Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why President Bush should be Re-elected

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why President Bush should be Re-elected

    Election 2004

    Why George W. Bush should be Re-elected

    If you are the type of person who commits to a political party, regardless of the issues, or the candidates position on them, then you are probably too closed-minded to read this article past the title. However, if you have an open mind, or if you have been wondering about who to vote for in 2004, you should consider the following analysis.

    People are concerned about issues that affect their daily lives such as jobs, environment, education, and social security benefits. However, the key issues must take precedence over our comfort of living. We must secure our own country. It does no good to protect our country if we run the economy into the ground, but it also does no good to have a strong economy if we are attacked, and destroyed by terrorists.

    In any election, I will vote for whichever candidate I believe is the right person for the job regardless of party affiliation. In 2000 , I was decidedly for Al Gore. When Mr. Bush won the election, I was not happy, and could not wait for 2004 so that he could be removed from the office that I believed he did not rightfully deserve. I was also waiting to see if his economic plans would fail.

    Then came September 11, 2001. The nation was caught off guard. We were hit in a way that we never believed the enemy would be successful in accomplishing. We were wrong. No one person, administration, nor agency was to blame. It was a failure of our entire system that had crumbled over decades of relative peace, and complacency.

    After 2001, everything changed, and I had to reassess my opinions of President Bush. The country was headed for a severe recession, and I could not rightfully blame President Bush. All of the attacks on President Bush for being the first President in history to lose this many jobs, etc., etc., is a farce. September eleventh caused these problems, and any other president would have had the same statistics and downfall. Since the attack, the stability and gradual re-growth of the economy is on a steady incline because President Bush has restored confidence to the American people, and wealthy investors by providing all Americans with tax cuts.

    In the wake of the attack, the only thing that mattered to me was if President Bush was going to rise to the occasion, respond to the attack, and protect against future threats. I was truly proud of him, and pleasantly surprised. President Bush made a thoughtful, and deliberate decision to pursue those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September eleventh attack, and to continue the campaign against terrorists, and their supporters.

    I agree with that policy. Therefore, in light of the way President George W. Bush has conducted himself in the face of great adversity, the fact that he has faced tough decisions and made the right choices, and that he has the resolve to see it through, I believe he is the right person to continue with the job for the next four years.

    The first point in support of my position is that President Bush already has the experience of being President. I believe that senator Kerry would be a gamble because we do not know how he would perform beyond the capacity of a senator. Any time we elect a "new" president, we take a gamble. In my opinion, this is not a good time to take risks, and gamble on a new leader.

    Secondly, President Bush has shown the willingness to risk popularity to pursue the terrorists and those who support them. This means that he had the courage of his convictions to go into Iraq at a time when it was necessary to do so, even when some nations, and politicians did not agree. National security is not a popularity contest.

    Senator Kerry has said the war in Iraq was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." That statement contains three separate issues. First, that it was "the wrong war." This comment is not about location. This war was to verify that Saddam was not hiding weapons or supporting terrorists. Thus Senator Kerry is saying that he knew, before we entered Iraq, that there were no weapons, and no link to Al Qaeda. "Wrong war" means we should have allowed Saddam to avoid inspections as long as he wanted.

    Secondly, he said, "in the wrong place." Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq. His refusal to allow inspections raised the legitimate question that he might be hiding weapons of mass destruction. The only logical place to find out if Saddam had weapons or not, was in Iraq – basic geography and common sense. War fronts on terror, including Afghanistan, are separate issues. Thus, this part of Kerry's statement was also wrong.

    Thirdly, Senator Kerry said the war in Iraq was "at the wrong time." His argument is that we should have waited longer. He says that the President should only take us to war "as a last resort." What does Senator Kerry consider as a last resort, perhaps the day after the next attack? The "last resort" was reached the moment we could not verify that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Reasonable doubt gave probable cause to act. Furthermore, to say "wrong war," and "wrong time" is a contradiction. The proper statement is either "right war at the wrong time," or "wrong war at any time." Nevertheless, his statement is wrong. It was the right war in every aspect.

    When President Bush says that the reason we went into Iraq is because "the enemy attacked us," he is not confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden as Senator Kerry suggests. He is stating the fact that before the attack of September eleventh, we would have been likely to push diplomacy and negotiations to their limit with Saddam. President Bush was saying that, as a result of being attacked by the enemy (terrorists), we have adopted a different policy for dealing with dictators like Saddam, and it does not include sitting at negotiations while Iraq could be developing dangerous weapons.

    Senator Kerry suggests that the only true terrorist threat is in Afghanistan. It is obvious to me that terrorists move freely throughout the world, and as soon as you close one pocket in which they might hide, they move to another. We must simultaneously close all areas of concealment, training camps, and storage of weapons that can cause harm to the American people. Furthermore, the complaint that Osama has not been captured is not pertinent. These terrorists will not stop when he is gone. Bringing him to justice is an eventual goal, not a top priority over removing current threats.

    Another issue that Senator Kerry is arguing is that there was no connection found between Saddam Hussein, and the attack of September 11, 2001. This argument is of no consequences. A reasonable suspicion of a connection existed shortly after 2001, however that is not the reason that we went into Iraq. Furthermore, Al Qeada terrorists were responsible for the attack on September eleventh. Saddam Hussein had in the past, and still did, support and harbor Al Qeada cells, their members, and training camps in Iraq.

