The war in Vietnam ended in 1975 - two years after American forces withdrew.
The war ended when the North Vietnamese communists invaded and over ran the forces of the South Vietnamese government.
The South Vietnamese forces were overrun because the Democrat controlled US Congress had ended all financial support for them.
The Left-wing anti-War movement led by John Kerry and Jane Fonda and Democrat Party doves in the Congress believed that the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of US hegemony, and no longer deserved support - either military or financial.
The result of the fall of the South Vitnamese government was (a) the largest refugee airlift of all time, and (b) 2 million Boat People fleeing (only 1.5 million surviving their trip), and (c) 500,000 Vietnamese put into "re-education" camps, and (d) th fall of Cambodia to the communists lked by Pol Pot and the genocide of 3 million Cambodian - the Killing Fields, and (e) the 35 year long suffering of the Vietnamese people under communist tyranny and poverty. [ASIDE: if I recall correctly, not many people flocked INTO Vietnam for free health care!]
If we had NOT ABANDONED our allies in the South of Vietnam, it is likely that they would be living as well and as freely as the South Koreans (whom we never abandoned) are, instead of living impoverished and tyrannized lives that have more in common with North Korea.
The abandonment of South Vietnam is - in the light of these FACTS - the lowest point in all of American foreign policy history - barely beating out our abandonment of the Shah and of Iranians (in 1979 when Democrat President Jimmy Carter allowed the Jihadofascists led by Ayatollah Khomeini to take over), and our abandonment of the mujahadeen to the Taliban.
To this day, the Left still considers their anti-War stance - and their abandonment of the South Vietnamese to be their crowning achievement (along with allowing the SHah to fall, and forcing Nixon to resign).
They still DON'T GET IT --- those were low points!
That's why I am so concerned about the possibility of a Kerry victory in November.
Kerry is an unrepentant left-wing dove.
In his 20 year career in the US Senate, he consistently voted against ant increase in Defense or Intelligence outlays - in fact proposed cuts, supported the Nuclear Freeze, supported the communists in Nicaragua and opposed the Contras; he even voted against the first Iraq/Kuwait War in 1991.
This - along with his ambivalence in the current Iraq War, makes me believe that - should the going get tougher - Kerry would abandon the fledgling governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And maybe even abandon Israel - let’s say, perhaps, after Israel were to unilaterally and preemptively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities (as they did Iraq’s ).
A pattern of moral equivalence, appeasement of, accommodation to, withdrawal and retreat from - or AT BEST AMBIVALENCE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST the forces of tyranny is NOT what we need in the president - ever; we especially do not need that in a time of war.
We need a man of resolute decisiveness who knows the difference between tyranny and freedom and who is willing to put the USA squarely on the side of freedom.
That’s why I could never ever vote for Kerry.
His Left-wing Dove record indicates that he is likely to abandon the emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq -as soon as the going gets tough, and to withdraw from the war against Jihadofascism when the costs and casualties begin to mount.
If FDR had been as timid in the face of casualties and costs as Kerry, then he would have withdrawn from WW2 on June 10th - for on and after D-Day the USA took its heaviest losses of the entire war. But FDR - and Churchill - knew that the war had to be won, and that any losses along the way would be worth it -IF WE WON.
Only defeat makes the losses of war meaningless; only defeatist appeasers like Kerry can make the losses we have suffered to date seem in vain.
At least the British had the good sense to leave Cburchill in power until AFTER WW2 had been won.
I hope the American people show the same good sense.
I pray we do.
And if my prayers are answered, then Bush will win reelection, and we will win the war against Jihadoterrorism. Which is the most important thing we do.
NOTE:
Let no one - not a single one of you out there - think for a minute, or single second that Kerry will not abandon Karzai and Allawi, and their compatriots, if the going gets tough.
The signs are EVERYWHERE he will do just that:
1 - Neither Kerry or Edwards deigned to attend the historic speech Allawi gave a special Joint Session of Congress; in fact, Kerry followed it by castigating Allawi, and his Senior Spokesman Joe Lockhart called Allawi a puppet.
