Chronicling the ongoing battle between conservative and liberal ideals

For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them - Proverbs 1:32

E-mail Me |About Me |Home Page |Comment Rules |Ref Desk

Daily Notes :I Moved to MT.

In fact this page will automatically send you to my new page in 4 minutes. Or go there now...Radio Brian Scott


Kerry debates himself this Thursday not Bush.

The debates begin this week Thursday, so I thought it might be interesting to get a better understanding of John Kerry's viewpoint on matters of foreign policy, the topic of the first debate.

Israel and Palestine:
Speaking to the Arab American Institute in Michigan (Oct 2003) Kerry sympathized with their "plight" saying he knew "how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build the barrier off of the Green Line – cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder."

Then later while speaking in New York just before their primaries, Kerry said that "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense. No nation can stand by while its children are blown up at pizza parlors and on buses. While President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians, Israel has a right and a duty to defend its citizens. The fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel.

How is it possible that Kerry is set to take the majority of the Jewish vote? It’s beyond my comprehension. How can Jews trust that Kerry has Israel’s best interest at heart when he speaks out against the very thing that is keeping Women, children, and babies safe from the rage of Palestinian suicide bombers? Kerry has said nothing and done nothing that would endear himself to the Jews.

I am a friend of Israel, but not a friend of stupidity. If Jewish Americans suffer from the same intelligence deficiencies that Kerry suffers from, they deserve each other.

The Vote to go to war:
Kerry says he "voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations…" Everyone else understood the intent of the vote was to give the president the power to go to war except Kerry. How is it then he is still referred to by people as an intellectual? Even far left newspapers like the LA times understood the meaning of the vote when they ran the headline "Congress Backs War on Iraq." The truth is, John Kerry knew full well what he was voting for and voted in a way that he thought would be politically helpful to him. The resolution clearly states, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to … defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Everyone (except for John I guess)knew what that meant.

Funding the war in Iraq:
In September of 2003 John Kerry was in strong support of funding the war to ensure a victory and the safety of our troops. A bill was in the works to provide 87 billion towards the war effort, part of which would go towards body armor, an item highly coveted by our troops. The bill as it stood had nearly unanimous support throughout the House and Senate, but Kerry with the aid of Joe Biden, attached an amendment to the bill. When asked if he would vote for the $87 billion if his amendment didn't pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."Later, when asked about a Republican ad that attacks him for not supporting body armor for our troops, he made the now infamous statement: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," My mother would have slapped my mouth for this kind of double talk. He didn't get his way, so he threw a hissy fit and voted against funding for the war and protecting our troops. Any attempts on his part to label it a "protest vote", is ignoring the bigger picture. It shows his willingness to be selfish and prideful when it come to matters of national security. Anyway you slice it, this guy is bad news for the war effort. Amazingly, He was one of 12 Senators that opposed the bill.

Going to war with Iraq:
Now John is trying to distinguish himself apart from Bush. Recently when Kerry was on The Late Show, David Letterman asked him if we would be in Iraq today had he been president. Kerry said 'no'. Before that, on the 21st of September, in a speech that would lay out his plan for Iraq's future, Kerry said that "Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists," and that "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. Further more "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. That was not a reason to go to war. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." And yet months before he made these statements he made this one: "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." It's ironic that he still claims to have only one position on the matter of Iraq which is in itself a contradiction. I expect more double speak from Kerry on this issue come Thursday's debate.

It is shocking to me that so many people could follow this man, and consider him honest and forthright. He has been everything but truthful during his entire campaign, from the primaries till today. By in large liberals believe in grey areas in almost every aspect of life. This grey area is considered to be a sign of intelligence in Kerry's circle of yes-men, which further demonstrates there inability to reason out a single issue to the point of being certain. To me it's obvious; he has a large group of people telling him what is politically expedient and helpful to him. He is not listening to sound moral judgment nor is he acting in the country's best interest.

Kerry to gain European support?
One of the points that Kerry has been trying to get across to the American people is that he will be able to create a stronger coalition to help carry the burden in Iraq. Regardless of the high number of countries in the coalition, John Kerry remains adamant that we are going it alone over there. The implication is that once he is president he can get France and Germany to help. And of course, the ones that are involved with us are insignificant. So much for Kerry’s diplomacy.

This just in from the Financial Times: No French or German turn on Iraq. In the article Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, stated that he "cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," And Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, stated that France, which has a poor relationship with Iyad Allawi, has no plans to send troops "either now or later".

* ahem * Kerry is toast. This is almost better than the swift boat ads. Something that he has been touting as his strength has effectively been ripped from him.

Debate Outcome:
Bush should have this debate in the bag. All Bush has to do is memorize every position Kerry has had since before the primary's and Bush will make the proclaimed "master debater" cry for mercy. Kerry is toast.

This post could have been so much longer... but I really have to go to bed. I'ts 2:15 in the morning. But before I go, here is something on the lighter side of Kerry's many mistakes...

Man of the people and football lover:
    Two Washington-based lawyers supporting President Bush's re-election have registered an advocacy group, Football Fans for Truth, as a Section 527 organization allowed to accept unlimited political donations. They plan to publicize Kerry's recent sports misstatements such as his reference to home of the Green Bay Packers as "Lambert Field" instead of Lambeau Field.

    Other gaffes they hope to bring wider attention to include Kerry's talk of the Buckeyes — the nickname of Ohio State University's team — while campaigning in University of Michigan Wolverine territory.

    The founders of Football Fans for Truth claim they came up with their idea about a week ago — neither could remember the exact day — during a fantasy football league draft when friends were laughing about Kerry's lack of sports knowledge.

    "As the chuckles drew roars, somebody said, 'You should start a 527,'" said Larroca, referring to the section of Internal Revenue Service code that allows political advocacy groups to receive tax-exempt donations.
It doesn’t sound like they’re ready to take on any day soon, but hey, good luck gents.

Updated 09/27/04: Added commentary on the Jewish vote and French and German participation in Iraq.

posted by: Brian Scott

Get the code for this blogroll.  visit The Blue S tate Conservatives