« Paris’s “Honorable” Cop Killer | Home | Just So You Know »
Why We Fight Is Why I’ll Vote For Bush
By Matt Margolis | October 9, 2003
It was good to see President George W. Bush standing firm on the war on terror today. Unlike most of the Democrats who are hoping to take over his job, Bush is clearly committed to fighting the war on terror – the right way. He reaffirmed today that “America is following a new strategy. We’re not waiting for further attacks. We’re striking our enemies before they can strike us again.”
This is what it’s all about. It is quite sad to think that the Democrats hoping to be president are running on a platform that is effectively weak on the war on terror. Bush justified the preemptive doctrine plainly and simply when he said, “These committed killers will not be stopped by negotiations; they won’t respond to reason. The terrorists who threaten America cannot be appeased - they must be found, they must be fought, and they must be defeated.”
You can’t get much clearer than that. While a good number of people (including Bush and his administration) see that you don’t fight a war against terrorism with words but with actions, an obsessively vocal and angry group of leftists, liberals, and Democrats stop at nothing to convince their constituency that the way to fight terror is to the nice guy and do nothing.
Bush clearly is beginning to step up to the plate and play the campaign game again. It just needs to be done. It’s been two years now since September 11, 2001, and a great number of Americans have forgotten why we fight. It’s a sad state for our country to be in, because the Democrats running for President are making our country look weak. As if they are taking cues from the terrorists who wish to deflect support for the war in Iraq by attacking our troops, they recite partisan condemnations of the war effort, some demanding the troops be brought home… most telling people Bush lied to America (while several of them voted in favor of going into Iraq nonetheless) … it’s all just very sad. None of them resemble a President and Commander-in-Chief that any American should want while we’re fighting a war against terrorism.
Perhaps the Democrats just don’t care about terrorism. Maybe it’s just a non-issue with them. I can’t think of any other way to explain their positions on it.
Who would you rather a trust? President Bush clearly isn’t willing to put American lives at risk. The Democrats are clearly willing to wait for terrorists and evil dictators to attack us before doing anything about it – if they even would do anything about it, which, quite honestly, I doubt whether or not they would.
Bush sternly said, “I acted because I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman. I was not about to stand by and wait and trust in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein.” Those are the words of a Commander-in-Chief. Those are the words of someone I can trust to do the job necessary to protect America.
As David Kay’s report clearly showed that Saddam was certainly concealing his efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction, Democrats running for President still have the audacity to say “Bush lied to the American people,” regarding going to Iraq. Do they have any justification for these actions? No, it just sounds good when they say it, and it allows them to avoid talking about issues – which the Democrats have none.
Bush, practically calling the Democrats on their fallacious and partisan attacks on the war on terror, said the following:
Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons or end up in mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam’s torture chambers, or the women in his rape rooms. Surely not the victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. There is only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein: Good riddance.
The Iraqi dissidents certainly are glad we went in. The men and women who’d otherwise be in Saddam’s torture chambers and rape rooms certainly are glad we went in. Certainly the Kurds are glad we went in. The moral of the story is: Democrats just don’t care about human rights, democracy, and stability in the Middle East. While decent people say “good riddance” to Saddam Hussein, the Democrats (except for Joe Lieberman) stand at their podiums telling the country we shouldn’t have taken Saddam out. I’m glad Bush it telling it like it is. In November of 2004, America needs to say “good riddance” to the Democrats who only seek to bring this country down, and undermine the war on terror.
Bush isn’t willing to run from the challenge of the war against terror. That is why progress continues to be made. Bush cited examples from our own history, to demonstrate this, “The United States did not run from Germany and Japan following World War II. We helped those nations to become strong and decent, democratic societies that no longer waged war on America.” Bush then spoke of our accomplishments in stabilizing Iraq. “We’re rebuilding schools,” he said, “A lot of kids are going back to schools. Reopening hospitals. Thousands of children are now being immunized. Water and electricity are being returned to the Iraqi people. Life is getting better.”