This harkens back to the Left’s similar charge about the South Vietnamese government and the Shah.
Like their insane rants about Iran, they claim all the USA wants is the oil in Iraq; they chant: "BLOOD FOR OIL" as if everything would be hunkie-dorrie if and only if the USA would stay out of the affairs of other nations.
Can one among you truthfully say that the Vietnamese are better off now - or for the last 35 years - under communist tyranny!? Can anyone say wioth a straight face that we fought in Vietnam for their oil!? NO. But it was said then.
The "PUPPET TALK" - and the idea that the USA only fights wars to expand our empire, our hegemony - is knee-jerk Left-wing jargon; it is false, and it only serves to bolster our enemies and the enemies of democracy.
2 - The same knee-jerk jargon is rampant in the Left’s discussion of Afghanistan: they call Karzai "the mayor of Kabul", and claim alternately that we fought in Afghanistan for a GAS PIPELINE, or for the poppy crops.
This talk is ridiculous - Iraq and Afghanistan are better now then under Saddam or the Taliban.
They have a true chance at self-rule. That makes our efforts there NOBLE.
The Leftist Dove knee-jerk talk is dangerous, too.
It's a harbinger of future abandonment.
If we let them.
Don't let them.
Vote Bush.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
"CASUS BELLI" - or: How And Why We Removed Saddam According To UNSCR#1441, And Did It BEFORE It Was Too Late
Why do so many people completely trust Duelfer's report, and look at disdain at ALL PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE?
Because Duelfer had complete and unfettered access. Something possible ONLY AFTER SADDAM WAS REMOVED!
Before the overthrow of Saddam, NO intelligence agency - of any country ("GLOBALLY, OR ELSEWHERE") - had unfettered access - NOT EVEN THE UN INSPECTORS HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS IN 2003 - even though that was a requirement of UNSCR#1441. The 2003 UN INSPECTORS were supposed to be given complete unfettered access - and they were not; that was a violation of UNSCR#1441 - and a casus belli, in and of itself. That's CASUS BELLI #1.
Duelfer's report confirms what Kay has ALREADY TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH, TO BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS: that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441, and other UNSCR'S which were the conditions for the armistice of the 1991 war.
Let's look at the record:
Kay and Duelfer both confirm that the Declaration Saddam submitted to the UN as a requirement of UNSCR#1441 WAS FALSE, and INCOMPLETE. That's CASUS BELLI #2.
Since the UN Inspectors were meant ONLY TO VERIFY Saddam's declaration, and NOT TO BE DETECTIVES, and because they were not given unfettered access, PROVING SADDAM was IN FACT IN VIOLATION of UNSCR'S would have been impossible for the UN Inspectors to EVER ACCOMPLISH.
As Duelfer writes in his report: Saddam had a CLEAR INTENT to restart manufacturing WMD as soon as the sanctions were lifted - and he was following a deceitful strategy - INCLUDING BRIBING OFFICIALS AT THE UN, in FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, and CHINA - in order to accomplish EXACTLY THAT. For those keeping count, those're CASUS BELLI # 3 & 4.
Therefore, it is INESCAPABLY TRUE that the ONLY way Saddam would have EVER been NEUTRALIZED (vis a vis WMD - stockpiles or manufacturing capability) was to remove him, and the only way to remove him was war.
IN FACT: THE TERM "STOCKPILE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONCE IN ANY UNSCR! With regard to quantity, the UNSCR'S ban Saddam from having ANY AND ALL stocks, or programs, or capability. Kay & Duelfer proved that SSaddam (a) had illegal missiles program (which he hid from UN Inspectors in 2003), and that Saddam (b) maintained capabilities - Saddam maintained samples of biotoxin strains. Those're CASUS BELLI #'s 5 &6.
