I would like to start my second rebuttal by thanking IB Dem and the Chairman. I was incredibly ill yesterday and I requested a delay in posting my rebuttal and they both very graciously agreed. Thank you, gentlemen.
I decided after posting my first rebuttal that I would change strategies for my second piece. This may leave some of you boggled but I feel that my second rebuttal should focus more on why Bush rather than why not Kerry. I will touch on some of the IB's rebuttal later but I want to begin with better explaining my support of our current Commander-in-Chief.
Like many of the Democrats that support Bush
, I don't agree with much of what has happened here on the domestic side. I have different reasons for that disagreement, because I believe that Bush has been too liberal in much of his domestic policy. I hate the fact that he spent too much money. I hate the fact that he seems to have forgotten that he has veto power. I won't defend his frivolous spending other than to say that I believe that is what he meant when he said he was a compassionate conservative. I think "compassionate" was a keyword for "liberal spender." I don't mean liberal in the political sense, I mean it as in "giving freely or amply". I voted for him despite knowing in my gut that he meant to be a spender, so I won't play the complaining hypocrite now, like many of my fellow conservatives (Hi, Big Dan).
I said in my opening that I am a Security Mom. I wasn't kidding. I am a single issue voter this year and that issue is our nation's security. I need a president who will not cave into political pressure from his opponents
. I need to know that my president will be steadfast and put my safety above his career. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch
expresses this sentiment beautifully:
"While I don't agree with Bush on a single domestic issue, they are all trumped by the issue of terrorism, where he has enunciated the Bush Doctrine and proven his ability to fight this war," said Koch. "The Democratic Party just doesn't have the stomach to go after terrorists."
"I saw Kerry surrounded by radical politicians like [former President Jimmy] Carter and [Sen. Ted] Kennedy. ... I know Kerry will succumb to their pressure if elected. They are with Kerry not because they like him, but because their true candidate, Howard Dean, couldn't get elected, and they wanted someone who they can have elected and dominate," charged Koch.
"As long as Kennedy and Robert Byrd are considered major leaders of the Democratic Party, and while we're seeing radical candidates like Howard Dean, whose radical-left supporters have been described by the press as 'Deaniacs,' the Democratic Party will be limited in its ability to serve the country well in times of crisis and war like we face now."
Koch has many insights and I hope that you will click the link and read the whole piece.
Now, IBDem makes an interesting point. His point is a prime example of the divide we as a nation feel.
Of all the Middle Eastern states that sponsor terror, Hussein's Iraq was among the least threatening to the US and our allies.
This is a huge area of disagreement. First, the Bush Doctrine says that we will not only go after terrorists but after the states that sponsor them as well. When Bush said terrorists he didn't mean only Al Qaeda, he meant all of them. That is why it's called the War on Terror and not the War on Al Qaeda. Iraq was the least threatening to our allies? Tell that to Israel
My opponent also made this statement:
In fact, since the invasion of Iraq, non-state terrorists have been getting more aggressive. This is where I think Bush's record as a leader in the War on Terror deserves serious scrutiny. I've already covered--unrebutted, by the way, the fact that bin Laden and other terrorists were pushed to the bottom of the agenda when the Iraq war rolled around.
More aggressive? They have become more aggressive since we decided to take the fight to them? I don't think so. We can't continue to live in a world that doesn't take things like this
Nov. 4, 1979 Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
May 1981 Threats from Libya
April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped
Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847
October 1985 - January 1986 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro;
Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports
April 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque
December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
None of that was Al Qaeda, it was terrorism and that is only until 1988. Al Qaeda was responsible for a few more:
Established by Usama Bin Ladin (UBL) circa 1990, Al Qaeda aims to coordinate a transnational mujahideen network; stated goal is to "reestablish the Muslim State" throughout the world via the overthrow of corrupt regimes in the Islamic world and the removal of foreign presence - primarily American and Israeli - from the Middle East. UBL has issued three anti-U.S. fatwas encouraging Muslims to take up arms against Washington's "imperialism." Al Qaeda provides financial, manpower, transportation, and training support to extremists worldwide. In February 1998 bin Ladin issued a statement under the banner of "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against The Jews and Crusaders," saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens, civilian or military, and their allies. Allegedly orchestrated the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, on August 7, 1998. Claims to have been involved in the 1993 killing of U.S. servicemen in Somalia and the December 1992 bombings against U.S. troops in Aden, Yemen. Al Qaeda serves as the core of a loose umbrella organization that includes members of many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, including factions of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG), and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM). The group is a prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks as well as the U.S.S Cole bombing.
