Why I Will Vote for Bush
by Bob Clasen
___________________
This is not the time to have a shape shifter as our President.
We need a candidate who has at his core a set of consistent moral principles.
Bush has surrounded himself with smart and experienced leaders on national defense: Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield.
We have overthrown the Taliban and Iraq's regime of thugs, but George needs four more years to finish the job.
By contrast, Kerry has been on the wrong side of every military action and important military vote for thirty years, including the first Iraq war, when we had all the allies and global support one could ever hope to have, and Kerry still voted against throwing Hussein out of Kuwait. If Kerry were President, Saddam and his two psychopathic children would still be in charge, still running the rape rooms, still filling the mass graves.
Regarding Afghanistan, Matthew Heidt, a former Navy Seal said,
________________________________________
" President Bush's actions and words following 9/11 exemplify a grace under pressure, outstanding leadership, and steely resolve that will not soon be replicated. His response to the assault on our Homeland was the perfect combination of effective force, assertive diplomacy, and crisis management. The Afghan campaign will go down in military history as a textbook implementation of Unconventional Warfare techniques to achieve with a small number of SOF operators what the entire Soviet Army could not. This was set in motion within a month of the precipitating event, which is all the more amazing. Not all Presidents would take the risk of confronting our enemies in Afghanistan in such a manner.
________________________________________
This is not the time to return to the failed tactics of treating terrorists like criminals, surrendering to International Pressure to appeasement and a general failure to take the war to the enemy. This is not the time to back down. America should never back down to terrorists.
_______________________________________
___________________
This is not the time to have a shape shifter as our President.
We need a candidate who has at his core a set of consistent moral principles.
Bush has surrounded himself with smart and experienced leaders on national defense: Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield.
We have overthrown the Taliban and Iraq's regime of thugs, but George needs four more years to finish the job.
By contrast, Kerry has been on the wrong side of every military action and important military vote for thirty years, including the first Iraq war, when we had all the allies and global support one could ever hope to have, and Kerry still voted against throwing Hussein out of Kuwait. If Kerry were President, Saddam and his two psychopathic children would still be in charge, still running the rape rooms, still filling the mass graves.
Regarding Afghanistan, Matthew Heidt, a former Navy Seal said,
________________________________________
" President Bush's actions and words following 9/11 exemplify a grace under pressure, outstanding leadership, and steely resolve that will not soon be replicated. His response to the assault on our Homeland was the perfect combination of effective force, assertive diplomacy, and crisis management. The Afghan campaign will go down in military history as a textbook implementation of Unconventional Warfare techniques to achieve with a small number of SOF operators what the entire Soviet Army could not. This was set in motion within a month of the precipitating event, which is all the more amazing. Not all Presidents would take the risk of confronting our enemies in Afghanistan in such a manner.
________________________________________
This is not the time to return to the failed tactics of treating terrorists like criminals, surrendering to International Pressure to appeasement and a general failure to take the war to the enemy. This is not the time to back down. America should never back down to terrorists.
_______________________________________
Comments
I personally responded to this post with my rather strong feeling about the mistake we made in going into Iraq.
I want Bush's PNAC group out of our defense department.
Let's just examine one of your points, our military success in Afghanistan. To compare the Kabul government's fight with the freedom fighters of the 80's with what we accomplished is comparing an apple with an orange. The US govenment funnelled over a billion dollars through Pakistan into OBL's hands to fight the Soviet backed regime to a stalemate. Pakistan was on our side, not the Afghan governments.
This is not to give credit to the greatest military machine on the planet. Virtually no country could counter our air superiority. Once that is achieved we can pick off large visible targets at will. Look at our success in Kosovo and Serbia. However, once you win the military battle, there is the dubious honor of the occupation. If the US would just kill or destroy ever single pocket of resistance through overwhelming strength, I think we would succeed. However, what would history say about us. This by the way is the only way to fight a war. Vietnam should be proof enough that we don't appear to have the stomach for killing up close and personal.
However, we, as a nation try to do more than militarily win a war. We want the conquered's hearts and minds. This doesn't come easy.
As I understand it, Kabul and a couple of larger cities are under US/Afghan control. The warlords control the rest. Maybe this is an exageration but, I doubt the government really rules most of its own country.
The same applies to much of Iraq. Before the war, because of the no-fly zones, Saddam did not control portions of his own country. (Kurds in the north and Shiite in the south had some degree of autonomy). It remains to be seen if these regions can be united under one government that doesn't rule with an iron fist.
What I would like to pose is this question,"What would constitute a failure in Iraq"? Would three autonomous states be OK? Perhaps a loose federation with some common national (weak) government? Is democracy require? if there is constant unrest, this may be the only way.
In otherwords Bob, what is your vision on Iraq. Jefferson, the constitution & bill of rights, freedom of speech? religious toleration? A secular government? What about something more akin to Iran? Would it be OK if the people want a religious veto? Compare Turkey to Iran? Would it be acceptable for the US to just leave Iraq in a shambles indefinately so long as they could not produce WMD's, missiles, etc.
For my money, the only thing that we don't want is to have a powerful and fanatical regime come to power which is hostile towards the US.
So you vote for Bush and I will vote for Kerry. I really don't think at this point either are going to allow the situation to pass power to a hositle regime. I don't think Kerry would wimp out and just pull our troops to leave things as they stand today. However, I do think the sooner some Arab peacekeepers are in the country,the better.
Is it true that Bush turned down an multination Arab group who volanteered to help monitor the elections? If so,why?