Becky
Seaman
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 179
Location: Georgia
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:22 pm Post subject: 'We will not waiver...' - Mark Alexander |
 |
|
Sorry for the posts this morning, but I'm not
up to typing a lot...and these are must reads
if you watched the debates. Kerry's words are
starting to bite him back
| Quote: | 'We will not waiver...'
Mark Alexander
October 1, 2004
Beginning with the first televised presidential debate between Richard
Nixon and the original JFK 44 years ago, style has often trumped
substance in presidential campaigns. Aided by a set of questions authored
by PBS's Jim Lehrer, which played directly into the hands of John Kerry
and left President George Bush playing defense, the first presidential
debate of 2004 was no exception. While the candidates' style points were
close -- much closer than many expected -- it is substance, not style,
which provides for the national-security interests of the United States.
While taking stage right to President Bush in last night's debate, Senator
Kerry's stand -- or stands, shall we say -- on issues of national security
placed him at far, far stage left. Style notwithstanding, the substance of
Kerry's exchange on national security was anything but reassuring.
"My position on Iraq has been consistent." Sen. Kerry repeated those
same words some half dozen times over the course of the 90-minute
debate, so we just can't resist saying it: "Methinks he doth protest too
much." (Of some mention, Kerry referenced his Vietnam "service" about
half a dozen times, too.) Highlighting the "consistency" of his position,
over the course of 90 minutes Kerry managed to say the war with Iraq
was a "colossal error of judgment" on the part of the President and
referred to the war as a "distraction" from "the real war on terror," but
he managed to add that he believed Saddam was a threat when he voted
to authorize the use of force, that the Iraqi people deserved to be free,
and that he could "win the peace," while beginning to withdraw U.S.
forces within six months, making our "bribed and coerced" allies, whose
contributions he "respects," pick up the slack. He also implied he'd build
a real coalition for Iraq, including France and Germany, and open
reconstruction contracts to those nations -- the very ones who profited
most (illegally under UNSC sanctions) from Saddam's rule, and who have
both refused (as recently as this week) to be a part of any such coalition,
even in the eventuality of a Kerry presidency. Consistent eh?
On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked,
I understand what the president is talking about because I know what
it means to lose people in combat. And the question, ‘Is it worth the
cost?,' reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting
in that war. And it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the
war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before.
More to the point, who was the one perpetuating that confusion? Was
Kerry criticizing the war when he testified before Congress in 1971 of
war crimes by U.S. forces in Vietnam? NO! -- Kerry was accusing U.S.
troops in the field of countless atrocities, playing directly into the hands
of the Communist North. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking
intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's
anti-American activities during the Vietnam War:
KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power,
judgment, and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former
Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry
repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in
leftist movements.
General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam's most decorated military leader,
wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by Kerry and his
ilk, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.
Kerry can't have it both ways. His undermining of U.S. resolve, and that
of our allies, in the war against terrorism, specifically on the Iraqi
warfront with Jihadistan, is a direct assault on Americans fighting in Iraq.
American and Allied Forces, and countless Iraqis, are being injured and
killed because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting --
not unlike the American casualties Kerry's 1971 protests caused in
Vietnam.
Back to the war at hand, Kerry relentlessly attacked President Bush,
saying, "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us."
Then, when asked about the most dangerous security threat in the world
today, Kerry didn't hesitate to reply, "Nuclear proliferation," to which
President Bush added, "in the hands of terrorists." Though we can --
and have -- laid bare Kerry's national-security credentials, President
Bush said it best, last night:
To say there's only one focus in the war on terror doesn't really
understand the nature of the war on terror...the front of this war is in
more than one place.
Though he recognizes nuclear proliferation to be the imminent threat to
our nation's security interests, Kerry seems not to grasp -- dare we say
it -- the "nuances" of dealing with such a threat. The Senator apparently
thinks he can publicly ridicule Russian President Vladmir Putin as a tyrant
one minute, then vow to secure all fissile materiel in the former Soviet
bloc within four years the next minute. Does Kerry really believe we can
do this apart from Russian cooperation? Who's the brazen unilateralist
now?
To wit, Kerry's debate performance on these other fronts was equally
disastrous. On the subject of Iran, Kerry was obviously confused on the
whole issue of nuclear technology, as well as the historical facts
concerning the sanctions against Iran.
The man who thought he spent Christmas in Cambodia first said we
needed sanctions against Iran, then, when confronted with the fact that
there are sanctions against Iran -- and you can't sanction them again --
Kerry blamed the President for the "unilateral" nature of those sanctions,
to which Mr. Bush corrected, again, that those sanctions were in
place "long before I came to Washington." Indeed, 29 October 1987, for
the first set of sanctions, under President Reagan. 16 March 1995, under
President Clinton, for a second set. 19 August 1997 for another set of
sanctions, again under then President Clinton. Again, consistent?
