Wednesday, October 27, 2004

In the newest Kerry ad:
“The obligation of a Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe. In Iraq, George Bush has overextended our troops and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives. The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings. His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk, and make our country less secure. And all he offers is more of the same. As President, I’ll bring a fresh start to protect our troops and our nation. I’m John Kerry and I approved this message.”
First of all Dubya has done more to keep this country safe than Kerry has. In removing the "wall" between inteligence agencies and law enforcement agencies Bush has demonstrably made this country safer. We have broken up upwards of 25 terrorist cells all over the country, and we have foiled an attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. We have nations all over the world helping us track down Al Qaeda, including Yemen, one of the few nations who opposed the 1991 war with Iraq. And we have captured or killed the majority of the leadership of Al Qaeda as well as crippling their ability to plan and fund attacks against us. Compare that with Kerry's supporting a nuklear freeze during the cold war, voting against weapons systems, proposing to cut inteligence budgets by two-thirds, and voting against the first gulf war. Who has done more to make this Country safer?

But that's not what bothers me about this ad. John Kerry claims to support out troops, and yet displays no faith in them to carry out their mission. He says he will bring a "fresh start to protect our troops and our nation". How? How will you do this Senator? You have offered no constructive criticism. No alternative the the President's decisions, only criticism of the method he has carried them out. The truth is you have no legitimate foreign policy reccomendations. You don't know what you are talking about. All you have done is criticise the President for everything he has done. First it was the wrong war, now we didn't use enough troops to guard everything. The truth is if we hadn't deposed Saddam, judging from your comments made before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, you would be blasting Bush for leaving him in power and not treating him like the threat he is/was.

In their drooling eagerness to bash Bush during this election season the Left has turned this into a partisan war. No matter how much he claims to support the troops, when Kerry bashes Bush without giving any alternative other than some phantom "Plan", or makes the ambiguous assertion that America "deserves better", he is not supporting our troops or helping this Country. He is aiding our enemies abroad. Anyone can find something to criticise about somebody else about; that's a fact of life. But the democratic party's refusal to see ANYTHING as good news for this Country is hurting our interests abroad and hindering us in the war on terror. It has served one purpose however: the terrorists know who their enemy is:
Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.
"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
Kerry should denounce this and say that if he wins they will still be just as dead when he finds them. But I doubt he will. So now it's Al Qaeda(the "insergents" in Iraq went out of their way to be seen as part of Al Qaeda), Palestine and Indonesian Radicals for Kerry.

I just have a simple question for you. Do you think that the Iraqi insergents want Bush to loose the election so that they can have a more "sensitive war" and start negotiating with Kerry? Or do you think that they believe it will be easier to kill us if Kerry is president?

Update: Ralph Peters has similar sentiments.