    President Bush acted on a "good faith basis" having reason to believe that the likelihood of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction was high. Just because a few stubborn members of the United Nations did not have the stomach to endure the casualties of war, does not dictate the policies of the United States of America. Other nations agreed with the decision and formed an international coalition of allies.

    I think Americans who oppose the decision to invade Iraq are hypocrites, and are not consistent with their views on dealing with criminal conduct. It does not matter whether the criminals are domestic or foreign. Suppose a known crack-house was in your neighborhood, and was owned by a convicted drug-dealer, rapist, and child molester. If he had been paroled from prison on the conditions that he not have any drugs, weapons, or minor children in his home, a parole officer might be required inspect his home at regular intervals. If the gang leader refused, or interfered with the lawful duties of the parole officer, the court would most likely hold him in contempt and have him arrested.

    If informants told the police that he had drugs, weapons, and had taken a woman and her children hostage, you would expect the police to enter the home and investigate. He has no choice but to allow the police to enter, even without further warrant issued by the court. The police are always justified in entering a home where they have reason to believe that someone's life is in danger. The gang members might be raping the abducted woman, and molesting her children. If he refused to let the police in his home, or would not let them look in certain rooms, he would be arrested for obstruction of justice.

    In this case, the police would have every right to bust down the door and search the home. If they found no weapons, and no drugs, but rescue the hostages, they were still justified in entering the home. The parolee was in violation of the court order to allow inspections, and the police could not risk waiting to find out if the threat was genuine. This is the same justification that I believe we had when going into Iraq. It did not matter if we found weapons or not, the fact that we could not verify there were no weapons, gave cause for the U.S. to take immediate action. President Bush made the executive decision not to wait until the enemy had time to gather their weapons while politicians debated the decision. The innocent citizens of Iraq deserved to be freed from Saddam's bondage.

    In fact, we still don't know if there were weapons that were moved out of the country, or if they are still being hidden in the regions that are under the terrorist's control. General Tommy Franks had stated that we did find all of the elements for which Saddam Hussein could have created weapons of mass destruction. He compared it to possessing hydrogen and oxygen. You don't have anything separately, but if you put those elements together, you have water. General Franks said that Saddam Hussein had the elements needed to create weapons of mass destruction within days, weeks, or months.

    A good example of the necessity to go on the offense with Saddam exists in a line from the movie Terminator with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sgt. Reese says, "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!" These words seemed to have an impact on Sarah Conner, the intended target of the terminator, and they should have an impact on the American people.

    The terrorists have declared a "Jihad" – a holy war on America. They believe that they have a commandment from "Allah" to kill all of the "infidels." These terrorists are killing machines. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They don't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all Americans are dead! Therefore, we must terminate them before they terminate us!

    I would think that my fellow citizens, as well as the rest of the world, would have learned this lesson by now. We cannot wait until an attack is upon us. We must defeat terrorists, and their supporters before they gain the strength and ability to destroy us. Negotiations only work with those who are honest in the first place. President Bush did not mislead or lie about the war. He simply stated that we had reason to suspect that Saddam was hiding a weapons program, and, since Saddam would not cooperate, we must enter to find out the truth. After 2001, the priorities of America changed.

    Perhaps it is a similar change in our minds, and hearts that also took place after December 7, 1941, yet by 2001, we had forgotten the lesson. However, we were quickly reminded of what can happen to a Super Power that takes a nap on the job. There is no room for mistakes in national security. Your enemies can fail many times with little consequences, but if we fail just once, ships are sunk, buildings collapse, and people die.

    As philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." In the 1930s, Adolph Hitler rose to power, and became the dictator of Germany. In 1933, he opposed the League of Nations, the same as Saddam opposed the United Nations in 2003. Hitler denounced the Versailles Treaty which restricted Germany's armed forces, just as Saddam violated resolutions calling for inspections of his weapons program. In 1938, Hitler's army entered Austria and seized the country, in the same way Saddam's army entered Kuwait.

    Both England and France were shocked by Hitler's aggression, but did nothing to stop the attack. Next, Hitler sent his army into Poland who asked its ally, France, for help – France refused. Hitler then marched into France (France apparently has not learned much in the past sixty years). The lesson is – if an evil dictator is invading peaceful countries, you had better do something to help your neighbors or you are likely to be next.

    Most people will recall that the Japanese military, in an unprovoked attack, bombed the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as President Roosevelt said, "a date that will live in infamy." One difference between then and now is that in World War II we had an enemy who held a geographic location which we could counter-attack. In current times, the enemy is a roving band of criminal terrorists who hide under different rocks, in different caves, and in different countries every day.

    Wars are historically marred with debates over policy, strategy, and legitimacy. The Vietnam War was often referred to as a "quagmire." The reason that the Vietnam War was such a "predicament" was because politicians kept trying to appease the international community. The politicians restricted our troops from carrying out the mission. We did not lose the war in Vietnam – we were just prevented from defeating the enemy.

