Well, knowing what we know now - you can only say that these were right on! Iran is the primary sponsor of terrorism in the world! Iran and North Korea were breaking their international agreements and developing nuclear weapons! Iran and North Korea both tested missles this year that have the ability to hit our allies - North Korea can hit the US with theirs! And as John McCain noted in his speech at the RNC, the option was not containing Iraq. That containment had been paid off already and was failing!
Remember that these events are not new, they were happening before the President even took office and the President knew about them. The pundits and Democrats had no clue - gee, that is why we elect a President!
We now have the start of a means to defend against these threats - if we had waited until our enemies tested these weapons it would already be too late and we would be behind the eight ball!
If Iran gets mad at London do you think those people will hesitate to launch one of their new missles? Will those in London thank us if our system is in place to defend them? The old deterrent policies are no longer valid!
We don't have a direct democracy. Why not? Well, not all decisions are easy nor popular! Decisions about national security have to be made by someone with the info and determination to go beyond the what is popular in the world!
I have said before that I believe the pundits are wrong - we have the means to defeat the terrorists in Iraq and the world! We just need the will to do so and a vote for the President will demonstrate that will.
It's Debate fever all over the web! Check out all the blogs and don't forget Drudge .
Again I need to point out that Kerry seemed to forget to thank the moderator - that seemed very unsportsman like, but this is the guy who blamed his Secret Service bodyguard when he fell over.
PastaBagel has a great piece that voices what I said last night about Kerry and the left just not getting it about the war on terror!
In fact, this reveals that Senator Kerry considers the war on terror to be the war on Al Qaeda. Either intentionally or subconsciously, he is defining down the war to mean simply destroying the Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan. Kerry does not see the bigger picture.
If bin Laden were killed tomorrow, absolutely nothing would change, because the vast majority of the Islamic fanatic groups not only are not part of Al Qaeda, but actually pre-existed it. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Chechen rebel groups all function independently of bin Laden’s group, and while they make common cause, they do not share resources, infrastructure or planning. Kerry’s myopic focus on bin Laden and Afghanistan reveals he views the problem as a criminal one, rather than a systemic cultural and intellectual failure across the Arab world.He sees the events of 9-11 as an isolated attack by a madman, rather than the culmination of attacks on the west that begin at least with the 1972 attack by Palestinian militants on Israeli athletes
Which is worse, fighting too many enemies or fighting too few? Read that whole thing - it is a great analysis!
One of the big lines is reviewed here in TAS Special Report, His Own Worst Enemy:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
At that moment it became clear that what was foremost in Kerry's mind was the concerns of foreign countries, and not the interest of his own. With that, the best Kerry could hope for was a small victory in the debate. Most likely, he achieved a tie.
And this one:I want to correct the president, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.
After that remark, Kerry looked silly when he said, "I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life."
Check out all the American Spectator (TAS) analysis!
THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMENT OF THE DEBATE
Almost everything on both sides was old news except that Kerry pronouncement that he opposes the US working on bunker busting nuclear weapons. Somehow I had missed that in the campaign so far. Of course these weapons are one of the key means of destroying underground nuclear installations built by rogue states like Iran. This should be brought out into the open and emphasized by the Bush campaign. Thursday, September 30, 2004Despite all the hate out there the President leads in the polls, could it be Hate Fatigue?
SECOND QUARTER FIGURES REVISED UPWARD
Economy still picking up - but keep looking for those oil prices!
What was really in the War resolution that Kerry keeps stumbling over? Larry Kudlow has looked and guess what:
this congressional authorization for war specifically and unambiguously says that further diplomacy will not adequately protect the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.Oh, and Karen Hughes pointed out on Fox that in 1991 when Kerry voted AGAINST the first gulf war he stated at that time that he couldn't support it because he knew it was a vote for WAR and not just to pressure Iraq!
Not only are Kerry’s newfound qualifiers not included in this resolution, his so-called diplomatic qualifier is actually precluded by the resolution. This is precisely why Kerry’s latest anti-war political offensive leading up to this evening’s foreign-policy debate has no resonance with either registered or likely voters according to virtually every poll.