Tag Archives: campaign for president

LIBERALS GONE WILD AND THE AXIS OF IDIOCY

First there was “Girls Gone Wild” and their countless sequels. Then came “Boys Gone Wild” and even “Guys Gone Wild” and their continuous stream of subsequent follow ups. Volume after volume of guys and girls baring it all for hordes of horny, voyeurs hoping to satisfy their lusts through store bought compact discs.

Well hold on to your pants folks. Brace yourself for the newest edition of the “Gone Wild” series.

It’s “Liberals Gone Wild” and you wont have to call a 1-800 number and charge $19.95 for it with your credit card. All you have to do is vote for Barack Obama on Election Day and it will satisfy the lust of liberals all across the land. Their lusts. Lusts for bigger government and higher taxes. Their lusts for negotiating with terrorists and deciding America’s fate based on the opinions of the United Nations.

By simply voting for Barack Obama on Election Day all of this and more can be yours but it’s not free. It comes with a hefty price. It’s also broken. Liberals Gone Wild is not something you can turn off. You can’t just pop it out of your compact disc player and play something else. Liberals Gone Wild will stay on and run amuck, unimpeded and uninterrupted for at least two years.

 Once your vote for Obama buys you a copy of Liberals Gone Wild, you will be revealing more than bare breasts or swinging schlongs , you’ll be revealing the naked truth of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the nations liberal leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives, and the revelation is not very attractive.

Their scantily clad objectives are not filled with any titillating sights or actions. The naked truth of their socialist agenda simply sets our nation on a course that is so radical and so closely aligned with socialism that our nation’s government will have more in common with Cuba than any of the intended principles of our own nation’s constitution.

In the past that constitution has insured that America’s greatest strength was always in it’s people.

Individual Americans have been the impetus to our success and history is strewn with examples of how our people’s sense of drive and responsibility won the day for us. Even when our nation faced it’s greatest challenges, any successful directions offered by our government was only made successful if and when the people were behind it. Yet, by voting for Barack Obama, we are essentially making it clear that we want the bureaucracy of a government to decide all that we should decide for ourselves.

Despite the importance of individuality and independent initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have confidently and consistently pushed an agenda that attempts to legislate everything from the educational choices, quality and opportunities of our children to how much money can be made in the private sector. Their sense of fairness dictates that all must suffer the consequences of government fiats.

Since they took control of congress almost two years ago their efforts to adopt their socialist agenda have been stymied, to a point. Their small majorities were not large enough to totally steamroll the principles of freedom that Americans have come to appreciate.

But all that is about to change. By elevating the most liberal member of the government’s collective, elected leadership to the presidency, Barack Obama will make it possible for the combined socialist agenda of his liberal comrades to prevail. With Obama at the helm, Pelosi and Reid will have no obstacles.

Their class warfare will rage on and personal success will be treated as a goal that needs to be penalized in an attempt to “spread the wealth”. Beyond that, in this Obama, Pelosi and Reid, special edition of Liberals Gone Wild, the successful in America are blamed for the conditions of the less successful. They are put forth as the enemy and the source of all that ails people and government.

On top of their class warfare games, the far left menage-a-tois of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will rejuvenate failed policies of the past as false keys to a better tomorrow. Initiatives such as Jimmy Carter’s, 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and Bill Clinton‘s expansion of that in the form of the American Homeownership Initiative will not simply be reformed, they will be expanded. This will be done despite the fact that both programs helped to create the current banking crisis by forcing banks to engage in risky lending practices to those who could not afford to pay back such loans.

Together the trio will swear to move us into energy independence while they restrict the independence of participants in the market and make it impossible to drill for domestic sources of energy or limit the exploration for such natural resources.

Unchecked and in total control, the liberal Axis of Idiocy will implement the most liberal agenda we have ever seen. From expanding the current burgeoning government bureaucracy by raising taxes and making it more expensive to operate to increasing risks to our national security, liberals will be like children locked in a candy shop after the doors have closed and the staff has gone home. Even before their lies achieve any confirmed coup of liberal dominance, this trio has already begun to conspire over a trillion dollars of new spending. New spending that will be funded by the millions of Americans whom they wish to control. A control that they hope to have by legislating everything from our opinions and ways of thinking to the medical treatment available to us.

This liberal Axis will allow for the unimpeded approval of liberal justices who want to write law rather than interpret law. This goes not only for the selection of one or maybe even two supreme court justices, it involves thousands of judicial appointments that are given to a President after congressional approval. Approval that Pelosi and Reid will reinforce so long as Obama’s appointments pass the proper liberal litmus tests.