    People who criticize the war in Vietnam might forget the circumstances that took us to that war, and the previous Korean war in 1950. The Koreans did not attack the U.S. North Korea invaded South Korea, and the U.S., along with its allies, came to the defense of South Korea. In 1954, the Vietnamese did not attack the U.S. Communist Vietcong invaded South Vietnam, and the U.S. came to the defense of the South Vietnamese.

    Both wars were bloody battles, but we did what we were ordered to do – protect the people from being attacked. The main problem within both of these wars was not the decision to go to war, but was the "indecision" of the politicians to support the war, and lack of resolve to finish the mission.

    The ironic thing is that Senator Kerry has become an exact replica of the type of politician that created the difficulties of the war he protested as a young soldier. He has become his own worst enemy – a politician who refuses to support our troops in battle, and give full authority to the military to fight an enemy that needs to be defeated. He has become a politician who protests a justified war against an evil enemy.

    Vietnam should have taught us that when your Commander in Chief decides to send soldiers to war, give them the equipment they need, the authority to defeat the enemy, and the respect of your support. Nothing loses a battle quicker than the loss of fighting spirit within the soldiers. Nothing kills that spirit quicker than when soldiers feel that they do not have the support of their own countrymen, or that what they are fighting for is wrong. Senator Kerry should remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships!"

    There comes a time when we must - - not could, or should, but must use force to ensure the safety of America. There is an excellent example of this in the movie "First Knight" with Sean Connery as King Arthur. When Arthur committed his army to protect the city of Leonesse, his weaker neighbor, the enemy of Camelot, Malagant, told him, "Your fine words are talking you out of peace, and into war!" King Arthur stood firm and said, "There is a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, then I will fight it." Every knight at the round table stood and said, "and I."

    As to the "test" of when to go to war, I agree with a philosophy of lethal force used in law enforcement. I know a retired police officer who has a clear understanding of when it is appropriate to use deadly force in any situation. When a police officer has drawn his weapon on a suspect who presents a threat to others (spouse, children, bystanders, or officers), as my friend puts it, "deadly force is used when you can no longer allow that person to continue doing whatever it is they are doing for one second longer."

    We could not afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue interfering with weapons inspections for one second longer. Saddam was displaying the same defiance toward the United Nations that Adolph Hitler did to its predecessor, the League of Nations, in 1933. Saddam was a genuine threat to world peace, and it was the right time for the Allied forces to enter Iraq and enforce the inspections.

    Terrorism is real. The war on terrorism is a necessity. It is here and now – not later. Everyone must choose their side. You are either with us, or against us. You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. In my opinion, those who want to give the enemy time to regroup, train, and prepare for the next attack while playing negotiating games, are part of the problem. Saddam Hussein's regime was part of the problem. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do, in the right place, and at the right time.

    Many songs convey the mood and spirit of the American People during difficult times. For World Wars I, and II, George M. Cohen offered the song "Over There" with the lyrics "So prepare, say a prayer. Send the word, send the word to beware. We'll be over, we're coming over, and we won't come back till it's over over there." That is the resolve that we had in the 1940s to stand behind our President and the Armed Forces.

    After September 11, 2001, I can remember standing side by side with soldiers, veterans, and civilians alike, with tears streaming down our cheeks, singing the words to Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." I hope that each American listens to that song a few more times before election day. I get a little choked up every time I hear the words "And I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me, and I'd gladly stand up next to you, and defend her still today – cuz there ain't no doubt I love this land, God Bless the USA.

    Senator Kerry has not shown the courage to send our troops to war against a clear, and present threat, the wisdom to act before we are attacked, nor the fortitude to see the mission through until the enemy is defeated. I suspect that if John Kerry was the Commander in Chief in 1941, we would not have gone to war with Germany because Hitler did not attack us on December 7, 1941. The evil leaders of Russia, Germany, and Japan were in a conspiracy to destroy America during WW II, and in 2003, terrorists were conspiring with Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and others to do the same.

    We can deal with economic hardship. We can deal with a few strained friendships with our allies. What we can't deal with is being dead. The enemy has no intention of stopping until America is gone, and Americans are dead. The enemy does not follow the rules, and does not care who dies in the process. If they get their hands on nuclear weapons, the United States will be gone in the blink of an eye. Thus, we must terminate them, before they terminate us. We need a president, during this crucial time, who will not hesitate to make a decision which calls for quick action when faced with a deceptive, and evil enemy. Therefore, we need President George W. Bush to finish the job.

    Respectfully,

    James Jerome

    (feel free to copy this letter and pass it on to others)

  • #2
    "Kerry the ‘flip-flop’ is out
    Nasim Zehra

    The writer is an Islamabad-based
    security analyst, is a fellow of the
    Harvard University Asia Center


    Some John Kerry supporters see a "subtle class war theme" that they believe the Kerry campaign is invoking. Sitting at the margins of mainstream politics and in the centre of intellectual and academic debates there are those Americans who hope to revive an ideological battle; they frame the campaign in ideological terms. One Kerry supporter recently argued that "not just for this election, but that for a reemergence of a dominant progressive centre-left and the vanquishing of the rising right, a wedge needs to be driven between the often anti-establishment cultural right and the crypto-fascist corporatists. They are currently joined at the hip by dominionism, neo-con foreign policy and gospel of wealth theology." Makes the intellectual adrenalin run but not voters towards John Kerry! But as the Kerry supporter he, himself, subsequently acknowledged, "these threads are not strong enough to keep the opposition under well-applied pressure."

