Bush vs. Kerry
Every Sunday my friends and I play poker. Two weeks ago a political debate broke out that chose not to partake in because I felt that it was neither the time, nor the place. Instead I wrote this letter and sent it to my friends…
Dear Brawlers,
My distaste for political discourse in the midst of a laid back day of drinking and poker persuaded me to keep my mouth shut two weeks ago. My distaste for John Kerry, however, has persuaded me to write this Email to you all and stress the importance of reelecting George Bush for President. I believe that it is imperative the future of our Nation. I had intended to finish this earlier and bring it to Luke's apartment last Sunday but the trials and tribulations of the week set it on the back burner and for that I apologize. In any case, there are many reasons why Bush has been good for this nation and why Kerry would be bad. I, however, will focus on three: The war on Iraq, Kerry’s foreign policy, and the economy.
THE WAR ON IRAQ
Were there weapons of mass destruction?
First and foremost I have to say that regardless of what CNN and the network news has told you, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Let me say that again... Saddam Hussein... had... weapons... of... mass... destruction. This was an undisputed fact for decades… It was undisputed when we as a nation provided him with them to help fight the Iran/Iraq war back in the 80’s because he was the lesser of two evils at the time. It was undisputed in March of 1988 when Hussein killed 5,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in Halabja, Iraq with mustard and nerve gas. It was undisputed in the early 90’s when Bush Sr. invaded. It was undisputed in the late 90’s when BILL CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ… TWICE (look it up… he did). It was undisputed right up until Bush Jr. decided that enough was enough. Here are just a few of the many quotes by some DEMOCRAT leaders who would later vilify the current administration for believing that there might be WMD’s in Iraq……..
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Funny… The Democratic Party believed that Hussein should be disarmed before Bush actually put his money where his mouth is and now they are criticizing the administration… Political maneuvering such as this makes me sick.
So where are all these WMDs now?
You might be thinking that and it’s a valid question. Iraq is the size of California, a nuclear bomb can fit in a suitcase, and Hussein had ten years to hide/move them. To say that this is like finding a needle in a haystack would be the understatement of the year. All I can say is that we are making progress. In July of 2003, 30 to 40 Mig-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets were found buried in the sand in al Taqquadum, Iraq (bet you didn’t hear that on CNN, eh?). The following is the press release by Donald Rumsfeld on the issue…
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2003 - American forces have found Russian fighter jets buried in the Iraqi desert, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an Aug. 5 press briefing.
"We'd heard a great many things had been buried, but we had not known where they were, and we'd been operating in that immediate vicinity for weeks and weeks and weeks . . . 12, 13 weeks, and didn't know they were (there)," Rumsfeld said.
The secretary said he wasn't sure how many such aircraft had been found, but noted, "It wasn't one or two."
He said it's a "classic example" of the challenges the Iraqi Survey Group is facing in finding weapons of mass destruction in the country.
"Something as big as an airplane that's within . . . a stone's throw of where you're functioning, and you don't know it's there because you don't run around digging into everything on a discovery process," Rumsfeld explained. "So until you find somebody who tells you where to look, or until nature clears some sand away and exposes something over time, we're simply not going to know.
"But, as we all know," he added, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Most recently, a few insurgents stumbled upon a sarin-tipped warhead which proves that at LEAST a few of the weapons still remain.
I believe that many more will be found, but even if they aren’t it does not matter. Bush was working on the information he was provided and that information, for over 20 years, made it clear that they were present.
So what if he DID have WMDs? Is that reason to invade?
Yes. Yes it is… for a multitude of reasons. First of all, I don’t think anyone will disagree that the Middle East is a volatile region that has been riddled with conflict since the beginning of recorded history. It is a region whose juxtaposition of different idealistic sects of people who absolutely despise one another coupled with the dependency of the ENTIRE civilized world upon it to function correctly has put everyone in a precarious situation. One power hungry dictator, one errant missile, one nervous neighboring country and BOOM! The entire fucking region will explode. Palestine will see its chance to take back the land it thinks it owns and attack Israel, Israel will no longer be able to be controlled and they will start nukeing motherfuckers, Iran will see no reason to lie dormant anymore and attack Iraq, Iraq will want to own the world and attack everyone, and the whole time Kuwait will be sitting there like “oh shit, we’re fucked.” All of this will halt oil production and effectively propel the entire western world into the dark ages. We need to nip things in the bud before it comes to this. Bush Sr. did it in ’91 and completed his goal of decimating the Iraqi military to a point where it would not be effective for a period of ten years. Ten years has past and in the mean time Hussein had violated 16/odd United Nations resolutions. Enough was enough. Something had to be done and I’m glad that we had a president with the testicular fortitude to get the job done. If we listened to the United Nations nothing would have EVER gotten done.
