Mullahs for Kerry
Men's News Daily ^ | Juuly 24, 2004
The latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows that people overwhelmingly believe Bush would be better than John Kerry at handling the threat of terrorism (56%-38%). In what amounts to proof that some people have no business voting, the same poll shows Kerry with a slight overall lead (48-46%). On the one hand gay marriage legislation might get signed into law. But on the other hand, terrorists may start flying planes into our buildings again. Tough choice.
But it isn’t too confusing as to why most people have less faith in Kerry’s ability to handle the threat of terrorism. (What is confusing is how they will vote for him anyway). He would likely be advised by a crack team of foreign policy “experts” that includes Joe Wilson, renowned for smearing President Bush for saying that Saddam Hussein never attempted to buy Uranium from Africa. Two weeks ago it became so evident that Wilson had been a fraud for misleading Americans for over a year about those “16 words” that even Democrats have dropped the “Bush lied” argument.
Far more dangerous than Wilson is former Clinton National Security Adviser and Kerry policy adviser Sandy Berger, who was once considered a top possibility as Secretary of State in a possible Kerry presidency. “Once considered” only because he was recently ratted out as having stolen top level-classified documents from the National Archives on more than one occasion. In an explanation believed only by Bill Clinton, Berger says it was all an “honest mistake.”
Then we found out Berger “lost” some of the code-level documents. In response to Berger subsequently “misplacing” the accidentally stolen classified documents, top Democrats quickly demanded an investigation into what the White House knew about the leak, if they leaked it, and why. They would worry about our national security later.
All committed felons aside, Berger is more than qualified to continue the long-standing tradition of inept foreign policy maintained by previous Democratic administrations. He should be since he was the star of one. The recently released 9/11 Commission Report shows that Sandy Berger personally refused, on no less than four occasions between 1998 and 2000, to implement proposed actions against the Al-Qaeda threat. Tomorrow, liberal activists everywhere will begin reminding us that Bush stayed in a classroom for between 5-7 minutes on September 11th.
Despite being advised on foreign policy by liars and thieves, John Kerry would handle terrorism much better than George W. Bush, according to anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy. He would build a “coalition” much unlike Bush who acted unilaterally. This makes since if by “unilaterally” Kerry means “with the support and help of Great Britain, Australia, Japan, Italy, Portugal, and over 40 other nations.” If every country in the world had belonged to the Coalition of the Willing except Iraq and France John Kerry would still be telling us to stop “going it alone.”
But in John Kerry’s world, terrorism can’t be fought without the approval of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. Without Germany, whose greatest military achievement of the past century was slaughtering million of its own people, and France, whose greatest military achievement ever was designing the world’s largest white flag, the War on Terrorism can not go on. The last time I checked, terrorists didn’t ask for French and German approval before flying planes into our buildings. By judging from their behavior, they might as well have.
All this pandering leads to Kerry being incapable of making tough decisions. He can only do something if everyone else agrees. We went through this with President Clinton who would not go after bin Laden because the American people might not support it. Being President is not about doing what may be perceived as being popular. It is about doing what is right. This was lost on Clinton, and it is lost on John Kerry.
This all compounds to the high hopes that terrorist abiding nations like North Korea and Iran have that John Kerry will get elected. Kim Jong-il can’t wait for the second coming of a Clinton-like foreign policy. North Korea already had a taste of it in dealing with Jimmy Carter whereby he “negotiated” an end to their weapons programs. As a result of the agreement to end the programs, North Korea accordingly continued its weapons programs.
Likewise, in fearing George W. Bush’s stance on combating terrorism (and being listed on his Axis of Evil), the Iranian radical leadership is no doubt in the “Mullahs for Kerry” camp. This should not be confused with the “Moolahs for Kerry” camp, which is determined to find Kerry a third rich heiress to marry. An indecisive and weak president like John Kerry is the best that terrorist-harboring nations like Iran could want. It should be every American’s greatest fear.
