Why can I not, in good conscience, vote for Kerry? I don't trust him. I can't expect him to make a decision and not change his mind because it's politically convenient. I don't trust him to protect this country. I don't trust him not to subjugate our military to the will of the United Nations, an organization that has been shown to be corrupt. He doesn't even know if he's for or against the war in Iraq. The latest is that he would probably have done it, but he would have done it differently. Just how he would have done it differently is left as an exercise for the listener. Besides, it's irrelevant. The only way it matters is if we turn back time, create an alternate universe where he was president and watch what happens. What matters is what he will do going forward. He and the Democrats don't even know the meaning of the word unilaterally; they're perpetuating the lie that we went into Iraq alone and that 30-plus countries don't have personnel there right now helping out. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, and all the rest are there, not because we coerced them to be, but because they want to be. Kerry and the Democrats denigrate our real allies every time they try to tell us otherwise.
I don't believe he is a man of good character. How does he handle the allegations of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? Instead of ignoring them and not dignifying them with a response, instead of simply refuting their claims with credible evidence, he sends his legal attack dogs out to try to shut them up. He and his campaign claim that SBVT is connected to the Bush campaign, and cite the example of Benjamin Ginsberg, while ignoring the numerous, and closer, ties he and his campaign have with their 527 supporters like MoveOn.org, Media Fund, and others. And what about that photo op involving poor Max Cleland? He totally exploited Cleland's disability when he sendt the man, in his wheelchair, up to the Crawford ranch with a letter demanding that Bush denounce the SBVT. When he was met at the gate by another veteran, with a letter criticizing Kerry for his anti-war activities after returning from Viet Nam, he refused to exchange the letters. What a lame stunt.
He wants to reduce the cost of health care. But he has chosen as his running mate a man who, along with the others in his profession, are the principle cause of those costs being so high. You think he's going to push for medical liability reform? I sure don't. Instead, he wants to implement socialized health care, turn our health care system into an inefficient, bloated bureacracy, and replicate the problems that have plagued socialized health care systems in other countries (such as the thousands who died in the French summer heat last year because of all the health-care workers on mandatory vacation). And he wants to spend over two trillion dollars to do it! No thanks. Right now we have the best health care in the world and, even if you can't pay, you can still get at least emergency care (Techno-Literary-Geekette, who works in health care, agrees with that statement). I don't want the government (i.e. the taxpayers) paying for everyone's health care. I would rather pay for it myself, and have private charities provide for those that can't. Health care is not a right, it's a product. I know that sounds cold, but it's true. Yes, it is deserving of a special distinction. But I'd rather donate to charity (and I do donate to United Way at the leadership level) than have the government take my income by force. At least that way it's my choice.
I believe that, given the chance, Kerry would make a mockery of the Second Amendment. Those who know me know that this is an important issue for me. He may say he supports the right to have guns for hunting, complete with photos of him engaging in that activity, but it's not about hunting and it never was. It's about defending yourself and others from violent criminals. It's about defending your country from foreign invaders. And it's about defending us all from a tyrannical governmnet. The right enumerated in the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees all the other rights listed in the Constitution. That is why I am armed citizen.
And finally, Mr. Kerry, I can't vote for you because of how you betrayed every American soldier who served in Viet Nam by telling bald-faced lies about them, under oath, in front of the Senate. You recounted testimony from Viet Nam veterans, many of whom turned out to be nothing of the kind, about how every soldier serving over there was a war criminal. Your testimony directly affected the outcome of the war. The North Vietnamese had all but lost, but they hung on in the hope, which turned out to be justified, that you and people like you would turn the opinion of the American public against the war. Your words were shown to POW's who endured torture to avoid admitting to the lies you told. I've long known at an abstract level that our armed forces are the people we truly owe our freedom to. But now I know it viscerally, at the core of my being. What you did to them was inexcusable. Every day that goes by that you don't apologize is another day you piss on every name engraved into that black wall.
You want to be the Commander in Chief of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. If you are elected, you may command them, but you will never lead them. They will follow your orders, but they will not follow you. You may demand their respect, but it will always be given grudgingly.
I don't agree with everything that George W. Bush has done. I disagree with the Federal Marriage Amendment. I disagree with him signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. I disagree with him saying he would sign an extension of the assault weapon ban if it came to his desk. I disagree with him increasing the size of government through programs like the Medicare drug benefit. I disagree with him expanding the federal government's role in public education. He's actually proposed and pushed for a lot of things that are the traditional bailiwick of the Democrats. He's not perfect, but I can live with that because I trust the man to do what is right when it comes to defending this country. I trust him to say what he means and mean what he says. When he makes a decision, he sticks with it, regardless of whether or not it's politically convenient. He is a man of faith and, though some may disagree with the tenets of that faith, at least he acts in accordance with his conscience. He doesn't quibble. He doesn't try to inject nuance into everything he does. He just calls it like he sees it and then acts on it.
Many people point to his record on the environment as an example of just how awful he is. It's true that he's not a rabid conservationist. It looks to me like he's trying to find a balance between conservation and responsible utilization of natural resources. Yes, he proposes drilling for oil in the ANWR, which would affect about one percent of the area. However, the only way, in the near term, that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is by creating new domestic sources (and, incidentally, increase the number of domestic refineries). New technologies and energy sources are on the way, but they're still on the horizon. It doesn't matter how many mpg your Toyota Prius gets; it still runs on gasoline. The electricity for electric cars has to come from somewhere. I think fuel cells are promising, but it will be a long time before they are pervasive provided the technology pans out.