We are about to enter dangerous territory. It is the same type of territory that Republicans entered when in 2000 they added the White House to the list of government branches that they controlled.

After almost 6 years of total control, Republicans unchecked power allowed them to become complacent. The lack of true competition in government philosophies allowed them to stray away from their own intended missions. The power went to their heads and they paid a price for it. They lost in 2006. The cycle is about to repeat itself. Liberals will be in total control. The far fetched initiatives of their far left leadership will now become a staple of American government. The extremist policies of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and other liberal icons are now about to become mainstream, American government policies. It will be a tough two years. And it will take at least 3 times as long to recover from, but it will done.

When America sees liberals in action, the full effect of liberals who are not held back in any way, they will quickly resort to change, yet again. Just like in 1994, when two years of a government led by liberals in the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate caused the electorate to put the breaks on that. If Obama does actually somehow convince Americans that he can do more than run for higher offices, and elect him President, they will undoubtedly correct that course quickly too. Hopefully the damage done by them in two years can be in fact corrected quickly. The only problem there is that we can not afford a damaging blow to our national security. When it comes to our nation’s security, it only takes one mistake to cost us more than we can afford.

Hopefully it will not take something so drastic to teach us a lesson . Something like the national security crisis that Joe Biden swears we will encounter if Barack Obama is elected President. It is not a risk I am willing to take. That is one reason why John McCain has my support. It is one reason why I am not willing to hand over the entirety of our government to a group of people who, for the last two years have, provided one of the most unproductive legislative sessions in recent history. It is just one among many reasons but it is one of the most important reasons.

4 Doctors Talk Politics!

An Israeli doctor said, “Medicine in my country is so advanced, we can take a kidney out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks.”

A German doctor said “That’s nothing! In Germany, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in four weeks.”

A Russian doctor said, “In my country, medicine is so advanced, we can take half a heart from one person, put it in another and have them both looking for work in two weeks.”

The American doctor, not to be outdone, said “Hah! We are about to take an asshole out of Illinois, put him in the White House and half the country will be looking for work the next day.”

3 Comments

Filed under politics

THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AND I’M PISSED

McCain & Obama Square Off In Their second Debate

McCain & Obama Square Off In Their second Debate

Another debate and another disappointment.

McCain is not running against a messiah. Barack Obama and his supporters may think he is a messiah but he isn’t…really he isn’t. Yet John McCain still can not deal any of the blows that Obama’s candidacy leaves open and available for McCain to take.

 

 Where were McCain’s blows to Obama’s judgment? Where were McCain’s jabs to Obama’s accomplishments? Where were his uppercuts to Obama’s record or initiatives? They just weren’t there.

 Obama is a reckless politician who has spent his adult life seeking higher office. He has spent his career talking about great ideas and never implementing them. He has no recoord of accomplishment or defining moment in his life and he has no real vision for the nation. And even if he did, there is no reliable proof which indicates that he can implement that vision.

Yet with all of that, John McCain still has not been able to articulate the doubts about Barack Obama or the fact that all of Obama’s cited plans are regurgetations of past failed, liberal policies and a reincarnation of Jimmy Carter’s failed administration.
McCain has allowed circumstances to control him rather than him taking control of circumstances. He has not presented his own economic stabilization package. A package that should contain some of the basic philosophies of the party he is the nominee of. He has failed to make the case for why our nation must be on the offense rather than defense in the War on Terror and he has failed to capture the imagination of voters, even those who are fellow Republicans and want to be energetic in their support of our standard bearer.
Instead, John McCain has allowed himself to be tarnished by the mistakes of the current administration. An administration he had no part of and even fought against in many areas. An administration led by a man whom John McCain, himself, opposed eight years ago.

There is much good that this administration has done, in fact more good than bad. They were asleep at the wheel in the case of the private sector failures which threaten to destabilize our national economy. That is a destabilization that they are not responsible for but they are guilty of not averting even though John McCain warned them of the pending doom two years ago.
But despite it all, McCain’s candidacy seems to be struggling to overcome the downside of the Bush administration and unable to take advantage of any of the good sides. Furthermore, through it all, his candidacy has been avoiding the chance to take advantage of any of McCain’s own positive and unique characteristics.
McCain & Obama During Their Town Hall Style Debate

McCain & Obama During Their Town Hall Style Debate

I am coming to the point where I no longer have the strength to defend someone who is not willing to adequately defend themselves or promote their own vision. I will not give up, but I want to. I want to smack around the collective Republican voters who gave us McCain as the nominee and say “I told you, Romney was the one we needed.”

