Kerry Accepts the Nomination!
For about a week before the convention almost every media outlet proclaimed that John Kerry had asked for the convention not to be Bush bashing. For the first few days of the convention this was accomplished by bashing the “administration” or the “other party” and simply not using Bush’s name. That way it is not “Bush” bashing. Then to claim it not to be bashing they simply made their remarks with a smile. Then on Thursday, John Kerry, the man who asked for the other speakers to be nice, must have thought his rules don’t apply to John Kerry. The Washington Post article titled “Kerry: ‘America Can Do Better’” reads “Although Kerry had said he would avoid a negative tone, the crowd at FleetCenter was thrilled with each departure from the stated plan.” So much for the new tone.
As for some of the substance of the speech (I’ll not bore you with a line by line but a few things really stood out):
ON THE WAR ON TERROR Senator Kerry stated, "As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower." Nice sound byte, but does even Senator Kerry know what he meant? He says “smarter” and “more effective”, very subjective terms. Then he says “…every tool in our arsenal.” Then he goes on to list these “tools”: economic might, things like offering aid to North Korea to stop their nuclear program. The next “tool” is military might, things like taking out Saddam. The next “tool” mentioned is “our principles” you know when I was in elementary school our principal was famous for his paddlings, I am sure that even al Qeada would fear him. Could you imagine an elite fighting force of principals, paddles in one hand, detention slips in the other, I am shaking in my shoes just thinking about it. The only problem I have with the Washington Post is that they misspelled principals. The word they used is principles, like saying “Al Qeada, we are better than you, so stop attacking us.” OR “Al Qeada, we believe in democracy, or a free market economy, so leave us alone, or else!” Like that is going to strike fear into them like the school principals (I suggest elementary school principals, because they are the scariest.) that Senator Kerry was obviously talking about. Then the list goes on to include firepower, this I redundant because firepower is implemented by the already mentioned military.
Allow me to sum up this statement. I will be smarter and more effective than my opponent. Does this need to be said? Is this not the reason for running for office? If you thought that your opponent would do a smarter and more efficient job than you would you not concede? ANYONE could have figured out that John Kerry thought he could do a smarter, more efficient job. We need to know what he means. We are in a war on terror NOW. If a senator with about 20 years of experience has a smarter, more efficient way to win this war should he not go to his Commander in Chief and tell him so that our soldiers lives can be saved NOW! If he really has such good plans, but he is simply using them as a “tool” to be elected, how many servicemen and women will die between now and his inauguration just so that John Kerry can keep an ace up his sleeve to win an election?
ON IMPROVING OUR MILITARY. He said that he wanted to increase military spending and add "40,000 active-duty troops," not to help in Iraq (where I thought Senator Kerry had lamented we needed more troops), "but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure." Increase military spending? Kerry voted AGAINST increasing military spending by $80 some Billion to provide body armor for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he wants to increase military spending? And by the way, is Senator Kerry running on the Republican ticket? When was the last time a Democrat running for president wanted to increase military spending? As for the 40,000 troops, with our all volunteer military, how does Senator Kerry plan on implementing this? Is he planning a draft? Or is he planning to lower the standards for acceptance into the military? I suppose if you allow new recruits who cannot read, you can get them to sign anything.
He stated “We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle.” Senator Kerry, do you remember the $80 some odd billion dollars earmarked for things like body armor for our troops? How did you vote on that? I suppose if it had been earmarked for weapons instead of body armor he would have voted for it. Let’s go into some of the “weapons and technology” Senator Kerry has already had the opportunity to “provide” for our troops as a senator. I don’t have room here, but look up his voting record on MX Missiles, Trident Submarines, S.D.I., B-1 Bombers, B-2 Bombers, Patriot Missiles, Tomahawk Missiles, Apache Helicopters, etc., etc. These are some pretty serious “weapons and technology” that John Kerry in some way voted against, either never to produce them, to stop producing them, or to cut funding for them. Senator Kerry has been given about 20 years worth of opportunities to “provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle.” and you do not hear him bragging about all of the weapons and technology he has “provided.”
ON VIETNAM John Kerry stated “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.” After Senator Kerry spent his four months in Vietnam he came back and protested against the war. He told all who would listen, including Congress, that it was an unjust war, that we should not be fighting it, that he and other servicemen had committed war crimes while there. So now the self admitted war criminal who for years denounced the war in Vietnam considers his fighting (and perhaps his war crimes) as defending “this country”. Senator Kerry had better watch what he says, Jane Fonda may not vote for him.