    The liberals are rallying website support for Kerry. Framing it in a recent publication "Misstating the State of the Union" a website called the Media Matters Action Network (MMAN) in ideological terms claims that "it dissects this conservative misinformation campaign, while unmasking the dark ideological agenda and rank dishonesty behind all the cable TV and radio "hot air." The book, maintains this website, reveals a simple truth that the media too often obscures: By every objective measure, Bill Clinton’s presidency was immeasurably better for the United States than George W Bush’s presidency. Yet, MMAN maintains that, "Yet, an army of conservative pundits have conspired to lie to the public about both Clinton’s and Bush’s records, denying the proven success of progressive policies and leadership, while shamelessly covering up abject conservative failures."

    Similarly, other attacking themes put forward by Kerry’s ‘thinking’ supporters do not necessarily translate into political ammunition against the incumbent president. Attacking themes are in abundance; Bush doesn’t represent true Republican values, but only benefits the large corporations and very rich people, not the rank and file; the Iraq war has been financed by borrowing and the main benefits of success will accrue to major corporations, the Iraq war is securing US oil supplies and increasing corporate profit and not increasing security for Americans or reducing terrorism, it is not gaining currency; the Bush Administration has mislead the Republican Party into pursuit of US strategic goals in the most costly and disruptive way; with a staggering fiscal deficit Bush has violated an important tenet of Republicanism — fiscal responsibility. Their veracity aside, these themes have not ‘caught on.’

    Meanwhile, the attack on Kerry from his opponents cuts more ice. For example, in call-in radio programs the reiterative anti-Kerry themes are many "if you have a teenage daughter and you want her to go and get an abortion without your knowing, vote for Kerry; if you want to take the name of God from the pledge of allegiance; Kerry is insulting our allies, undermining our soldiers, Kerry has a 30 year record of wanting it both ways...people don’t know what he stands for". And on go the attacks.

    Flamboyance, directness and clarity combined with some charisma make for an effective political communicator. However, Kerry the man whose "legislative achievements" as The Washington Post reports "in such areas as acid-rain control, fisheries protection and foreign policy have resulted largely from patient behind-the-scenes diplomacy with members of both parties, and with little public controversy" does not seem to have what it takes to be an effective political communicator.

    Compared to Bush, Kerry is intellectually rigorous and sound, yet may sound boring to the average simple-minded American voter. Clearly his three dozen domestic policy councils, two dozen foreign policy groups, dozens of consultants, and many other casual advisers tell him, help him develop a sophisticated understanding of issues. Not, however, better communication techniques. Bush by contrast seems to be doing well by his cowboy Texan style communication.

    Continuity has not been a virtue with Kerry. His mind moves in the ‘greys’, as his changing views and actions illustrate; his Vietnam experience was first engagement and then a strong critique. And as Bush would say through his voting record on tax cut, health cut, social security cuts etc. He has been changing even his election management teams. He’s on a third one now. Maybe these are strengths of a reflective mind but Kerry needed to strategise better as a communicator for his electioneering campaign. His ‘Mr flip-flop’ image is growing. This hurts him politically. Can he lead in these times of great uncertainty, the voters must ask.

    Kerry, with all his intellectual strength, has been on the defensive. In public, he speaks tentatively. He explains more and asserts less. Good teaching technique but a bad rule to follow in election campaigns. He comes across as tentative. As he defends himself against Bush’s attack that about his past actions and present claims on health care, tax cuts, social security benefits and abortion not adding up, Kerry has already a ‘nailed down’ candidate. If your opponent is forcing you to clarify, he has psychologically nailed you down. Kerry has been nailed down. His Vietnam engagement is being turned into a liability for him. For the average American, Kerry must come across as the tentative dissenter. Hear him carefully. On abortion, on the Iraq war, on defense spending he isn’t saying that is much different from the Bush message. Kerry’s criticism of the war has been muted. Unable to really stick his neck out on the Iraq war, he falls between two stools. As such, Kerry is unlikely to attract fence sitters.

    Arguing the absence of any real difference between the two candidates on the Iraq war, Eileen McNamara, the Globe Columnist wrote in her October 6 column ‘Soldiering through Iraq’, "This is not a reassuring election cycle to be the mother of two teenage sons — or an adolescent daughter, for that matter. The spectre of a military draft hangs over this presidential campaign like smoke above a burning Iraqi oil field." McNamara maintained that the two candidates have the same views on Iraq. President Bush, she wrote "is promising to ‘’stay the course" in Iraq, keeping troops there until he can declare "mission accomplished" more convincingly than he did on that aircraft carrier 17 months ago. He has been extending the tours of unhappy reservists to do it." On the other hand, Senator John F Kerry McNamara recalled "is vowing to be ‘steadfast and resolved,’ keeping boots on the ground for another four years. ‘I’m not talking about leaving,’ the Democratic presidential nominee said during his debate with the president last week. ‘I’m talking about winning." The anguished columnist ended by asking "this mother wants to know how and with whose sons and daughters on the ground? Essentially, Kerry is unable to tell the voters what is the real difference between his and Bush’s policy on Iraq. He merely says ‘he would have done better in winning the peace.’ He doesn’t say how. The critics of war here argue that it may take the exit of US forces from Iraq to ‘win the peace.’