Therefore, in view of Kay's and Duelfer's report: The "War to Oust Saddam" was good, true, just - and legal - SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS UNSCR'S, and VIOLATION OF THE UNSCR'S was the ONLY BASIS FOR USING FORCE ACCORDING TO THE BILL AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS,
and UNSCR#1441 explicitly stated that it was Saddam's FINAL CHANCE FOR COMPLIANCE, and that if he did not comply, that SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW.
Perhaps those on the Left, and the cowardly "cave-in" candidate Kerry, and the Democrat Party's "mujahowarddeans" would like to argue that Saddam was IN COMPLIANCE!?
Or that, "FINAL CHANCE" DOES NOT MEAN "FINAL CHANCE" - it means "another chance"?
Or that "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" means another meaningless resolution, or more incomplete/fettered inspections and not WAR?
I, for one, KNOW what "full, final and complete" means, and I know what serious consequences mean.
And I know what it means to have a president who expects the demands of the international community - the terms of an armistice - to be OBEYED, and NOT USED AS A MEANS FOR GARNERING BRIBES.
Kerry has openly stated that if he had been president in 2003, that the inspections would have gone on. UNTIL WHEN? Until Saddam had succeeded in wearing down the UNSC, and succeeded in getting all the sanctions removed - SO HE COULD RE-START THE MANUFACTURE OF WMD'S as Duelfer says he planned to do!?!?
It would seem so. It would seem that had Kerry been president in 2003, then Saddam would have been correct in his strategy, AND SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER.
Thank God Bush was president in 2003.
I pray he is re-elected.
The Free World cannot afford to have a U.S. president who can be suckered by the likes of Saddam, or Chirac, or the UN - "Saddam's legions of the bribed."
That Saddam did not seem to have stockpiles means NOT THAT BUSH ACTED TOO SOON, but that BUSH DID NOT ACT TOO LATE!
The fact that North Korea has nukes, and that Iran is on the verge, makes them MUCH MORE DIFFICULT "STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR" TO DEAL WITH than Saddam.
Saddam was a "gathering threat", whose threat we neutralized BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
That is a good thing.
In fact, while debating the war resolution in 2002. TOM DASCHLE (Senate Majority Leader and Democrat) said: the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said :
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Glenn Reynolds added:
"So they didn't think that Saddam was an "imminent" threat, but thought it was worth going to war to keep him from becoming one, eh?
That's just what Bush said. So where's the beef in the "Bush lied" argument? (Hat tip to reader Daniel Aronstein). "
SO... let me NOW say: Thank you, Mr President, for enforcing UNSCR#1441, and for removing Saddam before it was too late.
Because Duelfer had complete and unfettered access. Something possible ONLY AFTER SADDAM WAS REMOVED!
Before the overthrow of Saddam, NO intelligence agency - of any country ("GLOBALLY, OR ELSEWHERE") - had unfettered access - NOT EVEN THE UN INSPECTORS HAD UNFETTERED ACCESS IN 2003 - even though that was a requirement of UNSCR#1441. The 2003 UN INSPECTORS were supposed to be given complete unfettered access - and they were not; that was a violation of UNSCR#1441 - and a casus belli, in and of itself. That's CASUS BELLI #1.
Duelfer's report confirms what Kay has ALREADY TESTIFIED TO UNDER OATH, TO BOTH BODIES OF CONGRESS: that Saddam was in violation of UNSCR#1441, and other UNSCR'S which were the conditions for the armistice of the 1991 war.
Let's look at the record:
Kay and Duelfer both confirm that the Declaration Saddam submitted to the UN as a requirement of UNSCR#1441 WAS FALSE, and INCOMPLETE. That's CASUS BELLI #2.
Since the UN Inspectors were meant ONLY TO VERIFY Saddam's declaration, and NOT TO BE DETECTIVES, and because they were not given unfettered access, PROVING SADDAM was IN FACT IN VIOLATION of UNSCR'S would have been impossible for the UN Inspectors to EVER ACCOMPLISH.
