My 15 Year Old Daughter's Editorial for Bush - A Proud Father's Shameless Vanity Post

President Bush has evidenced his personal strength and ability to lead the United States in more than one way. Some years ago, when Laura Bush told him he could either continue to abuse alcohol or continue to be married to her but that he could not continue to do both, he was strong enough in character to choose his family over his addiction. The President has also been willing to pursue a foreign policy, especially in Iraq, that is disliked by many people and has severely threatened his political career, because he believes that it is in the best interests of America.

Senator Kerry, on the other hand, has shown a lack of character and leadership abilities, both in his actions during and directly after his service in Vietnam and in the positions he has taken in the latter stages of the current campaign.

He first sought to avoid service in Vietnam by seeking a deferment to study abroad following his college graduation. When that was denied him, he entered the Naval Reserve instead of the active duty Navy. Once he was called up, Kerry served briefly on a ship off the coast of Vietnam, and then volunteered for Swiftboat duty at a time when the Swiftboats were still involved in relatively safe coastal patrolling. When the Swiftboats were assigned to more hazardous patrols in the Mekong Delta, Kerry responded by writing after action reports which resulted in his receipt of three purple hearts for insignificant injuries. He then used those awards as a basis for transfer back to the United States. He was the only member of his unit to use this technicality to avoid further service in Vietnam. Once home, and while still an officer in the United States Naval Reserve, he offered perjured testimony to Congress about the conduct of his fellow Swiftboat sailors and other American soldiers in Vietnam, also traveling to Paris to meet with the representatives of the North Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese used his false testimony to interrogate and demoralize American prisoners of war.

During the current political campaign, Kerry has sought political advantage by making false statements to scare some of the more vulnerable citizens of the United States. He has told seniors that President Bush has a secret plan to privatize Social Security and cut their benefits by up to 45%, when in fact the President has not proposed privatization or any other mandatory change in Social Security or any reduction in benefits for current recipients. The Senator has also claimed that black voters in Florida were disenfranchised in large numbers during the 2000 elections, even when the United States Civil Rights Commission, chaired by a partisan Democrat, has found no evidence to support that claim. Lastly, Kerry has told young people that they may be drafted by the armed forces if Bush is reelected. The truth is that both the Bush administration and senior military officers strongly oppose reinstitution of the draft, that reenlistment rates are high, and that all recent proposals to reinstate the draft have been sponsored not by President Bush, but by Democrats.

Economically, President Bush's policies are exactly what the country needs. Four years ago he inherited an economy in collapse. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in fact, makes it clear that the rate of new net job creation started declining rapidly almost immediately after the implosion of the NASDAQ Stock Market in March of 2000 and didn't being to recover until September of 2001, when it suffered a further setback as a consequence of the attacks in New York and Washington. Bush's tax reduction and deficit spending policies have caused this inherited recession to be shorter and shallower than it otherwise would have been.

John Kerry would reverse Bush's tax cut only in the top two income tax brackets. His position is both deceitful and hypocritical. It is deceitful because he has claimed that the change would only affect people making $200,000 a year or more. Based on the 2003 Tax Rate Schedules, it would actually affect couples filing jointly who have a taxable income of $175,000 or more and single taxpayers who have a taxable income of $143,000 a year or more. It is hypocritical because Kerry's recently released partial tax return shows that he and his wife earn more than $5 million a year, but are not subject to either of the top two tax brackets. Kerry's true position is that only middle class taxes should be increased, but that taxes on the truly wealthy should stay the same.

President Bush has made America safer, even in the face of extreme foreign disapproval. He has done so by removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, by ensuring the capture or death of most al Qaeda's leadership, and by stopping the nuclear proliferation activities of A. Q. Khan in Pakistan. He has also caused Libya to terminate its own WMD programs and removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. None of these results would have occurred under a Kerry administration, because the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were opposed by France, Germany, Russia, and China, and Kerry has said he would subject America's foreign enterprises to a "global test". He has even gone so far as to say that it would be appropriate for a United States soldier to die in service to the United Nations, but that such a sacrifice would not be appropriate in an American military action not sanctioned by the UN. George Bush will do what he and his advisors believe is right for America. John Kerry will do what Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, and Vladimir Putin believe is best for their respective countries.

Throughout his life John Kerry has idolized John Kennedy and has often said that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts. It is ironic then that it is George Bush, not Senator Kerry, who has emulated John Kennedy by understanding the economic benefits of lower marginal income tax rates and by "letting every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty."

here is an artical i wrote for my high school paper a few days ago though it was change slightly in the paper itself(for the better)

Throughout this election year, indeed through all four years that President Bush has been the incumbent, John Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party has been calling Bush a liar. Saying that he misled them and the American people in the run-up to the second gulf war, they have essentially based their whole campaign on the idea that the reason for invading Iraq was just for oil (without which the country would collapse) or some farsighted idea of finishing his father’s job.
Consistently calling him a liar they have ignored the fact that they had no problem with President Clinton’s bombing of Iraq and other countries. A bombing which some contend was to divert attention away from his perjuring himself.
That however is not really relevant; the question here is whether or not Bush lied. Let us, for the sake of argument, say that President Bush lied. Well, let us see then who else lied to the American people:
• "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
• "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
• "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
• "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
• "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
• "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
• "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
• "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
• "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
• "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
• "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
• "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
• "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
• “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
• "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
• "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
• "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
• "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
• "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

