Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Still undecided? Still looking for that one bit of information which will allow you to finally make your choice for November 2nd? Well if you're concern centers in your security and that of the United States, if you're worried about who is the best candidate to wage the war on terror, Shaunti Feldhahn helps us look at some fairly recent history to help you along. Waaay back in the early '90s there was an event which galvanized the world. Iraq, under dictator Saddam Hussein, invaded its next door neighbor, Kuwait. In Iraq's case, it was indeed a war for oil. It wanted Kuwait's. A clear cut case of unacceptable aggression, right? Well, it was to most. But there was one guy who thought, and this will probably sound familiar, that we were "rushing to war". Yes, that's the term, "rushing to war". You see, he felt we should have let the sanctions have more time to work. Sec BAKER: We have to face the fact that four months into this conflict, none of our efforts have yet produced any sign of change in Saddam Hussein. . . .Now for those of you who were around at that time, very few, if any, will recall this as a devisive event in America. Americans had already "come together united", because, despite Sen. Kerry's worries, we were more than perceptive enough to understand that what Iraq had done was wrong, unacceptable and should not be allowed to stand. In simple terms, it was a "no brainer". A "slam-dunk". Iraq must get out of Kuwait or the coalition which had been formed under UN auspecies must push Iraq out of Kuwait. Kerry eventually voted against the January 1991 Gulf War resolution. "There is a rush to war here," he declared. "It sounds like we are risking war for pride, rather than vital interests."You see, folks, the 1991 Gulf War didn't, apparently, pass the "Global Test", that test Kerry spoke of in his first debate, the test he apparently intends to apply to all such international crises. The question then is, if the 1991 Gulf War, which included UN authorization, a massive coalition which included Arab countries and a clear cut case of aggression against a neighboring state didn't pass the nebulous "Global Test" in Kerry's mind, what in the world would? Well, in all honesty, we simply don't know. We have no idea. And while Kerry continues to spout off about his intention to do what is necessary to protect the US, how in the world can we be sure, given his vote against Gulf War One? As Feldhahn notes: At the Democratic National Convention he promised he would only go to war "because we have to," but what does that mean for someone who may never be comfortable that we've met that test? How will he decide that enough is enough?We've never gotten an answer to that question. But, if the past is an indication of future performance, we have a pretty good idea. Apparently it will have to be much more than what transpired prior to Gulf War One. Is that the type of a weak leader you want in the White House in the time of war? If not, you know what to do come Nov. 2nd. You're welcome. |
||||
| TrackBacks | ||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||
|
||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