As Duelfer writes in his report: Saddam had a CLEAR INTENT to restart manufacturing WMD as soon as the sanctions were lifted - and he was following a deceitful strategy - INCLUDING BRIBING OFFICIALS AT THE UN, in FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, and CHINA - in order to accomplish EXACTLY THAT. For those keeping count, those're CASUS BELLI # 3 & 4.
Therefore, it is INESCAPABLY TRUE that the ONLY way Saddam would have EVER been NEUTRALIZED (vis a vis WMD - stockpiles or manufacturing capability) was to remove him, and the only way to remove him was war.
IN FACT: THE TERM "STOCKPILE" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONCE IN ANY UNSCR! With regard to quantity, the UNSCR'S ban Saddam from having ANY AND ALL stocks, or programs, or capability. Kay & Duelfer proved that SSaddam (a) had illegal missiles program (which he hid from UN Inspectors in 2003), and that Saddam (b) maintained capabilities - Saddam maintained samples of biotoxin strains. Those're CASUS BELLI #'s 5 &6.
Therefore, in view of Kay's and Duelfer's report: The "War to Oust Saddam" was good, true, just - and legal - SADDAM WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS UNSCR'S, and VIOLATION OF THE UNSCR'S was the ONLY BASIS FOR USING FORCE ACCORDING TO THE BILL AUTHORIZING FORCE PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS,
and UNSCR#1441 explicitly stated that it was Saddam's FINAL CHANCE FOR COMPLIANCE, and that if he did not comply, that SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WOULD FOLLOW.
Perhaps those on the Left, and the cowardly "cave-in" candidate Kerry, and the Democrat Party's "mujahowarddeans" would like to argue that Saddam was IN COMPLIANCE!?
Or that, "FINAL CHANCE" DOES NOT MEAN "FINAL CHANCE" - it means "another chance"?
Or that "SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES" means another meaningless resolution, or more incomplete/fettered inspections and not WAR?
I, for one, KNOW what "full, final and complete" means, and I know what serious consequences mean.
And I know what it means to have a president who expects the demands of the international community - the terms of an armistice - to be OBEYED, and NOT USED AS A MEANS FOR GARNERING BRIBES.
Kerry has openly stated that if he had been president in 2003, that the inspections would have gone on. UNTIL WHEN? Until Saddam had succeeded in wearing down the UNSC, and succeeded in getting all the sanctions removed - SO HE COULD RE-START THE MANUFACTURE OF WMD'S as Duelfer says he planned to do!?!?
It would seem so. It would seem that had Kerry been president in 2003, then Saddam would have been correct in his strategy, AND SADDAM WOULD STILL BE IN POWER.
Thank God Bush was president in 2003.
I pray he is re-elected.
The Free World cannot afford to have a U.S. president who can be suckered by the likes of Saddam, or Chirac, or the UN - "Saddam's legions of the bribed."
That Saddam did not seem to have stockpiles means NOT THAT BUSH ACTED TOO SOON, but that BUSH DID NOT ACT TOO LATE!
The fact that North Korea has nukes, and that Iran is on the verge, makes them MUCH MORE DIFFICULT "STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR" TO DEAL WITH than Saddam.
Saddam was a "gathering threat", whose threat we neutralized BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE.
That is a good thing.
In fact, while debating the war resolution in 2002. TOM DASCHLE (Senate Majority Leader and Democrat) said: the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said :
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Glenn Reynolds added:
"So they didn't think that Saddam was an "imminent" threat, but thought it was worth going to war to keep him from becoming one, eh?
That's just what Bush said. So where's the beef in the "Bush lied" argument? (Hat tip to reader Daniel Aronstein). "
SO... let me NOW say: Thank you, Mr President, for enforcing UNSCR#1441, and for removing Saddam before it was too late.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The Cave Men and the Mujahowarddean
In last night's Veep debate - Cheney rhetorically asked whether we should trust Kerry-Edwards with our national security when he suggested that Kerry and Edwards had flip-flopped on support for the Iraq War when Howard Dean -- as an ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE -- started to catch on in the democratic Primaries.
