Posted on 10/17/2004 3:15:02 PM PDT by Inyokern
This presidential election is essentially a referendum on the war in Iraq. If John Kerry wins, the world will believe that his victory was the result of the war. More specifically, the world will believe that the insurgents in Iraq, by killing large numbers of American soldiers and beheading hostages, sapped American resolve and defeated George W. Bush. The insurgents in Iraq will be seen by everyone as having won a major victory.
Kerry, in fact, has encouraged this perception by using the deaths in Iraq in his campaign. He has spoken of the beheadings of hostages and the deaths of American soldiers in speeches and in the debates: "More soldiers died in July than June, more in August than July, etc, etc." In other words, American's are being killed in Iraq, so vote for me and I will stop it.
But how will he stop it? He is not saying that he will immediately pull the troops out of Iraq, even though his statements trumpeting the deaths of American there seem to suggest that. He has said that Bush erred by not sending enough troops to Iraq but, when he was asked if he would send more troops there to win the war, he very forcefully said no. This is one issue on which Kerry never flip-flops. He says that we do not have enough troops to win there and that he will not send more troops.
I have read his plan for Iraq on his website and it appears that he hopes to reduce American forces there by getting other nations to send troops to replace ours. Who does he plan to get? The French? Does anyone on Planet Earth think that is a realistic possibility?
Actually, he would be hard pressed to keep the allies we already have. He has publicly scorned them as the "coalition of the bribed and the coerced." He has also ridiculed the current prime minister of Iraq, Allawi, calling him a hand puppet and claiming that his speech to the UN was written by the Bush Administration. Kerry even sent his sister to Australia to campaign against Australian participation in the war! So much for allies.
If Bush is defeated, how long do you think Tony Blair would be able to keep his office as Prime Minister of Great Britain? Blair is already facing a major revolt in his Labour Party over his participation in the war in Iraq. An electoral defeat of Bush would only increase pressure for Blair to step down. The anti-war faction in the British Labour Party will say "Look, the Yanks have voted against the war so why the hell should we stay there?" They will dump Blair and replace him with a "peaceful" prime minister who will withdraw their troops, just as the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain withdrew the Spanish troops after an Arab terrorist attack in Madrid.
Kerry says that, when he is elected, he will call “a summit meeting of the world's major powers as well as states in the region, and key Arab and Muslim nations.” And what will be discussed at that summit meeting? After the French, the Germans and the Russians have demanded their "fair share" of Iraq's oil wealth, guess what the next subject will be. That's right, you guessed it: Israel. Kerry will be told by the Arab and Muslim nations, as well as France, that Israel is the root of all problems in the Middle East. (Arab terrorists are blowing up Arab children in Iraq, but Israel is the REAL villain.) The Arabs and France will make some vague offer to help the United States in Iraq, only if the US stops vetoing anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and forces Israel to make major concessions, such as tearing down the security fence.
Does anyone believe that Arab and Muslim nations would agree to come to a summit meeting and offer the US help in Iraq WITHOUT some major quid pro quo regarding Israel? Think about it.
So what does Kerry do then?
Kerry says Bush has followed a “go-it-alone policy” in Iraq, even though the coalition we have there is comparable to the one we had when we invaded Normandy in 1944. He complains that "After insulting allies and shredding alliances, (Bush) does not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq." This is his most bogus accusation in my opinion. We all remember the intense negotiations Bush carried on at the UN prior to the war and we remember how obstinate the French ambassador De Villepin was. Of course, we now know that the French had a secret sweetheart deal with Saddam Hussein (under the corrupt "Oil for Food Program) and would therefore veto any military action against Saddam by the UN. There was no way Bush or any US president could have gotten the UN to go along with a war in Iraq, even if he had waited until hell froze over.
Kerry supported the war when it was politically popular. Being on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he was privy to the intelligence we had on Iraq and he believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, just as everyone else did. He made speeches to that effect. Regardless of whether or not Saddam actually had such weapons, he was clearly in violation of the terms of the negotiated surrender he signed at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. He had been violating it for years. It is absurd to suggest that, if Bush had only kept the US Army waiting in the desert a few more months and had pressed for an 18th UN resolution (as if 17 just wasn't enough), Saddam would have become a cooperative law-abiding citizen. It was never going to happen. Bush was completely justified in going to war under the treaty of 1991 and John Kerry voted to let him do it.