Were Mittt Romney on that stage with Obama last night, we would have seen a totally different debate.
When Obama suggested that he understood why we are where we are in the economy and essentially described his proposed tax increases as budget cuts, Romney could have turned and said “with all due respect Senator, have you ever managed a business, employed people, met a budget or dealt with any of the things that you speak of? Because I have. I have successfully created jobs and wealth for others in the private sector, without any bankruptcies, government bailouts or selfish, golden parachutes. I governed a state and left it in better financial shape than it was when I took over. I know how to help the needy and less fortunate in our society. I provided equitable health care and I have the record and experience that is needed to do the same for our nation at this time of need. However; you Senator, have nothing but the words out of your mouth, a mouth that is the only thing you have experience in running.”
In Mitt Romney we would have had a candidate with energy, enthusiasm and vision. A candidate who’s only association with the baggage of this administration would have been the name of our party and it’s lack of popularity at the moment.
        
Romney demonstrated the passion and judgment that we needed. He was unabashedly defensive of the right things that President George Bush did, regardless of their popularity or lack of, and equally unequivocal about the wrong decisions that the administration made.
I apologize if it sounds like I am saying “I told you so”, but I told you so.
I was angry when Romney was forced out of the primaries and when my party was seemingly giving it’s
Former Governor And Future Nominee MittRomney

Former Governor And Future Nominee MittRomney

nomination to John McCain. Not because McCain is bad, but because he was not the best we had. Romney was.

But as usual the G.O.P. gave the nomination to the candidate that it seemed it owed the nomination to. Nixon in 1968, Ford in ‘76, Reagan in ‘80, George H. W. Bush in ‘88, Dole in ‘96 and now McCain in ‘08. Our party always gives the nod to the next in line, the guy who served the party and has the battle scars from a previous election. In going that route, we were fortunate only in 1980. After almost defeating Gerald Ford for the nomination in 1976, he became the next in line in 1980 and he got it. For that, we are grateful but what if we gave him the nomination in ‘76 rather than Ford. Could we have been spared the disastrous years known as the Carter term? What if in 1988, we nominated Jack Kemp instead of than Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush? Could we have elected him over Dukakis? We probably could have taken Dukakis by an even larger margin than we did, and he probably would have been re-elected and spared us Bill and Hillary Clinton or at least deprived them of those first four years.
But Noooooooo,…. we always go with the guy next in line.
Well if that’s the case, Mitt Romney is the next in line. He fought a good, hard battle in the race against McCain. Although others besides McCain stayed in the running longer than Romney he still came out with the second largest amount of delegates in the field, surpassing the totals of even Huckabee who hung in until almost the bitter end.
I am not giving up on McCain. Although I see him not as the best person for the job, he is the best choice that we have for the job. He is right on many, if not most, the issues and he is worthy. He has run more than his mouth and he has been right where others have been wrong. Most of all, he is not a false prophet. He has a proven record of achievement and strong record of putting country before party, and nation before self.
Now, if he could only get that message across, maybe I would feel more energized and more enthusiastic about my commitment to advance that message.
As for those you verbose critics, I do not make any concessions except for one. Barack Obama is a good speaker. That is how he got anywhere and everywhere that he has to date. He has appealed to peoples hearts and without using their heads, they are going with their hearts. He has been like a used car salesman who successfully sells you a car but the car has no engine. Unlike McCain, Obama is selling what is not there while McCain has let you see under the hood and kick the wheels. That is all that I concede and that is because I see the need to make the poor rich and that need is not achieved by the Obama policies of making the rich poor and strangling us off from the energy we need and the fuel that energizes our strength.
I wish we had the kind of orator that appealed to our senses by reaching our hearts, a speaker like Reagan, but we don’t. We blew that chance when overlooked Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries. Although I may wish for that kind of messenger, I am still pleased with the truth of the message that John McCain brings to the table.
So for all you naysayers out their I offer you this, I may be pessimistic about the results of this election but I am not pessimistic about the content of John McCain. I am confident in his judgment and knowledge and I am comforted by his experience and direction. That is what provides me with the will to forge ahead with my continued support for John McCain. That and the fear of Obama’s ultimate destination for our nation, keeps me focused and committed in this quadrennial American competition of ideas and leadership. It’s not over and neither are my efforts. Four weeks may seem short but it is a political lifetime and in it many things can and will change.
Many others have come back to win the election when the polls had them down by even more than McCain is at now. For goodness sake’s, the newspapers even said Truman was defeated when the man actually won. So hope is not lost, it’s just taking a power nap.

