[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Mach 1

Im not going to hold changing his mind against kerry. These arent easy decisons and can cause some mind changing to go on.

They're going to be a lot harder when you're the President of the United States, the job Kerry is asking for. As I see it, John Kerry as president would be Jimmy Carter Lite. God forbid. Please.

Senator Kerry made many strong public statements before the actual invasion of Iraq; that Saddam had to be disarmed, was 'dangerous', etc. Then, when he saw Howard Dean pulling away from him in the Democrat primaries on the tide of the huge Democrat anti-war vote, John Forbes Kerry suddenly changed his mind and voted against the now-famous 87 billion dollar funding bill for the Iraq war. In the Democrat primaries, the re-invented Senator Kerry became 'Mr. Anti-War', not on principle but for political expediency. Another example of the kind of rank political opportunism that has marked his entire public career, beginning back in '71 when he called U.S. soldiers 'murderers', 'torturers', 'rapists' and worse as he vilified the war in Viet nam and then declared that: "we wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service". This is the same John Kerry who now, when running for president 33 years later,, tries to make the Viet Nam war that he wished could be wiped from his memory, a field of glory and the best four months of his very comfortable and unremarkable life. "Reporting for duty", indeed.

The man is a phony. A political opportunist who tries to be both for and against the war in Iraq. Claiming that he'll somehow persuade nations that have no interest in sending their limited military forces to Iraq to fight in a war that he never stops calling 'wrong' and a 'Great Diversion'. The entire premise of his campaign, that the war in Iraq is a 'colossal mistake' (that he voted for) and that he'll somehow fight it 'better' and 'smarter' than President Bush is nonsense. Mysterious 'plans' for Iraq that he never quite gets around to delineating are simply smokescreens for having no plan at all but a lot of empty promises. Using the U.N. is simply a joke.

Strong UN works for me, less dead American GI's. To compare us to being like Somalia is just ridiculous.

-

Really?

Did you know that China, Cuba and the Sudan are all members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? They are. Check it out. That's how ridiculous that once-august body has become. Dictatorships that routinely imprison and murder dissidents and political opponents of the ruling regime now pass judgements on other nation's human rights records. How absurd. That's the United Nations Kerry wants to 'engage' in Iraq. Right.

The U.N. issued 17 oh-so useful U.N. Security Council Resolutions against Saddam Hussein over a dozen years. The net effect? Z-e-r-o. The U.N. is a disparate collection of non-democratic, often dictatorial countries and many corrupt officials, some making big money off of the now-defunct and totally corrupted Iraq 'Oil-For-Food' program, who have no intention whatsoever of doing anything against the spread of terrorism, much less help the United States in Iraq.

The U.N. had it's chance, back in the autumn of 2002. President Bush gave them the opportunity to step up and show that the organization could - and would - stand against terrorism. The U.N. members collectively decided otherwise and the rest, as they say, is history. So be it, but to now hear a John Kerry make straight-faced claims about 're-joining the community of nations' and using the U.N. to take over the mechanics of the war in Iraq is simply unbelievable and ridiculous. That will never happen. To assume that it will is foolish and naive, in my view.

Kerry is simply a liberal politician that, by his own Senate record, has consistantly voted against military spending and has shown a real adversion to the use of American military force anywhere in the world under any circumstances. He is the worst possible kind of politician for these dangerous times. A man who thinks having a 'summit meeting' or another peace conference will have some effect on borderless and fanatic terrorists that will eagerly kill as many Americans as possible, without a moments hesitation, even if it costs them their own lives, as so shockingly occured on 9/11/01 when we lost almost 3,000 people to a coordinated terrorist attack.

I have not forgotten that day and I assume that President Bush has not, either. He has put America on the offense and we are now fighting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines and elsewhere - and we are winning that fight. It is a fight that must be won but we won't win it by 'talking' to fanatic Islamofascists that believe they can destroy western civilization and replace it with a Islamic terror-state like Iran if they kill enough innocents and we ever become foolish to believe that the useless United Nations and some ephemeral 'make-love-not-war' coalition of sweet-talkers will somehow persude dedicated, fanaticial killers from doing exactly what they say they will do: vanquish us and subjugate us to their 'will of Allah'. No thanks, Senator. In my opinion, John Kerry is the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Senator John F. Kerry is a poor choice for a presidential candidate in 2004 and his selection by the Democrats simply demonstrate how out-of-touch that party's leadership really is. He may look good behind a podium but that isn't leading, it's posing. Kerry poses well. Bush leads far better.

I vote for Bush.