So it’s all about oil then?
That’s a loaded question. The answer is yes but not in the way that you think. The people that say Bush just wanted to invade Iraq to steal their oil and lower gas prices make me want to stab. That is so incredibly ignorant. First of all, what do these people think? Do they think that we could just go in there, kill everyone, and take the oil? Do they think that Bush isn’t smart enough to think the world might notice and have a problem with that? Do they think that Bush is really so evil that he would send soldiers to die so that he could fill up his limousine cheaper? Give me a break. Second, you can’t just pour raw crude oil into your gas tank and expect it to run. Oil needs to be refined and because of EPA restrictions most of this is done in Central and South America. If we wanted to lower gas prices, wouldn’t it make more sense to invade Venezuela (the recent uprising would have given us a reason… we could have said we were “peacekeepers”) and take over all of the refineries? A huge amount of raw crude oil is obtained down there too so we could take over the oil rigs as well. This would have the same effect but without the whole silly “Bush did it to avenge his father” thing. Plus their military is irrelevant if even present so we could have done it easier.
It IS, however, about oil in the context that we (and every other nation) are dependent upon it. It is impossible for us to just leave the Middle East to their own devices. As sad at it is, we are dependent upon them. Without oil our military power (aka. peace and security) effectively drops to zilch as well as every other luxury we all currently enjoy. We would be easy pickings for a county like China with overwhelming numbers.
Okay enough about the war.
KERRY’S FOREIGN POLICY
“I will go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations.”
“I will treat the United Nations as a full partner - not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies like AIDS and global poverty.”
- John Kerry: December 03, 2003
John Kerry intends to place the foreign policy of the United States in the hands of the United Nations. He believes that even if something is an immediate threat to the security of this nation, he should not act unless the United Nations believes it is just. He believed that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs but believed that we shouldn’t have gone to war because the UN didn’t approve it. This is the most frightening thing I have ever heard a candidate say.
Why does that statement preclude Kerry from being president?
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that any person entering the office of President of the United States must take the following oath…
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By stating that he intends to place the security of this nation in the hands of an organization that does not keep our best interests in mind and by stating that the whim of the United Nations is more important than the security of this nation is a perversion of the constitution and the very reason why it was established. By stating that he will place the foreign policy in the hands of the United Nations, John Kerry has already violated the oath that he would take if he were to win the election. For this reason he should be precluded from even running.
So what about all that Constitution stuff… Shouldn’t the United Nations decide?
NO! The United Nations is an outdated and irrelevant organization that will soon go the route of the League of Nations. It is too diverse with too many competing interests to be effective. The entire world knew that Hussein had WMDs and thought that he should be dealt with. The United Nations made 16 resolutions demanding that he let inspectors into his country. What did Hussein do? He gave them the proverbial middle finger. Nobody did anything and nobody cared. Countries like Germany and France dragged their feet on the issue because they had money invested in Iraq. We cannot place our security in this organization. One final point on the United Nations… Cuba, Sudan, Libya, and Russia are all members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Anyone who knows anything about these nations should see that the United Nations is irrelevant.
THE ECONOMY
The grandfather of modern economics, John Maynard Keynes, taught us that the determining factor of aggregate output (and as a consequence - employment) is aggregate demand. Furthermore, if you put more money into the pockets of the people it will increase their marginal propensity to consume, which will spark an increase in aggregate demand. In layman’s terms… If you reduce taxes then people will have more money… If they have more money they will buy more stuff… If they buy more stuff then more stuff will be produced… If more stuff is produced then more people will be needed to make and sell all the stuff (aka. more employment)… If more people are employed then they will have more money and the cycle will perpetuate. Bush’s tax cuts have started the ball rolling on this, but it takes time. It takes years for economic policy to securely take hold. Those who say that Bush caused the marginal economy (It wasn’t even that bad… just not as good as it had been previously. The unemployment rate was right around average) are both shortsighted and uneducated in the ways of economics. The insider trading scandals, the threats of terror, the foreign criticism… These are all things that hinder consumption and put a damper on the economy. None of it was Bush’s fault. If we elect Kerry now and allow him to do away with the tax cuts that Bush fought for then we will be back to square one. Kerry uses buzz words like “tax cuts for the wealthy” to trick the American people into believing that the tax cuts don’t apply to them. They do. Under Bush’s tax plan, everyone who pays taxes receives more money in their check every week, and that money will save our economy in the long run.
CONCLUSION
These are just thoughts off the top of my head on three issues. I have many more reasons why Kerry is detrimental to this nation. I implore you to stop watching CNN, CBS, MTV, and Comedy Central to get your campaign information and to seriously rethink the reasons why you believe Kerry should be president. I welcome any rebuttal you may choose to provide and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time.