We aren't making them want to kill us more because we have gone on the offensive. They want to kill us NO MATTER WHAT. We have a choice. Sit back and continue our old doctrine of making limp wristed attempts at self-defense or go after them and the countries that support them. I'm sorry if that sounds cold and callous but we are fighting for our lives and I want someone running this country that won't back down. I want someone that has the balls to do what needs to be done. I want someone that will do it with or without our allies.
"Allies" like France and Germany aren't the ones with targets on their backs. So pardon me if I don't give a flying fig what a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys think, okay?
I want someone who won't take money from terrorist groups for his presidential campaign
. I want someone that isn't calling longtime terrorist Yasser Arafat a statesmen and getting endorsed by him
Kerry's nuanced plan is flexible and therefore worthless. The only thing consistent about Kerry is his hairstyle. He can tell me till he's blue in the face what he will do, unfortunately, his record of flip flops betrays his sincerity. If the polls don't like his plan, he'll just modify it. That isn't good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for you, either.
Okay quickie rebuttal time:
Jay says North Korea was contained and engaged in talks with Clinton. Bush blew it.
Fact: North Korea snookered Clinton
. They lied
and left Bush to clean up the mess.
American Enterprise Institute is not non-partisan. Fine, I'll concede the point. I made a mistake. Does that mean they made up their figure? Can't be trusted? Aren't honest? I hope not because that would mean that both Jay and I and many of our links are worthless. Partisanship doesn't equal dishonest.
Kerry & Vietnam:
I don't want this to spiral into a pot of ugly but I will repeat that I stated that Kerry was only fighting in Vietnam for 4 months, not 4 years. My point was about time in country not in service. I won't turn this into the battle of the Swiftvets. I am not prepared to call 250+ decorated veterans liars because of statements made by one or two. You can, I won't.
You want to argue what Bush did. Knock yourself out. He served 5 years in the TANG and the Bush haters are trying to find some kind of evil in the mysertious "missing months". My larger point is Bush did not try to get elected because of his service, Kerry did. Questioning qualifications that he, himself, put on the table is legit. At this stage in the election cycle it is also pointless.
Kerry's Healthcare Plan:
Jay said, "Kerry's also not the absolutist Bush is, recognizing that proposals he made in the primaries are now unaffordable under the record Bush deficit, so he has already scaled them back."
Great, so you admit that Kerry's promises are meaningless. That saves me lots of time. Thanks.
Because we do not have health insurance coverage for all Americans, people die--83,000 people a year by some estimates, though a more conservative figure would be 18,000 people every year. That's the equivalent of one 9/11 every two months. There is no excuse for that.
How many people die in car accidents every year? How many people die of old age every year? Should we outlaw cars and aging?
There is a difference between people dying because they are sick and dying because they were working at their desks when a giant plane flew into the building. One, illness, is a sad fact of life and the other is TERRORISM.
Who lied worse?
Not that it's a good defense but Bush isn't the one claiming he will never lie to the American people, Kerry is and he has. Bush is smarter than that. Jay said that Bush lied worse but his link was to Cheney's purported lies. So does that mean Jay lied? Or did he make a mistake?
I would like to close by saying VOTE BUSH. He can't say "nuclear" but at least he doesn't get his tan from a can
Respectfully Submitted: Rosemary, the Queen of All Evil