Saturday, December 11, 2004

Single Issue Voting

For about a week following the Dem Convention, I was gonna vote Kerry. Annoyed at these pesky Swift Boat guys, I read the book in order to rebut them. Reading the book caused me to stumble on some things. Result: however flawed, I am voting Bush.

"Why?," you scream at BummerDietz.

Because I am a single issue voter. Kill islamo-fascists.

I know Bush will continue to kill fascists. Kerry has put on a good show. But rather than debate, here is a Kerry transcript - one week before the election.
If Kerry doesn't have his warhawk soundbites memorized this late in the game, forget it...he won't be killing any fascists; he will pull out at the worst possible time - in the darkness just before dawn:

(Yes, I Fisked it.)

John Kerry - Tom Brokaw:

Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq.The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left
Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...
Kerry: Not necessarily at all. .

It is one week before the election. One of the three most powerful network anchors asks you point blank about the war and Saddam being in power, and you answer, "Not necessarily [insert word, "true" - ?] at all.." That's Kerry, the war hawk?

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...
Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.
Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...
Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for.

We have inspectors - for what? To destroy weapons? To force Saddam to destroy them? To issue a report to the UN that an 18th resolution is needed?

Kerry: And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone.
I will give $100,000 to anyone who can lay out a logical syllogism of Kerry's answers.* Because you cannot. He is not intellectual; he is just confused.
Kerry: Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. ut if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.
One week to go, and this guy has no clue.
*- To wit: In response to the proposition that Kerry would not have removed Saddam, Kerry insists that he might have, and might not have, removed Saddam. He then states that it is impossible and irresponsible to suggest that he would not have removed Saddam....even though Kerry, 4 seconds earlier, himself claimed that that he might not have removed Saddam.