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 : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (12599)	9/26/2004 12:23:01 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

More "Liberal Patriotism" From John Kerry A Patriot's Perspective Christopher G. Adamo "Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country." -- Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), 30th U.S. President (1923-1929) September 23, 2004 In light of John Kerry's hypersensitivity towards any questioning of his "patriotism", it is noteworthy that in the last few days, he has presented yet another example of his completely warped definition of the concept. In an earlier time, it would have been universally understood that efforts to discourage America's allies from supporting such a worthy cause as the war on terror, were blatantly unpatriotic. Yet that is precisely what Kerry has done. Among the most memorable statements of President Bush's September 20, 2001 address to the joint session of Congress was his warning to the terrorists of "You can run, but you can't hide." Conversely, Australian Prime Minister John Howard realizes that although the civilized people of the world would have preferred to avoid this conflict, they have no choice but to confront it. Hiding is also not an option for them. Prime Minister Howard has proven himself in recent years to be not only a steadfast and principled conservative, but also a staunch supporter of America's efforts to defeat the forces of militant Islam. Few major players on the world scene have done as much as Howard to courageously face this common enemy of the civilized world, while articulating the absolute necessity of doing so in bold and convincing terms. So does Kerry, who ostensibly desires to see the anti-terror coalition broadened and thus strengthened, extend thanks and encouragement to Howard? In a statement that virtually parroted the threats of Islamist leaders, he warned Australia that its cooperation with the United States could only make it more of a target of terrorists who are waging war against Western Civilization. In essence, Kerry not only carried the water for those murderous organizations, he gave political ammunition to advocates of appeasement within Australia who would cut and run from the terrorists, in the hopes that they wouldn't be among the first targets, but might instead be saved for last. With Australia's national elections coming up in only a few weeks, Kerry's actions may well serve to incite fear in the population and thus adversely affect Howard's chances for re-election. Would Kerry have Australia capitulate to the wishes of terrorists out of fear, as did the people of Spain in the wake of the Madrid bombings? In spite of such convoluted posturing, we are supposed to believe that John Kerry, through some unknown miracle of diplomatic expertise, will garner the cooperation of France and Germany in the rebuilding of Iraq. Yet both nations have unwaveringly asserted their absolute opposition to any Iraqi involvement, regardless of who the next American president is. Moreover, Kerry's chastisement of Howard can only be interpreted as further reason for France and Germany to avoid involvement. If Kerry's words to Howard are any indication of how he intends to treat nations who remain loyal to America, what possible result can be expected but to have fewer allies as time goes on? In truth, Kerry knows full well that the only real consequence of his comments (assuming anybody takes his rhetoric seriously) would be to shrink the present coalition and thus undermine President Bush's struggle to keep the forces of Islamic terrorism on the run. But such is the despicable position into which Bush's opponent has managed to corner himself .... in an end game that puts him on the same side as America's enemies. Any candidate truly concerned with America's eventual triumph in the unavoidable conflict against the malignancy of militant Islam would laud such support as is presently coming from Australia, and recognize as self-serving and underhanded the actions of the French and Germans. But Kerry is not such a man. In the past few weeks, the media has made much of the grim milestone of the thousandth American casualty since U.S. forces invaded Iraq. Less coverage has been given to the fact that, on this third anniversary of 9-11, follow up attacks have clearly been prevented. And even a single attack of that nature could potentially triple that number of casualties in a single day. American resolve, along with the support of its allies, has been key to prevailing against the murderous activities of the terrorists. If John Kerry had his way, he would weaken and undermine America's present alliances in the War on Terror, while neutralizing this nation's ability to make sovereign decisions by subordinating it to France, Germany, and the United Nations. But of course none of this should be construed as questioning his "patriotism".