Tuesday, October 05, 2004

 
Going out on a limb, but if the "cost" of Gulf War I was only 5 billion dollars, wasn't that largely the result of money paid out by the Saudis? Bush, of course, according to Michael Moore, who sits(literally)at the side of Democratic luminaries, is a puppet of those Saudis-whose support for Gulf War II seems a little light on presence.
Edwards just repeated the lie about "plastic weapons that pass through metal detectors." Cheney should have been prepared for that hoary fiction.
Cheney is wrong that Kerry primarily opposed Gulf War II because of pressure from Deaniacs and the like. Kerry has at times voted for the War and its run-up because
of political expediency. He has at other times voted and spoken against it because of his hatred of U.S. patriotism and because the losses inflicted by the "insurgents" lessened the political cost of doing so. VDH made this last observation(months ago and reiterated recently) regarding this fair-weather ersatz patriot and eternal traitor.
Edwards fills out the role of a fifth column maggot well when he states that the "world" did not follow us into Iraq and does not "respect" us now because we did not tell the "truth." i.e. that Bush lied. Jonah Goldberg and others have made the point
repeatedly and without contradiction and alas, without registering on the thugish intellect of the Kerrys and Edwards that the domestic opposition(with certainly few exceptions)France, and others opposed action against Iraq in spite of its belief
that Iraq *did* have WMDs. (granted war against some nation other than Afghanistan was necessary apart from WMDs.)
In a less depraved country the debate would be between Bush and what is called "the right" with respect to Iraq. Apart from Kerry's propensity for lies, as bad is Bush's conduct of the postwar in Iraq, Kerry's would certainly be worse. -unless you count immediate withdrawal as not the worst outcome. There is little to believe that if a President Kerry put "more troops" into Iraq, they would not essentially be wasted. Even under Bush, most of our troops do little more than provide targets for the insurgents. -sorry-no offense to our hardworking and endangered troops. They should be freer to do what Kerry objected to in Vietnam. (massive use of air power, free fire zones and the like. It would be obscene for Bush or Kerry to send troops into Fallujah without massive use of airpower and with rules of engagement that protect "innocent" civilians. A President Kerry who tried to "win" in Iraq would
be worse than one who withdrew from "the wrong war at the wrong place, at the wrong time."-and would deserve no support whatsoever from any American or branch of government or branch of the Armed Services. It is disappointing that some high-ranking officers have not already resigned in protest under Bush. Republicans who have been stabbed in the back by functionally treasonous Democrats would be less inclined to withold support from a President Kerry, given their desire to support the only country they have(in contrast to Democrats who hate what differentiates us from most of the world), but they should seriously consider this. Clinton's role in stabbing the U.S. in the back during what was arguably an unwinnable war in Viet Name was minor compared to Kerry's 30 years of treason. And at worst, Clinton led the U.S. into minor skirmishes where our interests weren't at stake. (The withdrawal from Somalia was pre-9/11 and unfortunately not unprecedented) And the Republicans at most carped a little over his actions in parts of the former Yugoslavia, minor strikes against Iraq and Sudan and so on. (And some may have regrets about even that)
Kerry's record is much much much worse than the ol "New Democrat" Clinton. -I'm starting the miss the old satyr already.
Debate is ending-Cheney apparently believes that it is acceptable to only question Kerry's "inconsistencies" and "judgment" . One hopes enough Americans realize the truth about the traitorious maggot.