Cheney asked - "Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida? "
I think that was a GRAND SLAM HOME RUN!
When Kerry and Edwards voted against the $87 supplemental Bill, they proved themselves to be "CAVE-MEN."
There are countless examples of Kerry-Edwards caving in: they've basically caved in to the peacenik/anti-war Left-wing of their party.
Which is unlike the CENTRIST CLINTON; EXAMPLE: Whereas Clinton "dissed Jesse Jackson in 1992 (when he refused to give JJ a prime-time slot at the DNC Convention), Kerry-Edwards caved in and gave AL SHARPTON a prime-time slot. Kerry's "GLOBAL TEST" is essentially caving in to the UN and the EU. They flip-flopped on Bush's Education Bill in order to curry favor with the teachers' unions. When Kerry went from being anti-death penalty - even for terrorists - to being pro-death penalty for terrorists. Kerry was caving in again --- just as when he says he believes "THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION" ( July 5th, 2004) but also favors abortion on demand; he favors what he MUST BELIEVE IS MURDER because he has sacrificed his deep personal moral and religious beliefs to an important Left-wing Democratic pressure group; this is caving in.
BUT THE HEIGHT OF INSIPID COWARDLY PANDERING, was - as Cheney pointed out - when the CAVE MEN caved in to the MUJAHOWARDDEAN. That's when Kerry-Edwards proved themselves to be UNWORTHY of the Oval Office, because the man in the Oval Office has the responsibility to preserve and protect the USA and our Constitution, and not our image in the world, our popularity, his relationship with certain political pressure groups.
Political leaders who put their popularity with foreign leaders - or certain specific domestic political pressure groups - above their responsibility to preserve and protect the USA and our Constitution are UNFIT FOR THE OVAL OFFICE.
The CAVE MEN - Kerry and Edwards - are unfit for the Oval Office.
Cheney asked - "Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida? "
I think that was a GRAND SLAM HOME RUN!
When Kerry and Edwards voted against the $87 supplemental Bill, they proved themselves to be "CAVE-MEN."
There are countless examples of Kerry-Edwards caving in: they've basically caved in to the peacenik/anti-war Left-wing of their party.
Which is unlike the CENTRIST CLINTON; EXAMPLE: Whereas Clinton "dissed Jesse Jackson in 1992 (when he refused to give JJ a prime-time slot at the DNC Convention), Kerry-Edwards caved in and gave AL SHARPTON a prime-time slot. Kerry's "GLOBAL TEST" is essentially caving in to the UN and the EU. They flip-flopped on Bush's Education Bill in order to curry favor with the teachers' unions. When Kerry went from being anti-death penalty - even for terrorists - to being pro-death penalty for terrorists. Kerry was caving in again --- just as when he says he believes "THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION" ( July 5th, 2004) but also favors abortion on demand; he favors what he MUST BELIEVE IS MURDER because he has sacrificed his deep personal moral and religious beliefs to an important Left-wing Democratic pressure group; this is caving in.
BUT THE HEIGHT OF INSIPID COWARDLY PANDERING, was - as Cheney pointed out - when the CAVE MEN caved in to the MUJAHOWARDDEAN. That's when Kerry-Edwards proved themselves to be UNWORTHY of the Oval Office, because the man in the Oval Office has the responsibility to preserve and protect the USA and our Constitution, and not our image in the world, our popularity, his relationship with certain political pressure groups.
Political leaders who put their popularity with foreign leaders - or certain specific domestic political pressure groups - above their responsibility to preserve and protect the USA and our Constitution are UNFIT FOR THE OVAL OFFICE.
The CAVE MEN - Kerry and Edwards - are unfit for the Oval Office.
Monday, October 04, 2004
A PERSONAL PLEA TO KERRY VOTERS: "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "
OR: "Look who you're standing shoulder-to-shoulder with?"
