This letter is directed at my liberal friends on the need to vote for George Bush.
We must dispense with myths and deal with truth.
George Bush inherited an economy slipping into recession and because of his moves, including the passage of his tax cut plan, the United States suffered the shallowest recession in our history. More people are now working today than ever before! So the myth that we are losing jobs is incorrect. You can make the argument that that manufacturing jobs took a hit but there has been an increase of entrepreneur spirit not picked up on the radar screen.
Let face it, if you are liberal you have to be happy about many things that Bush has done. He has doubled federal spending on education and yes, he actually passed a drug plan for seniors. (If you don’t buy into Bush’s liberal spending spree, then you should actually read what many of my conservative friends complain about. They complain about the increased spending on education and a new entitlement program passed under George Bush.)
The key to this election is simple. It is national security, and which presidential candidate is better prepared to defend our national interest. Kerry’s thesis, as incoherent as it is, is based on the fact that we are fighting the wrong war at wrong time and we pissed off our allies. He opposes Bush’s policy of “preventive war” and his “going it alone” approach.
Kerry is wrong on both points. The war in Iraq is connected to the war on terror. There was and is an alliance between certain Middle East nations, including Saddam’s Iraq, and the terrorist network. The evidence is overwhelming, so there should be no debate. Now I am going to ask you one question: is the world better off without Saddam or not? Kerry has all but admitted that the answer is no. Under a President Kerry in 2001, Saddam would still be in power and there is no guarantee that the Taliban would not still be in power either.
Remember during the first month of the Afghanistan war, there were talks of a quagmire in Afghanistan? Now we had seen elections in Afghanistan and the Taliban are on the outside looking in. There is a long way to go in Afghanistan but who can deny that Afghanistan is not a better place today? Today, the terrorist network have two less states to operate from.
As for Iraq being a preventive war, well, this rush to war included 16, 17, 18 or maybe even 19 UN resolution disobeyed by Saddam over a 13-year period. (As for the number of resolutions, I lost count.) Iraq was in violation of UN dictates, so the war was indeed justified by international law. 13 years cannot be classified as a “rush to war” nor could it be called “preventive.”
I will give you one bit of advice: Don’t depend upon the mainstream media for your news on Iraq. You will get all the bad news but not the good. You will not hear about the military successes that are occurring, the involvement of Iraqis in their own defense, as well as the rebuilding of a new civil society. You will never be well informed on most issues if you depend upon the evening news and the New York Times for your news.
Iraq will have elections in January and begin its slow march to a democratic government. So Bush has liberated two Muslim nations from Islamic fascist regimes. These are accomplishments that should be celebrated not trashed.
Now let us turn to the charge that Bush has gone it alone. We now know that the French, German, Chinese and the Russians were being bribed with money provided by the food for oil program. The sanctions were collapsing and the French were profiting from their relations with Saddam. With children starving to death and denied precious resources, Saddam was enriching himself with proceeds from the Oil for Food program. The French were taking their cut as well. So do you want to ally yourself with a bunch of weasels that steal from children?
There have been 30 nations who sent troops on the ground and this alliance is comparable in numbers to the original Gulf War alliance in 1991. Have the American bear the brunt of the causalities in this conflict? No, when you count Iraqi soldiers and police officers. As for alliances, our contributions were similar to the first Gulf War (an alliance that Kerry opposed.) We bore the brunt of the casualties in the first Gulf War. In the second Gulf War, the Poles and the Italians replaced the French military participation from the first Gulf War. A fair trade in my estimation.
We also bore the brunt of the defense spending during the entire cold war and while Kerry has used Reagan as an example of alliance-building that Bush should emulate, Kerry opposed the policies of Reagan. So I would like to know what alliance or global test that Kerry would approve? He opposed the first Gulf War and he opposed the Reagan-Bush policies that liberated millions in Latin American and Central Europe.
Bush is building new alliances. We are seeing an emergence of an Anglosphere alliance between Australia, Great Britain and the United States. We are witnessing a closer relation between India and United States. The Japanese, Australia and Russian Prime Ministers have endorsed Bush, so this idea that Bush has engaged in a unilateral policy is false. There are more than enough leaders who are prepared to work with Bush and prefer his reelection. In his dealing with the North Koreans, Bush is working with Japan, China and Russia in a multilateral fashion. So much for the lone cowboy. (I will add that Kerry has already stated that he will abandon the Bush’s multilateral approach!!)
