Friday, October 29, 2004
My final answer
The whole Al-Qaqaa story has gone non-linear. I can no longer be bothered to care about it. Not that I ever did, much, anyway. 380 tons of RDX and HMX? Missing? Oh, in Iraq. I thought it was somewhere that kind of thing shouldn't be expected. 380 tons of explosives missing in New York City? Uh-oh. 380 tons of explosives missing in Charlottesville, Virginia? Wow. 380 tons of explosives missing near Baghdad? Oh, is that all?
Suppose the worst of what Kerry says is true, and that President Bush impetuously and cavalierly ignored his duty to personally secure every bomb, missile, RPG, and Roman candle in Iraq, so that he could engage in such reckless fratboy tomfoolery as pushing through economic recovery acts, meeting with important-like foreign officials, and signing legislation to help protect children from abduction, and that this abdication of all responsibility led to the terrorists of the world obtaining a new supply of plastic explosives -- weapons so fearsome, so devastating in their effects, that Herman Kahn was known to curl into the fetal position and clutch his Teddy bear to his chest whenever he heard them mentioned. This would leave us with a monumentally important question, one potentially affecting generations of Americans yet ungotten and unborn:
So flippin' what?
Iraq had hundreds of thousands of tons of this stuff and stuff like it, and Hussein was an avid supporter of Palestinian terror in Israel -- if we were worried about Hussein's RDX and HMX ending up in terrorist hands, we hardly could have done anything better than to invade. And as Power Line's Hindrocket points out, with something like 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives destroyed in Iraq, we're seeing a success rate of 99.9%. Not many people in the world would see this success rate, in such a hostile environment and working against so many intractable obstacles, as anything short of astonishing -- no one but nitwits and John Kerry's media shills. But I repeat myself.
Oh, yes, I know. Kerry's really saying that it was Bush's fault because he didn't send enough troops to fight the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whatever. As if Kerry would have handled the situation any better. If Kerry had been in charge, Saddam would still have those explosives -- and he'd be doling them out to homicide bombers on the West Bank, along with $25,000 checks to the families they leave behind. (A radio ad I wouldn't be surprised to hear on some Palestinian station: "Planning to enter the company of the houris while sending the infidel monkey-pigs to everlasting torment? Let Hussein and Sons handle the arrangements.") John Kerry's 20-year record speaks for itself, as do his own words when he speaks candidly of passing a "global test": he is a September 10th man in the world of September 12th. His policies, if implemented, would turn us away from the path of proactive engagement Bush has set us on and return us to the status quo ante of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement problem; a return, in short, to the policies that utterly failed to stem the tide of terrorism in the twenty years between the ascension of radical, militant Islam and the fall of the World Trade Center.
Some would welcome this. I would find it intolerable. Thus my support of George W. Bush.
|
Suppose the worst of what Kerry says is true, and that President Bush impetuously and cavalierly ignored his duty to personally secure every bomb, missile, RPG, and Roman candle in Iraq, so that he could engage in such reckless fratboy tomfoolery as pushing through economic recovery acts, meeting with important-like foreign officials, and signing legislation to help protect children from abduction, and that this abdication of all responsibility led to the terrorists of the world obtaining a new supply of plastic explosives -- weapons so fearsome, so devastating in their effects, that Herman Kahn was known to curl into the fetal position and clutch his Teddy bear to his chest whenever he heard them mentioned. This would leave us with a monumentally important question, one potentially affecting generations of Americans yet ungotten and unborn:
So flippin' what?
Iraq had hundreds of thousands of tons of this stuff and stuff like it, and Hussein was an avid supporter of Palestinian terror in Israel -- if we were worried about Hussein's RDX and HMX ending up in terrorist hands, we hardly could have done anything better than to invade. And as Power Line's Hindrocket points out, with something like 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives destroyed in Iraq, we're seeing a success rate of 99.9%. Not many people in the world would see this success rate, in such a hostile environment and working against so many intractable obstacles, as anything short of astonishing -- no one but nitwits and John Kerry's media shills. But I repeat myself.
Oh, yes, I know. Kerry's really saying that it was Bush's fault because he didn't send enough troops to fight the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whatever. As if Kerry would have handled the situation any better. If Kerry had been in charge, Saddam would still have those explosives -- and he'd be doling them out to homicide bombers on the West Bank, along with $25,000 checks to the families they leave behind. (A radio ad I wouldn't be surprised to hear on some Palestinian station: "Planning to enter the company of the houris while sending the infidel monkey-pigs to everlasting torment? Let Hussein and Sons handle the arrangements.") John Kerry's 20-year record speaks for itself, as do his own words when he speaks candidly of passing a "global test": he is a September 10th man in the world of September 12th. His policies, if implemented, would turn us away from the path of proactive engagement Bush has set us on and return us to the status quo ante of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement problem; a return, in short, to the policies that utterly failed to stem the tide of terrorism in the twenty years between the ascension of radical, militant Islam and the fall of the World Trade Center.
Some would welcome this. I would find it intolerable. Thus my support of George W. Bush.
Comments:
Post a Comment
