A Decade of Defeat

My father was part of the Greatest Generation. You know who they were. They were the generation that beat the Depression and saved the world in World War II. This generation believed they were destined to do great things. They were convinced that they could change the world for the better, and they believed that they had a responsibility to fight the spread of communism throughout the world. They were determined to make life easier for their kids.

My older brother is a Baby Boomer. My brother is a Vietnam veteran. However, he isn’t the face of the Baby Boom generation. The face of the Vietnam generation is the protester. Don’t let them fool you. They weren’t protesting merely the Vietnam War. They were protesting against the United States. They opposed US corporate power. They opposed US military power. They opposed US political power. They opposed the US Establishment. There is one other thing you must not let them fool you about. They were for a communist society. They didn’t necessarily support Stalinism, although plenty of them did. They didn’t necessarily support Maoism, but if you searched their pockets, you would have found many carrying Little Red Books.

The protester generation supported a utopian Marxist notion proclaimed by radical professors and endorsed by singers such as John Lennon, whose “Imagine” states with extreme clarity what these people desired. No nations, no possessions, no religions. They convinced themselves that if this collectivist utopia could be reached, then all war would cease.

They deluded themselves in believing that if we stopped challenging communism, then those nations would stop feeling threatened and become more open and we could join them in a “brotherhood of man”. Jane Fonda said in 1970, that we should "hope" and "pray" to become communist.

There was no place for people like my brother in that generation. Not only was he a Vietnam veteran, he ended up making the military a career. That made him an impediment to the goals of these people. Returning Vietnam veterans were ostracized unless they damned the United States and became antiwar protesters themselves. The news media, always leaning to the left, became mesmerized by this movement. In the end, they destroyed the morale of a nation. We never lost Vietnam on the battlefield. We lost it at home. As a result of the protester generation, the United States questioned its national morality, its role in the world, and evenwhether it was worthy to survive.

This is where my generation comes in. I was born in 1962. I grew up in the 1970s. We had politicians telling us that Americans expected too much. We were told that we needed to accept the existence of the Soviet Union as a fact of life and that we should learn how to get along with them, even if we had to change our policies to do so. We were told that traditional morality was repressive and oppressive. We were made to question the concept of national pride. By the end of the decade of the 1970s, we were told that we deserved to have our embassy personnel taken hostage in Tehran.

It got so bad that in 1980, as a senior in high school, I was told by an Army recruiter to stay away from the Army and go to college. Why? Because I had scored too high on my aptitude test. That was an Army recruiter telling me that. Jimmy Carter was right about one thing during his presidency. We were suffering from a national malaise. The protester generation and its left wing comrades in the Democrat party were the cause of it. Thank God for Ronald Reagan and the election of 1980.

Now again we are at war, in the middle of a long struggle against an enemy just as evil as communism. Into this circumstance steps one of the poster children for the protester generation. John Kerry who after serving in the US Navy, became one of the best diplomats and propagandists the North Vietnamese government had, wants to be our President. The man who compared our military to Genghis Khan, wants to be commander in chief of that military.

John Kerry and those who thought like him were responsible for a decade of defeat once before. Do we want a repeat of that? I know I don’t.

 

 

Think Again

I have had at least five people tell me that they are voting for John Kerry because he can’t be any worse than George W. Bush.  They admit that they aren’t enthralled with Kerry, but they MUST vote against Bush, and Kerry can’t be any worse.  I have two words for those folks.  Think again.

 

John Kerry and Michael Moore have pilloried George W. Bush for remaining seated at the elementary school in Florida for seven minutes after learning we were attacked on September 11, 2001.  Obviously, a commander in chief, or someone who aspires to be commander in chief, should immediately find a phone booth, (do they still make them?) don his cape and save the day.  Well, maybe not, by John Kerry’s own words, after the second plane hit the tower, he, and a few other Democrats sat for forty minutes, “unable to think”.  Forty minutes of incapacitation is worse than seven minutes of inaction.

 

Well, George W. Bush spent too much time on vacation prior to September 11, when he should have been doing something to prevent the attacks.  Of course, John Kerry, when he sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee missed, 29 of 38 public meetings that committee held, and during that time proposed cutting intelligence funding to a degree that Ted Kennedy couldn’t even go along with him.  I believe that would qualify as “worse”.

 

Of course, the major reason that is given as a justification for voting against George W. Bush is that he “lied” and took us to war in Iraq.  John Kerry, they say, would never have done that.  First, John Kerry had access to the same intelligence as President Bush prior to the war and made statements just as strident as President Bush about the threat posed by Iraq.  Be that as it may, let’s look at what John Kerry has done since the war.

