Though I strongly disagree on his policy concerning Israel and his appeasement of the wicked Palestinians, I do love President George Bush. I admire his tenacity and resolve as Commander in Chief as it applies to Afghanistan and Iraq. He has fought our outward enemy and our enemy within, the liberals, at the same time.
The liberals, who attempted to sacrifice our nation's well-being for the sake of gaining political power, and who are blind to the very real threats against us, created an anti-Iraq War platform from which to undermine our nation's stability. They stated that there was no rationale for us going into Iraq which was COMPLETELY IGNORANT of Sadaam Hussein's
VIOLATION of the cease-fire AGREEMENTS he made with General Schwartzkopf that ended the first Gulf War.
It is completely mystifying why there ever has been even a single question as to our justification for entering Iraq and why this legal basis has not appeared in the media AT ALL:
Sadaam Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement when he kicked out the international inspection teams, period. That was enough legal reason for us to enter Iraq and finish the job we should have in the early 1990's.
And, of course, it was liberal policies that actually KEPT us from finishing the job in the first Gulf War. You remember, the UN and the world's liberal, appeasing minions, crying out how we couldn't go after Sadaam personally, how we just could expel his army from Kuwait. Heaven forbid if we should actually stamp out a wicked tool of evil instead of subjecting his people to another decade of sadistic torture and manipulation.
And President Bush, Sr. had to deal with a Democratic Congress, so he only could get away with certain amounts of force and could not overtly go after Hussein. But go after him he did. Though perhaps it has not been widely publicized, this author knows for a fact that Bush, Sr. did make attempts to eliminate Sadaam Hussein. How do I know? Because my cousin was a Navy SEAL at the time (my uncle was a SEAL/BeachJumper in Vietnam) and when asked if he knew if we went after Hussein, he said "We sure did." When asked how he knew he said, "Because I was in Baghdad hunting him." When pressed for details, this cousin replied, " Do you know how many people over there look like Sadaam Hussein? So many that I ran out of bullets."
So despite suicidal liberal whining and policies, Bush, Sr. actually tried to end it back then. But it took his son, George W. Bush to actually have the moral fortitude to go and confront a wicked man. That is because President Bill Clinton, of course, knew nothing of moral fortitude. Perhaps he was too busy entertaining Monica Lewinsky to notice that Sadaam Hussein was not cooperating with the very cease-fire agreements that he had agreed to to stop our Army from swallowing Iraq.
Oh, sure, Clinton sent over a few cruise missiles, but dictators and despots know when a threat is real and when it is just for show. Clinton's was just for show; simple saber-rattling. Hussein knew that Clinton lacked the will to actually engage him head-on, he knew that Clinton wouldn't use the big stick, and so the Sadaam the monster grew.
Iran did the same thing to President Carter in 1979 when they audaciously swarmed the US Embassy in Tehran and took all the Americans hostage. Carter was inept. Iranian fanatics knew that Carter wouldn't use the big stick, so evil reigned.
How should one deal with evil regimes who bully other societies or even their own people? Well do you remember Muammar Qaddafi, the once-belligerent dictator from Libya? Remember how he used to spout off incessantly (much like Iran's current pip-squeak President Ahmadinejad) about the USA, the 'evil Satan'? But then the Reagan Administration tied Qaddafi to the downing of an American jetliner, and do you remember what Ronald Reagan did? He sent some F-15's in and BOMBED Qaddafi's HOUSE. And Mr. Qaddafi was very, very quiet for many years after that.
So why did Qaddafi shut up, all of a sudden? Well, unlike Carter and Clinton, Qaddafi knew that Ronald Reagan not only had the big stick, but that he was willing to use it.
Confronting evil is necessary only for those societies who wish to survive. It is needed only if a people decide that they do not want to get swallowed up and conquered by warring, aggressive plagues such as Islam is. Islam will gladly come and subjugate those who will not stand in its way. That's why Osama and every other Muslim extreme disciple out there wanted Gore, Kerry and now Obama or Hillary to win the U.S. Presidential election, because they all know that Democrats do not have the courage to stand in Islam's way for more than a minute or two.
In fact, Democrats are not even convinced that Islam IS evil because their world-view of relative morality. That is, they think truth is relative, that it changes depending on the person. Therefore good and evil are relative and the liberal is probably more likely to think western Judeo-Christian values are evil than they are to see that Islam is a wicked, murdering hate-cult.
Aggressive evil, which Islam is, or any other evil for that matter, can be stopped only one way, and that way is a two-step formula. First, you must have a big stick; second, you must be willing to use it.
Did Jimmy Carter have a big stick? Yes, he did. Was he willing to use it on Iran? No, he wasn't. So if you have a big stick yet are unwilling to use it, aggressive evil views that as the same as not having one. Ron Reagan had a big stick too, only he was willing to use it on Muammar Qaddafi. Look at the different results based on use of the big stick.
Granted, Reagan did not use it when the US Marines were killed in their quarters by the bombing in Lebanon, but he should have.
If that is confusing (i.e. you are a liberal and still do not understand), think of a mad dog biting your kid's leg. Is that dog suddenly going to stop if you negotiate with it? If you tell it to stop will it stop? If you yell at it or warn it will it stop? No it won't. But if you reach over in the corner where you keep your big stick, grab it and then thump the dog on the head with it, the biting beast will stop then, won't it? He most certainly will and then he will run away as fast as he can.
That dog knows what is painful to it and if you did not have a big stick your child might have suffered profound injury. Furthermore, the next time that dog comes around and he sees you with that stick, do you think he will try to bite your child again? No, he will steer clear.
So the big stick represents the power to inflict damage on wanton aggressiveness and the willingness to use it can then act as a deterrence; but only if the aggressor understands that you will use it.
President Bush, thank goodness, is willing to use the Big Stick. That is the only thing keeping Islamic aggression from making great advances. The Democratic Congress, however, and its legion of liberal media dupes, are fighting against using the big stick, which, of course, if such a path were to be taken, our enemies would win; the dog would keep on biting.
The liberal world must wake up and recognize the threat that we face in this new millennium. No, we cannot make peace with Islamic terrorist governments simply for one reason: THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL. Until a liberal understands this, he remains a pawn in the hands of our enemy and is himself a traitor to this nation and an enemy of our own Constitution.
I am also confident that John McCain will do the right thing as Commander in Chief for the United States. He would not appease Islamic aggression by caving in like Hillary would and so would Obama. With his war experience, McCain definitely knows that we have a big stick, and he would be quite willing to use it when necessary.