    For Kerry the worst on the war question is yet to come. Sinclair Broadcasting Group, is planning to broadcast the anti-Kerry film, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, which according to the Los Angeles Times "features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war." The Sinclair Group, plans to show this in its 62 television stations, 14 of which are in the key political swing states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The film maker former Washington Times reporter and official in the Bush administration, Carlton Sherwood, tells viewers on the film’s website: "Intended or not, Lt Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged, drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that has endured for 30 years.

    In contrast with his straight forward, simple and direct communicator Kerry is a long-winded communicator. His message is overloaded. Too much ‘if’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’. Good for scholarship for teaching for an informed discourse. Not for electioneering communication in which the ‘straight and simple’ makes for the most piercing pitch. In a country where rule of law exists, peoples’ basic material needs are generally met and the popular media doesn’t burden you with the mess your country’s foreign policy creates, even a minimal amount of self-critique can become mentally cumbersome. It can make the average voter walk away. In an increasingly chaotic and turbulent world, in much of which the US voters know their own country is involved, they want to hear a reassuring message. That all is well, that all will be well, that force is necessary to fight ‘evil,’ that the US government is doing just that. Bush says just this. He’s on a winning ticket. Barring a major upset."
    _____________________

    Comment


    • #3
      Bravo James, exellent read, job well done

      Comment


      • #4
        Your article makes some good points. It does make sense to me to try to keep the same leader during a time of war so that we have a consistant policy. Also, president Bush has done a good job of keeping our country safe.

        However, the criticism of Kerrys "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" remark is oversimplified. When he calls it the "wrong war" it in no way implies that he did not beleive that Saddam Hussein had WMD. There is no direct connection. What "wrong war" means, is that if we had done as we should, and continued inspections, we would have discovered that Iraq did not in fact have WMD. Even the cheif weapons inspector didn't think that they existed in Iraq, yet Bush was so arrogant to rely completely on sketchy CIA reports, which were filtered from Iraqis wanting to gain favor with the US.

        The statement that Saddam supported Al Quiada cells in Iraq is completely untrue as well. Just recently the CIA admitted that there were no links between Al Quiada and Iraq.

        Finally, you say that Bush went to war on a "good faith basis." Well, it is clear that only an idiot would go to war on a good faith basis. When you are going to make a decision that will kill thousands of people, then you better have hard evidence, not just a hunch.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nice to see right-wing ideology masquerading a objective analysis. Isn't that what GOPers accuse liberals of doing?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by barrowaj
            and continued inspections, we would have discovered that Iraq did not in fact have WMD.
            How long do you think it would have taken a hundred guys to search 437,072 square kilometers without cooperation?
            Originally posted by barrowaj
            then you better have hard evidence, not just a hunch.
            There was hard evidence Saddam was killing, and worse, his own people.
            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
            I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Prodigal Son
              Nice to see right-wing ideology masquerading a objective analysis. Isn't that what GOPers accuse liberals of doing?
              I accuse everyone of doing it, everything is biased.
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by James_Jerome
                Election 2004

                Why George W. Bush should be Re-elected

                If you are the type of person who commits to a political party, regardless of the issues, or the candidates position on them, then you are probably too closed-minded to read this article past the title. However, if you have an open mind, or if you have been wondering about who to vote for in 2004, you should consider the following analysis.

                People are concerned about issues that affect their daily lives such as jobs, environment, education, and social security benefits. However, the key issues must take precedence over our comfort of living. We must secure our own country. It does no good to protect our country if we run the economy into the ground, but it also does no good to have a strong economy if we are attacked, and destroyed by terrorists.

                In any election, I will vote for whichever candidate I believe is the right person for the job regardless of party affiliation. In 2000 , I was decidedly for Al Gore. When Mr. Bush won the election, I was not happy, and could not wait for 2004 so that he could be removed from the office that I believed he did not rightfully deserve. I was also waiting to see if his economic plans would fail.

                Then came September 11, 2001. The nation was caught off guard. We were hit in a way that we never believed the enemy would be successful in accomplishing. We were wrong. No one person, administration, nor agency was to blame. It was a failure of our entire system that had crumbled over decades of relative peace, and complacency.

                After 2001, everything changed, and I had to reassess my opinions of President Bush. The country was headed for a severe recession, and I could not rightfully blame President Bush. All of the attacks on President Bush for being the first President in history to lose this many jobs, etc., etc., is a farce. September eleventh caused these problems, and any other president would have had the same statistics and downfall. Since the attack, the stability and gradual re-growth of the economy is on a steady incline because President Bush has restored confidence to the American people, and wealthy investors by providing all Americans with tax cuts.

                In the wake of the attack, the only thing that mattered to me was if President Bush was going to rise to the occasion, respond to the attack, and protect against future threats. I was truly proud of him, and pleasantly surprised. President Bush made a thoughtful, and deliberate decision to pursue those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September eleventh attack, and to continue the campaign against terrorists, and their supporters.