Dear Brawlers,
My distaste for political discourse in the midst of a laid back day of drinking and poker persuaded me to keep my mouth shut two weeks ago. My distaste for John Kerry, however, has persuaded me to write this Email to you all and stress the importance of reelecting George Bush for President. I believe that it is imperative the future of our Nation. I had intended to finish this earlier and bring it to Luke's apartment last Sunday but the trials and tribulations of the week set it on the back burner and for that I apologize. In any case, there are many reasons why Bush has been good for this nation and why Kerry would be bad. I, however, will focus on three: The war on Iraq, Kerry’s foreign policy, and the economy.
THE WAR ON IRAQ
Were there weapons of mass destruction?
First and foremost I have to say that regardless of what CNN and the network news has told you, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Let me say that again... Saddam Hussein... had... weapons... of... mass... destruction. This was an undisputed fact for decades… It was undisputed when we as a nation provided him with them to help fight the Iran/Iraq war back in the 80’s because he was the lesser of two evils at the time. It was undisputed in March of 1988 when Hussein killed 5,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in Halabja, Iraq with mustard and nerve gas. It was undisputed in the early 90’s when Bush Sr. invaded. It was undisputed in the late 90’s when BILL CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ… TWICE (look it up… he did). It was undisputed right up until Bush Jr. decided that enough was enough. Here are just a few of the many quotes by some DEMOCRAT leaders who would later vilify the current administration for believing that there might be WMD’s in Iraq……..
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Funny… The Democratic Party believed that Hussein should be disarmed before Bush actually put his money where his mouth is and now they are criticizing the administration… Political maneuvering such as this makes me sick.
So where are all these WMDs now?
You might be thinking that and it’s a valid question. Iraq is the size of California, a nuclear bomb can fit in a suitcase, and Hussein had ten years to hide/move them. To say that this is like finding a needle in a haystack would be the understatement of the year. All I can say is that we are making progress. In July of 2003, 30 to 40 Mig-25 and Su-25 ground attack jets were found buried in the sand in al Taqquadum, Iraq (bet you didn’t hear that on CNN, eh?). The following is the press release by Donald Rumsfeld on the issue…
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6, 2003 - American forces have found Russian fighter jets buried in the Iraqi desert, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an Aug. 5 press briefing.
"We'd heard a great many things had been buried, but we had not known where they were, and we'd been operating in that immediate vicinity for weeks and weeks and weeks . . . 12, 13 weeks, and didn't know they were (there)," Rumsfeld said.
The secretary said he wasn't sure how many such aircraft had been found, but noted, "It wasn't one or two."
He said it's a "classic example" of the challenges the Iraqi Survey Group is facing in finding weapons of mass destruction in the country.
"Something as big as an airplane that's within . . . a stone's throw of where you're functioning, and you don't know it's there because you don't run around digging into everything on a discovery process," Rumsfeld explained. "So until you find somebody who tells you where to look, or until nature clears some sand away and exposes something over time, we're simply not going to know.
"But, as we all know," he added, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Most recently, a few insurgents stumbled upon a sarin-tipped warhead which proves that at LEAST a few of the weapons still remain.
I believe that many more will be found, but even if they aren’t it does not matter. Bush was working on the information he was provided and that information, for over 20 years, made it clear that they were present.
So what if he DID have WMDs? Is that reason to invade?
Yes. Yes it is… for a multitude of reasons. First of all, I don’t think anyone will disagree that the Middle East is a volatile region that has been riddled with conflict since the beginning of recorded history. It is a region whose juxtaposition of different idealistic sects of people who absolutely despise one another coupled with the dependency of the ENTIRE civilized world upon it to function correctly has put everyone in a precarious situation. One power hungry dictator, one errant missile, one nervous neighboring country and BOOM! The entire fucking region will explode. Palestine will see its chance to take back the land it thinks it owns and attack Israel, Israel will no longer be able to be controlled and they will start nukeing motherfuckers, Iran will see no reason to lie dormant anymore and attack Iraq, Iraq will want to own the world and attack everyone, and the whole time Kuwait will be sitting there like “oh shit, we’re fucked.” All of this will halt oil production and effectively propel the entire western world into the dark ages. We need to nip things in the bud before it comes to this. Bush Sr. did it in ’91 and completed his goal of decimating the Iraqi military to a point where it would not be effective for a period of ten years. Ten years has past and in the mean time Hussein had violated 16/odd United Nations resolutions. Enough was enough. Something had to be done and I’m glad that we had a president with the testicular fortitude to get the job done. If we listened to the United Nations nothing would have EVER gotten done.
So it’s all about oil then?