Or as Marty Peretz wrote in today's WSJ:
"I can't count how many times I've heard Kerry people -- not Kerry -- tell me that the Germans and the French, the Swedes and all of the Arabs dislike Bush and want Kerry to win. So what! Or, on the other hand, maybe it is really quite telling that the Arabs so much prefer Kerry."
The French shipped weapoms to Saddam a few months before the war, and were getting billions in bribe money from Sadfdam through the corrupt UN oil-for-bribes - I mean oil-for-food program.
The Arabs - who have not a single democracy among them, (unless and until the USA transforms Iraq into one) - want a president who will be more "EVEN-HANDED" with regard to Israel and the ARABS.
As if it is MORAL & JUST for ther USA to treat ARAFAT and HAMAS and HEZBOLLAH (terrorists whio have murdered American citizens) the same as we treat the elected leader of the only democracy in the middle east - and one of the USA's BEST ALLIES. And, C.A.I.R overwhelmingly supports Kerry.
MICHAEL MOORE OVERWHELMINGLY supports Kerry.
Moore who has made pseudo-documentaries which are nothing more than lies and distortions and propaganda against GM and the domestic car industry (which are both bigger than ever!); and against the 2nd Amendment - (the simplest of all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights); and against the USA. Here are a few FACTS:
(1) There are MORE people working here in the USA in the car industry than when Moore's movie "Roger and Me" decried the end of that industry here, and the LOSS of all those jobs. (2) Moore's anti-gun movie showed hium walikng out of a bank with a gun - as if he got it in return for a deposit - WHICH WAS A LIE; it was a lioe like so many other in this move - "Bowling for Columbine" - like the fact that the factory in Columbine makes guidance systems NOT MISSILES; so that therefore some mysterious latent violent psychosis IS NOT responsible for the shootings that tragic day; two insane and evil kids were. (3) And F911...well the lies are too many and too outrageous to list here; SEE: (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ).
(1) There are MORE people working here in the USA in the car industry than when Moore's movie "Roger and Me" decried the end of that industry here, and the LOSS of all those jobs. (2) Moore's anti-gun movie showed hium walikng out of a bank with a gun - as if he got it in return for a deposit - WHICH WAS A LIE; it was a lioe like so many other in this move - "Bowling for Columbine" - like the fact that the factory in Columbine makes guidance systems NOT MISSILES; so that therefore some mysterious latent violent psychosis IS NOT responsible for the shootings that tragic day; two insane and evil kids were. (3) And F911...well the lies are too many and too outrageous to list here; SEE: (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm ).
(4) MOORE EVEN OPPOSSED THE AFGHAN WAR! I wonder how he feels about their upcoming elections? Especially the one in which a woman is running for president?
AND MOORE SAT AS A GUEST OF HONOR IN THE PRESIDENTIAL BOX AT THE DNC CONVENTION IN BOSTON!
(Read what the official Central News Agency of the DPRK had to say about Kerry on February 23rd.)
Naturally - they're Michael Moore's film distributors in the Middle East!
The racist former president of Malaysia.
ZAPOTERO SUPPORTS KERRY.
He won election as Spain's PM after the ATOCHA attack
frightened many Spainiards into retreat and appeasement.
These are the people you stand with IF YOU SUPPORT KERRY.
NOW... I AM NOT - REPEAT - NOT suggesting that if you stand with these folks, then you are as guilty as they are for their anti-social crimes: bribery; mendacity/propaganda; genocide; racism.
I AM SAYING that if they support Kerry, IT MUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT KERRY, and you should consider that; it should make you consider whether or not you really feel Kerry is really fit for the office, fit to be Commander in Chief - ESPECIALLY while we are at war.
I think this proves that Kerry is unfit, because those who oppose our vigourous efforts to spread democracy and expand Human Rights in AFGHANISTAN, in GAZA & THE WEST BANK, and in IRAQ, want Kerry to win. It's that simple.