Read the entire transcript of the speech…
FOXNews.com - You Decide 2004 - Transcript: John Kerry
Then...
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
As for some of the substance of the speech (I’ll not bore you with a line by line but a few things really stood out):
ON THE WAR ON TERROR Senator Kerry stated, "As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower." Nice sound byte, but does even Senator Kerry know what he meant? He says “smarter” and “more effective”, very subjective terms. Then he says “…every tool in our arsenal.” Then he goes on to list these “tools”: economic might, things like offering aid to North Korea to stop their nuclear program. The next “tool” is military might, things like taking out Saddam. The next “tool” mentioned is “our principles” you know when I was in elementary school our principal was famous for his paddlings, I am sure that even al Qeada would fear him. Could you imagine an elite fighting force of principals, paddles in one hand, detention slips in the other, I am shaking in my shoes just thinking about it. The only problem I have with the Washington Post is that they misspelled principals. The word they used is principles, like saying “Al Qeada, we are better than you, so stop attacking us.” OR “Al Qeada, we believe in democracy, or a free market economy, so leave us alone, or else!” Like that is going to strike fear into them like the school principals (I suggest elementary school principals, because they are the scariest.) that Senator Kerry was obviously talking about. Then the list goes on to include firepower, this I redundant because firepower is implemented by the already mentioned military.
Allow me to sum up this statement. I will be smarter and more effective than my opponent. Does this need to be said? Is this not the reason for running for office? If you thought that your opponent would do a smarter and more efficient job than you would you not concede? ANYONE could have figured out that John Kerry thought he could do a smarter, more efficient job. We need to know what he means. We are in a war on terror NOW. If a senator with about 20 years of experience has a smarter, more efficient way to win this war should he not go to his Commander in Chief and tell him so that our soldiers lives can be saved NOW! If he really has such good plans, but he is simply using them as a “tool” to be elected, how many servicemen and women will die between now and his inauguration just so that John Kerry can keep an ace up his sleeve to win an election?
ON IMPROVING OUR MILITARY. He said that he wanted to increase military spending and add "40,000 active-duty troops," not to help in Iraq (where I thought Senator Kerry had lamented we needed more troops), "but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure." Increase military spending? Kerry voted AGAINST increasing military spending by $80 some Billion to provide body armor for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he wants to increase military spending? And by the way, is Senator Kerry running on the Republican ticket? When was the last time a Democrat running for president wanted to increase military spending? As for the 40,000 troops, with our all volunteer military, how does Senator Kerry plan on implementing this? Is he planning a draft? Or is he planning to lower the standards for acceptance into the military? I suppose if you allow new recruits who cannot read, you can get them to sign anything.
He stated “We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle.” Senator Kerry, do you remember the $80 some odd billion dollars earmarked for things like body armor for our troops? How did you vote on that? I suppose if it had been earmarked for weapons instead of body armor he would have voted for it. Let’s go into some of the “weapons and technology” Senator Kerry has already had the opportunity to “provide” for our troops as a senator. I don’t have room here, but look up his voting record on MX Missiles, Trident Submarines, S.D.I., B-1 Bombers, B-2 Bombers, Patriot Missiles, Tomahawk Missiles, Apache Helicopters, etc., etc. These are some pretty serious “weapons and technology” that John Kerry in some way voted against, either never to produce them, to stop producing them, or to cut funding for them. Senator Kerry has been given about 20 years worth of opportunities to “provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives — and win the battle.” and you do not hear him bragging about all of the weapons and technology he has “provided.”
ON VIETNAM John Kerry stated “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.” After Senator Kerry spent his four months in Vietnam he came back and protested against the war. He told all who would listen, including Congress, that it was an unjust war, that we should not be fighting it, that he and other servicemen had committed war crimes while there. So now the self admitted war criminal who for years denounced the war in Vietnam considers his fighting (and perhaps his war crimes) as defending “this country”. Senator Kerry had better watch what he says, Jane Fonda may not vote for him.
Read the entire transcript of the speech…
FOXNews.com - You Decide 2004 - Transcript: John Kerry
Then...
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home