Friday, April 23, 2004

John Kerry, Commander in Chief 

We are at war and need a firm hand leading our fight for survival. We are also a democracy and need to consider a change even in the most dangerous of times. We are understandably reluctant to change presidents while at war but we owe it to the challenger to consider his credentials and ideas. What about John Kerry?

Look at his website, read his speeches, the qualification mentioned most is the four months he spent fighting for our country in Vietnam. While most reports on his service show heroism and dedication, a few months of service as a lieutenant forty years ago do not qualify him to command the most powerful military in the world. His decades of service in the Senate must be considered. For many years he has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which means he is no stranger to international affairs. During those decades on the Committee he has not taken on any leadership roles or passed any significant legislation. He has often proposed legislation to restrict and reduce our military capabilities. Not much of a qualification there.

What about his platform for running the war? It is not clear. It is not even clear if he wants to fight the war to victory. Lately he talks tough, but during the primaries he competed with Howard Dean for the anti-war vote. If we look back over the years, he voted against the first Gulf war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein, he voted for the current war to over throw Hussein, but then voted against funding to finish the job. He is either indecisive or makes his decisions based on immediate political expediency (or both). We need a decisive leader who considers the options and decides based on the safety of our nation.

If elected president, Senator Kerry promises to go immediately to the United Nations. The United Nations is a great institution for discussions and negotiations, but not for action. When dangerous action is needed, timid politicians always can find a reason not to act. I think we can safely predict that John Kerry fits the picture.

Back in 1999, I would have been skeptical if you told me that Governor George W. Bush would one day lead the free world in a determined struggle for survival. I was already pleasantly surprised that he had become a very productive governor of our State (I lived in Texas then and have recently returned), but he had little in the way of qualifications for international affairs. He had started to show some of the qualities needed in a strong leader: decisiveness, persistence, determination, and a willingness to do the right thing even at the cost of political capital.

George Bush proved himself when history thrust responsibility on him. After the 9/11 attacks we had heated debates, but they were fast and to the point. Action was not delayed for decades with endless talk. Within weeks we were in Afghanistan. Last year we liberated Iraq. Never has our country defeated such enemies is such a short time period with so few casualties on all sides. George Bush did not serve in a combat role in Vietnam 40 years ago, but as Commander in Chief he proved that he has what is needed. Let’s keep him in charge.


John Kerry on Iraq


Thursday, April 22, 2004

The Hate Bush Industry 

Do you ever wonder why Richard Clark suddenly and unexpectedly became such an anti-Bush partisan? Could be his demotion under Bush, but I think dollars are the best explanation. If his book had just been an in depth exploration of the anti-terrorism efforts of several presidents, sales would have been respectable, but his partisanship made him a media darling and probably quite wealthy. In fact most of the book is pretty straightforward history – almost as if the partisanship was added on at the last minute at the urging to the publisher’s marketing department.

I picked up one of those left wing advertisers you find in every city in America. It has an ad captioned “Bush and Co. Got You Depressed?” - it goes on to offer $345/wk + bonus for field canvassers. Is this some of George Soros’ millions at work?

Of course I know there are a hard core of left wing democrats who genuinely hate George Bush and wake up every day determined to unseat him. At the same time, however, there seems to be money to be made by bashing Bush and many are jumping at the opportunity. I sometimes wonder how many Bush bashing books the dedicated haters can buy – seems there are several more every week. You can see the competition is getting fierce because the claims are getting grander all the time – John Dean, Worse Than Watergate.

Seems there is a sweet spot of a left wing press that will publish front page “news” stories on any book that is critical of Bush, big soft money donors to the unofficial Democratic Party (MoveOn.org, etc.) and a substantial hard core of Bush haters that will jump at anything that reassures them in their hatred. I guess those of us who are pro-business should look fondly on such entrepreneurial activity by our left-wing, anti-business friends.

A smart Bush Hater


Thursday, April 15, 2004

Let the United Nations Take Over 

Yesterday John Kerry said, "Why doesn't the president just come out and say I want the U.N. to be a full partner and the resolution that we pass will turn the authority over to them?" Many Americans might be attracted to the idea. The perception is that foreign troops will get killed instead of American troops, the terrorist elements in Iraq will lay down their arms in awe of international legitimacy, and the enlightened leaders of the United Nations will establish a true Iraqi democracy. But none of these things would happen.

