Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Columnist Andrew Bolt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Australian Columnist Andrew Bolt

    John Kerry a calamity
    Andrew Bolt
    29oct04

    Presidential hopeful John Kerry has shown none of the resolve needed to crush terror. He did kill a goose, though.

    IF Americans get next Tuesday's election wrong, our lives will be less safe.

    I know, it sounds melodramatic to call the Democrat challenger, Senator John Kerry, a comfort to terrorists.

    After all, you probably saw him last week, when he tried to show what a gun-happy tough he is, honest, by going out in borrowed camouflage to shoot a dozing goose.

    We even got to see the shot-pocked bird, held up by its limp neck, as Kerry showed off his bloodied left hand. So caution: Kerry can kill. Birds, small squirrels – you name it, he'll blast it. If he's sure you'll approve.

    Boy, that will sure make Osama bin Laden wet his dish-dash. That'll impress the terrorists who don't just grab goose necks, but saw right through human ones.

    Wait, Ahmed, they will now cry. Don't slit the infidel's throat. Let's not get Kerry angry. Remember what he did to the goose.

    But I say it still – Kerry's agonised visage is the face of surrender. And I say it for two reasons.

    First, his record shows he has been on the wrong side of almost every key battle to defend the United States, our most critical ally, and guard freedom abroad.

    Second, he now promises policies that will weaken not just the US, but the West, at the very moment we must decide if we will fight a grave new threat, or give up.

    To understand this threat – and why Kerry won't beat it – we must heed some good news from history, and bad news from science.

    The good news is, as Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii showed in a study of every conflict since 1816, democracies do not make war on each other.

    It always takes a dictatorship, or an authoritarian country, to have a war. So to be safe, we need neighbours which are democracies, too.

    The bad news is that thanks to science and technology, it is easier than ever for a few terrorists to kill thousands, or millions, of us.

    We've seen the slaughter of September 11, and know al-Qaida worked on nuclear weapons and new poisons.

    Scientist Sir Gus Nossal this week warned terrorists may yet unleash not only smallpox, but "ethnic weapons" – viruses engineered to work on specific races.

    Where do the scientists and terrorists hide who would work on such weapons? From where would they get support?

    We know this already. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, for instance, paid terrorists, and hired scientists to work on lethal viruses, while Pakistan's top nuclear scientist sold nuclear bomb technology to Iran and Libya.

    Now Iran is close to building its own nuclear bomb, and runs terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia's millionaires meanwhile finance terrorists and the death-worshipping Wahhabist preachers who praise them, from Chechnya to Java.

    See the pattern? In fact, the Middle East is the deadliest part of the world – seething with corrupt autocracies that preach hatred of the West and build weapons while drowning in poverty, leaving an exploding population with little to hope for but lots to hate.

    Some idealists insist the nice United Nations will save us, not realising the barbarians have already burst through those gates.

    Take Sudan. Despite waging genocide in Darfur, it's now on the UN Human Rights Commission, which was led last year by Libya.

    Or see the UN's oil-for-food scandal, in which Saddam apparently bribed a top UN figure – and people close to the leaders of France, China and Russia – so he could bust UN sanctions and steal $10 billion meant to feed his people.

    Funnily enough, France, China and Russia are also the three UN Security Council members that sold Saddam most of his weapons, and tried hardest to save him from defeat by the US-led coalition.

    That is the UN today. No wonder so many of the world's democrats look to the US instead for help.

    And thanks to President George W. Bush, there are now many more such democrats – which means more friends and fewer enemies.

    Just see the picture as history books will one day describe it. Since the September 11 attacks, the US has led a coalition to liberate first Afghanistan and then Iraq – freeing 50 million Muslims while losing just 1100 American lives.

    The New Racists scream that this is crazy – the US cannot "impose democracy" on mad Muslims.

    But see the results of Bush's daring vision. Afghanistan this month held its first free vote for its leader – an election both popular and free of violence. And so a tyranny that harboured terrorists who plotted our death is halfway to becoming a democracy that will be no threat to us, and a boon to its people.

    Iraq, too, is moving to elections, so determinedly, despite a terrorist onslaught, that a spokesman for Iraq's top cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, warned that those who didn't vote in January would "burn in hell". Finally, a fatwa for freedom. More good news.

    If Iraqis do get what they clearly want, the Middle East will at last have its first Arab democracy – and a symbol of hope to Muslims in neighboring tyrannies.