By way of contrast, on the subject of North Korean nuclear armament,
Kerry bemoaned the President's decision to abandon bilateral talks with
dictator Kim Jung Il in favor of multilateral pressure -- a coalition, some
might say -- involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. For some
reason, when President Bush employs multilateral diplomacy it's a bad
idea; Kerry would return to Clinton's tried-and-failed diplomacy of
appeasement -- the same diplomacy under which North Korea was able
to advance its nuclear program in secret, even adding enriched uranium
to its plutonium-based weapons development.
And that's just how "consistent" Kerry can be in 90 minutes; let's not
even think about four years.
Perhaps the key moment of the debate, as well as the point most clearly
delineating just how stage left Kerry is on national security, was his
comment,
No president through all of American history has ever ceded, and nor
would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United
States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a
way that passes the test. That passes the global test where your
countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're
doing. And you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate
reasons.
Mr. Bush replied:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the 'global test.' You take
pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take
pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people.
This tells all. The foreign-policy difference between Kerry and Bush is not
multilateralism versus unilateralism. Both are, at times, legitimate tools of
foreign policy, but not policies themselves. The difference, rather, is one
of globalism versus national sovereignty in the promotion and defense of
U.S. interests abroad. Kerry's globalist agenda, by his own admission,
would sacrifice U.S. protection of her citizens and soldiers abroad to the
caprices of the International Criminal Court. Kerry would seek UN
approval for "preemptively" defending the United States -- approval of
the same agency that so effectively issued no fewer than 17 resolutions
against Saddam's Iraq and refused to enforce any of them, with Kofi
Annan recently declaring the resolutions' enforcement "illegal."
With an approving reference to Charles DeGaulle, the French president
who abandoned the U.S.-led coalition in the defense of the free world at
a crucial moment of the Cold War, Kerry said he would restore
our "credibility" with such leaders around the world. The Patriot
unapologetically replies: It's time for these foreign leaders -- the likes of
France and Germany, who have continued unhesitatingly to obstruct U.S.
interests abroad and security around the globe -- to restore their
credibility with us.
National security is not for the faint of heart, and John Kerry's feints of
heart prove that the Senator from Massachusetts, replete with his history
of foreign policy waffling and betrayal of the national trust, is simply not
up to the task.
On the eve of our assault on al-Qa'ida and other Jihadistan forces in
Afghanistan, President Bush addressed the nation, and closed with these
words: "We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will
not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." Indeed!
Quote of the week...
"If America shows uncertainly or weakness in this decade, the world will
drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen so long as I'm your
president. ... We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the
terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home.
We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over America's
national-security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to
build those alliances."
--President George W. Bush
Open query...
"My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to
Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't
expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those
who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq. Plus, he says
the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to
serve. So what's the message going to be: ‘Please join us in Iraq. We're
a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong
place at the wrong time?'"
--President George W. Bush
On cross-examination...
"Senator Kerry has taken so many different positions on the issues facing
the country that we thought he would benefit from the overview of the
most interesting debate -- the one John Kerry is having with himself. He's
been for the war, against the war and for it and against it again. Last
week, he became an anti-war candidate again. This is a fatal flaw and the
American people see through it. John Kerry is not able to take a
principled position and is the wrong choice to guide America through this
critical time."
--Rudy Giuliani
Kerry Waivers...
Here are a few more of Kerry's "Flips" in previous statements and "Flops"
in the debate last night.
On Iraq as a source for terrorist WMD...
Flip: "Saddam Hussein has already used these [WMD] and has made
it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity
and secrecy, to continue to do so. That...is a threat with respect to the
potential of terrorist activities on a global basis."
Flop: Now Kerry says Iraq posed no terrorist threat, but then flips
again in the middle of the debate, saying, "I have always agreed on that,
and from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority because I thought
Saddam Hussein was a threat."
On support for American forces in combat...
Flip: Kerry voted against $87 billion in funding to equip our troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan with essential supplies like ammunition and body
armor even though he said before the vote, "I don't think any United
States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq
to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's
irresponsible." He explained later, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion
before I voted against it."
Flop: Now Kerry now says, "My message to the troops is...help is
on the way. I believe those troops deserve better than what they are
getting today."
On "lies"...
Flip: Kerry accused President Bush of lying: "This administration has
lied to us. They have misled us."
Flop: Kerry now says to the moderator, "Well, I've never, ever
used the harshest word ["lie"] as you just did."
Memo to "undecided" voters: If Thursday night's debate left you
wondering who really has the right stuff to be president, visit
http://kerry-04.org/right_wrong.php
The BIG lie...
"Iraq has been a constant perilous distraction from the real war on
terrorism. Our preoccupation with Iraq has given al-Qa'ida more than
two full years to regroup and plan murderous new attacks on us. ...
The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less
likely."
--Sen. Ted Kennedy, taking election-year scare tactics to a whole new
level |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20041001.shtml
_________________
“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a
scarce man, and brave, and hated and
scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid
join him, for then it costs nothing to be a
patriot.”
- Mark Twain |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