The U.N. would gladly take over as long as it does not cost them any money, they do not have to send any troops, and they can just boss our soldiers around from a distance. We have a good indication of how the U.N. would want to rule Iraq from how it ran the Oil-for-Food program. That program was to allow Saddam Hussein to sell oil through the U.N. for the purchase of food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Instead it became a completely corrupt program of kickbacks to Saddam Hussain and bribes to U.N. officials. Even Secretary General Kofi Annan’s son is implicated. If you wonder why France opposed regime change – look no further than the Oil-for-Food billions every penny of which went through the French bank BNP. Remember, the U.N. is only as enlightened as sum of its members, which includes democracies, but also dictatorships and terrorism sponsors.

If anyone thinks the United Nations would command more respect from Islamo-facist terrorists, they need to explain why one of the first acts of terrorism in liberated Iraq was the murder of top members of the U.N. team in Iraq. These extremists hate President Bush the most because he has taken forceful, aggressive action, but their goal is the extermination of all Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims of a slightly different persuasion and anyone else they deem not of their faction.

Perhaps Senator Kerry’s most attractive illusion is that of other countries shouldering more of the military burden. It is not going to happen. Many countries have and will continue to help us in small ways, but there is only one super power in the world that can take on this task. We grieve the loss of young American lives, but we must brace ourselves for many more – this will be a long war. Choosing not to fight would not decrease these deaths, because the other side will fight on whether or not we resist. President Bush is not an eloquent speaker but his plain message of determination is the one that will produce victory and the peace that comes with it.

John Kerry on Iraq


Wednesday, April 14, 2004

War is an Ugly Thing 

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." .... John Stuart Mill.


Sunday, April 11, 2004

Give Peace a Chance 

I am for peace, not war. We are in a war now and when we defeat our enemies we will have peace. We did not start the war. It will not go away if we stop fighting. In fact if we stop fighting our enemies we be emboldened and we will suffer more. Many years ago Islamic extremists targeted our country and other liberal democracies for destruction. We did not take them seriously at first but now they have shown they can take large numbers of lives. Our president stated that we will go after terrorists and their sponsors where ever they are. We went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, both countries that had shielded and sponsored terrorists. We grieve the lives, American and other nationalities, lost in these engagements, but we must harden ourselves because there will be many more. This enemy has been ignored and allowed to grow strong for a long time and will take a long time to defeat. Many more precious lives are going to be lost, but the alternative is far worse. The enemy’s objective is our complete destruction and his technology is advancing to where that could become achievable.

We live in a democracy and we voters can choose what course to take. We cannot vote for peace because those who attack us are not subject to our votes. We can however, as some voters have, choose not to fight. Such voters, no doubt, are well meaning and want only peace, but will actually be voting for our destruction. I was hoping that in the coming election we would be choosing between two visions of how to win victory and peace. My guy is not perfect, he has made mistakes. We could use a heated discussion on how to defeat our enemy. Instead we have a choice of fighting or not fighting – not a choice in my opinion. Voting not to fight is voting to surrender; the only peace it will bring is the peace of the grave. A vote to fight will bring casualties, but is the only road to real peace.

Friday, April 09, 2004

Me vs. George Soros 

George Soros is a billionaire. He became a billionaire through hard work and a genius for trading currencies. He has given away billions to many worthy causes, especially in eastern European countries newly freed from communism. Recently Mr. Soros has chosen a new cause, the defeat of our president, George W. Bush. The recently passed campaign finance reform law bans large donations to political parties but the Democratic Party has found a loophole. Soft money donations are routed to supposedly independent organizations such as MoveOn.com and America Coming Together which then use the money to attack President Bush and support the Democratic candidate, John Kerry. Mr. Soros has already given millions to these organizations and has promised he will give more if necessary to defeat President Bush.

I, Steve Watson, am a thousandaire. I have worked hard all my life and, after all these years, make a comfortable living. I both envy and admire Mr. Soros, but I disagree with his hatred for our president. I and he, like David and Goliath before us are unevenly matched, but I think the result will be the same as it was in that Biblical tale. Because I am one of millions of Davids who will send in $100 or $50, some even the full $2000 allowed by the law that the Republicans, so far, have chosen to obey and Mr. Soros to bypass. In the interest of an even match won’t you contribute?


Latest Chicago Bush/Kerry Poll 50/50 

Margin of error, less than 100% (I think).

Yesterday evening I put on my Bush/Cheney 2004 sweat
shirt and went for a run in Lincoln Park. As I
crossed Clark on my way there, the driver of a van
honked his horn and yelled out "Viva George Bush" -
100% Bush. However, towards the end of my run, a
young man with very pursuasive argument almost got me
to swithch sides. In the interest of intelectual
exchange I reprint his entire argument here:

"F**k Bush!"

There you have it Chicago split down the middle as
measured by a scientific survey.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com