and assets that were used. And most Amercians do not see this as either "mission creep" or a "quagmire". Why? Because most Americans see the fighting in Iraq as part of a global war (the GWOT) which will last years - if not decades (as Bush has REPEATEDLY said).

The GWOT (or WW4) is being fought on many fronts, in many countries with many tactics. And we have - and will continue to have - different sets of allies on some fronts than in others (as we now have NATO solidiers - and FRENCH soldiers - in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq).

The Kerry Campaign, the Left and the MSM fail to see the distinction between the two Iraq missions because they refuse to accept the indisputable nexus between Saddam and Jihadoterrorism - for to do so would render their opposition to the Saddam War and to Bush null and void, and this is unaccpetable to them because they hate and fear Bush more than they do Jihadoterrorists.
(See: "Inconvenient Facts - John Kerry has now decided that he must deny any links between Saddam's Iraq and terrorism. There are some facts which he should be confronted with at tomorrow's debate. by Stephen F. Hayes/WEEKLY STANDARD.)

Why does the Kerry Campaign and the Left and the MSM fear and hate Bush more than they do the Jihadoterrorists?

Because it is a more manageable fear for them. "Fear of Bush" produces less anxiety in them because they feel that Bush can be eliminated more easily than the Jihadoterrorists and their accomplices in the rogue states. In addition, cognitive dissonance makes it difficult for them to admire a man who presides using a value system they hate.

This is what gives rise to the Left's rejection of Bush policies IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they are "liberal" policies in the CLASSICAL sense, and in the tradition of FDR -- YES: FDR!

When FDR asserted in his "Four Freedoms" speech (see:http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/fdr.html)that all humans everywhere must be accorded all their innate human rights (AND THAT THIS WAS WORTH FIGHTING FOR) - (and when his wife later Eleanor enshrined them the UN's "Declaration of Universal Human Rights"; see: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) - he was asserting a classically liberal policy -- a policy the American Left endorsed at the time.

In their old "glory days" during the Vietnam War, in fact, the American Left once avowed that America's might should only be used on behalf of expanding Human Rights, (and they attacked US foreign policy based on their belief that after WW2 it was almost always used merely to prop up puppet governments overseas -- on behalf of American corporations).

NOW... when the USA is using its military to expand Human Rights and establish the first Arab democracy - and an Afghani democracy - the Left sticks to its tired, old, meaningless and irrelevant charge: that what the US is "REALLY" doing is merely propping up puppet governments for corporate interests; hence the "oil for blood" charges, or the Afghani pipeline charges, or the Afghani poppy-field charges.

Most Americans see these charges for what they are: irate hollow knee-jerk charges which are nothing more than the death-rattles of the vestigial Left.