October 20, 2004
Does A Can Offer You Real Protection? About As Much As Kerry Can
This post brought to you by Security Moms For Bush.
From Wed. Oct. 6, 2004, by Matthew Manweller:
"Election determines fate of nation."
"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance.
Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history.
If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be twofold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing Democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other Civilizations.
The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future Presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.
Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10.
The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our ownself-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.
It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation.' But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.
This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."
I don't know about you, but I've been getting tons of spam in the old inbox lately - offering to block those pesky "red light" cameras with a spray can of invisible protection. Like that invisibility come on, Kerry's sleek veneer seems to offer some great cloak of security. And, just like the email scam, all of us should know better. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Think about it.
Posted by DaGoddess at October 20, 2004 11:14 PMI totally agree, it's hard to believe so many voters in this country don't really understand what freedom is. They also don't seem to understand the costs abd responsibilities of that freedom!
Bill
Posted by: Bill at October 21, 2004 12:27 AMHow does Kerry represent "retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence"? He said that since we're in Iraq, we need to win and finish the job. In fact, he wants to concentrate on Osama, but this writer brings up that bogeyman anyhow.
Bush has said (and everyone has repeated) that another terrorist attack is likely if not inevitable as things are now. He said this to cover his ass in case we were hit while he's in office. Now he's just using it the other way. ANY future American president will have to concentrate on terrorism, duh, how obvious can you get?
The lesson we learned was not Somalia, but Vietnam, another big duh.
The biggest duh, however, is "we will announce to the world that bringing Democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us." Well, I hate to tell you this, but it IS, no matter who's president! I like it even less than you do-- I think we oughta take out Saudi Arabia, too. But we probably won't ever have enough troops for them all before someone really does let off some nuke in the NYC subway. And we'd only have ourselves to blame if we'd been trying to democratize by the end of a gun.
The troops are not allowed to say it, but they will never be behind a President John Kerry.
What he did in 1971 is enough for me to be against him no matter what.
He caused American soldiers, sailors and airmen to be tortured. He caused American deaths.
That and the fact that Kerry would bow before the UN is enough for me to vote for Bush, no matter the domestic disagreements I have with him.
Posted by: Beth Donovan at October 21, 2004 05:31 AMBush has tried to place so much fear into the American People... that's his whole campaign. I don't want to live in fear and I resent him for doing that to us. OF COURSE life is dangerous and terrorists are out there and we will probably be attacked again, right here, in the good ol USA. Do you think John Kerry would not retailate if that were to happen... come on. He will do an excellent job and he will be trusted when he speaks. Bush just knows how to lie.
Osama will never be brought to justice on Bush's watch. The Bin Ladens and Bush go way back and that is Bush's whole plan to diveret the American people's attention from Osama to Saddam. Bunch of bunk.
I feel exactly the same way that writer did but I feel that way about Bush. John Kerry must and will be elected Nov. 2nd.
Posted by: JT at October 21, 2004 08:42 AMI've always thought of this as an important election, but for a long time I've put off the idea of this being our biggest decision in years. We are rising to the challenge of defending ourselves in World War III (and make no mistake, this is a world war). Our incumbent wishes to take the war to them. His opponent wishes to kow-tow to the UN. The choice for me is simple - terrorists cannot be reasoned with and must be stamped out hard.
Some have questioned whether we have the right to force democracy on another country. Well, I suppose a doctor could argue that curing someone of a disease would be bad because a disease is a living thing with the same right to live as the host. The question is who do you care about most? But will it do any good to force regime change in dictatorships?
Here are some of the wars we've fought in the twentieth century: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afganistan, Iraq (there are others, but this list will suffice for now). In which of these wars did we initiate a regime change? That would be WWII, Afganistan, and Iraq. Which ones did we just leave alone after it was done? WWI, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War. Compare the nations where we did initiate regime change to those where we did not. Which places turned out peaceful? The treaty of Versailles left Germany bankrupt and led to WWII, but we initiated regime change after that, and today Germany is a peaceful nation. Afganistan and Iraq are much better off then they were, though it is fair to say things might change (they very will could if we bail out now). North Korea and Vietnam are under the rule of communism (which is every bit of a dictatorship as fascism) and are not happy places to visit. At the end of the Gulf war we did not initiate regime change in Iraq, and it remained a dictatorship until we finished the job recently.
