Why vote for Bush? What's wrong with Kerry?
Hugh Hewitt's latest symposium question asks: "In 250 words or less, why vote for Bush and what's wrong with Kerry?" Here's my answer:
George W. Bush is a guiding light of goodness, strength, resolve, faith and courage amid the tumult and uncertainty of the world's darkening landscape. In a time of terror, wherein the civilization of the western world is under assault, George W. Bush is leading the defiant and unflinching stand against those who would destroy the very freedom our nation has fought to preserve from our humble beginnings. When the horrific events of 9/11 shook our courage and taxed our faith, George W. Bush emerged from the smoke and haze, stood atop the rubble of a shocked and sunken American spirit, and lifted us up to a newfound dedication to the fight. His steadfastness to that fight since has been unflinching. While many who stood with us then have slackened their step and wavered in their course, Bush has continued his march steadily forward to see the hard work done.
John Kerry, conversely, is an appeaser of those forces which seek to undermine Bush's resolve and America's strength. He has been on the wrong side of every vital American conflict from Vietnam, to the Cold War, through the first Gulf War, to our present struggle. His requirement of first meeting a "global test" prior to acting in defense of our children is frightening and indicative of his failure to grasp the reality and seriousness of the task at hand.
The choice could not be clearer, America. Support President Bush. Let's continue straight ahead, let's not waver, and let's roll.
George W. Bush is a guiding light of goodness, strength, resolve, faith and courage amid the tumult and uncertainty of the world's darkening landscape. In a time of terror, wherein the civilization of the western world is under assault, George W. Bush is leading the defiant and unflinching stand against those who would destroy the very freedom our nation has fought to preserve from our humble beginnings. When the horrific events of 9/11 shook our courage and taxed our faith, George W. Bush emerged from the smoke and haze, stood atop the rubble of a shocked and sunken American spirit, and lifted us up to a newfound dedication to the fight. His steadfastness to that fight since has been unflinching. While many who stood with us then have slackened their step and wavered in their course, Bush has continued his march steadily forward to see the hard work done.
John Kerry, conversely, is an appeaser of those forces which seek to undermine Bush's resolve and America's strength. He has been on the wrong side of every vital American conflict from Vietnam, to the Cold War, through the first Gulf War, to our present struggle. His requirement of first meeting a "global test" prior to acting in defense of our children is frightening and indicative of his failure to grasp the reality and seriousness of the task at hand.
The choice could not be clearer, America. Support President Bush. Let's continue straight ahead, let's not waver, and let's roll.
posted by Wonderdog | 1:27 PM | Permalink
|
9 comments
9 Comments:
I'm not usually one to post randomly on people's blogs, but please take another look at Kerry's "global test" quote. Don't get taken in by the media spin machine. In the context of the quote, Kerry said that he would never give the power of veto to another country when the safety of America is concerned. His "test" is not about giving other countries the right to tell us what to do, but to make sure that his administration presents the truth to the rest of the world when it does things that affect the rest of the world. And a major part of that test is to be able to truthfully tell the American poeple the reasons for his actions--something that I believe Bush hasn't been able to do, but of course I'm a pinko, liberal, French-lover, so what else would I believe? I even like to French kiss.
You sound like a very intelligent person with very definite opinions. I know I'm not going to change them, just as you probably couldn't change mine. Just be mindful of what is your own opinion and what has been forced on you.
Bravo, Wonderdog.
Pshaw, Anon. W didn't exactly rush into war. Saddam was given PLENTY of warning about what was coming -- enough that he had time to hide the WMD.
Yes, WMD again. Don't believe they existed (unlike everyone in the world, before the war started)? Consider: in the last few years China has discovered WMD (chemical) buried or dumped in places by the Japanese during WWII! Now, if it took China 50+ years to find these chemicals that the Japanese denied having, what makes you think our guys are going to find Saddam's WMD any time soon?
Feel free to post a comment anytime anonymous. We welcome dissenting views here at Rumpus and appreciate them. Kerry's "global test" is what it is -- a slip of the tongue which gave us a peek into his ideology of global appeasement for the sake of being liked in the world community. Do you really think we should have begged permission of the U.N. before intervening in Iraq when they were in Saddam's pockets with the Oil-for-food scandal?
You're such a pinko, french-loving, liberal!! You're probably wearing a beret as you read this! (kidding of course) Thanks for the comment and for stopping by Rumpus. Read at your own risk, however, lest you wish to be converted.
VA, good lookin' out (as the hipsters say).
I'm not saying that I don't believe that Saddam had the ability to produce WMDs (at one time) or that I didn't believe it when we went to war. Colin Powell really had me going there. However, I don't believe that Bush presented all the facts as he and his administration knew them. When Bush says that Congress (including Kerry) had access to the same exact information that he did, it's a blatant lie. No one has access to the exact same information as the President.
But the point of my post was that it's important to research talking points and make your own opinion about what each candidate says. I don't agree with everything Kerry says, and when he makes claims without providing a basis I look into them. I understand his position on Iraq, but his defense of his so-called "flip-flop" on his voting doesn't add up. I'm a Kerry supporter (already voted for him by absentee ballot), but I'm not taken in by everything he says just because he says it.
Gads, you don't expect me to understand hipsters, do you? (I thought they were extinct.)
Did y'all see Duelfer: 'A lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria'?
Dear Anonymous,
If Bush's reasons to use force in Iraq did NOT, as you suggest, pass the "global test" (as you construe it), why on earth did John Kerry vote to authorize the President to use force in Iraq? None of the hemming and hawing that Kerry has done on this question is even remotely convincing; either Kerry believed that the use of force in Iraq already passed "the global test," or he voted to authorize force without establishing to his own satisfaction that the use of force passed the "global test." And since Kerry is such a believer in the global test, why did he vote AGAINST the first Gulf War -- a conflict which passed the "global test" by any reasonable definition of the term?
Bush did not lie to the American people. Even the famous sixteen words in the State of the Union address has been proven to be true (see the Butler report)-- and that great patriot Joe Wilson has been proven to be a liar. [If you want to talk about "spin," why don't we examine how much coverage was afforded Joe Wilson's credibility implosion versus how much was afforded his original accusations?] What's troubling about Kerry's "global test" remark, and his subsequent explanations, is that Kerry does not make it clear how, exactly, the global test gets administered and how a nation is determined to have passed it. If the President decides to act preemptively, how do the American people decide whether the President's plan passes the global test? What if France and Germany and Russia oppose the action, and deem the President's reasons for preemption illegitimate? Is that sufficient proof that we've failed the "global test"?
Anon. . this crew is open to discuss ideas so yours are always welcome. You forgot to put one thing on your post. . "My name is John Kerry and I approved this message".
All kidding aside, let me assure you that you are correct that Wonderdog is a person of strong opinions. The assessment of intelligent. . well. . batting .500 is baseball is a tremendous achievement.
Your opinions will always be met with polite and reasoned response. I only wish the same were (was?) true if I posted a conservative opinion on a liberal/progressive blog.
And to Anon, you said that it is a "blatent lie" that congres had the same intel as the prez. I am not "in the know". I doubt that someone with the security clearance to be "in the know" would be making anon postings on this website, so that leads me to surmise that you are engaging in the type of hyperbole that we have come to expect from the left.
If I wagered a guess on the subject, I would surmise that those members of the house and senate who serve on the intelligence committe are given the exact same information as the white house. Please prove me wrong.
Anon, please forgive Stewdog if he's a bit cranky. Based on the posted time of his comment, he wrote it just after Jeff Kent's at bat.
Post a Comment
<< Home