A Broken Chromosome

Finally, Kerry may have truly settled into a comfortable 
position on Iraq. Since Kerry has been ranked as the foremost 
Liberal in the Senate, it is appropriate that he has finally 
landed as the dove. It is congenital that the liberals 
magnetically choose the path of least resistance. It is the
Hide and Hope philosophy. It is Ostrich Management. It is the 
congenital strain of Neville Chamberlain appeasement. Do not 
confront and tackle the problem directly. Act the way 
Chamberlain would act and the way modern Europe acts today. 
Face the enemy terrorist as a struggle against individuals 
and combat them with legalistic measures. The democrats have 
abandoned the mainstream and tilt the pendulum heavily to the 
left. The struggle to wrestle the nomination was between Dean 
and Kerry. The strength of the democrat party with the class 
and good sense logic of Lieberman and Gebhardt was easily 
constrained and deferred. The mindset of Kerry underscores the 
importance of interpreting terrorism as a nuisances and a battle 
that has to waged with concurrence of the global community and 
with appropriate sensitivities.

The Bush doctrine is an easy and stark contrast for voters to 
understand and heavy handed. Don't kill a stray insect; go to 
the nest and exterminate. Reach to the root and extract. And 
going into Iraq is reaching to the bowels of the earth to 
eradicate the problem. Incorporating the military to take the 
offense and face the holistic problem, is consistent with the 
strong majority of republicans.


Examining Empirical Military Strategies

The liberals have a shrill Deanlike scream that Iran, North 
Korea and Saudi Arabia are the real enemies. Iran is trying to 
develop nukes and North Korea has nukes. Why didn't we attack 
these countries cry the demolefts. They say it with bravado as 
though their hawkish position is a given. However, a democrat's 
perception of extensive military action is what Democrat Carter 
did to rescue the hostages in Iran; An eight helicopter invasion 
operating with faulty parts and poor training or Clinton hurling 
missiles into tents in the dessert sand.

No one argues that taking out Iraq has removed a big ugly 
infection from the world. However, the argument against Bush 
is a stubbornly persistent and consistent theme. Where are 
the WMD’s and the terrorist connections? It haunts the Bush 
reelection drive and may cost the President as much as 5% of 
the vote. However, has there been a failure of the talking 
points in defending this war? We recognize that we have placed 
ourselves in the middle of this disease of terrorism by invading 
Iraq. However, by being in the middle have we surrounded the 
enemy. How valuable is it to extract an evil Iraq and establish 
a military presence in the home of terrorists? How valuable is 
it that we now have a permanent military base in Iraq? If the 
evil exists in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, we are now 
situated among those countries. We now have our military 
settled into a valuable spot to eyeball and proactively hit 
the terrorists in their nest.

There is a distinct absence of logic when complaints are issued 
about how all the terrorists are coming out of the woodwork and 
appearing in Iraq. Opponents of President Bush blame him for 
drawing out these terrorists. They contend that the President 
is responsible for the terrorists striking in Iraq causing 
death and destruction. I’m confused why this is perceived as a 
tremendous blunder. I have no problem with drawing the battle 
line in the sands of Baghdad as opposed to the Rumson Elementary 
School in New Jersey.


Do We Have a Cherry Picking President?

Perhaps the major criticism faced by President Bush is that at 
best, he cherry picked the information. At worst, he lied to the 
American people. In a purely logical construct, it is impossible 
to defend these criticisms. Every reasonable person accepts the 
premise that there was some significant intelligence pointing to 
wmd’s and terrorist ties. The intelligence extended beyond the 
United States and was provided by a number of other credible 
nations. Cherry picking or not, the intelligence was out there 
in force. The remainder of the landscape was factual. Indeed 
the wmd’s were used by Iraq. Absolutely, terrorist families 
were paid by Sadam for terrorist acts committed in Israel. 
Iraq did attack and occupy Kuwait. 9/11 was not a fictional 
movie. The factual landscaping was consistent with and 
amplified the intelligence provided.

The worst accusation that can logically be leveled at President 
Bush was that he erred on the side of safety. If the President 
was wrong in his judgement, he is only guilty of overprotecting 
the mainland.

