A vote you may one day pay for with your life
 ...John Kerry's position on Iraq has been a model of inconsistency and flip-flopping. But his position on providing America and its military with the tools needed to defend America has been consistent his entire political career: He was against properly arming America before he was against it. And he's still against it.
We don't want to look back 20 years from now, watching news pictures of the smoking rubble of an American city devastated by a North Korean or Iranian nuke brought in by terrorists and remember the day President Kerry canceled the program that could have developed and deployed the weapon that could have destroyed that North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons facility before the nuke ever got passed to the terrorists. A vote for John Kerry is a vote to risk the lives of millions of Americans on the proposition that a strong defense is risky but having no defense against madmen is sane. It is, quite literally, a vote you may one day pay for with your life... |
Kerry Opposes Another Vital Weapons System
Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry
 ...Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.
Have I got that right? Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit... |
Chicago Sun-Times: The Incoherent John Kerry
"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland
In reaction to John Kerry's continuing efforts to disenfranchise United States' allies, the president of Poland speaks up. Specifically, he details his reaction to Kerry's debate performance. So far, the Kerry campaign has insulted the entire coalition (calling them a 'coalition of the coerced and bribed'), insinuated that fighting terrorists will increase terror attacks against Australians, and claimed that the prime minister of Iraq was a "puppet".
This is diplomacy, John Kerry-style.
| In the interview for a Polish channel TVN, President of Poland, Alexander Kwasniewski expressed his admiration and full support for President George Bush for his leadership in the war on terror. As a comment to the Bush-Kerry debate, President Kwasniewski said that "President Bush performed like a truly Texan gentleman who was able to notice and fully appreciate the presence and sacrifice of the Polish ally in the war on terror in Iraq. "
"I find it kind of sad that a senator with 20 year parliamentary experience is unable to notice the Polish presence in the anti-terror coalition.", Kwasniewski commented John Kerry’s stance. "I don’t think it’s an ignorance.", said Kwasniewski. "Anti-terror coalition is larger than the USA, the UK and Australia. There are also Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria etc. which lost their soldiers there. It’s highly immoral not to see our strong commitment we have taken with a strong believe that we must fight against terror together, that we must show our strong international solidarity because Saddam Hussein was dangerous to the world. "That’s why we are disappointed that our stance and ultimate sacrifice of our soldiers are so diminished", President Kwasniewski commented Kerry’s speech during the debate. "Perhaps Mr Kerry, continues Kwasniewski, thinks about the coalition with Germany and France, countries which disagreed with us on Iraq. According to poll research centers, Poland is the only European country where President Bush would win the election. What’s more, it would be a landslide victory... |
"Kerry's stance during debate immoral", says President of Poland
Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency
 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday.
Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it." "We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq. The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost. "What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson. Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there." Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food. |
Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency
The view from Iraq: the First Debate
 I have been in Iraq almost 9 months and I have seen the good and the bad of this war. Terrorists from other regions have been “pouring over the borders”, but certainly not for the first time. They are making contact with other members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporters on the inside of Iraq...
...Terrorism was not born when the US rolled in on March 19th, 2003! Terrorism has been networked across the globe, and Iraq has been a major hub for terrorist activity long before we arrived. The 1st debate between Bush and Kerry has highlighted a chasm between the two campaigns, more importantly, the two men regarding the question of Iraq and its role in terrorism. This is a split that is impossible to comprehend from where I stand! Of course the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror! When Senator John Kerry said “the president made a colossal error of judgment by diverting attention from the war on terrorism and the hunt for terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden”, he could not be more wrong. When Senator Kerry said that “Mr. Bush was not candid with the public about his reasons for invading Iraq or the difficult fight ahead”, besides exhibiting a poor memory, he showed an incredible lack of ability to see that no mission will ever go exactly as you plan it. A candidate for the US presidency ought to know that your enemy is going to have something to say about how the fight is fought. The enemy is going to do the unexpected, and plans will change. I am sorry that it’s not an ideal scenario for Senator Kerry, but no war is. I am repeatedly asked what the soldiers feel about the war in Iraq. Soldiers in the US armed forces come in all shapes and sizes… and viewpoints. I don’t pretend to speak for all soldiers, but I do believe that most men and women in today’s military share something very close to these same beliefs. Most soldiers here believe in the mission in Iraq. They know, like I do, that the former regime in Iraq was an important component in the war on Terror. There is no doubt that terrorist cells have been allowed to operate within these borders for some time, and that Hussein’s regime most likely provided financial support as well... |
The view from Iraq: the first Debate
Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again
 Kerry’s insane, nuclear freeze-inspired position on the development of bunker-busting nukes-the very weapons we’re going to need most if Kerry’s other foreign policy initiative comes to pass, and he supplies the mullahs of Iran with nuclear fuel:
And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States (!) is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We’re telling other people, "You can’t have nuclear weapons," but we’re pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this president. I’m going to shut that program down, and we’re going to make it clear to the world we’re serious about containing nuclear proliferation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is moral equivalence at its lowest ebb. John Kerry will help the mullahs of Iran develop a nuclear program, but wants America to disarm-because if we disarm and stop researching the mean! evil! bad! nukes, the rest of the world will join us in the world of colorful butterflies and laughing flowers, and we’ll all dance happily through the meadow. Tra la! Remember: a vote for John F. Kerry is a vote for Armageddon. |
Kerry revisits his failed nuclear-freeze position once again
The Real Struggle for Iraq
 The "insurgency" in Iraq is going nowhere fast. It will be as roundly defeated as were its predecessors in so many other countries. The danger for Iraq's future lies elsewhere.
It comes, in part, from Americans who want Iraq to fail because they want President Bush to fail. Some 81 books paint the president as the devil incarnate; Bush-bashing is also the theme of three "documentaries" plus half a dozen Hollywood feature films. Never before in any mature democracy has a political leader aroused so much hatred from his domestic opponents. Others want Iraq to fail because they want America to fail, with or without Bush. The bitter tone of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan when he declared the liberation of Iraq "illegal" shows that it is not the future of Iraq but the vilification of the United States that interests him. Add to this the recent bizarre phrase from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies." In plain language, this means that, in the struggle in Iraq, Raffarin does not see France on the side of its NATO allies - the U.S., Britain, Italy and Denmark among others - but on the side of the "insurgents." |
The real struggle for Iraq
Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?
 UN officials are investigating a video showing Palestinians loading suspicious, elongated objects into UN ambulances after Israel released the images and accused UN personnel of collaborating with the terrorists:
Don't expect too much from this investigation, however. As the above indicates, the UN "investigator" assigned to the case has started out his probe by assuming the Israelis are a bunch of liars... |
Does this mean the Palestinians passed the "Global Test"?
Links o' the Day
San Francisco School of Jihad
John Kerry: Peace Criminal?
Our Oldest Enemy : A History of America's Disastrous Relationship with France
John Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops from the Debate
Humor from IowaHawk: Classic TV script
No comments:
Post a Comment