Monday, October 11, 2004

Debate #2

Friday night was the second of the three debates and the President faired much better than in the first. He did not allow himself to be on the defensive for the night and the answers to the questions were clear and concise. I applaud the President for calling the Senator on his 20 years in the Congress. The fact that John Kerry says he wants to address several issues that he has taken no action to correct while in the Senate shows that he was not able to lead in his current job and this fact indicates that he could do no better if he were in the White House.

While the President was able to address the questions posed by the audience, John Kerry chose to begin most answers by reverting to previous questions, adding to answers he apparently was not able to address during the allotted time and so needed to qualify his statements later on.

I found the questions from the audience to be excellent, at times cutting right to the heart of several matters. The fact that the President could answer the questions without prepared statements shows his ablility to think on his feet while I found John Kerry continued to use the same statements he has used throughout the campaign.

The winner, George W. Bush.

Last night, I was listening to a rebroadcast of a Sean Hannity show on the radio. This particular show was Sean's interview with then primary candidate, John Kerry. One question I found particularly interesting was when Sean Hannity asked the Senator about North Korea and the possible nuclear threat they pose. John Kerry, of course, was talking about how inspections have been removed from the North Korean nuclear plants and that the nuclear rods from the reactor are no longer there. That the North Koreans now say that they have produced several nucear weapons, 5 -7. I wonder, if US intelligence showed that North Korea planned to sell or in any way use these weapons to help terrorists, would he invade? And if, after the fact we found that the weapons were only in production stage or even just a planning stage, would John Kerry apologize to the American people the way he says George Bush should?

The facts are these. US and British intelligence indicated the Saddam had WMD and biological weapons. Because Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job and because of Saddam's history of supporting terrorists, George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq. He requested that the UN aid the US in this effort. The resolution lost due to the votes of France, Germany and Russia. The US, because we had already threatened to attack, needed to take action or be viewed by our enemies as a paper tiger who can't act without the UN. We decided to invade with the aid of a few countries and showed the world that we do in fact mean what we say.

Now, after the fact, we have found that no WMD exist in Iraq. John Kerry takes this to mean we should have known and therefore should have left Iraq alone. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and knowing what we know now, there would have been no real reason to invade. The problem with this is that we didn't know and Saddam refused to let the world know. He wanted the world to believe he had WMD. He believed this to be a deterrent to Iran. I understand this, but the plan backfired, the US took this to be a threat, not Iran, and we took the action we felt was necessary to protect our interests.

Can we as Americans place our trust in someone who believes that we must make our case to the world before we take action? John Kerry believes that we need to make our case pass the Global Test before we move to protect the US. He seems to believe that we need the UN's approval first. Our President believes that we need to act on the interest of the US first and worry about the world fallout later. Remember, Osama Bin Laden had no concern for how the UN and the world would view him and his actions. The same applies to Saddam. If intelligence had been correct and one WMD was given over to a terrorist network by Saddam, and then used in a US city, how concerned would we be with the Global Test that failed to protect us?


Blogger Mike (RightWingSpic) said...

I hope Bush's win in the 2nd debate translates into a boost in the polls, but so far it looks like the boost went to Kerry (according to the latest Zogby poll). We'll see what happens in the next few days. I do have to say that Bush looked a lot better in this one, but my fear is that he was so bad in the first one that he inflicted a permanent wound on his campaign. -Mike

10:58 AM  
Blogger C D M said...

Let me get this right ... because US & British (lack of) intelligence was misused to paint a picture of a threat that wasn't there, just so the US could rid the world of the dictator the US had installed in the first place ... knowing ALL that, you claim it was perfectly legitimate for the USA and a rag-tag band of wannabes (Australia especially) to snub their collective noses at the UN and international law (including holding prisoners in without regard for the Geneva Convention), kill 5 times as many civillians (and growing) as died on Sept 11, throw the middle east into greater turmoil than it was before with no hope of a short term peacable outcome.
All that was worthy, just and right? Come on!

9:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home