                I agree with that policy. Therefore, in light of the way President George W. Bush has conducted himself in the face of great adversity, the fact that he has faced tough decisions and made the right choices, and that he has the resolve to see it through, I believe he is the right person to continue with the job for the next four years.

                The first point in support of my position is that President Bush already has the experience of being President. I believe that senator Kerry would be a gamble because we do not know how he would perform beyond the capacity of a senator. Any time we elect a "new" president, we take a gamble. In my opinion, this is not a good time to take risks, and gamble on a new leader.

                Secondly, President Bush has shown the willingness to risk popularity to pursue the terrorists and those who support them. This means that he had the courage of his convictions to go into Iraq at a time when it was necessary to do so, even when some nations, and politicians did not agree. National security is not a popularity contest.

                Senator Kerry has said the war in Iraq was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." That statement contains three separate issues. First, that it was "the wrong war." This comment is not about location. This war was to verify that Saddam was not hiding weapons or supporting terrorists. Thus Senator Kerry is saying that he knew, before we entered Iraq, that there were no weapons, and no link to Al Qaeda. "Wrong war" means we should have allowed Saddam to avoid inspections as long as he wanted.

                Secondly, he said, "in the wrong place." Saddam Hussein was the dictator of Iraq. His refusal to allow inspections raised the legitimate question that he might be hiding weapons of mass destruction. The only logical place to find out if Saddam had weapons or not, was in Iraq – basic geography and common sense. War fronts on terror, including Afghanistan, are separate issues. Thus, this part of Kerry's statement was also wrong.

                Thirdly, Senator Kerry said the war in Iraq was "at the wrong time." His argument is that we should have waited longer. He says that the President should only take us to war "as a last resort." What does Senator Kerry consider as a last resort, perhaps the day after the next attack? The "last resort" was reached the moment we could not verify that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Reasonable doubt gave probable cause to act. Furthermore, to say "wrong war," and "wrong time" is a contradiction. The proper statement is either "right war at the wrong time," or "wrong war at any time." Nevertheless, his statement is wrong. It was the right war in every aspect.

                When President Bush says that the reason we went into Iraq is because "the enemy attacked us," he is not confusing Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden as Senator Kerry suggests. He is stating the fact that before the attack of September eleventh, we would have been likely to push diplomacy and negotiations to their limit with Saddam. President Bush was saying that, as a result of being attacked by the enemy (terrorists), we have adopted a different policy for dealing with dictators like Saddam, and it does not include sitting at negotiations while Iraq could be developing dangerous weapons.

                Senator Kerry suggests that the only true terrorist threat is in Afghanistan. It is obvious to me that terrorists move freely throughout the world, and as soon as you close one pocket in which they might hide, they move to another. We must simultaneously close all areas of concealment, training camps, and storage of weapons that can cause harm to the American people. Furthermore, the complaint that Osama has not been captured is not pertinent. These terrorists will not stop when he is gone. Bringing him to justice is an eventual goal, not a top priority over removing current threats.

                Another issue that Senator Kerry is arguing is that there was no connection found between Saddam Hussein, and the attack of September 11, 2001. This argument is of no consequences. A reasonable suspicion of a connection existed shortly after 2001, however that is not the reason that we went into Iraq. Furthermore, Al Qeada terrorists were responsible for the attack on September eleventh. Saddam Hussein had in the past, and still did, support and harbor Al Qeada cells, their members, and training camps in Iraq.

                President Bush acted on a "good faith basis" having reason to believe that the likelihood of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction was high. Just because a few stubborn members of the United Nations did not have the stomach to endure the casualties of war, does not dictate the policies of the United States of America. Other nations agreed with the decision and formed an international coalition of allies.

                I think Americans who oppose the decision to invade Iraq are hypocrites, and are not consistent with their views on dealing with criminal conduct. It does not matter whether the criminals are domestic or foreign. Suppose a known crack-house was in your neighborhood, and was owned by a convicted drug-dealer, rapist, and child molester. If he had been paroled from prison on the conditions that he not have any drugs, weapons, or minor children in his home, a parole officer might be required inspect his home at regular intervals. If the gang leader refused, or interfered with the lawful duties of the parole officer, the court would most likely hold him in contempt and have him arrested.

                If informants told the police that he had drugs, weapons, and had taken a woman and her children hostage, you would expect the police to enter the home and investigate. He has no choice but to allow the police to enter, even without further warrant issued by the court. The police are always justified in entering a home where they have reason to believe that someone's life is in danger. The gang members might be raping the abducted woman, and molesting her children. If he refused to let the police in his home, or would not let them look in certain rooms, he would be arrested for obstruction of justice.

                In this case, the police would have every right to bust down the door and search the home. If they found no weapons, and no drugs, but rescue the hostages, they were still justified in entering the home. The parolee was in violation of the court order to allow inspections, and the police could not risk waiting to find out if the threat was genuine. This is the same justification that I believe we had when going into Iraq. It did not matter if we found weapons or not, the fact that we could not verify there were no weapons, gave cause for the U.S. to take immediate action. President Bush made the executive decision not to wait until the enemy had time to gather their weapons while politicians debated the decision. The innocent citizens of Iraq deserved to be freed from Saddam's bondage.

