Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Kerry and his liberal friends are utopian socialists. They have a blacklist of bad guys in the domestic world and when they see evil acts, they don't observe the act and the actor. They first, above all, draw a line to the bad guy. They ask, "Did you notice the Jews didn't show up to work that day (911)", or they cry, "Look what america's policy have brought on our people".
These islamofascists are EVIL. Yes, the "E" word. They are monsters in human form. They watch us everyday, they know what we watch on TV. They know how predictable our political arguments are. They understand the culture of victimology and the Vietnam syndrome. They see themselves as cellmates discussing and documenting every move of the prison guards. When it comes to plotting, they have nothing but time.
I remember in an interview soon after the 2000 election Justice Kennedy said, the number one topic americans should know more about is the islamic world. How prescient.
The Left thinks that to know us is to love us. How could they learn our culture and not worship us? They study us and they see our compassion as a weakness. Victim status? a weakness and an opportunity to exploit. One of the most disheartening aspects of evil is that they search for that which is good in their enemies and use it against them. So, trying to reason with them like the british did, was expected by the kidnappers, and it made them bubble over in ecstasy. Sick but true. Steyn was right, why play their game. "Nine tens" don't want to become "Nine twelves". Well, tough!!! Some things happen that we have to adapt to, that's life. Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you".
That is the Medieval world that we have stepped into. Kerry's concept of history began in the 1960s and he wants to go back to that, but it is gone. Alas, sweet Camelot.... gone!...wake up! Bush understands that history includes lessons of wicked monsters that lust for power and engage in evil acts that even the 20th Century avoided. John Keegan, the Military historian, describes the difference between total war and real war. Total war is war with no bounds. All weapons. No prisoners. All tactics. Torture civilians. Total genocide. NO HOLDS BARRED. [sic]Jingus Khan avoided sieges by asking for surrender and if they did not, he killed every man, woman, and child in the entire city. Word spread fast and they didn't even have a Dan Rather to pass the word. The 20th century did not experience total war it engaged in limited wars, Real war. Bush knows, he is dealing with an evil that kills and hungers for total war. EVIL. Keegan never mentioned "sensitive war" in his books and there is no evidence that word of the arriving Mongols created spirited debates about their motives and who really angered them in the first place.
These evil monsters know that the left has a handicap for defending America. The handicap is a blindspot for Evil. The left, when exposed to true evil, does not like to admit that it is, nor do they want to call it such. In fact they will create convuluted flow charts to point a finger at their political opponents or some other stubborn domestic adversary. Yale Herald Sept. 21, 2001:
"A war has been declared on our country and our way of life. This is not a familiar concept for us, and Yale is bending over backwards to theorize some way for it to be irrelevant or untrue."
The left refuses to call evil by name because, once the "E" word has been let loose. Then the dogs of war are unleashed. Acknowledging evil, requires action. Action requires responsibility. Responsibility requires hard decisions with no easy answers. Responsibility requires hard work. Responsibility means facing ugly demons so that your family lays down after dinner in a soft bed and sleeps the sleep of the innocent. You on the other hand may sleep forever after a fight in a farway place, but you thank god you are playing an away game, not a home game.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Kerry too vain to admit that French lied to his face and suckered him

John Kerry stumbled over a few of his canned responses in Friday nights debate. President Bush by all accounts was more polished, more aggressive and more effective in this debate. Much of the first half of the debate was a volley of statements on the war in Iraq. Some of Kerry's lines that may have passed unnoticed and even seemed like skillful rebutals in the past, are now under increased scrutiny.
Kerry tried to argue that the sanctions against Iraq were designed to eliminate Weapons of mass destruction, not to Remove Saddam Hussein.

KERRY: The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction.

Actually there were numerous sanctions against Saddam on a range of different issues. Saddam had some sanctions imposed as far back as UNSCRES 664 just days after invading Kuwait. The sanctions usually refered to are the ones included in UNSCRES 687, the final ceasefire. They include documenting Iraq's Unprovoked missile attacks, mentioning the area as a nuclear free zone, the objective of achieving a balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region, ensuring the return of POW/MIAS, restricting Iraq's ability to engage in or support terrorism and to not allow terrorists to operate in its territory and to renounce all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism, to ensure respect for borders, limiting ballistic missiles to 150km, to arrange for finances for inspectors and reparations, and prohibiting possession of certain weapons systems including WMDs. It also prohibited other nations from trading in arms with Iraq. It is clear that the sanctions were established to "contain" Iraq and right previous wrongs including its violation of a WMD treaty from 1972. Secondly it was an opportunity for the Iraqi government to stop the World from waging war against them and possibly staying in power. Removing Saddam was a byproduct of its failure to comply with 687 after his Generals signed it at the barrel of a gun in a tent with Gen. Norman Shartzkopf.

Kerry also admitted he was fooled and suckered by the French, the Russians, and the Chinese. He claimed he went and met with the members of the security council prior to his vote for Iraqi Freedom. Here is what he said:

This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I came away convinced that, if we worked at it, if we were ready to work and letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us. But the president just arbitrarily brought the hammer down and said, Nope. Sorry, time for diplomacy is over. We're going.

After the Duelfer report and others, we now know that the members that Kerry said convinced him were duping him. They fooled him and "He came away convinced". They were not going to "Work at it", they were not going to let "Hans Blix do his job", and they were not "after push came to shove" going to "be there with us". They had been bought and paid for and when the push came to shove, the french and the other crooks that duped Kerry would be doing some pushing and shoving at us, not against their benefactor, Saddam Hussein. Kerry got punked and now he is too stubborn or too vain to admit that he made a mistake!

Last week, Kerry stated very forcefully that he truly believed that Saddam was a threat and he did so even more forcefully tonight. Usually he makes a firm statement and then slips in the truth somewhere in the latter parts of his responses. He is a veteran prosecutor as he reminded us in the debate. During the Tuesday night debate, Kerry's running mate, John Edwards twice went through his prepared timeline of how Saddam was a "real threat". He called him a threat that needed to be confronted, but then Edwards went on to say if the inspectors would have been able to do their job, they would have found that he was not a threat. So which is it? He was a threat or not a threat? You thought he was a threat, but later found out that he was not a threat and there was no condition worthy of confronting Saddam militarily? Confusing? Kerry said it again tonite. First he said:

KERRY: So what does he do? He's trying to attack me. He wants you to believe that I can't be president. And he's trying to make you believe it because he wants you to think I change my mind.
KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. I would have brought our allies to our side. I would have fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission. This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.

Then Later in the Debate, Randee Jacobs asked him a question and He said:
KERRY: Is it Randee?
JACOBS: Yes, Randee. Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time. In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?
KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat. If he'd let the inspectors do their job and go on, we wouldn't have 10 times the numbers of forces in Iraq that we have in Afghanistan chasing Osama bin Laden.

Kerry tries to mischaracterize the sanctions in a very limited way ignoring the other material breeches and the bribes that made the sanctions non-functional and totally compromised. Kerry tries to focus the justification for the war solely upon the existence of large stockpiles of WMDs, not on the clear intent of 687 and that is to contain Saddam and remedy previous breeches. Kerry fails to mention that containment was futile without a non-military solution which Bill Clinton made clear with his legal justification of Desert Fox in 1998. Finally, out of pure vanity or plain stubborness, he refuses to admit that he was fooled by the corrupt UN security council members that were undercutting all of the non-military solutions to a madman addicted to the deadliest weapons ever known.