    No wonder Iran is nervous, Syria hostile, and Libya so scared of American resolve that it surrendered its chemical weapons and secret nuclear bomb project.

    In this great turning point of history – this battle to free the Middle East from oppression, poverty and an apocalyptic hatred – there are many who want the US to fail.

    Jealous France, for instance. Arab strongmen. Our intellectuals, infuriated by American capitalism.

    These are the same people who badly want Kerry to win. They feel in their bones he won't wage this war, and I fear they are right.

    Check his record. Kerry served briefly in the Vietnam War, before falsely accusing his fellow soldiers of routinely committing "war crimes". He preached defeat, and met delegates of the North Vietnamese enemy in Paris.

    Elected a senator, he fought Ronald Reagan's decision to deploy Pershing missiles in Europe and engage the Soviet Union in an arms race it couldn't afford.

    If it had been up to Kerry, would the exhausted Soviet Union have collapsed so soon, allowing democracy to bloom in Eastern Europe?

    Kerry also backed the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua, and opposed the US invasion to save Grenada from a Marxist-backed military coup. He voted often to cut the military spending which made the US so strong.

    Most notoriously, in 1991 he voted against the US going to war to free Kuwait from Saddam. Again, imagine if Kerry had got his way – Saddam would have stolen Kuwait's oil and built the nuclear bomb that UN inspectors found he was just months then from finishing.

    Kerry now says he's been against this latest war in Iraq, too – calling it the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time", a "colossal error" and a "massive diversion" from the war on Islamist terrorists.

    So once again, if it had been up to Kerry, Saddam and his sadistic sons would still rule Iraq, paying terrorists and building weapons. But it would be unfair to accuse him of being firm on this. Early this year he also said: "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him."

    Indeed he did. Kerry in fact voted for the war against Saddam, although he voted against the $87 billion bill to pay for it. But as he explained: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

    So what his bottom line in defending America is, no one can say. He talks of needing the respect of France and the corrupt UN, and now says the US must pass a "global test" before going to war to defend itself.

    What that test is, he won't say, but I suspect it's set by France, and others who trade with tyrants.

    This is the weak, indecisive and self-contradictory man – a man vowing to fight a more "sensitive" war on terrorists – who wants the job of defending not only the US, but the free world.

    Just pray Americans get this vote right.

    [email protected]
    http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...E25717,00.html
    SWANSEA 'TILL I DIE! - CARN THE CROWS!

    Rule Britannia, No Surrender

    Staff Cadet in the Australian Army Reserve.

    Soli Deo Gloria

  • #2
    "10 out of 10 terrorists agree, anybody but Bush"
    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


    • #3
      You gotta be kidding. Osama just loves Bush! He knows only Bush can help him gain power in the middle east. That is why he came out campaign for Bush in the poll.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bluedust
        Osama just loves Bush!
        Yeah, he loves the guy who just wipped out 2/3s of his terrorist army, and took 2 of the countries suppling terroists out of the loop. Osama just loves that 2 ME countries are voting for themselves. Osama loves living in a little dirt hole like Saddam did, I'm sure he gets a kick out of it.
        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


        • #5
          Presidential hopeful John Kerry has shown none of the resolve needed to crush terror. He did kill a goose, though.

          IF Americans get next Tuesday's election wrong, our lives will be less safe.

          I know, it sounds melodramatic to call the Democrat challenger, Senator John Kerry, a comfort to terrorists.

          After all, you probably saw him last week, when he tried to show what a gun-happy tough he is, honest, by going out in borrowed camouflage to shoot a dozing goose.

          We even got to see the shot-pocked bird, held up by its limp neck, as Kerry showed off his bloodied left hand. So caution: Kerry can kill. Birds, small squirrels – you name it, he'll blast it. If he's sure you'll approve.

          Boy, that will sure make Osama bin Laden wet his dish-dash. That'll impress the terrorists who don't just grab goose necks, but saw right through human ones.

          Wait, Ahmed, they will now cry. Don't slit the infidel's throat. Let's not get Kerry angry. Remember what he did to the goose.
          Obviously Mr. Andrew Bolt (Dolt?) is unaware that Kerry won medals for fighting in Vietnam, has still fragments of bullets lodged in his thigh, and shot a vietkong dead to silence his gun which was threatening his crew members.