Years ago, there was an old tale in the Marine Corps about a lieutenant…  

… who inspected his Marines and told the ‘Gunny’ that they smelled bad.

The lieutenant suggested that they change their underwear. The Gunny responded, ‘Aye, aye, sir, I’ll see to it immediately’


He went into the barracks and said, ‘The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear.


Smith, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowskie, Brown, you change with Schultz. Get to it’.

The moral:
A candidate may promise change in Washington, but don’t count on things smelling any better.
Submitted by former Emmitsburg Mayor Ed

 

Photobucket

4 Comments

Filed under politics

McCAIN/PALIN vs. OBAMA/BIDEN AND THE POSSIBLE ELECTION NIGHTMARE

Given the closeness of this election anything can change the course of events . With weeks left to go, the slightest happening can swing this election in either direction. It could be any one of the debates, or a candidate’s poorly chosen, off the cuff remark. It might be a deepening of economic concerns or an international event that rearranges the importance of topics. Barring any unexpected, dramatic, landscape altering events, I see this election being won by John McCain.

I have come to this conclusion based upon polling data and state trends, along with party affiliations, population shifts, the persuading factors among the electorate,an incremental leaning in direction of independent voters, my personal, political intuition and the cords that each campaign is striking in their messages. After factoring all this in, I believe that John McCain will win with a total of 274 electoral votes to Barack Obama’s 264 electoral votes. This 30 state victory is still too close for comfort and it relies heavily on winning the battleground states of Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada. Of these 5 states I believe Missouri, Nevada and Colorado will be the most pivotal. None the less, if they go as I think they will, Senator McCain will be our next President.

However; in this scenario I think victory will come with great public protestation.

You see in this projection, I do believe that there exists a strong chance for McCain to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

The unprecedented enthusiasm of Barack Obama’s supporters is undeniable. To those, more liberal oriented voters, the newness of Obama is appealing and his presence on the political stage is fresh. Among these groups there is also deep resentment to all things and people that are Republican. Together these are powerful motivational forces behind their mobiliztion to vote. This all makes for an unusually energized base among Democrat voters. Add to this the fact that Barack Obama is the first African-American nominee of either political party and you have the opportunity for a higher than normal turnout of conventional Democrat voters. African-Americans traditionally vote the Democrat ticket and in the case of Barack Obama you can expect that most will do so in this election. In fact many black voters who previously felt disaffected and have not voted in past elections, will probably not let their ballot go to waste in this election.

This all indicates that Democrat strongholds like New York and other highly urbanized and traditionally liberal states will not only go blue for Obama but they will pump out unusually high and disproportionate pluralities for the Democrats. In doing so this may result in Barack Obama actually getting more popular votes than John McCain. The only problem is that these high pockets of concentrated Obama votes will not change the electoral college map. For example, if New York state produces a popular vote of 6 million for Obama and only 3 and half million for McCain, Obama will get New York’s 31 electoral votes, as expected, but it wont change the result in a state like Texas which has 34 electoral votes and is solidly behind McCain. In Texas however, the vote may not be as lopsided in McCain’s favor as it is for Barack Obama in New York. More accurately the Texas results may be more like five million for McCain to four and a half million for Obama.

I expect uneven results with larger popular votes for Obama in most all the states that he wins. McCain will win states with far smaller margins than Obama The only exception will be Utah, the most heavily Republican state in the union. In Utah, McCain will be the beneficiary of a very large differential between the two candidates. But, when all the ballots are counted, Obama will have accumulated more votes nationwide.

Even so, he will not have more electoral votes.

It is the scenario that I believe is most likely. In it, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada are most pivotal.

I am confident that McCain will win the battleground states of Virginia, Ohio and Florida. Other close races exist in Michigan and Pennsylvania but the unusually high turnout of liberal, urban, votes there will ultimately allow Obama to prevail in them.

New Hampshire is a question mark. Currently it is a relatively tight contest between McCain and Obama in the “Granite State”. With it’s state motto of “Live Free or Die” New Hampshire is usually the only reliably red state in a northeastern sea of blue, but an influx of population from neighboring urban centers like Boston, combined with their recent leftward shift and a race for United States Senate that poises to elect popular, former New Hampshire, Democrat, Governor Jeanne Shaheen, will all account for McCain losing this once red state.