 

He keeps tip toeing around the “Bush lied” argument, but REFUSES to say that the war itself was a mistake.  In fact, John Kerry says that even knowing that Saddam didn’t have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, he would have STILL voted for the war.  Yet, he wants the support of the anti war Bush haters.  Kerry claims he could have handled this war better, yet refuses to give specifics.  The only thing that he says is that he could have brought our allies on board.  That would have been a cool trick, considering our “allies” (France and Germany) had national interests that preferred to have Saddam in power.

 

So, basically, Kerry is saying that he would have still gone to war and toppled Saddam, yet he naively thinks that he can convince nations to willingly go against their own self interests to pursue American interests.  President Bush has never been THAT simple minded.  Again, Kerry proves to be WORSE than President Bush.

 

The Bush haters want to believe that Kerry can’t be worse, but he was ineffective longer on September 11, he ignored more intelligence for a longer period of time, and his plan for Iraq is based upon a naïve belief in his own powers of persuasion.  You think Kerry can’t be worse than Bush?  Look at the known facts and think again.

John Kerry is their man

Conservatives get criticized by liberals(leftists) for not seeing nuance.  The Left sees the world in shades of gray and abhors the black/white right/wrong thinking of the right wing.  Certitude is seen as simplemindedness.  I call this the sanctity of uncertainty.  This almost religious devotion to uncertainty governs every foreign policy issue the Left faces.

Based upon that, John Kerry is certainly their man.  He is a war hero (allegedly) who spent more time opposing the war than he did fighting it.  He proposes to make our intelligence network stronger, but proposed the most Draconian cut ever of our intelligence services, a cut that even Ted Kennedy couldn't support.  He claims to be committed to our intelligence gathering community, yet he missed 75% of the public meetings that were held when he served on the intelligence committee.

He supports fighting wars by coalition, yet voted against the first Gulf War when there was an overwhelming coalition of the international community.  Of course he voted for the Iraq war in 2002 without a coalition and now says that he would still vote for the war, even though he claims that Bush "misled" us into war.  He claims to be determined to win the war against the terrorist aggressors, yet this same man said in 1971, that we could not fight communism all over the world.

John Kerry claims his life changing moment occurred on Christmas of 1968 when he was illegally in Cambodia while President Nixon (sic) was claiming that we were not.  Of course, we now know that he wasn't in Cambodia that Christmas and claims that it was near Cambodia or just inside Cambodia in early 1969.  Nuance, you see forbids giving a definite statement.

John Kerry voted for the $87 billion to fund our troops in Iraq, but then voted against the $87 billion.  He proposes to cut the deficit while at the same time increase spending even more than President Bush has.  He proposes to fight a "sensitive" war, yet will achieve complete victory.  He believes life begins at conception but promises to not vote based upon that belief.  He opposes gay marriage but also opposes defending traditional marriage.

Basically, John Kerry has been onboth sides of every issue facing this country since and including Vietnam.  In fact, throughout his history, the only issue with which he has never waivered was his refusal to stand up to communism and the Soviet Union in any fashion during the Reagan Administration and the Cold War.

Except for failing to oppose communism, John Kerry has taken nuance and uncertainty to an artform.  In other words, in every way imaginable, John Kerry is the PERFECT candidate for the Democrat party in the twenty first century.  He captures their views completely.  John Kerry is certainly THEIR MAN.  They should feel proud.

If Islamists win, it won't matter

According to my wife, I talk about politics too much.  However, I consider this election to be the most important election facing this nation since 1980.  This nation is facing an outside threat that is potentially greater than the threat we faced during the Cold War.  In Islamofascism we are facing an enemy that combines a fanatical religious ideology that is similar in fervor and devotion to that of either Naziism or Bushido; in combination with no qualms about using terrorism against civilians and studied guerilla tactics.  This enemy must be defeated. 

I realize the American people don't like to recognize threats.  We have a history of wanting to believe that with two oceans we can isolate and insulate ourselves from those that seek to do us harm.  Therefore, a large segment of our population believes that if we would stay out of the Middle East and stop "meddling" in the internal affairs of that region, the Osama Bin Ladens, Al Qaedas and Ansar Al Islams would leave us alone.

Such a view completely ignores the ideology of our enemy.  These people believe in an expansive form of Islam that requires that the world be purified.  We, the United States, are the primary purveyors of a materialistic decadent lifestyle that desecrates everything that Islam holds sacred.  Thus, we must be stopped.

Even facing this enemy, though, we still have Americans that are treating this election like any other, with their pet issues that override anything else.  These people need to realize that if the Islamists win, it won't matter.