                In fact, we still don't know if there were weapons that were moved out of the country, or if they are still being hidden in the regions that are under the terrorist's control. General Tommy Franks had stated that we did find all of the elements for which Saddam Hussein could have created weapons of mass destruction. He compared it to possessing hydrogen and oxygen. You don't have anything separately, but if you put those elements together, you have water. General Franks said that Saddam Hussein had the elements needed to create weapons of mass destruction within days, weeks, or months.

                A good example of the necessity to go on the offense with Saddam exists in a line from the movie Terminator with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sgt. Reese says, "That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!" These words seemed to have an impact on Sarah Conner, the intended target of the terminator, and they should have an impact on the American people.

                The terrorists have declared a "Jihad" – a holy war on America. They believe that they have a commandment from "Allah" to kill all of the "infidels." These terrorists are killing machines. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They don't feel pitty, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all Americans are dead! Therefore, we must terminate them before they terminate us!

                I would think that my fellow citizens, as well as the rest of the world, would have learned this lesson by now. We cannot wait until an attack is upon us. We must defeat terrorists, and their supporters before they gain the strength and ability to destroy us. Negotiations only work with those who are honest in the first place. President Bush did not mislead or lie about the war. He simply stated that we had reason to suspect that Saddam was hiding a weapons program, and, since Saddam would not cooperate, we must enter to find out the truth. After 2001, the priorities of America changed.

                Perhaps it is a similar change in our minds, and hearts that also took place after December 7, 1941, yet by 2001, we had forgotten the lesson. However, we were quickly reminded of what can happen to a Super Power that takes a nap on the job. There is no room for mistakes in national security. Your enemies can fail many times with little consequences, but if we fail just once, ships are sunk, buildings collapse, and people die.

                As philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." In the 1930s, Adolph Hitler rose to power, and became the dictator of Germany. In 1933, he opposed the League of Nations, the same as Saddam opposed the United Nations in 2003. Hitler denounced the Versailles Treaty which restricted Germany's armed forces, just as Saddam violated resolutions calling for inspections of his weapons program. In 1938, Hitler's army entered Austria and seized the country, in the same way Saddam's army entered Kuwait.

                Both England and France were shocked by Hitler's aggression, but did nothing to stop the attack. Next, Hitler sent his army into Poland who asked its ally, France, for help – France refused. Hitler then marched into France (France apparently has not learned much in the past sixty years). The lesson is – if an evil dictator is invading peaceful countries, you had better do something to help your neighbors or you are likely to be next.

                Most people will recall that the Japanese military, in an unprovoked attack, bombed the U.S. Naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as President Roosevelt said, "a date that will live in infamy." One difference between then and now is that in World War II we had an enemy who held a geographic location which we could counter-attack. In current times, the enemy is a roving band of criminal terrorists who hide under different rocks, in different caves, and in different countries every day.

                Wars are historically marred with debates over policy, strategy, and legitimacy. The Vietnam War was often referred to as a "quagmire." The reason that the Vietnam War was such a "predicament" was because politicians kept trying to appease the international community. The politicians restricted our troops from carrying out the mission. We did not lose the war in Vietnam – we were just prevented from defeating the enemy.

                People who criticize the war in Vietnam might forget the circumstances that took us to that war, and the previous Korean war in 1950. The Koreans did not attack the U.S. North Korea invaded South Korea, and the U.S., along with its allies, came to the defense of South Korea. In 1954, the Vietnamese did not attack the U.S. Communist Vietcong invaded South Vietnam, and the U.S. came to the defense of the South Vietnamese.

                Both wars were bloody battles, but we did what we were ordered to do – protect the people from being attacked. The main problem within both of these wars was not the decision to go to war, but was the "indecision" of the politicians to support the war, and lack of resolve to finish the mission.

                The ironic thing is that Senator Kerry has become an exact replica of the type of politician that created the difficulties of the war he protested as a young soldier. He has become his own worst enemy – a politician who refuses to support our troops in battle, and give full authority to the military to fight an enemy that needs to be defeated. He has become a politician who protests a justified war against an evil enemy.

                Vietnam should have taught us that when your Commander in Chief decides to send soldiers to war, give them the equipment they need, the authority to defeat the enemy, and the respect of your support. Nothing loses a battle quicker than the loss of fighting spirit within the soldiers. Nothing kills that spirit quicker than when soldiers feel that they do not have the support of their own countrymen, or that what they are fighting for is wrong. Senator Kerry should remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships!"

                There comes a time when we must - - not could, or should, but must use force to ensure the safety of America. There is an excellent example of this in the movie "First Knight" with Sean Connery as King Arthur. When Arthur committed his army to protect the city of Leonesse, his weaker neighbor, the enemy of Camelot, Malagant, told him, "Your fine words are talking you out of peace, and into war!" King Arthur stood firm and said, "There is a peace that's only to be found on the other side of war. If that battle must come, then I will fight it." Every knight at the round table stood and said, "and I."

