FOUNDED: February 9, 2001
|07-30-2004, 09:50 AM||#1|
*TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At SouthernMoss' side forever!
INSIGHT - Interesting Comments
Who's fooling whom?
July 30, 2004
By David Limbaugh
The Democratic National Convention might be one of the slickest orchestrated shams since President Clinton's Senate impeachment "trial." But the $64,000 question is whether John Kerry is tacitly conspiring with convention delegates to hoodwink the public or trying to con the unwitting delegates themselves. Either way, there's a whole lot of fraud going on – a great deal more than at the usual party conventions.
On first blush one might assume the party honchos and delegates are engaged in a grand deceit to convince swing voters the swift-boat captain will not only be tough on terror as president, but more aggressive on Iraq than President Bush has been. And, in fairness, Kerry has been trying to sound like a hawk for some time now.
He could actually be sincere that he's going to send in thousands of additional troops to Iraq, even though he failed to support the troops already there when it really counted (the $87 billion resolution to support the troops and help rebuild Iraq) and has said that under his leadership we could reduce the burden on American troops by persuading other nations to shoulder more of it.
On the other hand, we also know (from polling, as well as common sense) that the overwhelming majority of the delegates, who are at least pretending to drool over Kerry, were opposed to the action in Iraq and favor American withdrawal.
And we know that the hottest attraction among these we-support-the-troops-by-undermining-their-cause-and-prove-our-patriotism-by-constantly-bashing-Bush's-America types prominent at the convention is Michael Moore. Are Kerry and these fawning delegates winking at one another, or is Kerry flimflamming the delegates?
If Kerry is duping these delegates (and Michael Moore), he could be in for a rough ride if elected, given Moore's promise to turn the camera on him as soon as he's inaugurated. Then again, Moore may not have near the influence with his enablers against Kerry as he has had against Bush, even if Kerry fulfills his promises to be hawkish on Iraq.
So what if Kerry goes sideways on them and really does what he has pledged to do in Iraq, but what his core supporters seem to be counting on him not to do – stay the course in Iraq until the job is done?
Except for the hard-core pacifists, they would still probably not hold him accountable since their anti-war impulses would likely take a back seat to their loyalty to him. The Democrat rank and file is not nearly as appeasement oriented when their guy is in charge, as with our attack against Serbia. (Remember during Clinton's first inaugural when fighter jets flew over the Lincoln Memorial in formation and actor Ron Silver was troubled at the display of militarism until it dawned on him, "Hey, those are our planes now"?)
But what if Kerry does break his promise, reverts to his dovish ways and abandons the burgeoning Iraqi democracy? That would certainly please his anti-war base. But unless things are a lot worse than they are now, he probably couldn't afford to do it because it would be suicidal for his re-election and legacy.
"Aha," you say. "Then what difference does it make (concerning our national security) which of the two candidates are elected?" It matters a great deal, because this war did not begin in Iraq and won't end there.
In evaluating the national security credentials of the candidates, we know that President Bush has been consistent, resolute and decisive in the War on Terror. We know where he stands and can be reasonably sure who we're voting for when we vote for him.
But with John Kerry, we have witnessed inconsistency, irresoluteness and indecisiveness. We've seen him talk out of both sides of his mouth throughout the war on terror: "the threat's exaggerated," "we're not doing enough in the war on terror," "I am in favor of the resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq," "I would never have voted for the resolution had I known he was going to attack before allowing the weapons inspectors another couple of decades to do their thing," "I was for the $87 billion resolution before turning against it."
Assuming John Kerry has core beliefs beyond the conviction that he needs to become president to fulfill his lifelong ambition, we are entitled to know what they are – especially those bearing on our national security.
What principles would drive his approach to the war on terror other than meaningless platitudes about international cooperation and keeping hope alive? What if he can't charm his French cousins to join us?
Sen. Kerry needs to come clean, if not with his die-hard supporters, with the rest of us.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily
Attorney David Limbaugh documents how liberals are waging war against Christianity in his new top-selling book, "Persecution." Additionally, he is the author of the pull-no-punches expose of corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, "Absolute Power." Autographed copies of both books are now available in WorldNetDaily's online store.