          You see Mr. Dolt he can certainly kill more than a goose, and particularly after the rotten article you have written, I wouldn't reccomend that you go near him!
          Last edited by bluedust; 31 Oct 04,, 01:03.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bluedust
            Obviously Mr. Andrew Bolt (Dolt?) is unaware that Kerry won medals for fighting in Vietnam, has still fragments of bullets lodged in his thigh, and shot a vietkong dead to silence his gun which was threatening his crew members.
            Do people that admit to commiting attrocities deserve medals?
            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
              a dosing goose

              I find the start of this article absolutely hilarious: "Remember what he did to the goose". But the main meat of the article is largely speculative and opinionated. Do republicans have any capacity for scepticism whatsoever? This guy should stick to humour.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jazzelf
                But the main meat of the article is largely speculative and opinionated.
                It's an editorial, no different than if Franken or Rather did it for the Democrat's side.
                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


                • #9
                  Yeah, he loves the guy who just wipped out 2/3s of his terrorist army, and took 2 of the countries suppling terroists out of the loop. Osama just loves that 2 ME countries are voting for themselves. Osama loves living in a little dirt hole like Saddam did, I'm sure he gets a kick out of it.
                  Is that why AlQaeda today has presence in 60 countries?
                  Bush has recruited more members for AlQaeda than Bin Laden could have dreamt in his wildest dream! AlQaeda today has far more members than it had in 2001. Wherever Osama is hiding, he certainly has access to cable TV, I must say he seemed quite uptodate with current events.
                  My guess is he is in Pakistan and probably protected by Pakistani ISI! Don't forget that Bush allowed him to escape from Tora Bora.
                  I don't know which two ME conutries are you taking about. Iraq is the only ME country which is supposed to have election in January but that is at best an iffy proposition given the level of daily viloence in Iraq. Just today 8 marines, and couple of dozens of Iraqis lost their lives. Situation in Iraq is a total snafu, and it is not going to be easy to fix it. In addition to insurgency, terrorism, there is also a low level civil war going on which can really get out of control soon.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bluedust
                    Is that why AlQaeda today has presence in 60 countries?
                    And they didn't before? How many just are claiming that not to bring attention to their actual affiliation.
                    Originally posted by bluedust
                    Bush has recruited more members for AlQaeda than Bin Laden could have dreamt in his wildest dream!
                    Bush made no difference in their support for terrorism. One either thinks it's ok to put on a belt full of explosives, climb onto a school bus full of little kids and blow them up, or one does not.
                    Originally posted by bluedust
                    Don't forget that Bush allowed him to escape from Tora Bora.
                    How did he do that? Was UBL (OBL) even there?
                    Originally posted by bluedust
                    Iraq is the only ME country which is supposed to have election in January but that is at best an iffy proposition given the level of daily viloence in Iraq.
                    If you don't consider Afghanistan a part of the cultural ME, then call it Asian if you wish. Iraq has been electing local leaders for some time now, national elections aren't every election.
                    Originally posted by bluedust
                    In addition to insurgency, terrorism, there is also a low level civil war going on which can really get out of control soon.
                    Name a country that isn't in that situation, to some degree. I could make the same argument about the US. Anyway, if you read my previous posts on Iraq you'll have a tough time convincing me I think the war has been perfect. I am 100% certain that 40 million people, and 4-6 million refugees now have a chance to be free they wouldn't have had without GWB, and that matters most to me. Leaving Saddam in power, after all his transgressions, not only against the west but towards his own people more, is tantamount to direct support. One was either with Saddam, or against him. Same with terrorists...
                    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


                    • #11
                      "One was either with Saddam, or against him. Same with terrorists...". Once again we get this response of the right wing. If you don't agree with Bush on Saddam and Terrorism you are just as bad as they are. No shades of grey for some people. With a lot of luck the next President will not be as stupid as this one and people may once again admire the leadership of the US. If not you can look forward to thousands more of your countrymen dying in wars against countries that are not attacking you. 3000 dead americans in the US, 1100 (and going up almost every day) dead americans in iraq. How many more do you want?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kipruss
                        Once again we get this response of the right wing.
                        LOL! Prove I'm "right wing".
                        Originally posted by Kipruss
                        If you don't agree with Bush
                        That statement had nothing to do with Bush, I would have made the same statement if another had done it.
                        Originally posted by Kipruss
                        No shades of grey for some people.
                        Not when it comes to terrorists and tyrants.
                        Originally posted by Kipruss
                        and people may once again admire the leadership of the US.
                        When was the last time?
                        Originally posted by Kipruss
                        How many more do you want?
                        How many more people do you want systematicly enslaved, tortured, and murdered before something is done?
                        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
                          1. Anyone looking at your posts will see you are right wing. If you are willing to state you are going to vote for Kerry on the second, then I will happily apologise to you. Voting for Bush means you are more likely to be on the right wing than centerest or left wing.