                As to the "test" of when to go to war, I agree with a philosophy of lethal force used in law enforcement. I know a retired police officer who has a clear understanding of when it is appropriate to use deadly force in any situation. When a police officer has drawn his weapon on a suspect who presents a threat to others (spouse, children, bystanders, or officers), as my friend puts it, "deadly force is used when you can no longer allow that person to continue doing whatever it is they are doing for one second longer."

                We could not afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue interfering with weapons inspections for one second longer. Saddam was displaying the same defiance toward the United Nations that Adolph Hitler did to its predecessor, the League of Nations, in 1933. Saddam was a genuine threat to world peace, and it was the right time for the Allied forces to enter Iraq and enforce the inspections.

                Terrorism is real. The war on terrorism is a necessity. It is here and now – not later. Everyone must choose their side. You are either with us, or against us. You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. In my opinion, those who want to give the enemy time to regroup, train, and prepare for the next attack while playing negotiating games, are part of the problem. Saddam Hussein's regime was part of the problem. The war in Iraq was the right thing to do, in the right place, and at the right time.

                Many songs convey the mood and spirit of the American People during difficult times. For World Wars I, and II, George M. Cohen offered the song "Over There" with the lyrics "So prepare, say a prayer. Send the word, send the word to beware. We'll be over, we're coming over, and we won't come back till it's over over there." That is the resolve that we had in the 1940s to stand behind our President and the Armed Forces.

                After September 11, 2001, I can remember standing side by side with soldiers, veterans, and civilians alike, with tears streaming down our cheeks, singing the words to Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." I hope that each American listens to that song a few more times before election day. I get a little choked up every time I hear the words "And I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me, and I'd gladly stand up next to you, and defend her still today – cuz there ain't no doubt I love this land, God Bless the USA.

                Senator Kerry has not shown the courage to send our troops to war against a clear, and present threat, the wisdom to act before we are attacked, nor the fortitude to see the mission through until the enemy is defeated. I suspect that if John Kerry was the Commander in Chief in 1941, we would not have gone to war with Germany because Hitler did not attack us on December 7, 1941. The evil leaders of Russia, Germany, and Japan were in a conspiracy to destroy America during WW II, and in 2003, terrorists were conspiring with Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and others to do the same.

                We can deal with economic hardship. We can deal with a few strained friendships with our allies. What we can't deal with is being dead. The enemy has no intention of stopping until America is gone, and Americans are dead. The enemy does not follow the rules, and does not care who dies in the process. If they get their hands on nuclear weapons, the United States will be gone in the blink of an eye. Thus, we must terminate them, before they terminate us. We need a president, during this crucial time, who will not hesitate to make a decision which calls for quick action when faced with a deceptive, and evil enemy. Therefore, we need President George W. Bush to finish the job.

                Respectfully,

                James Jerome

                (feel free to copy this letter and pass it on to others)
                "At a time of universal deceit-Telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell

                Comment


                • #9
                  I tend to look at a second-term re-election this way. A second-term President will do less than his first term because he has no need to impress any one since he can not be voted a third term. Bush will not be worried about his "record" but only satisfying his personal agenda to better situate him when he leaves office.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Julie
                    I tend to look at a second-term re-election this way. A second-term President will do less than his first term because he has no need to impress any one since he can not be voted a third term. Bush will not be worried about his "record" but only satisfying his personal agenda to better situate him when he leaves office.
                    And just what is Bush's personal agenda? Taking over the world and controlling all the oil? Iraq had nothing to do with oil, we made a choice based on the best possible intelligence we had at the time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ChrisF202
                      And just what is Bush's personal agenda? Taking over the world and controlling all the oil? Iraq had nothing to do with oil, we made a choice based on the best possible intelligence we had at the time.
                      I know no more of Bush's future personal agenda, no more than I know why we invaded Iraq. As far as intelligence goes, if intelligence slipped through our hands for 9/11 to occur, why in the heck did we not question and/or second guess the intelligence on Iraq that we had at the time? At times, it takes our Government 2-3 years, and such quandry, over passing some bills and needed legislation, but it only takes 2-3 weeks to decide and position troops to invade a country?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Julie
                        why in the heck did we not question and/or second guess the intelligence on Iraq that we had at the time?
                        Because there was so much of it, from all over the world, and Saddam wan't cooperating fully, as was required to verify the intel.
                        Originally posted by Julie
                        but it only takes 2-3 weeks to decide and position troops to invade a country?
                        Plus the decade before?
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ChrisF202
                          And just what is Bush's personal agenda? Taking over the world and controlling all the oil? Iraq had nothing to do with oil, we made a choice based on the best possible intelligence we had at the time.
                          Its amazing how the intelligence changes with the political windNo WMD

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Confed999
                            Because there was so much of it, from all over the world, and Saddam wan't cooperating fully, as was required to verify the intel.

                            Plus the decade before?
                            Check this outNo WMD

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by porsteamboy
                              Its amazing how the intelligence changes with the political windNo WMD
                              That link doesn't seem to work right now. Here it is from Google's chache: Cached Page
                              BTW, "no significant" doesn't mean none. He also said "And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control", he also said "We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there."
                              Even after the inspectors were allowed back in, the level of cooperation required to verify the intel was never given.
                              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                              I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X