If you vote for Kerry, you are doing the bidding of the enemies of democracy.
Your vote - in effect - becomes the proxy vote of tyrants.
Take this as a PLEA from a 4th generation Democrat who's been voting since 1974 - and has NEVER voted for a GOP presidential candiate before, and who is voting for Bush: PLEASE DO NOT LET YOUR PARTISAN AFFILIATION DETER YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU KNOW IS RIGHT. BE GRATEFUL THAT U.S. WEALTH AND MILITARY POWER IS BEING USED TO PROTECT AND EXPAND HUMAN RIGHTS - AND VOTE FOR BUSH.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
"Health of the Chief!"
LATEST UPDATE:
Kerry's doctors say he's healthy - and cancer free.
BUT: if this is true, then WHY WON'T KERRY RELEASE HIS FULL MEDICAL RECORDS!?
UPDATE: SUNDAY -
Tonight, CNN-TV is running a broadcast version
of the article mentioned below...
CHECK LOCAL LISTINGS FOR TIME,
AND THEN WRITE CNN DEMANDING THAT KERRY RELASE
HIS COMPLETE MEDICAL RECORDS!
Today (Saturday), CNN.com is running a big story on how grueling the presidency is, how it requires good health and good medical care.
EXCERPT:
Northeastern University professor Robert Gilbert notes that more than two-thirds of presidents have failed to reach their era's life expectancy for white males, "despite the fact that they have received the best medical care that you can imagine."
[...]
The significance the public and media places on a president's health, says Gilbert, is healthy for the country."It's important to everyone," he says. "If [political leaders] are in good
health, they do their jobs better and they live their lives better."
Just look at photos of Bush in 2000 and compare them to photos of him now, and you can see the HUGE physical toll that the last 3 years have taken on his health. But, Bush is healthy - we know this because Bush has released his complete medical records.
Yet, Kerry REFUSES to discloses his medical records.
In spite of recently having surgery for a malignant cancer in his prostate gland.
And in spite of still being treated for it.
And, in spite of what might be a lifelong problem sleeping.
For a complete discussion of why Kerry must release his medical records please see:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3789.
Kerry should release his complete medical records NOW.
The MSM should not let him off the hook.
Too much is at stake.
AS LAWYER: Greedy Edwards Did More Harm Than Good
John Edwards likes to present himself as a "tribune of the people,"
a working-class hero who has spent his life "championing the cause of the little guy."
The reality is VERY different.
a working-class hero who has spent his life "championing the cause of the little guy."
The reality is VERY different.
In his career as a trial lawyer, John Edwards specialized in cerebral palsy malpractice cases. He never tried the case of an infant who died during a delivery, but only the cases of children who were born with horribly damaged brains that made them especially moving spectacles in the courtroom.
Scientists now accept that cerebral palsy is probably never caused by birth trauma or obstetrical misadventure. Rather, the problems that these unfortunate children have during labor and delivery result from pre-existing brain damage that arises in the womb from unknown causes.
John Edwards used the popular myth that cerebral palsy was caused by the malpractice or negligence of the delivering obstetrician. Exploiting junk science John Edwards charmed juries into awarding verdicts that earned him between 50 and 100 million dollars, while forcing many good and decent obstetricians out of North Carolina and even out of practice.
The rise in cesarean deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.
And as a direct result of Edwards greed, the caesarean section rate in North Carolina soared. According to the American Medical Association, North Carolina's current health care situation as a "crisis" and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over.
So John Edwards, for no other real reason than his pursuit of personal wealth, defamed good doctors, changed the practice of medicine for the worse, and ended up costing all medical consumers more money.
This is not the record of a " tribune of the people," but rather the socially destructive record of a greedy demagogue who selfishly and cynically exploited manipulated the passions of the crowd in order to get rich quick.
Edwards has no shame.
His career as a trial lawyer is not a record to run on; it is one that should forever disqualify him from any elected office.
Friday, October 01, 2004
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)