Seeking revenge for Al Gore

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

One doesn't have to be a supporter of George Bush to be able to tell
that he is getting a raw deal. Some of the charges being leveled
against him are so thin as to be nearly transparent, yet somehow, they
find legs in the court of public opinion.

Recently, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe charged that Bush was AWOL from
his military service with the Texas National Guard. (For the record,
Terry McAuliffe never served in the military in any capacity.)

John Kerry ran with that theme, suggesting that by serving as a
fighter pilot in the National Guard, Bush was shirking combat duty in
Vietnam. (That doesn't say much for the National Guard.) In any case,
Bush was a fighter pilot, not a cook. It is only slightly less
dangerous to fly a fighter jet in combat than it is in peacetime.

I found it fascinating that the same folks who defended Bill Clinton's
obvious draft-dodging tactics now condemn George Bush for serving
without going to Vietnam. The fact that Bush received an honorable
discharge and had more than the required 50 credits needed to earn it
is dwarfed by the cacophony of charges that say the exact opposite.

John Kerry was among Bill Clinton's staunchest defenders of draft
dodging. Kerry himself was so opposed to the war that, upon his return
from Vietnam, he earned the nickname "Hanoi John."

If Kerry was so philosophically against the war, how can he disparage
Bush for not participating in what Kerry described in 1972 as a war in
which American soldiers "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off
heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and
turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at
civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot
cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged
the countryside of South Vietnam"? That's the Vietnam War Kerry
described to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in April 1971.

If what Kerry alleged is true, then why would he suggest that a
possible experience with rape, torture and brutality is a necessary
qualification for president? Unless Kerry didn't really believe what
he was saying back then. Or doesn't believe it now.

I submit that if Bush had served in Vietnam, Kerry would be running on
his opposition to the war in Vietnam, instead of his service in it.
The media is trying to make a case out of Bush being discharged eight
months before his six-year term with the Guard was up as if that were
unusual in 1973 or involved pulling strings.

Watching Scott McClelland answer the White House press corps was a
study in frustration. The press corps didn't want to be bothered by
the facts; their minds were already made up.

But has anybody noted that Kerry got out of the Navy eight months
early for the same reasons? The war was being phased out. Yet I don't
hear anybody talking about that.

Bush has been accused of lying about why we got involved in the Iraq
war. Has anybody questioned the fact that France, Germany, the U.N.
and even John Kerry reached the same conclusions that Bush did, based
on the same intelligence? Does anybody really believe Bush had
information even the CIA didn't have, and then ignored it? Where did
Bush get this information?

Bush has been accused of "betraying" America by a clearly demented Al
Gore who charged that Bush was preparing for the war with Iraq even
before 9-11. Is it likely that, having adopted a policy of regime
change in 1998, the Clinton administration didn't have a similar war
plan already in place?

The war with Iraq should have been one of the most easily justified in
American history. Saddam defied the U.N. and committed 17 violations
of Security Council resolutions in the 12 years between the wars.

Even the president's critics are not arguing that Saddam should still
be in power in Baghdad. Instead, they say the White House acted
"unilaterally" – a charge belied by the fact there exists a
"coalition" of nations. It exists now, and it existed before the war
began, and troops from a dozen countries have given their lives to
free the Iraqi people. If it was American "unilateralism," what were
they doing there when they were killed?

The Democrats are openly admitting that this election isn't about
domestic issues, the war with Iraq or the economy. It's about
"electability" – meaning whoever has the best chance of beating Bush.
If Howdy Doody had a chance of defeating Bush, he'd be their
candidate.

Politics is a rough business. But this isn't about politics. It isn't
even about what's best for America. It's all about getting revenge for
Election 2000.

But remember, that was the election that guaranteed Al Gore was not in
charge on Sept. 11, 2001.

Does anybody really think that was a bad thing?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------