With the outcome of most other states not in doubt, Missouri, Nevada, and Colorado are the only remaining states for McCain to realistically be able to reach and exceed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the Presidency. I may be going out on limb here but I believe that McCain will win them over. Colorado and Missouri may be especially close but the environment should allow the McCain/Palin ticket to pull it off. Nevada will be tight but the movement is in McCain’s direction.  

Iowa, a neighbor of Obama’s home state of Illinios, is also going to be competetive.  It went for the G.O.P. from ’68 to ’84.  From ’88 to 2000 the Democratic nominee won Nevadans over.  In 2004 they went back to the Republicans and voted for Bush.  In this cycle, I see Obama’s regional advantage, ultimately  winning the day.

This hypothesis is becoming increasingly likely and although, as a Republican, I will be pleased with having elected John McCain President and Sarah Palin Vice President, I and many other Americans will not be pleased by the reaction to the nation’s first potential African-American President losing the presidency after winning the popular vote.

Similiar events happened before. In distant as well as recent history, the loser of the popular vote has still won the presidency with the electoral college but it is rare and it has never happened under circumstances like this.

I will not venture into how the electorate will react if this happens now. I will let you ponder over the reaction. But I will offer you another very possible result. One that also has a clear winner of the popular vote but does not allow for a winner to be declared until early January of the New Year.

If Nevada goes to Barack Obama rather than John McCain, as I anticipate in the previous scenario, than we have a tie in the electoral college.

269 for Obama/Biden and 269 for McCain/Palin.

In this event, the newly elected congress will decide the election.

Each of the 50 states cast one vote for President and a majority of 26 states determines the winner. Which candidate they vote for is determined by a majority vote of their newly elected congressional representatives. Currently, Democrats comprise the majority of congressional representatives in 27 states while Republicans control 21 state delegations and two states are tied with their delegations split equally.

If this number does not change in the November election, than it is more than likely that Obama would win the votes of the 27 states possesing congressional delegations dominated by Democrats.

In this election cycle Republicans are not likely to win back enough congressional seats to overtake Democratic majorities in any of the 27 states in question. In fact, due to the current environment, a higher than usual number of retiring Republican incumbents in addition to Obama’s, anticipated high voter turnout, Republicans will probably be losing a few seats.

This still does not assure Obama victory though. There are conservative oriented Democrat representatives who might choose to vote for McCain. These are politcians and this is Washington, D.C. where many wheeler dealers thrive and can always be swayed by the offer of the right appointment to the right position or are willing to throw principles overboard for that “special favor”. This possibility exists especially in several southern states where the difference between the majority of congressional representatives is quite slim.

Still it is unlikely that there would be enough defectors to sway more than one or two democrat dominated states to vote Republican.

The close contest for President of the United States could hinge on the slightest nuance during these last few weeks but the way I see it McCain will win with 274 electoral votes but Obama will lose after winning a majority of the popular vote. It is my hope that most Americans choose McCain and that he wins the majority of both the electoral college and popular vote, but the very real potential for the former looms over us.

Below are maps that depict the best electoral vote totals that both candidates could potentialy receive if circumstances were at the absolute best for one candidate or the other in the current environment. Both are highly unlikely: 
 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THEY STILL SAY THE WAR WAS WRONG


There are those who claim that the Bush presidency is a debacle. They claim he destroyed our economy and entered into a unnecessary war.

They make these claims despite the facts. They claim that the economy is bad, yet they do not claim the truth. They deny that for the first five years, our economy maintained a historic, almost none existent, unemployment rate. But they run with a meaningless headline that states that unemployment is at a five year high. They claim that Bush put us into tough economic times, not acknowledging that the economy enters cycles and that our economy is strong enough to endure this perceived rough patch or that in the last year of Clinton’s presidency we were in a downturn that even 9/11 did not prevent this administration from bringing us out of.

On a larger front they claim “Bush lied, People died” and that we entered into a war without legitimate reason and that we need change in direction.

Well, let us look at why these people are wrong. Let’s go back into time to all the events, prior to 9/11 and after 9/11, which indicate the needs for our actions against potential threats and against terrorism.