As true as these accomplishment are, the media would like you to believe otherwise, and Bush knows this, and he’s finally addressed it:
It’s a lot better than you probably think. Just ask people who have been there. They’re stunned when they come back - when they go to Iraq and the stories they tell are much different from the perceptions that you’re being told life is like. You see, we’re providing this help not only because we’ve got good hearts, but because our vision is clear. A stable and democratic and hopeful Iraq will no longer be a breeding ground for terror, tyranny, and aggression.
It’s great that Bush is now out there saying these things. He’s got to explain that things in Iraq are not as bad as the Democrats want people to believe they are. “Our work in Iraq is essential to our own security,” Bush explained, “and no band of murderers or gangsters will stop that work, or shake the will of America.” While this may be true, it’s up to America to make sure the Democrats don’t stop the progress we’ve made, and shake the will of America – because they are certainly trying.
Bush demands victory in the war on terror - the Democrats demand submission. The war on terror should not be a political issue, but the Democrats are making it one. They’ve taken America’s best interests and diluted it with partisanship. They’ve made it a Democrats vs. Republican issue, not an issue solely of homeland security. By doing this, they are only helping those who wish to see us fail.
Democrats general attitude towards fighting the war on terror stems from their willing to wait for an “imminent” threat. Bush has stated in the past, (specifically during his State of the Union speech) that terrorists don’t announce their intentions giving us notice before they strike. To wait for an imminent threat would be irresponsible. It would cost lives.
I’m not willing to take that chance. That’s why I’m voting for George W. Bush in 2004.
Topics: Bush 2004 |
Related Posts:
October 10th, 2003 at 5:57 pm
Great stuff! I already posted it on my site.
October 21st, 2003 at 6:07 pm
congrats. youve made the case for waging illegal wars. what’s next. war for lebensraum?
November 6th, 2003 at 1:11 pm
Why We Fight #3
Any discussion of why we are over there, at all, needs to include a discussion of the barbaric regime that was in charge in Iraq, and brutally oppressing its people. Oh, I know that at one time we supported Saddam,…
December 5th, 2003 at 11:14 pm
It just goes to show you how brainwashed all Republicans are. They have such short attention spans. During the 1990’s the last ELECTED PRESIDENT was on Bin Ladens tail but thanks to the right wing prudes in the Republican party the entire nation had to be distracted by home wreckers Henry Hyde and Bob Barr’s impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. Republicans and the conservative media cried “distraction” when Pres. Clinton attempted to bomb Bin Laden. Hell all the Republicans I worked with didn’t even know who Bin Laden was when President Clinton tried to bomb him!!!!!!!! THe Clinton administration warned Bush about Bin Laden but he chose to ignore the information about a Bush Family friend. So don’t you dare say Democrats don’t care about fighting a war on terror. The only thing we object to is fighting a war & sacrificing young men and womens lives to further the financial holdings of Bush’s
campaign backers and members of his administration. Do some research too.
THe budget cuts to the military under President Clinton where made by the Republican controlled Congress!!!!!
One final thing. A friend who is a flight attendent was at home the day her co-workers were killed at the WTC. Once I was able to reach her she told me that Bush had alerted the Airlines that something was going to happen in early September. She was mad. She just kept cursing Bush. But the kicker to this is weeks later all airline employees had to sign an agreement that they would not talk about Bush’s warning. Gee, I wonder why?
THis probably will never be posted since Republicans can’t handle the truth. They can only believe the twisted spin and bold faced lies of Limbaugh or Hannity or Fox faux news, the three shills for the Republican party. If you printed this some of your party’s brainwashed faithful might come out of their haize and see the light and the truth. That’s why I’m voting for anybody but Bush.
December 6th, 2003 at 12:36 am
“elected president” obviously a reference to the fact htat the liberal left odesn’t elieve that bush was elected.
Well, what is funny abou that is that the left didn’t bitch about the electoral college till it worked against them.