Of course, we could always build more nuclear power plants.
This is a topic that merits further debate, I will admit. However, it's just one of many issues that go into the decision of who to cast one's vote for in November.
He has proven to me and, I will bet, to most members of our military, that he is worthy of commanding the US armed forces. You may think him flying to Iraq on Thanksgiving was a stunt but he did so at a not inconsiderable personal risk. He did it because he truly respects and appreciates our fighting men and women and wanted to show them just how much he does. He visits wounded soldiers recovering in the hospital, and he visits the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The man, quite simply, cares. I can tell just by watching and listening to him. If he really doesn't, then he's an actor worthy of an Oscar. And he did serve in the military and he was trained as an officer. To those who think he's an idiot, you don't learn to pilot an F-102 jet fighter, and live through it, by being stupid; that was not a very forgiving aircraft to fly. And you're a hypocrite if you think that it's okay to say Bush was AWOL, but it's not okay to question the verisimilitude of Kerry's actions in Viet Nam. Both served; both were honorably discharged.
I believe that the Iraq is an essential campaign in the war on terror. We've tried diplomacy; we've tried appeasement; they didn't work. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of terror. He gave money to the families of Palestinians who died in terror attacks on Israel. He did have ties to Al Qaeda and, even if there's no evidence that he cooperated with them on the September 11 attacks, can you honestly believe he wouldn't have cooperated with them on a future attack if the opportunity had presented itself? And why is it that the left decries the kind of atrocities that went on in Iraq and Afghanistan, but then bitches when the US actually does something about them? Oh, that's right, it was all about the ooooiiiilllll. Yeah, and I'm still paying two bucks for a gallon of gas. In reality, the Iraqis have control of their own oil and they're reaping the benefits of selling it. Oh, it was all about making Halliburton rich. Yeah, and Halliburton has had people die in Iraq. As James Lileks said in the comment I posted the other day, "But if you wanted to make money rebuilding a country's infrastructure, wouldn't it be easier to drop sanctions in exchange for lucractive contracts fulfilled with the help of the existing regime?" Occam's Razor, people. Oh, it was about little Bush's desire for revenge against Saddam for the plot to assassinate his daddy. Come on, do you really believe that? If so, you better get out the tinfoil hats.
We spent 18 months dicking around at the UN, trying to get them to enforce their own resolutions so you can't say we "rushed" to war. The Congress of the United States voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq (which John Kerry voted for, you know) so you can't say that the President usurped the power of Congress. And, may I remind you all, that we were never really "at peace" with Iraq after the first Gulf War. He had continually fired on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and he did not adhere to the terms of the cease fire. The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power is actually a continuation of what began with the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.
Nobody wanted war, but war was declared on us. We can't make peace with an enemy that desires only our destruction, submission, or conversion to their militant brand of Islam. And I won't accept us sitting back and waiting for the next strike to come. And it's not just us. The subway bombings in Madrid were Islamic terror. The massacre in the Russian school that just happened was Islamic terror. French refusal to assist the US and its allies in Iraq didn't stop their journalists from being kidnapped. In a not-so-subtle reference to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance at the Republican National Convention, the terrorists are like the Terminator:
Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
I've heard the doctrine of pre-emptive war compared to the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor. Let's examine that more closely, shall we?
By that time, the Japanese had already invaded China and had committed atrocities there such as the Rape of Nankang. The US froze Japanese assets and enacted an embargo. The Japanese, rather than accept the terms the US demanded in order to lift the embargo, tried to knock out US naval power in the Pacific. They hoped that, by doing so, the US would not be able to prevent them from dominating the Pacific and thereby gaining the strategic advantage. We got lucky; the aircraft carriers were out on maneuvers and were not destroyed. This would ultimately lead to our victory in the Battle of Midway, and the turning of the tide in the Pacific theater.
If you think about it, a more accurate analogue would be if the US had attacked Japan, not the other way around.
So we didn't find stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. Well, if Bush lied about it, then so did all these people. And we have found chemical weapons. One or two shells? Yeah, but with enough sarin and mustard gas to kill thousands. Even so, it wasn't the only reason. Read this and this. And before you throw the word "yellowcake" at me, those infamous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union Address were the truth. He said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." British intelligence to this day stands by their report that this was the case. And remember Joseph Wilson of the CIA, who claimed that he found no evidence of attempts by Saddam Hussein to buy uranium from Niger? Well, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA had something to say about that.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Short form: Wilson lied, Bush didn't.
I said Iraq was a campaign, which means that the overall scope of the war is larger. I could expand on this, but someone has already done so. If you click one link in this entire post, then click this one and read the entire article.
This is probably the longest post I've ever written so I'm going to wrap it up. I'm writing it to let you all know the reasons I'm making the decision that I am. There's a lot more I could add, and I may do so in the coming weeks. I don't expect it to change anyone's mind but, at the very least, nobody can say I haven't put any thought into it. I only ask and expect that you will vote the way you believe is right.
No comments:
Post a Comment