In the meantime, Kerry has disparaged those allies that have supported us. Did you know that Kerry sister campaigned against John Howard, the present Australian Prime Minister? Just ask the Polish Prime Minister his thought on Kerry. It was not positive.
Kerry prefers the company of the French, who were taking money under the table from Saddam to those who bled side by side with us. When Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi came to Washington, one of Kerry’s advisors called him a puppet. Nothing like disparaging an ally, who is risking all including his life. Kerry foreign policy is “screw those allies who are helping us and kiss the ass of those who are screwing us.”
John Kerry has taken numerous positions on Iraq, much of it poll-driven but his public record shows a man who never been on the right side of history. When Reagan was building our defenses and designing policies that would end the cold war, Kerry opposed them. When the first President Bush was organizing the alliance of the first Gulf War, Kerry opposed it. Kerry has a record and there is no nuance needed to decipher it. So how important is winning the war on terror? That is the question you must ask yourself.
Now let us discuss one more thing. I want you to read this. This came from Instapundit.
“On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?”
If a Republican had said this, it would be hate speech and rightly so. Much of the left has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. George Soros, the left’s biggest moneyman, has insinuated that Bush is a Nazi. The Democratic Party has a memo for their operatives in the field to yell voter intimidation where none exists. Democratic field operatives are being told to lie about incidents of voter fraud to tie up the court system and delegitimize Bush’s victory. It is as if the left has decided to launch a scorched earth policy. Do you feel comfortable with these tactics? Then there are the cases of outright violence against Republican headquarters including robbery and drive-by shooting. On one occasion, one Republican volunteer suffered a broken wrist. Where is the outrage?
Politics can be a rhetorical rumble and I have no problems with John Kerry attacking Bush’s record, nor should you be concerned about the Republicans examining Kerry’s record. Each candidate must defend what he has done and present a vision of what he will do. There is no place for violence or encouraging voter fraud. Democrat activists are presently doing both. Nor has the national Kerry campaign condemned these acts of violence upon Republican headquarters nationwide.
As I mention, you have to take what you read in the mainstream media with a grain of salt. The mainstream media has taken sides. An ABC news executive wrote a memo that his reporters should be “harder on Bush than Kerry.” CBS not only pushed a false story about Bush’s National Guard duty but also gave the Democrats a heads up by contacting at least one Kerry advisor before the story came out by suggesting a meeting with their source. I could go on but as I mention, you are not getting the full truth. Evan Thomas of Newsweek has admitted that the Mainstream Media wants Kerry to win and that their favoritism means a bump of 5-15 points in the polls for Kerry.
So what is Bush’s vision?
Bush wants to spread our democratic institutions worldwide. This is a liberal idea or least it use to be.
Bush wants you to keep more of your money and wants to you to have more ownership of your healthcare and social security. Thus his promotion of health saving accounts that will make health care more affordable, and his proposal to allow individuals to own a portion of their social security. (Notice the word portion: Bush is not asking for a complete privatization of social security.)
Bush will use the Federal government more extensively in educational matters than most of we conservatives are comfortable with.
Bush would like our toughest social issues settled by the people, not the courts. (I should point out that both Kerry and Bush believe that marriage is between a man and woman. The difference is that Bush is willing to let us decide the issues and take the issue to the people. His Vice President has come out in favor of a federalist approach. Kerry wants the courts to decide the issue so he doesn’t have to take a stance.)
Lest I forget, Bush will not bring back the draft. While this rumor has been spreading like bonfire, the only people who actually have proposed a return of the draft and drafted legislation to accomplish that objective were Democrat legislators like Representative Charles Rangel.
You might not agree with Bush’s agenda but you have a President who is looking ahead to the future. You have a President who understands that 9/11 has changed our world forever and that new alliances will be formed and we can’t depend upon old alliances to defend ourselves. He also understands that there will be a time that we will need to act alone to defend ourselves.
Democrats like Ed Koch and Zell Miller have abandoned their Party for this election because of national security issues. They have not abandoned their liberal traditions but are trying to rescue them. For one election, you can join Koch and Miller, among others, for if our freedoms are not defended abroad, they are at risk at home. That is why Bush should be elected President.