That’s a loaded question. The answer is yes but not in the way that you think. The people that say Bush just wanted to invade Iraq to steal their oil and lower gas prices make me want to stab. That is so incredibly ignorant. First of all, what do these people think? Do they think that we could just go in there, kill everyone, and take the oil? Do they think that Bush isn’t smart enough to think the world might notice and have a problem with that? Do they think that Bush is really so evil that he would send soldiers to die so that he could fill up his limousine cheaper? Give me a break. Second, you can’t just pour raw crude oil into your gas tank and expect it to run. Oil needs to be refined and because of EPA restrictions most of this is done in Central and South America. If we wanted to lower gas prices, wouldn’t it make more sense to invade Venezuela (the recent uprising would have given us a reason… we could have said we were “peacekeepers”) and take over all of the refineries? A huge amount of raw crude oil is obtained down there too so we could take over the oil rigs as well. This would have the same effect but without the whole silly “Bush did it to avenge his father” thing. Plus their military is irrelevant if even present so we could have done it easier.
It IS, however, about oil in the context that we (and every other nation) are dependent upon it. It is impossible for us to just leave the Middle East to their own devices. As sad at it is, we are dependent upon them. Without oil our military power (aka. peace and security) effectively drops to zilch as well as every other luxury we all currently enjoy. We would be easy pickings for a county like China with overwhelming numbers.
Okay enough about the war.
KERRY’S FOREIGN POLICY
“I will go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations.”
“I will treat the United Nations as a full partner - not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies like AIDS and global poverty.”
- John Kerry: December 03, 2003
John Kerry intends to place the foreign policy of the United States in the hands of the United Nations. He believes that even if something is an immediate threat to the security of this nation, he should not act unless the United Nations believes it is just. He believed that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs but believed that we shouldn’t have gone to war because the UN didn’t approve it. This is the most frightening thing I have ever heard a candidate say.
Why does that statement preclude Kerry from being president?
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that any person entering the office of President of the United States must take the following oath…
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By stating that he intends to place the security of this nation in the hands of an organization that does not keep our best interests in mind and by stating that the whim of the United Nations is more important than the security of this nation is a perversion of the constitution and the very reason why it was established. By stating that he will place the foreign policy in the hands of the United Nations, John Kerry has already violated the oath that he would take if he were to win the election. For this reason he should be precluded from even running.
So what about all that Constitution stuff… Shouldn’t the United Nations decide?
NO! The United Nations is an outdated and irrelevant organization that will soon go the route of the League of Nations. It is too diverse with too many competing interests to be effective. The entire world knew that Hussein had WMDs and thought that he should be dealt with. The United Nations made 16 resolutions demanding that he let inspectors into his country. What did Hussein do? He gave them the proverbial middle finger. Nobody did anything and nobody cared. Countries like Germany and France dragged their feet on the issue because they had money invested in Iraq. We cannot place our security in this organization. One final point on the United Nations… Cuba, Sudan, Libya, and Russia are all members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Anyone who knows anything about these nations should see that the United Nations is irrelevant.
THE ECONOMY
The grandfather of modern economics, John Maynard Keynes, taught us that the determining factor of aggregate output (and as a consequence - employment) is aggregate demand. Furthermore, if you put more money into the pockets of the people it will increase their marginal propensity to consume, which will spark an increase in aggregate demand. In layman’s terms… If you reduce taxes then people will have more money… If they have more money they will buy more stuff… If they buy more stuff then more stuff will be produced… If more stuff is produced then more people will be needed to make and sell all the stuff (aka. more employment)… If more people are employed then they will have more money and the cycle will perpetuate. Bush’s tax cuts have started the ball rolling on this, but it takes time. It takes years for economic policy to securely take hold. Those who say that Bush caused the marginal economy (It wasn’t even that bad… just not as good as it had been previously. The unemployment rate was right around average) are both shortsighted and uneducated in the ways of economics. The insider trading scandals, the threats of terror, the foreign criticism… These are all things that hinder consumption and put a damper on the economy. None of it was Bush’s fault. If we elect Kerry now and allow him to do away with the tax cuts that Bush fought for then we will be back to square one. Kerry uses buzz words like “tax cuts for the wealthy” to trick the American people into believing that the tax cuts don’t apply to them. They do. Under Bush’s tax plan, everyone who pays taxes receives more money in their check every week, and that money will save our economy in the long run.
CONCLUSION
These are just thoughts off the top of my head on three issues. I have many more reasons why Kerry is detrimental to this nation. I implore you to stop watching CNN, CBS, MTV, and Comedy Central to get your campaign information and to seriously rethink the reasons why you believe Kerry should be president. I welcome any rebuttal you may choose to provide and answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time.