For example, take the issue of abortion.  If the Islamists win, preserving the right to suck the brains out of an unborn fetus will be the least of a woman's worries.  Burkhas, and not leaving the house without male escort will become the order of the day.

Government funding for education won't be a problem either.  Only boys will be permitted to go to school, and then only to religious madrassas, and then only as far as the clerics deem necessary for the service of Allah. 

You think saying the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God" in it is a bad thing.  Just wait until you are forced to pray towards Mecca.

Even issues like unemployment and inflation won't matter either.  You won't be permitted to buy immodest clothing,  secular music, or alcohol.  That should save you a bunch of money.

I know, most of you don't want to believe that the threat is that real.  "They could never conquer us, no matter how many they kill," you say.  It just took one subway blast in Madrid to get that country to change its entire government.  50,000 dead in Vietnam was enough to make us stop fighting communism for an entire decade.

The simple fact is that the Qu'ran teaches patience.  The Muslim is told to live among the infidels for a time.  The Muslim is told to wait until the time is right.  There are one billion Muslims in the world.  It is estimated that ten percent of them are fundamentalists.  It is further estimated that people like Osama Bin Laden are considered heroes by ten percent of those.  That is a potential suicide army of ten million people.  The only thing they lack is unity.

Before you say it, no, we are not making them unite by being in Iraq and by supporting Israel.  They would unite anyway.  That has been the goal of Arab leaders for fifty years.  If anything, our projection of strength is dividing the Muslim community between the pragmatists and the ideologues.  Each prisoner we take and each terrorist we kill reminds the pragmatists that their interests aren't served by the ideologues.

Think about it, the terrorists are seeking to divide and weaken us by their constant attacks.  By the same logic, our attacks divide and weaken them.  Believe it or not, they have their own appeasers, their own Michael Moores.  Therefore, we have to keep the pressure on them, both in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.

If we don't, while it might not happen in the next four years, it will happen.  The Islamists will unite.  They will fight us to the death.  It might only affect your children and grandchildren, but if the Islamists win, it won't matter what your pet issues are.  George W. Bush has the resolve to fight this enemy, no matter what it takes.  John Kerry is the same person who said, "We can't fight communism all over the world."  Nothing else needs to be said.

They said to ask

The same people who loved “Fahrenheit 911”, Richard Clarke and Joseph Wilson are now outraged about the book about John Kerry entitled “Unfit To Command” and the television ad put out by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.  The same people who have tried to prove that George W. Bush was AWOL in 1972 are incensed that John Kerry’s activities for four months in Vietnam are being scrutinized.  The same people who proclaimed that the American people should ask those who served with him to find out what kind of man John Kerry is now want to limit which of those people you can ask.

 

Face it, John Kerry has only given Americans three reasons to vote for him.  He’s a Vietnam War hero.  The French like him.  He’s not George W. Bush.  That is his entire campaign in a nutshell.  Every time he is introduced at a speaking engagement, we are reminded of his heroic and honorable service in the Vietnam War.  He earned three Purple Hearts in the space of four months, you know. 

 

What about John Kerry’s voting record in the Senate?  He’s a Vietnam War hero.  What about John Kerry’s opposition to increased intelligence funding after the first World Trade Center bombing?  He earned three Purple Hearts in Vietnam.  What about Kerry’s inconsistent positions on the War in Iraq.  “Kerry served in Vietnam, Bush didn’t,” is the response.

 

Therefore, Senator Kerry, if your service in Vietnam is your number one qualification to be President, then it should be examined.  Closely.  From all sides.  You have admitted that you took part in the burning of villages.  Did it happen the way “Unfit” describes?  Did you run your boat up to the shore of a village with no known political or military activity and take your Zippo lighter and burn down the huts?  That would be slightly more outrageous than making a male Arab prisoner wear women’s underwear.  Wouldn’t it?

 

We’ve heard how you single handedly killed a Viet Cong attacker saving the lives of your men.  Was it actually a fleeing Vietnamese teenager wearing only a loin cloth?  That would rank higher on the atrocity scale than a naked human pyramid.  Don’t you think?

 

When you came back from Vietnam, you seemed to know a lot about atrocities.  Exactly how much do you know?  How much did you do yourself?

 

John Kerry and the Democrats have made his Vietnam record a campaign issue.  John Kerry wants you to see the polished medals that he really didn’t throw away.  However, John Kerry doesn’t want anyone to ask the questions about how he got them.  His supporters don’t want those questions asked either.  That is negative campaigning and dirty politics, they say.

 

The Democratic National Convention says otherwise.  They paraded Vietnam veterans across the stage and said “If you want to know about John Kerry, just ask the men who served with him.”  Sounds reasonable to me.