........and then proceed to bash Bush like there's no tomorrow...
First a confession.
I have not decided who I will vote for in November. My family has probably made up their mind already, and due to their allegiance to the progressive liberal mantra Kerry's their guy. The problem I'm having is that I don't see it as all that progressive anymore. In fact, I don't see anything progressive at all coming from the mouths of the Democratic candidates. I hear Gore and Clinton and Carter (Carter? Who's idea was that?) but they all say the same crap that I have heard from every liberal pundit out there. And I disagree with all of them on the most important issue: NATIONAL SECURITY. We can argue about Gay abortions or whatever after we solve this whole "DEATH TO AMERICA!! DIE INFIDELS!!" thingy.
“And of course, no challenge is more critical than the situation we confront in Iraq,” Gore said, to thunderous silence. “Regardless of your opinion at the beginning of this war, isn’t it now utterly obvious that the way the war has been managed by the Administration has gotten us into very serious trouble?” (Applause; now slower and growly:) “Wouldn’t we be better off with a new President who hasn’t burned … his … bridges to our allies (biggest applause), and who could rebuild respect for America in the world?”
First of all, a majority of Democrats voted to give the president power to go to war against Iraq, not to mention Gore himself ranted that we should remove Saddam with military force if needed back in '98. So this statement reeks of hypocrisy to begin with. Your opinion was the same as Bush's four years ago Al, you are being disingeniuous. And to say we burned our bridges would come as a suprise to countries like England, Australia, Poland, or Italy, or a number of other countries currently assisting us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those bridges are not only intact but fully operational.
Then there is this common theme that makes me want to smash things whenever I hear it-
"We have to be crystal clear about the threat we face from terrorism. It is deadly. It is real. It is imminent.
But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: The group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again -- al-Qaida, headed by Osama Bin Laden?
Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?"
Pardon me Mr. I-invented-the-internet, but al-qaeda is hardly the only group terrorizing western interests. If you would call it what it REALLY is -ISLAMIC TERRORISM, or otherwise known as ISLAMOFASCISM, you would make more sense. And for your information, according to not only our intelligence, the other major powers intelligence, and the current Iraqi administration, Saddam was VERY involved with these groups. To continue to try and make the argument that Saddam and Islamic terror were not connected is pretty much beyond ignorance at this point. It is now at the point where it is DANGEROUS to bury your head in the sand. Iran is actively involved with International terrorism. Should we go and give them a big hug too? Because that's the only thing I heard suggested (Thanks Jimmah-now go make some Peanut butter). The outright refusal to admit the who what and where of the current threat is an indication that the Democrats have no intention of taking the fight to the terrorists. Everything will be fine if we can just get France back on board. Hoo-kay. Lying about the connections between Iraq and Islamofascism, which the Dems themselves were pushing just a few years ago, is downright dangerous and shameful.
What I have yet to hear from any of the Dems is this.
Besides sending out our ambassadors to every corner of the globe with ass-kissing lips a buzzing, what exactly are you proposing to do to stop Islamic terrorism?
Bush said straight up, you're either on the terrorists side, or you're not. If you are, you have been put on notice, and we will be coming to deal with each of you in our own special way. Afghanistan and Iraq were two of the immediate big fish. Bush made the case, and removed two tyrannical governments, thus draining the swamp. No hugging needed. And as a bonus, many of those terrorists who wished to kill Americans but couldn't afford the fake-passport and plane ticket to New York decided to join the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan. What they didn't differentiate is that the Marines are much better prepared to fight suicidal fanatics than those civlians in the Upper West side. I believe that the ratio is like 90-1 right now for Jihadi/US Soldiers in the fatality category. Are we going to kill them all? Of course not, but we should take advantage of the oppurtunity to cut down the numbers of those who would kill many of us if they could. That's what Bush has done. Argue all you want about whether or not it was done as efficiently as it could be, he did what I think needed to be done. Go kill the bastards. I don't care if Germany and France don't agree with us, in fact let's stop subsidizing Europes defense and put our troops where they are needed. Go kill the bastards. They have thrown down the gauntlet and said straight up- we want you either enslaved to Islam or dead. Then they made good on their word and killed a bunch of us. Diplomacy will not help us now. Just go kill the bastards. The Marines say it best- No Worse Enemy, no Greater Friend.
I listened to and read the major speeches so far from the convention. I heard plenty of things that the Dems think we did wrong. I have heard little to nothing of what they would do instead, aside from the "let's all join hands and sing kumbaya until the terrorists go home".
Kerry, you have your chance. I am on the fence on a number of domestic issues-being libertarian slanted leaves me little common ground on either side.
Kerry either tells me what he's going to do better and/or differently than what Bush is doing to defeat Islamic terror, and I'm all ears.
If not, I'm afraid I'll be following Zell Miller's footsteps. I agree there are more issues to the race this year, but none more important to me than what the president is elected for- to serve and protect the American people.