Whose Side Are The Democrats On?
The election is less than a month away and the silliness just won’t stop. In one sense I have a sick fascination with the Democratic Party of today. They nominate a candidate for President of the United States of America who has a history of voting against defense and intelligence programs; a candidate who has a history of anti-war activities dating back to when he was still an officer in the U.S. Navy. How, after September 11th can the Democratic Party expect someone like this to lead a country at war?
Three years ago almost three thousand Americans died in single morning. They didn’t die in traffic accidents. They didn’t die from poor or nonexistent health care. They didn’t die because we didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty. They died because nineteen Islamic terrorists decided that everything wrong with their world was the fault of America and those three thousand victims were proxies for us all.
How can a man who is patently anti-war lead a country involved in a war? Do the Democrats not understand that we are in a war for our very existence? If we weren’t providing targets for them in Iraq, they would probably be blowing themselves up in malls and pizza parlors across the United States.
The very idea of a candidate with an anti-military and anti-intelligence voting record as a war president is not only counter-intuitive; it is just plain silly in the most dangerous way. Either the Democratic leadership really believes we are not in a war or their motives are even darker.
The Arabs say that what they respect is strength and commitment. Theirs is a history of warriors and strong leaders. For all his flaws, George W. Bush has shown strength and commitment to defeating terrorism.
Have all the moves made by this administration been the right ones? No, but they have been indicative of strength and commitment. Can anyone imagine a Bush administration offering nuclear material to the Iranians if they would only promise not to makes bombs with it?
The man who claims our invasion of Iraq was, “the wrong war at the wrong time” has said we need to “talk” with our enemies. How? Whenever an American ends up in a room with these Islamofascists, heads literally roll. Perhaps people who use dialog as a verb know something I don’t . . . I doubt it.
For the first time in my life I find myself a single-issue voter. That issue is the war on terrorism and George W. Bush is the only candidate who understands why it is important that we do not give an inch on this.
The approval or disapproval of the aging and crumbling economies of Europe or a United Nations that gives Libya and Sudan seats on a Human Rights Commission is, and should be, meaningless to what we have to do in order to provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
We helped the Afghanis run the Taliban out of their country and more than decimated al Quaeda. Soon, Afghanis will vote in their first national election ever. We routed Saddam’s armies and soon, there will be free elections in Iraq as well. Libya decided to come clean on her weapons of mass destruction and told the world it was fear of America and her might.
For the first time since the Ottoman Empire, Arabs will be able to vote for a representative government of their own. No longer will kings, sheiks, grand vizirs or pashas rule by whim. The Imams and Mullahs will have to inspire the faithful by their words and deeds, not the guns of their followers.
The Democrats laugh at the naiveté of a President who claimed that democracy could thrive in the Mid East. Soon they will be proved wrong. Kings and princes will tremble as they did in Europe at the end of the Eighteenth century. If this President’s bold gamble pays off, millions may soon be free of the tyranny of their current rulers.
The lack of vision presented by the Democratic Party is stunning. Where are the statesmen and leaders produced by the Democrats of the past? Are they so locked in partisan conflict they cannot see beyond their own petty goals? That seems to be the case.
Three years ago almost three thousand Americans died in single morning. They didn’t die in traffic accidents. They didn’t die from poor or nonexistent health care. They didn’t die because we didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty. They died because nineteen Islamic terrorists decided that everything wrong with their world was the fault of America and those three thousand victims were proxies for us all.
How can a man who is patently anti-war lead a country involved in a war? Do the Democrats not understand that we are in a war for our very existence? If we weren’t providing targets for them in Iraq, they would probably be blowing themselves up in malls and pizza parlors across the United States.
The very idea of a candidate with an anti-military and anti-intelligence voting record as a war president is not only counter-intuitive; it is just plain silly in the most dangerous way. Either the Democratic leadership really believes we are not in a war or their motives are even darker.
The Arabs say that what they respect is strength and commitment. Theirs is a history of warriors and strong leaders. For all his flaws, George W. Bush has shown strength and commitment to defeating terrorism.
Have all the moves made by this administration been the right ones? No, but they have been indicative of strength and commitment. Can anyone imagine a Bush administration offering nuclear material to the Iranians if they would only promise not to makes bombs with it?
The man who claims our invasion of Iraq was, “the wrong war at the wrong time” has said we need to “talk” with our enemies. How? Whenever an American ends up in a room with these Islamofascists, heads literally roll. Perhaps people who use dialog as a verb know something I don’t . . . I doubt it.
For the first time in my life I find myself a single-issue voter. That issue is the war on terrorism and George W. Bush is the only candidate who understands why it is important that we do not give an inch on this.
The approval or disapproval of the aging and crumbling economies of Europe or a United Nations that gives Libya and Sudan seats on a Human Rights Commission is, and should be, meaningless to what we have to do in order to provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
We helped the Afghanis run the Taliban out of their country and more than decimated al Quaeda. Soon, Afghanis will vote in their first national election ever. We routed Saddam’s armies and soon, there will be free elections in Iraq as well. Libya decided to come clean on her weapons of mass destruction and told the world it was fear of America and her might.
For the first time since the Ottoman Empire, Arabs will be able to vote for a representative government of their own. No longer will kings, sheiks, grand vizirs or pashas rule by whim. The Imams and Mullahs will have to inspire the faithful by their words and deeds, not the guns of their followers.
The Democrats laugh at the naiveté of a President who claimed that democracy could thrive in the Mid East. Soon they will be proved wrong. Kings and princes will tremble as they did in Europe at the end of the Eighteenth century. If this President’s bold gamble pays off, millions may soon be free of the tyranny of their current rulers.
The lack of vision presented by the Democratic Party is stunning. Where are the statesmen and leaders produced by the Democrats of the past? Are they so locked in partisan conflict they cannot see beyond their own petty goals? That seems to be the case.
posted by NoClausewitzHere at 7:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home