How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security, by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson.
Patterson is a former Air force officer who had ample opportunity to observe liberal democrat shortcomings when he served as the man who carried the "nuclear football" for President Clinton.
Patterson doesn't focus solely on John Kerry, although he takes his share of the scorn. Instead he portrays the military policy of liberal democrats as a complete and utter failure, going back to Vietnam. Although he doesn't really uncover anything new in the book, Patterson pieces together a timeline showing how the policies of LBJ, Carter and Clinton have been disastrous not only for the United States but also for the rest of the world.
Some examples:
Johnson's micromanagement of the Vietnam War prevented the military commanders from taking the steps that would have won the war. Johnson was more concerned with social welfare programs and the political perception than with ending the war quickly.
Despite the heavy casualties suffered by the NVA during the Tet Offensive and many other battles, they felt they could win the war through the unrest in America. Unrest that was stirred up by people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, whose words were used by NVA torturers to taunt American POWs. There's no question that these anti-war protests from the liberal left gave hope to a nearly defeated enemy and resulted in prolonging the war and directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans. Sound familiar? Many of the same protesters and their younger followers recycled the same arguments in Iraq, giving hope to the Baathist dead enders and foreign fighters who continue their futile and bloody insurgency in the hope that they can hang on until Kerry is elected. They know he'll wither under pressure from the left and withdraw American troops from Iraq, leaving the country vulnerable to the return of tyranny.
When it became clear that more was needed to defeat the communist North Vietnamese, Nixon (a Republican) got tough and authorized an early version of "Shock and Awe", a heavy bombing campaign designed to showck the North Vietnamese into submission. It worked. The North Vietnamese came to the negotiating table and Nixon was able to bring what he called "peace with honor", ceding control of North Vietnam and bringing our troops home. Unfortunately, this was short lived as the Democrats in congress soon cut off all support for South Vietnam, allowing the communist North to overrun it in 1975, creating a massive refugee crisis. This also led to the communist takeover in Cambodia, resulting in Pol Pot's genocide, the death of millions.
Nixon's downfall ultimately led to Jimmy Carter, the worst president of the 20th century, possibly of all time. Carter's weak foreign policy resulted in a communist takeover in Nicaragua, Soviet expansion into Afghanistan and, worst of all, the ouster of the Shah of Iran. The Shah had been a staunch ally of the US but Carter not only withdrew US support, he actually supported the rise of the exiled Ayatollah Khomenei. Khomenei turned the formally progressive state of Iran into a brutal theocratic regime, the orignal Islamic terror state. This led to the hostage crisis and the rescue disaster, possibly the low point of post-Vietnam US military action. It also led to Iraq's invasion of Iran, which strengthened Saddam Hussein's position and solidified his hold on Iraq.
Clinton. Just the fact that this guy gets a free pass from the media over the rise of Islamic terror is all the proof you need of liberal media bias. Clinton slashed the military to pay for his social program pork while expanding their role to peace keeping and nation building. He inherited a humanitarian mission in Somalia and immediately slashed the deployment and expanded the mission to capture the warlord Adid. We all know what happened next. Blackhawk Down, Clinton running from conflict like a frightened kitten and confirming in Bin Laden's mind the lack of resolve of the United States government. And you know what? Bin Laden was right. That is, he was right as long as a Democrat was in the White House. The first WTC bombing, the bombings in Saudi Arabia and Africa and subsequent cruise missile attacks on empty tents and aspirin factories, the Cole bombing and complete lack of interest the administration showed in pursuing justice. Indeed, the whole attitude of the Clinton administration was that it was a law enforcement matter. They refused to take custody of Bin Laden when offered because they weren't sure if they could make charges stand in court! The same people who defend Clinton and attack Bush over "enemy combatant" detainees would absolutely crucify Bush if he had made the same error, pre-9/11. We've been at war for over a decade, it took 9/11 and a Republican who had some balls to admit it and do something about it.
Finally that brings us to Kerry. What do we get with Kerry? More flip flops, "nuance" and grovelling before the French. We'll get more of the same Carter retreads we got with Clinton: Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, Sandy Berger. More of the same lack of testicular fortitude, military choices made with an eye toward the polls rather than killing terrorists, a resumption of military cuts to pay for social welfare programs.
I don't agree with all Republican policies, just like I don't agree with all Democrat policies. For me, one fact overrides all domestic concerns: We're at war with Islamic fanatics. They want us dead but Democrats won't admit we're in a war. Democrats want the UN to fight our battles, diplomacy and appeasement to take the place of decisive military action and firm resolve in the face of terror. Say what you want about Bush, no one can accuse him of flip flopping or making tough decisions based on polling data. I urge you to read Reckless Disregard and judge the Democrats on their record over the last 40 years. Can we afford another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton when our enemy has already proven they can kill thousands on our own soil?
As if the book doesn't give enough reason to vote for Bush, a recent report states the terrorists are aiming to disrupt the November election:
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
Where have we heard that before? It seems like everyone who has an interest in a weakened America is rooting for Kerry. France, China, North Korea, Cuba, Islamic terrorists, Yasser Arafat. If (God forbid) Kerry wins the election, I'm predicting we'll see Palastinian celebrations just like we did after 9/11.
