For the sake of our nation's freedom and security, this question deserves an answer from him before anyone casts his or her ballot tomorrow.
I want to know what you have done. Not what you want France or the United Nations to do, or what you say you would let them do. What have you done to ensure that terrorists will never be able to attack us again? Because you can rest assured that if they're ever in a position to attack us, they won't hesitate, they won't discuss or debate or vote, they won't offer a resolution to the UN Security Council. They will attack. Viciously. Murderously. Relentlessly until they're all dead or we are.
Don't say you voted for the USA PATRIOT Act because you're now its most vocal critic. You claim it has flaws that you want to fix but you won't say what or how in any great detail. Create a National Intelligence Director position? President Bush has already done that and more. Eliminate "sneak and peak" library searches that aren't approved by judges? They've always had to be judicially approved, so there's nothing there to eliminate. You accuse administration officials of "spying on America" and abusing people's rights, yet you've miserably failed to offer up even one single case proving that anyone's rights are being abused. Given all your criticisms of this vital terrorist-fighting tool, in spite of these facts, it's clear that you want to alter it for merely political, not any security reasons.
Don't say, either, you voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Osama bin Laden's pen pal Saddam Hussein. Besides being a dictator who received 99.7% of the popular vote in his country's last election (the remaining 0.3% weren't sticking around to ask for a recount), Hussein's listed occupation on his 2002 tax return is "philanthropist for terrorists." And for good reason. He routinely awarded $25,000 to relatives of infanticide bombers; harbored terrorist leaders like Ramzi Yousef, the late Abu Nidal, and the soon to be late Abu Musab Zarqawi; built a state-of-the-art terrorist training camp in Salman Pak near Baghdad; coordinated "activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan"—just to mention a few of what you now believe were his harmless "profound diversions." Yet you say your vote to authorize force was actually one to authorize a credible bluff—or "legitimate threat of force" for diplomatic purposes only, to use your nuanced vernacular. It's hard to figure out what you would do about Iraq when no one, including yourself, can pin you down on where you stand here. Saddam would "not necessarily" be in power?
Also, there's no need to say you've waited for "solid proof" that terrorists are about to attack us before supporting any effective effort to actually stop them. Obviously, there's no more solid proof than ten city blocks full of smoldering rubble. If you try saying you haven't been willing to wait until you get that kind of proof, what are you—not the UN, not NATO, not France and Germany, not the Congress—what have you done when less solid proof came along? That is, besides run that proof by your Bureau of Global Tests to see if it makes the grade; or falsely accuse our president of "misleading" when you know good and well that France, Germany, Russia, and the UN each came up with the same proof and derived the same conclusions based on that proof.
Finally, don't say you haven't jumped to conclusions on the phoney explosives story. Because you have, not even wanting to get your facts straight. Moreover, you pretended to attend Security Council meetings that never happened (probably because they were being held in Cambodia).
Even more scary, you've talked about how it's a "more sensitive war on terror" we should be fighting, one that would force us to wait around for so-called allies to respond after we "reach out to them." You also said that the war is an "exaggeration," that it "didn't change me much at all," that it's "primarily an intelligence-gathering and law enforcement operation," and that it can be tolerated by returning terrorists "back to" the status of "a nuisance" like gamblers and prostitutes.
These specific issues aside, what have you done as far as being an actual leader? What's the highest office you ever held? A junior senator? That doesn't call for any real leadership outside the Senate's chambers; provided you bother to even show up. Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor? You led nothing there and were only a figurehead leader of the state senate. Swift boat commander? There were a thousand officers above you with much more real authority and years and decades of actual experience to lead.
Were you ever a governor of the second largest and most populous state? Were you ever governor of any state? Were you even a Vice President? The latter has more leadership responsibilities than you've ever had in your entire political life. Were you ever mayor of any city, town, village, or even an unincorporated hamlet?
Your experience running an executive branch of government is nil. You would require extensive on-the-job training—literally from scratch. Training we can't, for our safety's sake, afford to give anyone right now. Not in terms of our nation's highest office.
What about any disastrous crisis you've faced in your life? What monumental challenge did you ever have to overcome? What great problems were you ever called on to solve yourself? The answer, of course, is none. None that affected anyone other than you personally, including recovering from prostrate cancer, successfully courting a ranting-and-raving heiress, or trying to figure out ways to finagle three minor scratches into purple hearts in order to bugout early from combat duty.
While we're on the subject, what have you done to defend our country when her interests were threatened in the past? Soon after you returned from your one-third-less-than-normal tour in Viet Nam, you went to go meet with our country's enemies privately and secretly in Paris. Not once but two times; both while our troops were fighting and being killed or tortured as prisoners of war by that same enemy. The last meeting you failed to notify anyone else about before or after the fact, in direct violation of federal law. Your "plan" to help the Viet Cong communists arrange an embarrassing exchange of those same prisoners gave aid and comfort to that enemy, a constitutionally defined treasonous offense. Yet that's not even the whole record of your "service." Although you say you've released all your military records, you tell Tom Brokaw that "my [military] record is not public", the Navy agrees that there are "withheld thirty-one (31) pages of documents" from your records, and you're still keeping all those pages hidden.
What have you done?
Our president has the real deal record of leadership for stopping terrorists before they ever get the chance to attack us again in this world war. There's nothing on your record, John, that even comes close.
Comments (registered users)