But I just heard an advertisement on HBO for a movie that will be coming up later this month, and it immediately caught my attention. I watched and it presented the question “What if...?”

“What if, in order to protect your rights and freedoms, you had to give all of them up for 24 hours? Would you agree?”

The right to free speech.
The freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
Freedom from torture.
Random strip searches.
The right of “innocent until proven guilty.”

The right of appeal.

What would you say?

I really can’t stand Kerry...and I have to expend some of this negative energy, or else I won’t be able to operate within the realm of sociological norms.

Heh.  I will put Kerry’s statements in bold...out of respect, of course:

From his Radio Address, 4-17-2004

Good morning, this is John Kerry and I would like to talk with you about the current very critical situation in Iraq.

There has been no other period, in my memory, when a political party was so ready to capitalize on things that are harmful to America.  I hate to think that the Left hopes for death and trouble in Iraq, but that is the only way they can get traction in their bid for power.  Kerry is going to make this a hallmark of his campaign until the situation rights itself; so, in order for him to advance in this attempt to beat Bush, he has to hope for failure in Iraq.  Pitiful.

We all know that events there have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Each day, it seems more American soldiers are killed.

Yes....not every day, but close.  There are deaths, but, as we have been told over, and over, and over again, this is WAR, and people die.  The faint-hearted among us must not have heard those speeches.  Maybe Mr. Kerry can remind them...after all, he participated in a war...he knows people die in war...especially since he witnessed, and possibly committed(?) atrocities. 

Civilians from half a dozen allied countries have been kidnapped. Too many of the Iraqi military and police, whom we trained, have refused to fight. Extremists appear to be gaining confidence and have vowed to drive our troops from the country.

He must not have seen this: “Hamdi Rashid, a schoolteacher driving a minivan with 17 family members inside, was one of the Fallujans who made it back Tuesday.

‘We love Fallujah,’ he said while waiting in line. ‘The Americans are doing good. They are going to arrest the bad men. We are looking for peace. We want to live in peace.’ You can read the entire thing, and read about the Iraqi Police securing the city as well, by hitting the link.  I think that the ‘extremists’ may not be as confident as Mr. Kerry wishes them to be. 

We cannot – and will not – let that happen. Americans differ about whether and how we should have gone to war. But it would be unthinkable now for us to retreat in disarray and leave behind a society deep in strife and dominated by radicals. All Americans are united in backing our troops and meeting our commitment to help the people of Iraq build a country that is stable, peaceful, tolerant and free.

I agree, Mr. Kerry.  This is what the Allies are doing....right now.  Do I have to go over what side has built schools, allowed food and medical supplies to finally get to the Iraqis after 10 years of Hussein’s and Annan’s Death for Oil program?  It’s good to see that Kerry will at least give lip service to what side should win.  However, he is inherently, and historically, anti-soldier and anti-war. 

But staying the course does not mean stubbornly holding to the wrong course. In order to complete our mission, we must review our tactics.

Note that no fault is ever given to France, the UN, Russia, Germany, China, and Syria for this war....doing that would not reflect badly on Bush.  Here is some info on why we are following the ‘wrong’ course.  Syria is a Ba’ath Islamofascist state (basically a satellite government of Iraq), and did everything to stop the Americans from uprooting Iraq.  Kerry’s ‘wrong’ course can be defined as “..not including France, Germany, China, Russia, and Islamic States.” One question...why would any fascist or totalitarian state in that area want a free and democratic Iraq?  You think that making Iraq free, in this way, in opposition to the socialists and islamofascists, would fail to forment revolution in these areas....pro-liberty, pro-western, pro-economic freedom revolution?  I think, strongly, that when Socialists in Spain immediately clamor for their troops to be removed, the capitalists of the West are doing the right thing by keeping their forces there. 

We need strategies that reflect realistic goals and the facts on the ground. The President had a chance on Tuesday night to present such a strategy, but chose not to.

OK....let’s review:  Overthrow Saddam Hussein, fight the terrorists where they are, stop attacks on American civilian targets (or, attacks in America itself), work towards setting up a representative democracy in the Middle East, stop the proliferation of WMD’s, and remove the threat of an islamofascist Iraq before it became imminent.  Bush also said, several times over the past couple years, that this wasn’t over, and that we would be fighting for along time in this war.  Maybe...just maybe...Bush has a strategy. 

It is now more important than ever that we take a different approach, designed to maximize our chance for success by making full use of the assets we have.

Um...what?  It sounds as if things are going pretty much as the President said they would.  He never, ever said that this was going to be over in 30 minutes, or even 30 months.  And, since the kill ratio (US Soldier to terrorist) is 1 to 50 or so, I think we are, tactically and strategically, succeeding.  The truce in Fallujah, and the situation in Najaf, are other hints that the US has the situation more firmly in control than Kerry would like us to believe. 

First, our leaders must level with the American people and be honest and upfront about the difficulties we face. The President may not want to admit to mistakes, but his choices in Iraq have so far produced a tragedy of errors.

No, Mr. Kerry.  His choices in Iraq have saved tens of thousands of lives.  And, again, when was the last terrorist attack in the United States?  Last thing, as I said here, the casualties of WWII occurred until 1947.  Is Bush perfect?  No...he said so himself.  But, this is war, and soldiers die.  No apologies necessary. 

Second, we must recognize that progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. We must supply our military commanders with the additional troops they have requested. But the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq.

