Sunday, October 17, 2004

Kerry and Bush 2004

Kerry and Bush comparisons are found in all the media. Here are some comparisons that I’ve read and some of my own knowledge. I’ll start with some quotes from people far more learned than I and what they have written about John Kerry:

“He is obsessed with the United Nations. In a recent debate, he referred to the UN, alliances, allies and summits fully 27 separate times, always charging President Bush with ignoring them. The UN was designed to protect the territorial integrity of established states, to protect Poland so to speak, from Germany or Indonesia from the Netherlands. The most disastrous wars now being waged, however, are the near genocides within established border, like the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and at this very moment, Sudan. The UN has been less than effective especially in Rwanda and the Sudan where wholesale genocidal murders by the hundreds of thousands, are happening right now.

The UN did nothing when Saddam Hussein was murdering Iraq’s Kurds and Shiites in the hundreds of thousands, the UN has been less than passive in these cases, passing vaguely reproachful resolutions reluctantly and, in any case, without effect. The very structure of the UN makes it hostage to the five permanent members of the Security Council, one being France who shouldn’t even be there. (India should) The very essence of the international community is very different from what it once was, and Kerry cannot or will not see it.

Kerry voted against the 1991 Iraq war despite the fact that war was supported by a larger coalition of countries than support the current war and reconstruction, many Arab states included. Multilateralism is not a panacea in itself. Would we have wanted a clumsy and brutal Russian army, its officers and veterans of the first Afghan war? Can you imagine a French battalion under the discipline of an American commander? The fact is that there are only a few countries equipped to wage precise modern warfare and that’s another reason why some countries refuse to go to televised wars: They don’t want to be exposed as being militarily obsolete. Kerry is living a fantasy that other countries would also put up money for the very enterprise he and they rallied against. Kerry wants to convey the strength of being right. America needs that quality in its president, but President Bush wants to convey to the world the strength of certainty. Too bad we won’t have a president with the instincts to do both.” (Excerpts taken from an article written by Marty Perez, Editor in Chief of The New Republic – (10/04/04.)

“George Will may have been too harsh in calling this presidential race two “delusional optimists,” but he correctly identified the profound unwillingness of each to face unpleasant realities. This shared unwillingness to admit obnoxious truths is also, alas illuminating. Political leaders except those of the very first order, can become detached from the realities of the world around them. Surrounded by sympathizers and sycophants, subjected to a ceaseless torrent of criticism, consumed by an unending stream of work, deprived, for the most part of the spontaneity of unstructured debate, the danger is not that they will say things that they do not believe. It is, rather that they will come to believe things because they have said them, and to act accordingly”. (Eliot A. Cohen, director of the Phillip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies – (10/04/04).

We have before us two candidates, neither of which I would have chosen to be on the slate in November. Yes, there are others up for presidential election but let’s realize they are only there as a protest and cannot be elected. The countries that did not support us want Kerry to win for there own selfish reasons, mostly their own financial interests in Iraq; the terrorists want Kerry to win because they have correctly determined they will best succeed under Kerry and many pacifists believe that the world really will live in peace and harmony thereafter. Can’t they see these brainwashed innocent unlearned people allowing themselves to be killed along with other innocent people so they can sit at the right hand of Allah with 72 virgins, or looked upon as martyr’s by their bereaved families? (No one has explained what the women get but the terrorist male I’m sure doesn’t care. The women lead such a suppressed uneducated life that they really don’t understand what is going on and these women couldn’t do anything about it if they did because THEY ARE NOT FREE !!!)

I believe the party currently in power, will lead the way out of the situation they agreed was necessary even though they did not clearly comprehend the obstacles they would be confronted with. A president relies on the information given him by the generals, the intelligence community, his (or her) staff, the Congressmen like John Kerry, and other friendly countries. He then tries to the best of his ability to makes decisions based on all available knowledge. Remember that Lincoln changed generals more than once in the Civil War and it took four years to subdue the South, then guerrilla warfare lasted for many years after the peace treaty was signed. During the Civil War more people died in one battle than have died for the United States in war over the past two decades. (More on the Civil War later) The fact is that most conservatives see Kerry as a career politician with a wealthy wife who we cannot envision as a first lady, a debate team captain (and therefore more verbally skilled than President Bush), a person who did go overseas and see active duty as did hundreds of thousands of other Americans. Upon his return home we believe he encouraged the North Vietnamese by his actions and words, thus costing more American lives. We see him as a Senator whose voting record was often not in the best interests of the security of this country. We do not see him as president of this country with tort lawyer John Edwards just a heartbeat away from being President of United States of America.

"In war, the truth is important, it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies” (Winston Churchill)


Rob said...

Is a President with his hands in the pants of the Saudis, (you know, where the guy that attacked us is from), really going to do whats best for us, or is he going to continue to do whats best for his family and the Saudis? How much of our financial structure will be owned by the Chinese and the Saudis in another 4 years? Enough to have to walk on eggshells with them for 50 years?
At least Kerry doesn't mind voicing his concerns and not being a puppet. And really, was Kerry THAT impactful to the North Vietnamese victory? Or was our government the one who dropped the ball on that one?

Merle Widmer said...


Do you recall what happened in Iran when the Shah was toppled? Do you believe living conditions and freedoms are today better in Iran under the ridgid rule of the Mullahs? I believe that were the Monarchy removed in Saudia Arabia, that country would turn into total chaos. Are the elite Arabs to be trusted? No, but I believe our government believes that regime did not pose the same threat as the madman Saddam and his regime. We did topple the oppressive and dangerous regime in Iraq and are not only fighting the terrorists but many of our own leadership and the majority of the pacifist media. We need to stay to finish as much as we can.Kerry has a million "plans", some reasonable but none consistent to the world situation and our own safety and ecomomy.