Why I don’t Trust Democrats with Defense
The answer is quite simple: their record since the late 1960s combined with their current actions. While JFK was a pro-defense and strong anti-communist, since the late 1960s, the democratic party has almost universally misread our enemy, seeing us as the problem, calling for reductions in defense.
They misread the enemy in Vietnam. Even after the peace treaty and the withdrawal of our troops, democrats pushed for and got a complete cut off of aid, resulting in the collapse of the south and the subsequent death of millions and effective imprisonment of millions more in the region.
They misread the USSR, seeing the US as the problem, not soviet expansionism. As a result, the Soviets expanded into country after country: Angola, Mozambique, Guinea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Rhodesia, and Nicaragua until with the invasion of Afghanistan even Carter began to see a problem.
They misread situation in Iran, opposing the Shah for “human right abuses” looking instead to Khomeini. (Though Carter, did support the Shah somewhat, it was somewhat off and on, and ultimately not of much help).
They misread the situation in Grenada opposing US action that freed the island nation.
They misread the Sandinista in Nicaragua, and the FMLN in El Salvador, again seeing the US as the problem, and opposing US actions and policies that were ultimately successful.
All during this period they say the US, not the USSR as the main problem and opposed Reagan’s policies that ultimately led to the fall of the USSR.
They opposed the first Gulf War, (Though they later were critical of Bush for “not finishing the job” they had opposed in the first place, and then later were critical of the current President for finishing the job).
While since 9/11, while many liberals now see terrorists as an enemy, I still do not think that many grasp the real nature of the threat. Kerry, and many other democrats still talk of this as if it was more a law enforcement issue than a war. In addition, many on the left still see the US as the main problem and it is our actions that have caused the terrorism. Jean Kirkpatrick coined the label the “blame America First” crowd. While this certainly does not fit every liberal, it continues to fit a great many on the left, particularly in the leadership position, and particular if “America” is governed by a conservative.
Just consider all the silliness of this being just Oil, or that Bush lied, etc. which also indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of the threat and instead see this more as a political issue to be used to attack Bush, then a real threat to the nation. Case in point, the New York Time had the prison scandal on the front page for something like 24 consecutive days, and continues to try and keep the story alive is a vain effort to attack Bush. Yet the Beheading of people by the terrorists is a one day story at best.
Most of the attacks of the Democrats on the war, play right into the hands, and in some cases actually support, the aims of the terrorist, and thus only encourage them.
Finally, their main “solution” seems to be to go back to the law enforcement approach used during the 1990s and to let the UN and countries like France, Germany, and Russia take a more leading role. But can we really trust that the UN and these countries will really have our best interest in mind? Given what we have since found out about the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN and these countries, or France’ stated goal to weaken the US, is this really who we want to trust our security? Especially given that a recent reports said it is not a matter of if, but when, a dirty bomb is exploded in a US city.
So while the Bush administration has not been perfect (and I think it would be unreasonable to demand perfection), given that we have seriously disrupted the terrorist organizations world wide, captured or killed 2/3s of the al Quada leadership, and removed hostile governments that supported terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and convinced Libya to peacefully back away from terrorism, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. After all, following 9/11 who thought we would go even half as long without another attack. Currently we are coming up on 3 years.
Just consider all the silliness of this being just Oil, or that Bush lied, etc. which also indicates that they do not seem to understand the nature of the threat and instead see this more as a political issue to be used to attack Bush, then a real threat to the nation. Case in point, the New York Time had the prison scandal on the front page for something like 24 consecutive days, and continues to try and keep the story alive is a vain effort to attack Bush. Yet the Beheading of people by the terrorists is a one day story at best.
Most of the attacks of the Democrats on the war, play right into the hands, and in some cases actually support, the aims of the terrorist, and thus only encourage them.
Finally, their main “solution” seems to be to go back to the law enforcement approach used during the 1990s and to let the UN and countries like France, Germany, and Russia take a more leading role. But can we really trust that the UN and these countries will really have our best interest in mind? Given what we have since found out about the corruption of the Oil for Food program and the UN and these countries, or France’ stated goal to weaken the US, is this really who we want to trust our security? Especially given that a recent reports said it is not a matter of if, but when, a dirty bomb is exploded in a US city.
So while the Bush administration has not been perfect (and I think it would be unreasonable to demand perfection), given that we have seriously disrupted the terrorist organizations world wide, captured or killed 2/3s of the al Quada leadership, and removed hostile governments that supported terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and convinced Libya to peacefully back away from terrorism, I think Bush has done a pretty good job. After all, following 9/11 who thought we would go even half as long without another attack. Currently we are coming up on 3 years.
I certainly don’t see any thing that would convincement that Kerry or the democrats would do a better job, and a lot that indicates they would do a lot worse.
True this does not represent all democrats, or even all liberals, but I believe it does represent the leadership of the party. On the other hand, this is the first time I can remember that leading democrats have actually rejected the nominee of their party and endorsed a Republican.