But of course Bush is the one that lied. Let me ask you, where was all the out rage when President Clinton bombed Iraq for the same reasons and on much of the same evidence that President Bush did. Where were all the hypocrites when Hilary Clinton said that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons and was aiding Al Qaeda? Where were they when Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country," or when Madeline Albright called Iraq a rouge state that will use its weapons of mass destruction. You do not see Al Gore up on the podium screaming “I DECEIVED THIS COUNTRY. I PLAYED ON OUR FEARS,” as he did to Bush.
OK so no weapons have been found as yet, it does not matter to Kerry supporters that basically every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even France, Germany, and Russia said that Iraq had them they just did not want to do anything about it. All that matters is that Bush lied.
So if Bush lied then everyone else must have been lying too and Saddam Hussein was the only person in the whole world telling the truth. So how was Bush lying? But how could our intelligence have been so wrong on Iraq? Maybe it wasn’t, people think that we should have found weapons by now, give me a break, we’ve only been in there for a short time. But even if we don’t find any, we did wait around at the UN for over a year waiting for them to enforce their own edicts before we began enforcing them for them. Saddam could have easily hidden, destroyed, or moved his stock piles to another country such a Syria (actually a very likely possibility). Even if our data was wrong let us see whose fault that is.

just realized that was no full artical here it is

Throughout this election year, indeed through all four years that President Bush has been the incumbent, John Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party has been calling Bush a liar. Saying that he misled them and the American people in the run-up to the second gulf war, they have essentially based their whole campaign on the idea that the reason for invading Iraq was just for oil (without which the country would collapse) or some farsighted idea of finishing his father’s job.
Consistently calling him a liar they have ignored the fact that they had no problem with President Clinton’s bombing of Iraq and other countries. A bombing which some contend was to divert attention away from his perjuring himself.
That however is not really relevant; the question here is whether or not Bush lied. Let us, for the sake of argument, say that President Bush lied. Well, let us see then who else lied to the American people:
• "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
• "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
• "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
• "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
• "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
• "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
• "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
• "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
• "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
• "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
• "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
• "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
• "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
• “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
• "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
• "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
• "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
• "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
• "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

But of course Bush is the one that lied. Let me ask you, where was all the out rage when President Clinton bombed Iraq for the same reasons and on much of the same evidence that President Bush did. Where were all the hypocrites when Hilary Clinton said that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons and was aiding Al Qaeda? Where were they when Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country," or when Madeline Albright called Iraq a rouge state that will use its weapons of mass destruction. You do not see Al Gore up on the podium screaming “I DECEIVED THIS COUNTRY. I PLAYED ON OUR FEARS,” as he did to Bush.
OK so no weapons have been found as yet, it does not matter to Kerry supporters that basically every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even France, Germany, and Russia said that Iraq had them they just did not want to do anything about it. All that matters is that Bush lied.
So if Bush lied then everyone else must have been lying too and Saddam Hussein was the only person in the whole world telling the truth. So how was Bush lying? But how could our intelligence have been so wrong on Iraq? Maybe it wasn’t, people think that we should have found weapons by now, give me a break, we’ve only been in there for a short time. But even if we don’t find any, we did wait around at the UN for over a year waiting for them to enforce their own edicts before we began enforcing them for them. Saddam could have easily hidden, destroyed, or moved his stock piles to another country such a Syria (actually a very likely possibility). Even if our data was wrong let us see whose fault that is.
In 1994, just one year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, John Kerry voted to cut six BILLION dollars from the intelligence budget. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), then chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said in response to this, “The intelligence budget has already been cut by almost 18 % over the past 2 years. An additional reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community’s ability to provide … information on matters of vital concern to this country. … I urge all members to vote against this amendment.” John Kerry latter explained, on CNN’s Crossfire, that the amendment was an attempt to cut the “silliness” out of government.
No one is saying that George Bush is perfect, he certainly has done things that wasn’t the greatest idea and not done things that were would have should have been done, however over all he has done a pretty good job. And while there might be a better candidate out there, John Kerry is certainly not that candidate.

Once he was called up, Kerry served briefly on a ship off the coast of Vietnam, and then volunteered for Swiftboat duty at a time when the Swiftboats were still involved in relatively safe coastal patrolling.

Just fyi, I think there's some misunderstanding about this. Coastal duty on a Swiftboat, even before the mission change to river patrols, was still more dangerous than duty on a tin can. However, being a "Commanding Officer" of your own command as a LTJG beats the heck out of being the third ranking engineering officer, or one of the many "Junior Officer's of the Watch" on typical destroyer duty (where he was first assigned). His request to the Swift boats represented some aptitude, i.e. he'd have to have been recommended for Command by his previous Commanding Officer, and probably have to be "hot stuff" way back at OCS (Officer Candidate School). Plus, of course, the Ivy League background didn't hurt.

His request also, of course, demonstates ambition. Not a bad thing, mind you, unless you shamelessly cart around a 8mm camera, and engage men in your enlisted command to film you re-enacting your feats of heroism?!! (That'd get some guys relieved of Command). I mean, think about it. You're a new officer trying to build credibility with your guys, on detached, independent duty, the "Commanding Officer" of a Naval vessel, with the lives of a half dozen men in your hands, and you're walking around in the middle of a war-zone-jungle, with a movie camera in your hand?!!!

Any way, all this dove-tails with what we all know about Kerry's character, and why few other Naval Officers such as myself hold him in high esteem. He bailed on his men early. He didn't bail on the "Vietnam War"; he walked away from his men! Some guys signed on for a second tour just to ensure their guys had enough training and leadership to survive their tours, and Kerry bailed on his guys after four months?! His vanity, his cowardly departure from duty in Vietnam, his self-centerness, his "gigolo" past, his opportunism and shameless self-promotion, his egotism (to airport worker, while butting into the front of the line, "Do you know who I am?!"), his faithlessness to duty and country, his frequent political alliances with America's enemies (direct and indirect) ... all these things disqualify him to be CiC.

Bush is a better man in every measureable way.

SFS

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.