The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.
The only criminal class native to the United States is Congress.
|07-30-2004, 10:26 AM||#2|
*Admin Tech Staff*
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SW MS
Re: INSIGHT - Interesting Comments
My Second protects your First
"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man,
but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand." - Susan B Anthony
|07-30-2004, 06:27 PM||#3|
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NE Indiana
Re: INSIGHT - Interesting Comments
All the special interest groups in that convention want to beat Bush so bad that they believe, no doubt, that Kerry will say anything to get elected, and they don't mind pie in the sky speeches. They want to win "by any means necessary" so they assume there's some lying going on in terms of the gung ho middle America rhetoric. Since the party includes a lot of anti-war purists, those groups are bound to be disappointed when they find out that the U.S. will not cut and run from Iraq, won't be able to leave the Middle East or cut ties with Afghanistan, and they'll be amazed that the terror attacks don't stop just because Bush is not in the White House. It's not Bush they hate, it's the U.S.A.
I'm sure all the special interest and activist groups in that convention hall assume that regardless of what was said to sell the campaign, they're (wink, wink) lying now in order to win, and the leadership will turn back into peacenik liberals after the election. If anyone across the aisle complains, they'll try to deflect the issue, claiming Bush also lied at some point in the past and therefore their lying should not be singled out.... blah blah. But of course the evidence now piles up that there was yellow cake uranium in play, and there was no "misleading," let alone lying. And Bush's actions HAVE jump started the economy. So, the Dems are left to dangle their lies for the next 3 months hoping middle America takes the bait. "John Kerry reporting for duty." Yeah, for 4 months total, after which he spent a year back in the states prepping his political career by leading a group that claimed our troops committed daily atrocities on a routine basis.
As for the party leadership, their idea of being safe at home is to ban a lot more guns. Oh, they'll go "negotiate" with the U.N. and apologize to this or that country for Bush's rudeness. But Kerry will only fight if and when he is backed into it by events and by the outrage of the American people. Kerry would wind up being a war President too, to the chagrin of many of his party's pacifist interest groups. Note that he said he would double the size of the Special Forces (for commando raids), and increase the number of troops, but NOT IN Iraq, and NOT by using the reservists as a "back-door draft." I wonder how long that phrase will last when the Democrats need the reserves.
So far the only actual promises by these Democrats of actual specific help to Americans in this economy were made by Edwards, who announced a paltry tax cut of $1000 for, not everyone, but two special groups of taxpayers, and a tax cut of $4000 for parents with a "first child to go to college." That's not going to make any difference. I wonder if they think Americans can be bought for a tax cut of a lousy $1000, especially since the ones who aren't working aren't paying taxes and therefore will see NO break and NO refund anyway. Zero minus $1000 is zero.
Kerry basically criticized every problem we have in this country and told a sob story for every topic, without giving a single clue how he and his Democrat cohorts would remedy any of it. We all agree there are problems -- who would argue that?
His people did say that health care for all Americans is "a right," and he did talk about creating "millions of better paying jobs," and he said our mothers should all have their prescriptions, and that he would "never privatize Social Security." Now, I agree that the "richest country in the world" should probably be able to provide the basics for all its citizens, and we can all swoon about how nice it would be to have all this stuff -- I mean, did they list anything controversial, that anyone in either party could argue with in terms of benefits at home? -- but does anybody actually think they can wave the Democrat wand, reapportion our wealth, and make it so right after the election? If it could be done, why wouldn't Bush do it now and take the issues away from them before the election?
It's very easy to make a list of everything that is wrong, and the way everything should be in America and then shout it all from a podium and get big applause. But I think only Edwards took 5 seconds of time to mumble that "of course there will always be problems and poverty in America." Well, now, if the Democrats get their universal health care in place, and Social Security for retirement, and no child left behind, and all the rest, where are those homeless coming from, Mr. Edwards?
There should have been one of those commercial disclaimers at the bottom of the TV screen -- "Example atypical; your results may vary; FDA has not verified these claims"...etc. etc. etc.
The Second Amendment does not exist
to protect the gun rights you like.
It exists to protect the gun rights you hate.