One of our best presidents in us histroy, Abraham Lincoln, who ended slavery and preserved the Union was not elected with a majority vote either.
Apparently Mr. Raynor subscribes to the Dean “theory” about Bush…
She signed this warning, yet she spoke about eh? Sounds like Bullshit to me.
December 6th, 2003 at 2:27 am
This warning is not something new that hasn’t been reported before. It’s not unknown that the government had vague information about a possible terrorist attack involving airplanes.
Does that mean Bush knew of the plot and didn’t nothing about it? Certainly not. Liberals just get off thinking that’s the case.
April 10th, 2004 at 8:15 am
Ever hear of the Army War College (Carlise, Pa)? It’s akin to West point, Douglas McArthur taught there, Omar Bradley and Tommy Franks graduated from there. They released a report called “Bounding the global war on terror” in published within the strategic studies dept. It stating that (I’m quoting) “the war in Iraq was not a integal part of the war on terror-but rather a detour from it”. Richard Clark the ONLY man operating the situation room in the White House on 9-11-01, agreed as did Senator Bob Graham Of Florida who headed up the Senate Intellegence comittee. Let’s not forget Bin Laden and Co. were in AFGHANISTAN not Iraq, Bush has reallocated translators+troops+and $$ away from Afgahistan towards Al-qeada’s enemey hated enemy: Saddam. Al-qeada’s recruit videos called Saddam a “infedel and a fake Muslim”. As long as you confuse the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism Bush Appears tough. When you realize that Saddam allowed women to working in Iraq, repressed fundamentalists and forbade Islamic holiday celebration, smoked cigars, and that Bin Laden organized a group of Afghani war veterans to fight against Saddam in 1991 you realize these two men LOATHED EACH OTHER. Anyone who confuses Saddam and Bin Laden hurts our nation because they mislable the enemy. One attacked us on 9-11, (No highjackers where Iraqi, none of his inner circl are Iraqi). Japan attacked us Korea did not, so where did FDR mount his stand in WW2? JAPAN! Afghanistan helped Al-qeada, Iraq+Saddam did not where have we dedicated to concentrat our forces, not Afghanistan but in Iraq. It’s not fair to say Bush did nothing in Afghanistan, but the he’s done only little the Taliban now re-control large portions of the country. 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq. By the way we only went for weapons of mass destruction that aren’t there now. Honor our soldiers bring them home since the reason we went to war isn’t there.
HAVE A LITTLE PATRIOTISM FOR ONCE MATT, DUMP BUSH
Paul
May 29th, 2004 at 2:56 pm
I wonder if you would call Admiral Zinni, Gen. Schwartkopf, Scolfroft, and Colin Powell, unpatriotic? Read the “Powell doctrine” about the reasons we did not invade Iraq in Gulf War1 and why we should NEVER invade Iraq. This is not from those wild eyed “liberals” this is from the Secretary of State Colin Powell. So are these true “military” men wrong and the Bush team is right? We all want to fight “terrorism” we dissagree with the way to do that. When Al-Queda is now in 60 different countries, do we invade each and every country to find them?
July 20th, 2004 at 12:51 am
Lets fight them, not each other.
God Bless the USA!
November 3rd, 2004 at 12:05 pm
you can’t seriously think we will win a war on terrorism. Obviously you have a poor understanding of what we are fighting against… terrorism is a state of mind and it would be the same as saying we will rid the world of all ‘born again christians’ or some other fanatical religion ..you can’t change a way of thinking by trying to squash it with brutt strength ..osama bin laden is an economics major…he knows exactly what he’s doing..he’s instilled ‘fear ‘ and Bush is playing right into his hands…he’s responding to the fear and bankrupting the country in the process…just what OBL wants….how naive we are…
August 26th, 2006 at 2:52 am
extreme anal insertion
Z00lunation
August 27th, 2006 at 1:22 am
small cock
Idinax33000i