The war has proven to be more difficult than the Bush Administration originally thought. As casualties have mounted, it has become much less popular, so Kerry has turned against it. However, even if one believes it was mistake to get into this war, there is no question that we have to win it. If we lose this war, Iraq will become the world center for Islamic terrorists so failure is not an option.
So the question of this election is which candidate is more likely to win the war. The war is inextricably linked in the public mind, both here and in the rest of the world, with George W. Bush. If Bush loses the election, the world will perceive that the American electorate has turned away from the war. The insurgents in Iraq, the jihadis and the Baathists, will perceive that they have won. Beheading hostages in front of TV cameras will be perceived to have had its desired effect.
No nation will come to our aid in a war that is perceived to be lost. No nation will come to our aid in a war that the President of the United States does not seem to believe in. Our one major ally, Tony Blair, will be left hanging out to dry and will probably be replaced by an anti-war prime minister. Although John Kerry says he will "win" the war, he has essentially campaigned against it. And don't forget that Kerry's entire political career is based upon his anti-Vietnam-War activity as a young man. The world perceives Kerry as anti-war.
No soldier will want to fight in a war that is perceived to be lost, under a president who thinks the war was a mistake. As Kerry himself asked as a young man, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" And how do you get Iraqis to support a government backed by the United States if it appears that the United States is backing away?
A recent poll was taken among the nations of the world and it showed that Bush is very unpopular in most major nations. However, the nation in which Bush is most popular is Israel. In fact, Bush is as popular in Israel as he is in the most lopsided Republican states in the United States: More than 2 to 1.
The reason is that the Israelis know very well what the stakes are in Iraq and they do not trust John Kerry. If the United States were to pull out of Iraq at this point, the Islamic terrorists will take over. Iraq will become a training center for Palestinian terrorists and no future US president will ever be able to credibly threaten force in the Middle East.
Jewish voters should consider this when they go to the polls November 2nd.
Please ping to your group
Alouette is away.
Hey!
Check it out!
You make perfect sense to me.
Mail it! Quick and wide.
You are not alone; count this Jewish family for Bush also.
God bless you.
Per the latest stats I read today, it looks like Bush will get 30% more Jewish votes this time around than in 2000.
Pull out all the stops. Let's get out the vote. Time is short.
Count this Jewish family too.
Great letter. I do wish more of the Jewish community understood it as well as you do.
The only reason we have the favor of the Lord in the USA is because we support Israel. God help us if we ever turn our back on her. I can't understand why any Jewish person would not vote for W, he will stand by Israel.
Not Jewish, but Israel has my complete support. You've written it very well....send away.
As a Jew, I've never understood how or why most Jews vote Democratic. The Republicans are much more supportive of Israel and have a lot more tolerance than do the Dems. Besides, conservative values (including the importance of education, hard work, family, and faith) are Jewish values.
Bump for later reading.
OK, make it two things. The other one is: exactly which countries will enter into Kerry's grand coalition to relieve US troops in Iraq even if France and Germany change their minds? If, as Kerry says, Missouri is the equivilant of the third largest country currently in the coalition, France and Germany together might equal the fourth.
The truth is that the only way Kerry can put together a grand coalition is to turn the handling of Iraq over to the United Natuions, the only body capable of controlling enough troops to finish the job in Iraq. There are two problems with that.
A: the bulk of the troops the UN depends on are US and British troops, and US and British troops would be damned poor replacements for themselves in Iraq.
B: As we already know from the UN blood for oil vouchers scheme, the UN is incapable of finishing the job in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. I submit Iraq, the DPRNK, Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan as exhibits a, b, c, d and e. Further, I challange everyone to name me ONE country which the United Nations has successfully turned from chaos into peace and freedom. South Africa doesn't count, because the UN didn't end aphartheide, and it was the SA government's idea to disarm. Nothing the UN did changed the outcome in SA. (nothing Teresa Heinz Kerry changed that outcome either; she was only at one protest rally and that was an officially sanctioned one in which the whole school participated.)
Maybe you could submit it to the Jewish World Review? A New York Times op-ed? It's excellent!
The Republicans who are supportive of Israel are essentially trying to get Armageddon started so that Jesus comes and convert all the Jews to Christianity, and rule over Israel. The Jews who are voting Republicans are essentially trying to take advantage of these Evangelicals. They know for sure that Jesus is not coming next year or next hundred years for that matter. It is politically convenient to get in bed with the Republicans; not out of conviction, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.