SwiftVets.com

[SandiM]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,11215498,00.html

Gotta luv this guy! And he's definitely MSM here in Oz.

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.

bolta@heraldsun.com.au


SandiM
_________________
Success is not final; failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. (Winston Churchill)

[msindependent]

Great article, thanks for sharing it with us. How nice that he's apart of your msm.

[redneckvet]

Excellent article.
_________________
"Full Tour Grunt"

[Son of a VET]

That guy must be reading our forum!

It was nice to see him put this in the right perspective:

[SandiM]

Adrew Bolt is a top bloke, top journo, and doesn't pull any punches.

Pehaps he was following this before I first sent him the link to this site when I found it back in August. Looks like he's kept a close watch on things because he sure has got Kerry sussed.

He's one MSM journo who is worthy of the title, isn't lazy, sloppy and just following the rest, as we've seen so often.


SandiM
_________________
Success is not final; failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts. (Winston Churchill)

[wwIIvetsdaughter]

Another BIG Shrimp on the Barbie for Bolt, thanks mate!