Friday, October 01, 2004

 
Kerry's Big, Fat, Stupid Lie,
And The Idiots Who Let Him Get
Away With It-

Unlike others, I've been reluctant to use the "L" word when it comes to statements made by others, prefering general opinions that say, so and so is lying when he/she/it suggests that he is not a fifth column pro-totalitarian genocidal thug.
I'm also not sure why Kerry got away with the howler(add some of the language used by the coprophagic Molly Ivins)during last night's debate: "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." Sigh, it's not like the Bush team hasn't had time to respond to that sort of psychotic lie. At best, it could be viewed as rhetorical excess, and for all I know, Bush has said something like it. At any rate, back in the mists of time(July 30, 2004), Kerry blathered and YT responded with:1."And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

2."And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us."

3. "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."

1 and 3 say to our enemies, "C'mon hit me with your best shot!" -practically begging for a sucker punch.
2. -doesn't go too well with 1 or 3 does it? Or does it mean we'll be so tight with the likes of say, France or Syria, that when they act against terrorists on their soil, we can say "we"? Or that such countries will allow preemptive strikes by our forces against terrorists in their homelands?

As argued many times earlier, the Bush strategy of invading or threatening to invade countries which support terrorism and bring about a democratic state is inadequate to deter all terrorists. Eeek! The Americans will bring peace, freedom and prosperity to our land! Some terrorists don't mind very much living in the relatively comfortable fleshpots of the West. They can enjoy the forbidden fruits of the enemy and wage war. And if they defeat pro-democracy forces or pro-western forces(I doubt that many, if any, Arab countries can be both democratic and pro-western for the forseeable future, given that their populations are, as you've noted, "nutso.")-why that's not a bad outcome for them either. Also as noted earlier, VDH came up with some half-baked(better than most other peoples') argument that we should make a "big list" of targets in terror-supporting countries. Well, the list better be bigger than all of the military men and equipment in all of the Islamic world, given that I think that if given a choice of not having 9/11 happen or having it happen with the loss of said military capabilities(easily replaced)thoughtful Muslims would have gladly accepted such an exchange."

Kerry's debate lie, of course, actually goes beyond his statement about responding to an attack. Bush's assertions that if a nation harbors terrorists it is against us and so forth, at most suggest that we *might* strike against that nation and/or the terrorists. Are we supposed to believe that a President Kerry would hunt down and kill terrorists *everywhere*? While granting that it's possible he might go after terrorist *somewhere,* are we supposed to believe that he would kill terrorists in say, Iran, Syria, or (shudder)France? (Will leave Iraq off Kerry's to do list because, remember that in *Iraq* there were no terrorists, ties to terrorists, payments to families of terrorists, cheering of terrorists, terrorist training camps, medical treatment of terrorists......)Voters might enthusiastically release a President Kerry from his pledge to hunt down and kill terrorists after a Jimmy "Dhimmi" Carter raid on Teheran type failure or two.
This is not to say that from time to time special ops type raids against terrorists will have their place; just that, as argued before, hunting down terrorists(some of whom will have already lost their lives in suicide missions)is altogether insufficient in this War, if not a "distraction."
Also from time to time we might have terrorists turned over to us by nominally free countries(to the extent any are not cooperating with us now, *they* not we, deserve condemnation). (And just why terrorists might be turned over to a Kerry administration by unfriendly countries? Just what would that sack of excrement give up to obtain them? His fifth-column instincts would give away a lot for *nothing*.)One reason an unfriendly government might surrender terrorists to a Bush government is to "cut a deal."(been watching too much "Law & Order"lately)The deal in some cases would be to refrain from making *war*(with capturing or killing members of the unfriendly government high on the list of objectives) on those countries. Call it a "last resort," if one wishes-or better yet a "last chance" for those scumbuckets.
And once again, we should be telling Iraqis, if not most of the Muslim world, that Iraq may be *their* last chance to form a non-aggressive, democratic government. And that if they fail, Islam may be annihilated worldwide.