Thursday, October 07, 2004
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.
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.
"CASUS BELLI" - or: How And Why We Removed Saddam According To UNSCR#1441, And Did It 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
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
"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."
(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 ).
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
Today (Saturday), CNN.com is running a big story on how grueling the presidency is, how it requires good health and good medical care.
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:
Kerry should release his complete medical records NOW.
The MSM should not let him off the hook.
Too much is at stake.
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.