                          2. Your statement mirrors Bush's statement about "being with... or against..."

                          3. There are different ways of dealing with tyrants and terrorists and they need more thought than just bombing the cities of suspect countries. That requires more intelligence than Bush appears to have been blessed with.

                          4. A few of the last times I admired your leadership on use of your military...
                          a) Going into Afganistan after the actual terrorists,
                          b) Helping to liberate Kosovo,
                          c) Trying to bring sanity to Somalia,
                          d) Liberating Kuwait.

                          5. If tens of thousands of Iraqis had not died, nor continue to die, your argument would seem less self serving.

                          If your government would direct your drug companies to only make 100% profits on their anti-aids drugs then millions of Africans and Asians would have a future.

                          If you would sign up to the international land mine ban tens of thousands of people in the future would keep both their legs.

                          If you sign up to Kyoto, perhaps the whole world will have less of a risk of catastrophic climate change in our own lifetimes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            1. Anyone looking at your posts will see you are right wing.
                            Because I support a war against tyrants and terrorists? Takes alot more than that to be "right wing". Maybe, compared to you I'm "right wing"...
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            If you are willing to state you are going to vote for Kerry on the second
                            I allready voted for GWB. I wanted to vote Libertarian, like usual, but they are on the wrong side of the war. I would never vote for a person like Kerry. Either way the Republicans and Democrats are far to liberal (into big government) for me to be a regular with either.
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            2. Your statement mirrors Bush's statement about "being with... or against..."
                            Good, it was meant to. I felt that way long before I had heard of GWB though...
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            3. There are different ways of dealing with tyrants and terrorists and they need more thought than just bombing the cities of suspect countries.
                            That's why more than that is being done.
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            4. A few of the last times I admired your leadership on use of your military...
                            Ahhhh, I see, it's your agreement that counts. Good to know.
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            5. If tens of thousands of Iraqis had not died, nor continue to die, your argument would seem less self serving.
                            If they weren't allready dying, I would listen to you.
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            If your government would direct your drug companies to only make 100% profits on their anti-aids drugs then millions of Africans and Asians would have a future.
                            Why doesn't your government fund them instead?
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            If you would sign up to the international land mine ban tens of thousands of people in the future would keep both their legs.
                            The bad guys would still be using them. I say we give up all our weapons after everyone else does, and no act of tyranny, terrorism, war or crime occurs for 20 years... That's about when I'll be willing to give up mine, anyway.
                            Originally posted by Kipruss
                            If you sign up to Kyoto, perhaps the whole world will have less of a risk of catastrophic climate change in our own lifetimes.
                            Pretty sure we allready have a national policy that falls just short of Kyoto, set into motion years before Kyoto. We need alternate fuels, not treaties.
                            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


                            • #15
                              If Bush and Kerry are both too liberal for you then I stand by my contention. Your comments of liberal bias in the media are supporting evidence. Don't be ashamed of it, celebrate it.

                              Regarding my opinion counting, I was giving you a straight answer to when I though American leadership was respected. I find it strange why you would try to deflect a positive comment about when the US was acting well, even if it was only in my opinion.

                              Do you want to believe that everyone has always disliked your country? Is it part of your collective makeup that the whole world is out to get you and that is why you don't care about "foreigner" opinion or why you need so many weapons?

                              I was in Las Vegas in 2000 and found it strange when one (slightly drunk) American asked me whether New Zealanders liked America. I told him there were many things where we admired the US (including some of those in my "5 things you like about the US" link). Some Americans care.

                              At the moment mines are used by a handful of countries. They kill indescriminately and for decades, long after the "war" goes into remission/ ends. Wouldn't it be nice if the US joined most other nations to ban them so then we could go sanction those countries that continue to produce and deploy more mines?

                              I wish NZ did have the patents to the anti-aids drugs. Then we could save millions. Unfortunately, medical research here is mainly undertaking small parts of international projects rather than all steps in the research process.

                              If your plan will just fall short of Kyoto, why not sign up and do a little bit better. As for needing new alternative fuels, how long has oil had a stranglehold on the motor vehicle market? Can we afford to wait another few decades until perhaps Hydrogen can start to meet our needs?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X