Bush and Kerry

Victory with Bush or Defeat with Kerry?

Dear Friend:

Today each one of us has to decide: which candidate deserves our vote? We gain a great moral responsibility for the future of our country. Therefore, I would like to express my views on this election.

The Muslim terrorist is the sworn enemy of the United States. This enemy finds increasing support and popularity throughout the Muslim world as the outside world retaliates with decreasing vigilance and force to acts of terror. The countries of Western Europe are generally as docile in the “fight” against the terrorist Muslim front as they were in the “fight” against the Nazi front in the Second World War.
So, which country has the capability to stop this imminent danger of world terror?
Only the United States. Moreover only the United States with George Bush's leadership. His administration does fight it indeed.

Under the command of Bush we destroyed the terrorist training camps of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. This is a huge accomplishment. A large country, which became a safe haven and base of operations for anti-American terrorism, has been subdued. The majority of Al-Qaeda militants have been jailed or eliminated.

With Bush in power America has overthrown the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and this is no less of an achievement than our victory in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein, during the Clinton era, expelled international inspectors from Iraq. Thus he violated the Peace treaty signed after the first Gulf War. President Clinton tried to force Saddam to comply, but failed.
After that, every day Saddam remained in power sent the message that America is weak. It has been quickly recognized by the World and the authority of Saddam began to gain momentum as ours dropped. This in turn inspired Hussein to lose any inhibition. In spite of International sanctions he became a partner of hidden trade. He mustered the audacity to declare a $25,000 reward to the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel. After September the 11th of 2001, Saddam Hussein enthusiastically proclaimed “God is punishing America!”

Bin Laden formulated the most important message that together with Saddam he preached across the entire Islamic World: “ America is not that strong, we can defeat it!”

The Democrats policy of half-measures and fear of real military actions have clearly conveyed image of a weak America to the terrorists.
In fact Clinton supported some of the same campaigns as did George W. Bush, but Clinton executed them poorly. Clinton fought with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, but America lost, under Clinton, on both fronts: Bin Laden kept his bases in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein expelled the inspectors and remained the dictator of Iraq. Precisely at the point when Clinton failed to destroy Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq, Bin Laden spoke of America's weakness and vulnerability.

After defeat in Iraq the democrats rushed into the War in Kosovo siding with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). This “Army” was and remains Islam’s Terror Organization and was treated as such by US State Department up until the military action began. By killing more than two thousand Serbian civilians and by weakening Serbia, the Democrats handed Kosovo over to Islamic terrorists and in effect created yet another base for the organization of Al-Qaeda.

The inconstancy and irresponsibility of the Democratic Party's actions is clearly linked to the absence of government-scale thinking and strategy within its leaders.

A most illustrious example of this is their current presidential nominee: Senator John Kerry.
Before the war on Iraq Kerry voiced his opinion that America has a problem with two regimes- Saddam Hussein’s and Bush's. To put America on the same platform as Saddam’s Iraq, at the time right before the war is clearly not good Government thinking. Imagine if any senator, in the time of Second World War, were to proclaim that America had issue with two regimes: Hitler's and Roosevelt's.

In this vein of irresponsible and brash politics does Kerry lead his campaign for election? He openly insulted the countries in the coalition with the United States against the regime of Saddam Hussein by calling them “Coalition of the bribed and coerced," and at the same time criticized Bush for the breadth of the coalition. Alas, hurling insults at allies does not lead to more of them.

But his election tactic does not rely on logic, instead he use several simple rhetoric tricks:

1. He is trying to avoid all mention of his twenty-year-long political career, instead he concentrates on blaming Bush.

2. He voices two diametrically opposing opinions on a single issue, thereby letting each voter choose what he likes to hear and in what combination to perfectly tailor to anybody's taste.

3. He swears to solve all the problems in America's economy at the expense of the wealthy. (He plays The Billionaire Robin-hood)

Why does the senator avoid mentioning to us what is his experience of running any huge organization?

Why hasn't the Senator told us:

What were his actions to strengthen national security after the first terrorist attack by Muslim terrorists upon the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, where six were killed and a thousand injured?