Men's News Daily ^ | Juuly 24, 2004
The latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows that people overwhelmingly believe Bush would be better than John Kerry at handling the threat of terrorism (56%-38%). In what amounts to proof that some people have no business voting, the same poll shows Kerry with a slight overall lead (48-46%). On the one hand gay marriage legislation might get signed into law. But on the other hand, terrorists may start flying planes into our buildings again. Tough choice.
But it isn’t too confusing as to why most people have less faith in Kerry’s ability to handle the threat of terrorism. (What is confusing is how they will vote for him anyway). He would likely be advised by a crack team of foreign policy “experts” that includes Joe Wilson, renowned for smearing President Bush for saying that Saddam Hussein never attempted to buy Uranium from Africa. Two weeks ago it became so evident that Wilson had been a fraud for misleading Americans for over a year about those “16 words” that even Democrats have dropped the “Bush lied” argument.
Far more dangerous than Wilson is former Clinton National Security Adviser and Kerry policy adviser Sandy Berger, who was once considered a top possibility as Secretary of State in a possible Kerry presidency. “Once considered” only because he was recently ratted out as having stolen top level-classified documents from the National Archives on more than one occasion. In an explanation believed only by Bill Clinton, Berger says it was all an “honest mistake.”
Then we found out Berger “lost” some of the code-level documents. In response to Berger subsequently “misplacing” the accidentally stolen classified documents, top Democrats quickly demanded an investigation into what the White House knew about the leak, if they leaked it, and why. They would worry about our national security later.
All committed felons aside, Berger is more than qualified to continue the long-standing tradition of inept foreign policy maintained by previous Democratic administrations. He should be since he was the star of one. The recently released 9/11 Commission Report shows that Sandy Berger personally refused, on no less than four occasions between 1998 and 2000, to implement proposed actions against the Al-Qaeda threat. Tomorrow, liberal activists everywhere will begin reminding us that Bush stayed in a classroom for between 5-7 minutes on September 11th.
Despite being advised on foreign policy by liars and thieves, John Kerry would handle terrorism much better than George W. Bush, according to anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy. He would build a “coalition” much unlike Bush who acted unilaterally. This makes since if by “unilaterally” Kerry means “with the support and help of Great Britain, Australia, Japan, Italy, Portugal, and over 40 other nations.” If every country in the world had belonged to the Coalition of the Willing except Iraq and France John Kerry would still be telling us to stop “going it alone.”
But in John Kerry’s world, terrorism can’t be fought without the approval of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. Without Germany, whose greatest military achievement of the past century was slaughtering million of its own people, and France, whose greatest military achievement ever was designing the world’s largest white flag, the War on Terrorism can not go on. The last time I checked, terrorists didn’t ask for French and German approval before flying planes into our buildings. By judging from their behavior, they might as well have.
All this pandering leads to Kerry being incapable of making tough decisions. He can only do something if everyone else agrees. We went through this with President Clinton who would not go after bin Laden because the American people might not support it. Being President is not about doing what may be perceived as being popular. It is about doing what is right. This was lost on Clinton, and it is lost on John Kerry.
This all compounds to the high hopes that terrorist abiding nations like North Korea and Iran have that John Kerry will get elected. Kim Jong-il can’t wait for the second coming of a Clinton-like foreign policy. North Korea already had a taste of it in dealing with Jimmy Carter whereby he “negotiated” an end to their weapons programs. As a result of the agreement to end the programs, North Korea accordingly continued its weapons programs.
Likewise, in fearing George W. Bush’s stance on combating terrorism (and being listed on his Axis of Evil), the Iranian radical leadership is no doubt in the “Mullahs for Kerry” camp. This should not be confused with the “Moolahs for Kerry” camp, which is determined to find Kerry a third rich heiress to marry. An indecisive and weak president like John Kerry is the best that terrorist-harboring nations like Iran could want. It should be every American’s greatest fear.
