Posted on 10/19/2004 4:33:47 PM PDT by CHARLITE
ContraPolitics October 19, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign has given rise to a phenomenon I don't recall having witnessed in prior presidential campaigns. It is, simply, whatever Bush is for Kerry and his followers are against. The Kerry position always appears to be based on one of three premises; Bush is totally wrong, Bush is doing too much, or Bush is doing too little. This is nothing more than an extension of the "anybody but Bush" mentality that drives so many Kerry supporters. It is an attempt to forge hatred for Bush into enthusiastic support and loyalty for Kerry, something that has been lacking in many Kerry supporters. The strange contrapolitics that ensue is not about principle, but about getting elected. It is about personal ambition, not about what is best for America.
President Bush hit the nail on the head in the second debate when he pointed to Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq based on the political expediency of the moment. Pro-war Kerry became anti-war Kerry to derail Dean in the Democrat primaries. Anti-war Kerry is now both pro-war under the right circumstances and anti-war under another set of circumstances. That is not unreasonable until you examine what Kerry defines as the right circumstances. Ask the right questions and the illogic of Kerry's contrapolitics is exposed.
The war on terror is not like the war on crime except in the sense that both require eternal vigilance. The war on crime is not about rogue nations harboring numbers runners, prostitution rings or inside stock traders. Muggers, burglars and thieves are not fleeing to Iran for refuge. American kidnappers and murderers are not seeking political asylum in Syria. The war on crime is not about stopping nuclear weapon components from being manufactured and smuggled into American cities to be assembled and detonated. Part of the war on terror must deal with those nations willing to supply terrorist with weapons, safe haven and financial support. Iraq fit that category. Does reducing terrorism to a nuisance mean only one American city is nuked per year? Does it mean only one school massacre per month? Is the release of a cloud of ricin at a shopping mall merely a nuisance we should learn to live with?
What coalition of nations does Kerry think is required before we can act in self-defense? Would a coalition that includes France, or Germany or both suddenly make Iraq the right war at the right place at the right time? Are 30 nations no good but 31 or 32 make things right? Are 30 allies a coalition of the bribed and coerced and 31 is not? If Spain bows to terrorism and leaves the coalition is our cause no longer valid? If we are attacked again, do we need the UN to approve of any retaliatory measures we might take? The wishy-washy, flip-flop principles of a President Kerry will not build a single coalition, except the one against us.
Kerry considers the terrorists coming into Iraq a sign of failure. Are the terrorists streaming into Iraq not terrorists when they are not in Iraq? Isn't it better we draw them out and kill them there, or would Kerry prefer gun battles and beheadings in Cedar Rapids while the UN debates the righteousness of our cause? If we capture Bin Laden, are all the terrorists going to go home and take up wind surfing? Do we ignore all other threats until we get Bin Laden? Are we so strapped for resources we can only deal with one person at a time?
I am not convinced as yet that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction despite reports to the contrary. The Iraqi desert is huge and unless you know exactly where to look, things buried in that desert will escape detection indefinitely. Consider what we know. Hussein had jet aircraft buried in the desert. Why? Where did the chemical weapons that found their way to Jordan come from? There has never been a satisfactory explanation. Why would anyone bury drums of insecticide in the desert, which by the way are also the chemical intermediates needed to produce nerve gas? Why were nuclear components buried in someone's back yard? Were the mobile labs we found on their way to Iraqi museums for display, or were they simply misplaced on an inventory list not revealed to weapons inspectors? Did all the intelligence agencies that reported WMD in Iraq conspire with Bush to fabricate an excuse for war? Why maintain an arsenal of rockets capable of delivering chemical weapons you don't have?
The pro-war Kerry had it right at one time, but the contrapolitical Kerry seems to be taking positions based strictly on "any policies but Bush's" to appease the "anybody but Bush" crowd. But all that Kerry has to offer is that he would have acted "more wisely", perhaps like he did with Vietnam. Why isn't Bush clairvoyant, like Kerry? Undoubtedly, if Bush announced plans to withdraw from Iraq in two years, Kerry would criticize it for being too soon, too late or ill advised to make any announcement.
The contrapolitical positions of Kerry offer our enemies hope. Terrorist organizations, Iran, Syria and North Korea are getting the message, and the message Kerry is sending is wait for me and I'll cut you a better deal. That message is hurting us now and will be an absolute disaster if the contrapolitical Kerry becomes president. The tiger will be neutered and the terrorists are waiting for Kerry to do it. Contact Tony: rubolotta@therant.us
Yeah I haven't seen that since 2000 with Gore.
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.