Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The TRUTH About John Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (1448)	6/3/2004 3:43:12 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1483

Massachusetts Senatorial Madness Chuck Busch What does it take besides being an extreme liberal “tax and spend” pro-abortion (though Catholic) opportunist politician with a passive compliance toward judicial anarchy and same sex marriages to get re-elected as a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts over and over again? Judging by statements from this state’s two most celebrated representatives, the qualifications must also include an indifference toward national defense, a not so disguised disrespect of the America soldier, a convincing ability to espouse vague platitudes devoid of practical application, and the impertinence to make perplexing reckless inane irrelevant accusations against the current administration. All hope for an intelligent rational discussion of the most pressing issues of our times during this campaign season is fading fast. Ted Kennedy, in a comment eerily reminiscent of the reproach branded on the American soldier in Vietnam, compared our military police to the torturers under Saddam Hussein’s command by saying, “Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management, US management.” John Kerry quipped, “President Bush’s arrogance is costing us lives and money.” By “arrogance,” does Kerry believe that America should not act as a sovereign state in defending its own security when other nations refuse to confront the growing menace of international terrorism? Does Kerry think that freedom from the jihadist threat can be won without cost? But perhaps the most egregious convoluted statement to date has been the one presented during Kerry’s trip through Arkansas. His comment, obviously crafted for that specific audience was, “When Bill Clinton left office no American soldier was fighting in a war anywhere in the world.” It’s hard to know where to begin in untangling this monstrosity of misinformation, political chicanery, legal parsing, alarming inferences and bold face lying. First of all, it would be very ill advised for John Kerry to run on Bill Clinton’s record or repeat his policies. When the 9-11 commission report is finally published, it most certainly will document the gross, even criminal, inattention to national defense by the previous administration. If it were true that no soldier was fighting anywhere, that would surely be an indictment against the Clinton administration and evidence that the Clinton/Gore team was in fact passive regarding the threat of terrorism. The US did not enjoy “peace in our time” at the end of their term. Recall that the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole that left 17 sailors dead had still gone unanswered by our military. That Kerry should boast of this lack of an aggressive defense despite a clear and present danger shows how little he understands what combating terror requires. He also is ignoring that a state of war already existed, launched long before by Islamic jihadists, a reality that Clinton doggedly chose to deny. Regardless of whether an official war was in effect, how can Kerry blithely passed over all the vicious attacks against the American people during Clinton’s two terms? Is it so easy for him to forget the many soldiers, like the 18 Rangers killed in Somalia during an al Quaida ambush, who had died defending their country’s interests? Need I repeat the extensive record of casualties from bombed buildings, embassies, barracks, and boats? To discount the memory of those murdered by Islamic radicals to make a campaign one liner is simply beyond the pale. His shameful cynical practice of exploiting the guardians of our freedom to promote his own career continues unabated even after 30 years. And how can he not consider the hundreds of civilians who have died in terrorist attacks such as the 1993 World Trade Center and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings? In Bosnia and Kosovo, Bill Clinton prided himself in the fact that only NATO bombers were involved and no ground troops sustained casualties due to hostile fire. He apparently did not “feel the pain” of the civilians who suffered from the not so precise high aerial bombings? Are we to assume that civilian deaths are not as significant politically as the military body count? Does the military exist to provide security for itself or for the civilian population? How absurd is this? Implicit in his statement, is the notion that war against terror can be conducted without the actual need for combat troops in contrast to the steady losses experienced in Afghanistan and Iraqi. When John Kerry voted to begin hostilities against Saddam Hussein, did he suppose that the Republican Guard would simply lay down their arms at the mere threat of violence? Does Kerry, like Clinton before him, really think he can mollify the militant jihads with persuasion as he once suggested? Does not Kerry appear weak in the eyes of the terrorists? We need a Commander-in-Chief who fights and will have the respect of our fighting forces and our enemies. Promising peace without a price is one campaign promise that is sure to be broken.