Anyone see a pattern there? An unstable nation will eventually become a danger to other nation. The nation will not stabilize itself (dictators never want to give up their power, power corrupts after all). The only choice is to force the dictators out of power. If we left it at that, then another dictator would likely take over. We have no choice but to set up a stabilized government, and a democracy of some sort is the best way to do it. Yes, we must initiate regime change in mid-east countries if we are to stop terrorism...and that goes for Saudi Arabia as well.
Posted by: Cool Tester at October 21, 2004 08:52 AMyeay! for security moms!
Posted by: mlah at October 21, 2004 10:30 PM"Do you think John Kerry would not retailate if that were to happen... come on."
Sure, Kerry would possibly retaliate, after conferring with bodies and governments extra-legal from the American political process.
Bush, on the other hand, is acting to prevent attacks, making retaliation a moot point.
"Do unto others... before they do unto you."
Posted by: 51st State at October 22, 2004 02:18 PMA very true post. With a firm grasp of the consequences if George W. is defeated in less than two weeks.
Others may wish or pretend differently, but this quote by security moms is the truth. Plain and simple.
The other day, I found out that Senator John Kerry, voted against Operation Desert Storm. He decided to vote against going to war with Iraq. I find it ironic that what he is demanding we should have done in Iraq now, he voted against in Desert Storm. Does anyone see a pattern here?
It is amazing that we have an "American" who wants to turn over our sovergnity to the United Nations. He wants us to submit to a group of thugs and dictators before we do anything. He wants us to submit to people who engineered and benefited from the Oil for Food program that the United Nations endorsed. He wants us to submit to people who had no problems taking bribes from Saddam while innocent children died. He wants us to submit to the United Nations, while Saddam used WMD against the Kurds. These other "allies" who voted against us were providing weapons to the Saddam and in return getting millions of dollars.
Yet, inspite of all these, there are a number of Americans who willing flock to John Kerry. These Americans are willing to sacrifice all that is America because of a political belief. We sure haven't learned anything from history at all. These Americans, who bury their heads in the sand and hope it passing over them, leave the biggest part of their anatomy above ground waiting for someone to take advantage of the situation.
Posted by: David at October 23, 2004 05:04 AMI am voting for Bush. I hope it will it will get over in a hurry, boring and getting feed up with all those lies, Cat.
Posted by: Catfish at October 24, 2004 12:15 AMHere is a most worthy flash presentation:
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/15325_comment.php
Terrorists for Bush! Business never better! Thanks
Posted by: Terrorist at October 24, 2004 01:20 PMWe'll never do "big things" that matter with the small-minded guy who's in the White House now. All he's succeeded in doing is further destabilizing a troubled nation. Oh, and not to mention, taking away more of our constitutional rights here at home, plus putting even more in jeopardy. I'm a mom and I am **praying** for the sake of my family's future that we get these people out of power before they do any more harm to our country and our planet.
Posted by: lurker at October 26, 2004 02:02 AMIt is true that Osama Bin Laden will never be brought to justice. His own son put it more poetically. "He will never be seperated from the sands of Afghanistan." Unless, of course you think it effective use of our military resources to run DNA testing on said sand.
what a lot of silliness! Bush took the hugest surplus this nation has ever had and in 4 years given us the largest deficit we have ever had--and no, it was not Iraq--it began well before.He had planned well before 9/11 to go into Iraq--now documented--and took heat of Ossama in Afghanistan. and on and on...if Bush doesn't worryh one iota about the world and what it thinks, why should you worry what the world would think if we dumped Bush? And, finally, every poll I have seen indicates that Every foreign country (perhaps not Israel) prefers Kerry to win.
Posted by: freddie at October 29, 2004 08:18 PM