Posted on 06/09/2006 6:08:26 AM PDT by Theodore R.
We got Kerry anyway!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 9, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
When it appeared I would not and could not endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004, many of my friends – even my own wife – suggested to me that, if I refused to vote as I had in 2000, I would share some personal responsibility for John Kerry becoming our next commander in chief.
I must say, it was a compelling argument.
I found Kerry to be one of the most detestable human beings ever to walk planet Earth. He was a liar, he was an opportunist extraordinaire, and he was a traitor to his country. Indeed, it was hard to imagine Kerry in the White House.
And it wasn't just Kerry's past misdeeds that concerned me. I recall vividly in one of his debates with President Bush he actually called for providing Iran with uranium in exchange for a promise not to produce nuclear weapons.
This stunning display of naiveté (or was it an indication of something more sinister) may have been the clincher for me.
It was bad enough that Kerry had sold out American troops so many years earlier. It was bad enough that he had maligned the very character of his country so many years ago. It was bad enough that he deceived his way into a position of considerable political power already. My bigger concern was the kind of damage he could wreak on our country in the future as president. It was inconceivable.
And the most dramatic demonstration of his appeasement mentality was this crazy notion, expressed publicly in an open national presidential debate, that in response to Iran's aggressiveness, its threats, its sponsorship of terrorism and its total commitment to building and proliferating weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of defeating the United States of America, that we should simply give the Iranians the nuclear material it needed for a piece of paper stating it would only use it for peaceful purposes.
It was so Chamberlainesque!
This man was truly dangerous.
He was a joke.
So, I reluctantly agreed with my tormentors that Kerry had to be defeated – even if that meant four more years of Bush.
But, I must say, it worried me then that President Bush didn't pick up on this utterly insane suggestion and make hay with it in that debate – or, even later on in the campaign. What was he thinking? What were his advisers thinking?
Now it appears they were thinking Kerry had a good idea all along. Because they have adopted Kerry's unbelievably, incredibly irrational, suicidal proposal as their own – and as out national policy to "defuse" the Iranian crisis.
Students, pay heed. Observing this course of action will qualify you for three credits in Appeasement 101.
How many times do we have to learn the same lesson over again?
Didn't we learn it in Munich?
Didn't we learn it in Yalta?
Didn't we learn it more recently when President Clinton tried to buy off North Korea the exact same way?
It turns out, even though I abandoned my instincts and my principles – expressed in my own recent book, "Taking America Back" – never to support a candidate for any office who does not explicitly understand and support the Constitution of the United States wholly and completely and without reservation, I still got my worst fear. I got Kerry.
It appears President Kerry is running not only border security policy. It appears President Kerry is running not only domestic spending policy. It appears President Kerry is now running the so-called "war on terror" and other foreign policy matters.
I shouldn't have to say this. It should be abundantly obvious to any casual observer of the international scene. But apparently it is not. So let me state this plainly: Iran has no desire to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is the mission statement, the motivating force behind the mullah government to achieve a kind of parity with "the Great Satan" – us. Iran may take the bait and accept the aid. But it will only be to buy time for itself (like Hitler bought time at Munich) to prepare for war – an unconventional, asymmetric, global, nuclear terrorist war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the only thing that kerry reminds me of is botox
Farah is waxing hyperbolic again. We voted for Bush knowing he was the equivalent of a 1960's-era Democrat on government spending, because the alternative was unthinkable. Small government libertarianism is completely out of favor in DC and with the public at large - Bush is the best we could get. For all his faults, I have yet to see anyone with a chance of winning in 2008 who will be better for conservatism.
No.
Talking to a conservative from Massachusetts he said they refer to their two senators as "Botox" and "Detox." I thought it was pretty funny.
I read a few days ago that Phyllis Schlafly has analyzed Judge John Roberts' record, and she has not found him to be particularly conservative or a particular strong leader at this early stage in his tenure. As far as Ruth Bader Ginsburg goes, she would be bad, and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah was her co-sponsor in 1993.
Farah is trying to sound much more influential than he is. If Kerry was President, not only would he be packing courts with judges shoving gay marraige down our throats, but he would be taxing everyone crazy.
Says it all. And isn't that a shame. I stated many times during the 8 years with Xlinton; the fact that he was elected and reelected says more about "us" (the collective) than it does about him. Hence my tag line from the 60's tune.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is not conservative.
What were her examples that she cited for such an opinion?
I may not agree with the President on every occasion, but President Bush is no John Kerry. Thank God.
And we get nutburger rants from farah, so?
WND is a pathetic shell of its former self because it has a manic depressive running it.
Cool, a double.
who is detox
Phyllis Schlafly is in her dotage. Roberts hasn't served a full year yet, and the church lady has already written him off.
Pitiful.
Good post! You get it.
detox = Kennedy
botox = Kerry
I shouldn't have to say this. It should be abundantly obvious to any casual observer of the international scene. But apparently it is not. So let me state this plainly: Iran has no desire to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is the mission statement, the motivating force behind the mullah government to achieve a kind of parity with "the Great Satan" – us. Iran may take the bait and accept the aid. But it will only be to buy time for itself (like Hitler bought time at Munich) to prepare for war – an unconventional, asymmetric, global, nuclear terrorist war.
I spot on.
The fact that Bush et. al. actually believe Ahmadinejad only reveals that they are fools in this.
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.