Reagan’s Real Strength
With Reagan’s passing there has been a lot of talk about his presidency. Since he left office, the importance of Reagan’s presidency has steadily grown. I personally do not think there is any doubt that Reagan will be seen with FDR as one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century. The time since he left office has highlighted what I believe was Reagan greatest strength: His ability to get past the liberal slant of the press, and communicate directly with the American people. When conservative have done this they win.
In many (but granted not all) of the major political battles over the past decade, the major determining issue in whether or not conservative won, is whether they were able to get past the news filter. The Medicare debate referenced in an earlier note being one example. But pretty much the same thing is going on now with the economy.
Now that even job growth is strong (and in fact growing faster than Kerry promised to create jobs), the economy is clearly doing very well. But as the economy has been improving over the last 9 month, public opinion concerning the economy has not reflected reality, but has instead been declining. While clearly the economy is doing much better, in recent polls strong majorities have said that while their personal economy situation is good, but they falsely see the economy as getting worst.
Again, if the Republicans can communicate the truth about the economy to the people, since most people vote there pocket book, then they Bush will win. If the slanted press coverage dominates and people still falsely think the economy is bad, then Kerry might win.
What is the Difference?
What is the difference between the Taliban getting rid of Buddhist statues, because they conflict with their beliefs, and the ACLU demanding that LA country, and the city of Redlands (where I live) remove crosses from their seals?
Or why is the ACLU demanding that a very tiny cross be removed, but not a much larger image of the Goddess Romona? Romona is still worshiped by some Wiccan’s so why can it stay but the cross has to go?
What’s next? Do we need to get rid of all the crosses in the national cemeteries?
My Concern for the Election.
The only concern I have about the election, is the ability to get the truth out. This is somewhat beginning to reminded me of the Medicare debate in the late 1990’s where Democrats kept accusing republicans of trying to cut Medicare so that it would “wither on the vine.” This was all a lie, but then, as now, the truth did not matter. Democrats took a sound clip of Newt Gingrich saying “Wither on the vine” and falsely claimed that he was talking about Medicare. He was in fact talking about the Health care finance administration, something that even Clinton had proposed abolishing, but again the truth did not matter. No matter how many times Republicans tried to correct the record, the Democrats simply kept repeating the lie. Again rather that call the democrats on the lie, the press often echoed it. The truth didn’t matter, the only thing that mattered was stopping the Republicans.
I remember a poll done toward the end of the debate, just before the republicans lost. The poll asked if you supported the “republican plan” and a large majority rejected it as too harsh a cut. Also in the poll, however, they asked about “a proposal.” The proposal was the republican plan but was not identified as such, they only gave the details of the plan. The same people who saw the “republican plan” as too harsh a cut, saw the “proposal” as too generous.
I have no doubt that in an honest evaluation of the positions Bush would win over Kerry in a landslide. The democrats can be expected to be bias, but the press is frankly the worst and most partisan that I have ever seen it. They seem an extension of the Kerry campaign, as is Hollywood which as a whole series of anti-Bush and Anti-Republican scheduled for release between now and the election.
The press focuses on every negative aspect of the war, while ignoring or downplaying anything that might challenge the democratic agenda. The NY Times kept the prison scandal on their front page for something like 28 days! Even thought there was nothing new to report. The beheading of Berg, and the use of WMDs against our troops were barely mentioned. That Saddam was a strong supporter of terrorism is beyond questionm, yet this is simply ignored in the current debate as an inconvenient fact. If it is not directly linked to 9/11, it does not count. But one thing that surprised me was a piece in The Wall Street Journal had last week reporting that as investigators are going through the millions of records left by Saddam’s government there is growing evidence that Saddam not only did have ties to al Quaeda but might very well have ties to 9/11.
The Kay report was highly touted as showing there were no WMDs, in Iraq, but its other finding was that Saddam was even more dangerous than we had believed was ignored. Again and again evidence, like all the other things that do not fit the democratic agenda, are just ignored.
If the truth gets out there, I am confident that Bush will win in a landside, the question is, will the truth get out or will this be like the Medicare debate in the late nineties a case where the lies win?
Was It Worth It?
I saw a very moving interview with some of the wounded soldiers yesterday. One comment really stuck with me. They were all asked, “was it worth it?” All quickly said yes, except for one sailor. He was a Seabee who had been wounded in a mortar attack. He answered in a very serious and concerned manner that it depends. He said that if we continue in Iraq and succeed, then yes it was worth it. However, if we cut and run, or if we allow the terrorist to succeed there, then no it was not.
This was to me a clear statement that you cannot oppose the war, and still support the troops. If those who oppose the war succeed, then all those killed would have died in vain. All the tremendous sacrifice that our troops have gone through would have been for nothing. It would be like Vietnam were 55,000 gave their lives for a free south Vietnam, only to have there effort throw away by the anti-war forces that destroy what over chance the south had by reneging on our commitments in the peace treaty.
It is fine to have all the political debate on the war until it starts, but once troop are in harms way, we should have only one aim: A quick and complete victory. Weakening support for the war once troop are engaged in combat, can only encourage our enemy to fight harder, thereby resulting in the death of more of our troops.
If you want to really support the troops, then push for victory