The final criticism and the major thrust of the Scary Kerry 
lecture to us, states that the President made a terrible blunder 
by rushing to war. On the face of this argument one reasons that 
it would make sense to let the UN continue with inspections. Let 
the UN continue with its pressure on Iraq. If nothing else Iraq 
is under pressure from the world community and it can be 
contained.

Again, we can only blame the President for erring on the side of 
safety. Did President Bush have confidence that the inspections 
would be accurate and sufficiently comprehensive? Did we not 
witness counter pressures to reduce, relieve, and remove the 
restrictions from Iraq? Aside from the many years of cat and 
mouse games with Iraq, did the President trust the integrity of 
the UN? So again…the democrats point and say it’s big bad, Bush. 
However, his error, at worst, was the overprotection of the US 
in a similar way that parents might overprotect their children.

Other liberals clamor that Iraq was not an imminent threat. 
And then the semantics begin; Is it an imminent threat or a 
gathering threat? If it is gathering, does that make it less 
imminent? Perhaps we should have considered Iraq an intermediate 
threat and some might have considered it to be a long term 
threat. How about a perceived, persistent, or implied threat? 
It’s also confusing to correlate time elements with these terms. 
Does imminent signify one day, 3 months, or a year? We could 
accept the liberal argument that it was not imminent. To ease 
our minds we could buy into the proposition that delay means 
American soldiers don’t die today. We don’t have to suffer the 
pain of the daily reports of American deaths from Iraq. We could 
have avoided this conflict, however, the end result is that we 
would be procrastinating the protection of our homeland. We all 
agree that the ill will of these terrorists persists regardless 
of any action on our part. The focus of terrorists to the Iraq 
battle limits their ability to strike at the US heartland. 
Their resources are stretched. If Kerry believes our resources 
to combat terrorism have been stretched and limited because of 
Iraq, how much have the terrorists been limited by their focus 
to combat us in Iraq?

It is surreal how the love affair between Kerry and the 
mainstream media practically ignored a blockbuster news story 
last week. The lack of attention given to the Putin endorsement 
of Bush‘s terrorist policies, assists in the further 
deterioration of our fiduciary relationship with the mainstream 
news media. Although not as explosive as Rathergate, it clearly 
and quietly demonstrates the media’s empirical bias. Putin 
stated that the terrorist activity in Iraq is tied to our 
election. He believes that it is in the terrorists’ best 
interests to have Kerry elected. Terrorist attacks that we 
see in Iraq today are part of a strategy to defeat Bush in 
the United States election according to Putin. Putin further 
stated that Bush is more effective against terrorism than 
Kerry. Profound yet virtually ignored by the media.


Character Drag for Kerry

There have been some serious blunders by the Kerry campaign 
during the final days. The lesbian debate comment was 
strategically a flop and counterproductive. Mrs. Edwards 
follow-up comment exacerbated the issue for Kerry. Conversely, 
Lynn Chaney looked strong, impressive, and classy. The attack 
on Laura Bush by Theresa was very ill advised. She apologized 
immediately recognizing the value of a librarian and teacher. 
However, she still failed to recognize the value for parental 
child rearing. And who couldn’t appreciate the transparency of 
Kerry wearing his Elmer Fudd outfit to flex his manliness and 
love for hunting.


50-50 is 40-40

The polls show the vote is split 50/50 at this time. That could 
mean that 40% is firmly committed to Bush and 40% to Kerry. I 
like this new term persuadables which means 20% of the vote are 
leaners and changeable in addition to the undecided. Both 
parties recognize the importance of energizing their bases. 
Translated it means get out the voters who support you. One 
would believe this benefits President Bush. After all, Kerry 
supporters are really Bush opponents. Perhaps the lack of 
enthusiasm for Kerry will detract from his voter turnout.

Also, these late date Kerry campaign blunders may have a delayed 
reaction and cost Kerry votes. In the end, the popular vote may 
only tilt 6% or 7% to President Bush. However, this narrow 
popular vote will provide a landslide electoral victory for 
President Bush.


My 15 year old son was playing baseball the other day and got 
hit by a slow pitch on the batting helmet. The coach saw he was 
OK but joked with him and asked him who the President was. His 
loud response was George Bush…Thank God! And the bottom line 
issue for me in this campaign are my children. I will vote in 
their best interests and for their imminent and long term 
safety. I will vote to Reelect President Bush.