This, of course, is Bush’s fault as well.  Maybe the fact that terrorists are coming in from Iran and Syria may be contributing to the general unrest, but this isn’t the issue, according to this passage.  Maybe the two nations that opposed us the most in our attempt to dethrone Hussein should share the blame for frightened Iraqis.  Figure that we have asked them to help, and figure, correctly, that they have refused. 

The use of force must be combined with a diplomatic strategy that will work. United Nations representatives have put forward a fair proposal for an interim government. It will allow Iraqis from all factions to participate. It’s a good starting point, but it leaves many hard questions unanswered.

Did Kerry read the Iraqi Interim Constitution?  Please, read it here.  He has also forgotten the aforementioned Oil for Food scandal, and the retreat of the UN from Iraq after the going got rough.  The UN does not have a good record in Iraq, and the Iraqis don’t like the UN.  Are we going to force the UN on them, Mr. Kerry?  Will that help us, and the rebuilding of Iraq?  Or, does this hearken back to your anti-American days in the VVAW, and this statement:
“...the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations.  I’m an internationalist.  I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

That is why, for the long term, our third step we must remove the “Made in America” label from the Iraqi occupation.

That label is going to exist anyways, like it does in Germany, Japan, and Korea.  We are the memorable nation, therefore, we will be the ones that are remembered.  In addition, in 30 years, the Iraqis will remember who liberated them, who stayed, and bled, for their freedom, and who allied with their new nation in a time of trial.  If we leave, or give up this sacred responsibility, what will they remember? 

We can do that by creating an international mission authorized by the United Nations. That mission should become the main civilian partner in helping the Iraqi people hold elections, restore government services and rebuild their economy. This would make it possible to attract needed financial help from other nations, and show that Iraqi extremists are opposing not just the United States, but also the will of the nations of the world. Removing that “Made in America” label can send a message to Iraqi military and police that its time to do their jobs not because America is telling them to, but because the world stands ready to help them secure a stable Iraq.

Iraqi troops have lived under a time where troops were forced to kill their own contrymen.  I think that the fear of doing that must be recognized, and it is common sense to assume that such a fear will exist.  It isn’t because we (the USA) are there that the Iraqi troops are loathe to fire on their own people.  In addition, I think that the islamofascists that are attacking Allied troops (note that Kerry calls them ‘Iraqi’, and ignores the fact that many of the attackers of our troops are imported from other islamofascist states) don’t really care who they are killing, because they have killed Muslims, Christians, and Jews.  They lust after power, and that isn’t Bush’s fault, unless you are John F. Kerry.

Fourth, we should transform the military force in Iraq into a NATO security force under the leadership of an American commander. By sharing responsibilities with our friends and allies, we can get others to share the burdens and the risks.

75% of the troops that make up NATO-deployed forces are American.  Right now, 130,000 US troops are in Iraq, and 29,000 from other nations.  That is 81%.  Not much difference, huh?  And, since Germany and France have refused to send in troops, why bother?  Not that either nation could afford to do so....

Given the dangers in Iraq it won’t be easy to get our friends and allies to send in new troops, but I am confident that we can do that with real leadership and a commitment to share authority as well as responsibility. To achieve this we need a major diplomatic effort including a high level mission to consult with our NATO partners.

Casn someone remind Mr. Kerry about the NATO meeting held about sending aid to Turkey?  What the hell was that, a trip to Cedar Point?  Kerry’s buddy France, and his pal Germany, and that turd Belguim (no offense to Belgians, but your government sucks) blocked aid to Turkey.  NATO is paralyzed because France opposes the US, as does Germany. 

Because of the go-it-alone policy in Iraq, our troops have borne ninety percent of the risks and casualties, while our taxpayers have paid ninety percent of the costs.

17 UN resolutions, meeting with the UNSC, NATO, and the rest...who is exactly going it alone?  Maybe we were forced to, like this guy said: “...while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” That was Mr. Kerry, thanks to the erudite minds at RealClearPolitics.com.  Just following your advise...right?  I think President Bush told us that these costs would have to be paid.

The failure of the Administration to internationalize the conflict has lost us time, momentum, and credibility – and made America less safe.

Again...how many attacks on American soil since 9-11-2001?

Our stubborn, unilateral policy in Iraq has steadily drifted – from tragedy to tragedy.

Saddam=gone.  Uday/Qusay=gone.  WMD’s=Were there, now not.  50,000 Iraqis alive now that Hussein would have killed=tragedy?  We asked, the UNSC said OK, then no.  Kind of like your “voted for it, before I voted against it..” situation with the $87 billion for the troops and for Iraq, right?  we were unilateral, then we weren’t, then we were again....what?

Our troops deserve better. To succeed in Iraq, we must be tough enough to stick to our principles in the face of setbacks. But we must also be smart enough to fight the enemy with all the tools and all the help we can find. Our troops today are paying the price for a flawed policy. We need a new policy that puts our soldiers first.

Going over this ending statement would be a rehash of what I have already said.  John Kerry is dishonest, inherently anti-war, and pro-multinationalist.  He has been for a long time, and he will continue to be.  He wishes to weaken American sovereignty, by putting US troops under NATO and UN command.  That is unacceptable, especially since the UN has shown contempt for our desire to defend ourselves, and to cripple Islamofascist terrorists. 

You guys can decide for yourself.  I, for one, am more for Bush than ever.