After the uncovering of plans to bombs two New York City tunnels?

After the uncovering of the plans to blow up 12 American planes in 1995?

After the attacks in 1996 upon Americans in Saudi Arabia, where 19 died and hundreds injured? After the 1998 attacks on our consulates in Nairobi, Kenya and Tanzania where 224 died and thousands injured?

Throughout all of that Clinton era Kerry served in the Senate. What were his propositions to fight terrorism?

Where was his criticism of the Democratic Party’s approach to the fight against terror? And yet it seems that there was cause for critique at the time. The lethargy of the government was unprecedented. One of the more telling facts at the time was that the Democratic Party leadership, in spite of all of the aforementioned incidents, did nothing to stop the contributions from American citizens to the terrorist organizations. Not only did this not have to go on in secret, these sorts of contributions were going on officially!

Why did all these years have to be spent in silence by Senator Kerry and his ideas for strengthening the borders? Why he wasn’t able, in his twenty years of office, to push the medical reforms he now so promises? Why did he not speak out against Clinton's appeasement of South Korea, when the Democrats gave Atomic reactors, Gas and Food to the Koreans so they would NOT BUILD an atomic bomb, and the Koreans BUILT ATOMIC BOMBS!

This is a man who switches platform to suit the audience and the moment. Therefore it is quite simple to see why at one moment he supports the war in Iraq and then condemns it. Why he, speaks of the benefits of the wall Israel is building and displays his support, speaking to an Israeli journalist and then, speaking to an Arab American audience deems it an “apartheid wall” and condemns it.

I doubt that we could win with such irresponsible leader.

Thankfully we have an alternative.

Bush has proven himself through action. He led us to eliminate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and to remove from power the anti-American government of Saddam Hussein. Due to his actions we now have bases in the center of the Muslim world and now are in a much more preferable strategic position.

Libya's leader, Col. Gadhafi, after witnessing the destruction of Hussein regime, admitted to the development of weapons of mass destruction, along with long-range rockets and willfully gave up these weapons to America for their destruction.

Pakistan, under pressure, stopped selling technologies for the development of atomic weapons.

Bush successfully cut off official sources of funds to terrorist groups internationally, and is actively pursuing unofficial sources.

Not a single government leader now dares to provide official commendation to any terrorist operative, as Hussein did.

Now, after the PATRIOT Act, numerous terrorists have been apprehended and their contacts investigated. Without such measures America would have been target to numerous terrorist attacks by now.

Yet it is not time to relax; terrorism still exists. If America once again shows weakness then their activity will escalate and increased many-fold. The fact that our country is weak under the Democrats is already ascertained by our enemies and therefore the question of this election should be stated such:
‘Win with Bush or lose with Kerry?’

PS It is my recommendation that you read what a great and respected patriot, firm retainer of values, and brave leader had to say - Rudy Giuliani:

...The president showed courage in denying the Palestinians a "right of return" that would destroy Israel. Furthermore, he did so when he was at a nadir in the polls, when he was being brutally attacked by the liberal media over the war in Iraq, and when the 9/11 Commission was undermining his integrity. Instead, with character and courage, President Bush made a moral decision to stand with Israel.

He also went further than any of his predecessors, saying, "It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

According to the Republican Party Platform, President Bush is committed to "The security of America's democratic ally Israel and the safety of the Israeli people." It goes on to say, "We believe that the terror attacks against Israel are part of the same evil as the September 11, 2001, attacks against America."...

One indication of John Kerry's Middle East peace plan is to be found in the words of the Democratic Party platform. "Under a Democratic Administration," it proclaims, "the United States will demonstrate the kind of resolve to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed." Clinton, of course, was the only American president to welcome the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat to the White House.

At an address in Newton, Iowa in January 2004, Mr. Kerry approached the Middle East issue by saying:

"....The question now is can we have a President who knows how to get from here to there. (I think I do), I'm not gonna lay it all out today, but I will tell you that I've talked to President Clinton, I've talked to President Carter; one, either, both, are ready and willing to serve as a special envoy...."

