Posted on 07/17/2004 6:44:32 PM PDT by sruleoflaw
Terrorists rooting for Kerry victory Tracy Press June 2, 2004 By Steve Wampler
Though John Kerry has declined to identify them, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee claims several foreign leaders back him for president.
Let’s look at the different ways leaders of some nations, particularly those in the "Axis of Evil," have given their nod to Kerry.
Though Saddam Hussein is currently indisposed, his fellow tyrants in North Korea and Iran are showing their people that John Kerry is their choice. Apparently, they think their future is more secure with the Massachusetts senator.
For example, this past winter speeches by Kerry have been broadcast on North Korea’s Radio Pyongyang and reported in rosy terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the propaganda organ of Kim Jong-il’s communist regime.
Radio Pyongyang has also broadcast statements by Kerry claiming that Bush deceived the world about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
For his part, Kerry has pledged to approach North Korea and Kim with a "sincere attitude."
One wonders what Kerry’s "sincere attitude" will do to counter a dictator who has killed more than one million innocent people in the past decade and who has been running two separate programs to build nuclear weapons.
The anti-American Tehran Times liked an email so much that Kerry sent to Democrats Abroad that it published the entire seven-paragraph text on its front page with a headline noting that Kerry promised to "repair damage if he wins election."
Iranian dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled to Germany after being imprisoned by the mullahs’ regime for four years, states that Iran’s clerics "fear President Bush."
In an interview with investigative reporter Ken Timmerman of Insight magazine, Haeri says that President Bush’s messages of backing to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and calls that Iran abandon its nuclear weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they’ll be gone. That’s why they want to see Kerry elected."
Already, Kerry has promised that if he is elected president that he would ditch President Bush’s war against terrorism and adopt a law enforcement approach as well as start a dialogue with terrorist regimes.
Through the years, the nation’s most liberal senator – as judged by the non-partisan National Journal – holds a questionable record on terrorism. Kerry has, in the past, opposed the death penalty for terrorists who kill Americans abroad.
In 1986, Kerry condemned President Reagan’s bombing of terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, after the Libyan dictator’s bombing of a Berlin disco frequented by American troops killed one soldier and wounded 51. He claimed the U.S. air strike that almost killed Gadhafi was not "proportional."
In 1994, less than a year after terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about 1,000 others, Kerry proposed cutting the U.S. intelligence budget by $1 billion – even though it had been reduced by nearly 18 percent during the past two years.
Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii said the Kerry cut "would severely hamper" intelligence efforts and "would result in a termination of programs and activities that are essential to the security of the nation." The Kerry cutback, he added, would "blind" the nation’s military pilots.
In 1995, Kerry again proposed reducing the nation’s intelligence budget, this time by $1.5 billion.
Not one U.S. Senator supported Kerry’s proposal.
As if that’s not enough, Kerry has voted against many, if not most, of the weapons systems used in the war against terrorism. He proposed canceling the B-2 bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Aegis destroyer and the Patriot missile defense system; wanted far fewer Bradley fighting vehicles and F-16 fighter jets; and also voted against funding for the Blackhawk helicopter, the MX missile and the B-1 bomber.
In a February poll of 800 registered U.S. voters, taken by Andres McKenna Polling and Research, the survey showed that 60 percent thought terrorists would be happier with Mr. Kerry, while only 25 percent said the terrorists would prefer Mr. Bush.
There must be a reason terrorists are rooting for a Kerry presidency.
Wampler, a Tracy resident, hosts a radio talk show heard Sunday nights at 8 p.m. and Saturdays at 3 p.m. on KCBC (770 AM). He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Kent in Canterbury, England.
Bump
What were those bumper stickers that the DNC was complaining about, today? I think they said, "Bin Laden's for Kerry/I'm for Bush."
I suppose Kerry wouldn't kill the country entirely, but he'd sure give it the old college try.
I would love to get a bumper sticker and/or poster made that says VOTE FOR KERRY! with the face of a smiling Osama bin Laden. Maybe a thumbs up from OBL as well. It would take a little "Photo Shop" work, but I'm sure someone could make a dandy one. How about it, Freepers?
excellent photo
I want one. Where can I get one?
The article said that no one was taking credit for having printed them, but that they were being handed out at local GOP headquarters in some state (maybe Missouri). The DNC was hopping mad and wanted them withdrawn. Fat chance!
Go ahead, New York, vote for Kerry. I'm safe in small town USA.
That's great!
Set on a white flag.
Great pic!! Of this there is no question. A couple of weeks ago, I debated two half-witted liberals. Throwing out the facts did little to convince them since they were not well informed and probably lucky they could tie their shoes. At the conclusion, I asked them if Osama bin Laden could choose our next President, who would he choose .... Bush or Kerry? There was a moment of silence, then as I was leaving I said "I thought so .... maybe you should think about that"
Exactly.
A couple of nights ago he got voted off. He was the first one in the house to get voted out. Why? He was the strongest contestant. Everyone agreed that he was the toughest one to beat and they needed to get rid of him early.
After they voted and he left, they showed "exit" interviews from the other members of the house. They all said that they respected him, he was intellectually challenging, he was a "father figure", he made them THINK.
I say JOB WELL DONE to Michael for such a short time in that house.
Your question is a thinker. Young Democrats simply don't think. It's not an expression, "I just wasn't thinking", it's a true fact. They do not think. It's scary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.