Patterson is a former Air force officer who had ample opportunity to observe liberal democrat shortcomings when he served as the man who carried the "nuclear football" for President Clinton.
Patterson doesn't focus solely on John Kerry, although he takes his share of the scorn. Instead he portrays the military policy of liberal democrats as a complete and utter failure, going back to Vietnam. Although he doesn't really uncover anything new in the book, Patterson pieces together a timeline showing how the policies of LBJ, Carter and Clinton have been disastrous not only for the United States but also for the rest of the world.
Some examples:
Johnson's micromanagement of the Vietnam War prevented the military commanders from taking the steps that would have won the war. Johnson was more concerned with social welfare programs and the political perception than with ending the war quickly.
Despite the heavy casualties suffered by the NVA during the Tet Offensive and many other battles, they felt they could win the war through the unrest in America. Unrest that was stirred up by people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, whose words were used by NVA torturers to taunt American POWs. There's no question that these anti-war protests from the liberal left gave hope to a nearly defeated enemy and resulted in prolonging the war and directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans. Sound familiar? Many of the same protesters and their younger followers recycled the same arguments in Iraq, giving hope to the Baathist dead enders and foreign fighters who continue their futile and bloody insurgency in the hope that they can hang on until Kerry is elected. They know he'll wither under pressure from the left and withdraw American troops from Iraq, leaving the country vulnerable to the return of tyranny.
When it became clear that more was needed to defeat the communist North Vietnamese, Nixon (a Republican) got tough and authorized an early version of "Shock and Awe", a heavy bombing campaign designed to showck the North Vietnamese into submission. It worked. The North Vietnamese came to the negotiating table and Nixon was able to bring what he called "peace with honor", ceding control of North Vietnam and bringing our troops home. Unfortunately, this was short lived as the Democrats in congress soon cut off all support for South Vietnam, allowing the communist North to overrun it in 1975, creating a massive refugee crisis. This also led to the communist takeover in Cambodia, resulting in Pol Pot's genocide, the death of millions.
Nixon's downfall ultimately led to Jimmy Carter, the worst president of the 20th century, possibly of all time. Carter's weak foreign policy resulted in a communist takeover in Nicaragua, Soviet expansion into Afghanistan and, worst of all, the ouster of the Shah of Iran. The Shah had been a staunch ally of the US but Carter not only withdrew US support, he actually supported the rise of the exiled Ayatollah Khomenei. Khomenei turned the formally progressive state of Iran into a brutal theocratic regime, the orignal Islamic terror state. This led to the hostage crisis and the rescue disaster, possibly the low point of post-Vietnam US military action. It also led to Iraq's invasion of Iran, which strengthened Saddam Hussein's position and solidified his hold on Iraq.
Clinton. Just the fact that this guy gets a free pass from the media over the rise of Islamic terror is all the proof you need of liberal media bias. Clinton slashed the military to pay for his social program pork while expanding their role to peace keeping and nation building. He inherited a humanitarian mission in Somalia and immediately slashed the deployment and expanded the mission to capture the warlord Adid. We all know what happened next. Blackhawk Down, Clinton running from conflict like a frightened kitten and confirming in Bin Laden's mind the lack of resolve of the United States government. And you know what? Bin Laden was right. That is, he was right as long as a Democrat was in the White House. The first WTC bombing, the bombings in Saudi Arabia and Africa and subsequent cruise missile attacks on empty tents and aspirin factories, the Cole bombing and complete lack of interest the administration showed in pursuing justice. Indeed, the whole attitude of the Clinton administration was that it was a law enforcement matter. They refused to take custody of Bin Laden when offered because they weren't sure if they could make charges stand in court! The same people who defend Clinton and attack Bush over "enemy combatant" detainees would absolutely crucify Bush if he had made the same error, pre-9/11. We've been at war for over a decade, it took 9/11 and a Republican who had some balls to admit it and do something about it.
Finally that brings us to Kerry. What do we get with Kerry? More flip flops, "nuance" and grovelling before the French. We'll get more of the same Carter retreads we got with Clinton: Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright, Janet Reno, Sandy Berger. More of the same lack of testicular fortitude, military choices made with an eye toward the polls rather than killing terrorists, a resumption of military cuts to pay for social welfare programs.
I don't agree with all Republican policies, just like I don't agree with all Democrat policies. For me, one fact overrides all domestic concerns: We're at war with Islamic fanatics. They want us dead but Democrats won't admit we're in a war. Democrats want the UN to fight our battles, diplomacy and appeasement to take the place of decisive military action and firm resolve in the face of terror. Say what you want about Bush, no one can accuse him of flip flopping or making tough decisions based on polling data. I urge you to read Reckless Disregard and judge the Democrats on their record over the last 40 years. Can we afford another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton when our enemy has already proven they can kill thousands on our own soil?
As if the book doesn't give enough reason to vote for Bush, a recent report states the terrorists are aiming to disrupt the November election:
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
Where have we heard that before? It seems like everyone who has an interest in a weakened America is rooting for Kerry. France, China, North Korea, Cuba, Islamic terrorists, Yasser Arafat. If (God forbid) Kerry wins the election, I'm predicting we'll see Palastinian celebrations just like we did after 9/11.