One manifestation of Senator Kerry's Middle East policy is his choice of adviser for Israeli affairs, Jay Footlik. A Clinton leftover and longtime supporter of the Oslo accords that led to the last four years of intifada, Footlik is an advocate of the so-called "peace processes" that have become a code word for unilateral Israeli concessions.

Another principle he champions is "evenhandedness" – that suicide bomber and his victims are assured the same measure of understanding and sympathy. Footlik promises to help Kerry be just as bad for Israel as he helped Clinton to be.

With these links to the former Clinton White House, would the U.S. resume the policy of pandering to the PLO, and trading Israel's land-for-peace under a Kerry administration?

At the beginning of July, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly affirmed the Bush revolution in Middle East policy, what Prime Minister Sharon hailed as "a great day in the history of Israel." By a vote of 407-9, the House "strongly endorsed" two pledges made by the president to Sharon in a letter on April 14: that the US agrees it is "unrealistic" for Israel to pull back to the pre-June 1967 lines and dismantle major West Bank settlements and that the US expects Palestinian refugees to be resettled in the eventual state of Palestine. The following day the Senate passed a similar non-binding resolution by a vote of 95 to 3. One of the two senators absent from the vote was John Kerry.

"I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the 'Green Line,' cutting deeply into Palestinian areas," Mr. Kerry told the Arab-American Institute in October 2003. "We do not need another barrier to peace."

Senator Kerry called this first line of defense against suicide bombers targeting Israeli citizens a "provocative and counterproductive measure" that was not in Israel's interest. Israel, thankfully, interprets its interest differently, noting that the fence has cut terrorist attacks, particularly suicide bombings, by 90 percent.

In June, Senator Kerry issued this campaign statement: "John Kerry supports the construction of Israel's security fence to stop terrorists from entering Israel."

In the first presidential debate of this election year, Senator Kerry made reference to the "global test" regarding the war on terror, and went on to say, "Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations."

At a speech at Westminster College in Missouri on April 30, 2004, Senator Kerry stated the U.N. вЂњmust provide the necessary legitimacy"to insure the success of the war on terrorism. Mr. Kerry feels the U.N. вЂњis the key that opens the door."

Will the United Nations determine foreign policy in the Middle East, and in the war on terrorism? Since its inception following 9/11, the Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee has failed to name a single terrorist organization. Indeed, the U.N. has never defined the word "terrorism." And, in fact, one constituency of the U.N., the Organization of the Islamic Conference maintains, вЂњblowing up people in the name of self-determination or an end to occupation does not count as terrorism."

The U.N. has presented 322 resolutions condemning Israel, and none condemning Arab states. Muslim countries have been members of the U.N. Security Council 16 times, while Israel is the only nation ever forbidden to sit on the Security Council. In every U.N. vote, with the exception of U.S. vetoes in the Security Council, Israel loses by a very one-sided majority. If U. S. foreign policy is abandoned to the U.N., Israel has a bleak future.

Bill Clinton openly interfered in Israel internal affair, especially during election.He pushed Israel toward more concession, welcomed Arafat in the White House, provided him with moral and financial support which eventually resulted in Palestinian uprising and escalation of terrorism.

His true face as a "big friend"of Israel clearly had been disclosed in the last months of his presidency, and then he openly, three times betrayed Israel:

His misunderstanding of the essence of the policy and political idealism indirectly contributed to the fact, that Islam fundamentalists are running Iran today with all well known consequences for the rest of the world.

You may ask, what about such a great diplomatic achievement like Camp David which brought piece between Egypt and Israel. It was a great achievement for US, agree, as for Israel, the latter lost a big piece of strategic land with developed oil sources.

Furthermore, after assassination of Anvar Sadat Egypt became openly anti Israel and extremely anti-Semitic state which supports any anti Israel movement.

After Carter was defeated he became very friendly with Arafat and at certain point provided PR for this bandit. Now, if you know, Carter stands for boycott of Israel unless Israel returns to the year 67th border.