Former deputy undersecretary of defense John A. Shaw was responsible for tracking Hussein’s weapons program before and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. At an intelligence summit in Alexandria, Virginia he explained that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were purchased from Russia were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war began. According to Shaw Russian Spetsnaz units “were specifically sent to Iraq to move weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence. According to this report the removal of evidence “was a well orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states which Russian leaders had a longtime relationship with”

Further evidence was found in 2006 when over 5 hundred munitions containing degraded WMD in Iraq. The discovery of projectiles filled with mustard and and saran proved that Saddam lied about his WMD and that he violated his agreement to dispose of such weapons. It is further proof that the left’s claim that there were no WMD is false and a lie.

On top of that, George Sada, who was a Christian member of Saddam’s inner circle and General in his army declared….

“When Saddam finally grasped the fact that it was a matter of time until Iraq would be invaded by American and coalition forces, he knew he would have to take specific measures to destroy, hide, or at least disguise his stashes of biological and chemical weapons, along with laboratories, equipment, and plans associated with nuclear weapons development. But then, much to his good fortune, a natural disaster in neighboring Syria provided the perfect cover story for moving a large number of those things out of his country”

Furthermore; After the original Gulf War Saddam signed treaties promising to stop the production and procurement of WMD. He made a commitment to permit UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not in breach of these treaties and he was also not allowed to oppose our enforcement of U.S. no-fly zones. But for the twelve years after the Gulf War, Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that he had with the U.S.. He denied weapons inspectors proper access to establishing proper inspections. He also repeatedly shot our aircrafts in the no-fly zones and violated seventeen Security Council resolutions requiring that he rid himself of WMD.

On November 8, 2002 The U.N. adopted resolution 1441 by unanimous consent of the fifteen member security council and affirmed the world’s uncertainty of Saddam’s WMD. But WMD was not the only reason for this resolution. It declared that Iraq defied it’s obligations under UN Resolution 687, which was enacted after the Gulf War.

According to liberal lion, Ted Kennedy in an interview on October 6, 2002…….”Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons”

The liberal Democrat, Senator Robert Byrd stated around the same time ” The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked upon on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities”

During the democratic Clinton administration liberal leader, Nancy Pelosi said ” Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.

On December 16, 1998 high liberal lord Al Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons”.

President Bill Clinton said on February 4, 1998, “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”

Before his campaign for the presidency of the United States was official, the last liberal standard bearer of today’s liberal Democrat party, John Kerry said, ” Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

Now, given the events of 9/11 and our understood need to take out threats before they materialize, and based on the facts that existed before and after George W. Bush took office, what was the prudent thing to do? After diplomacy did not sway Saddam Hussein to do the right thing and despite the U.N.’s unwillingness to hold Saddam Hussein to their own resolutions, Operation Iraqi Freedom accomplished what everyone wanted to accomplish……the threat of Saddam Hussein was eliminated.

Add to this the evidence that indicates Saddam’s ties to terrorists and terrorist groups and you have all the right reason to do all the right things.

The only thing that I hold against George Bush is the fact that he did not learn from past wars and throw all that we had into the fight in Iraq after Saddam was removed from power. In the days after his overthrow, Iraq become a vacuum that attracted terrorists to try to undo what we had done in Iraq and in those days, we did not have an adequate supply of forces to thwart and eliminate those terrorists. John McCain and Condoleezza Rice continuously urged for an increase in forces but Bush, faced with a liberal media that downplayed success and tried to indicate that Operation Iraqi Freedom was wrong, rejected such calls until he could not deny the need for them himself. But once he did, it worked.

You may want to deny the words of Generals and the evidence of Saddam’s ominous intentions but people like myself do not. You may want to claim that since there have been no attacks similar to 9/11 since that time, that there are no real threats or that terrorism does not exist anymore but I see that the efforts we undertook and that we are undertaking are helping to prevent them from occurring.

Some may be willing to ignore facts but I am not. The evidence was there before George Bush took office and is there while he is still in office.

To say this was all wrong places the burden of proof on those who say it.

Disprove to me the facts and possibilities which indicate that WMD’s were moved out of Iraq under the guise of aid to areas that were struck by earthquakes before the war began. Prove to me that the words of a General in Saddam’s army are wrong. Prove to me that existing stockpiles of WMD in Iraq were not intended for use by Saddam. Prove to me that the known visits to Saddam by known terrorists did not indicate a connection to terrorism.

The burden of proof pertaining to why Operation Iraqi Freedom and our subsequent assistance to Iraq in fighting terrorism was wrong, is up to you. I have the facts that indicate otherwise.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics