THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY CHANGE
by David Sisler
Flash! President George W. Bush is responsible for the crash of the Hindenburg, the Chicago fire, the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the Great Depression, the Lindbergh kidnaping, the blizzard of 1888 and 1996, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War. Do I need to go on?
Actually, John Kerry and his campaign staff have not blamed the President for those events.
But the list of things for which they do place blame on President Bush is almost as staggering.
The claim: Bush bans stem-cell research.
The truth: “George W. Bush is the only President to ever authorize federal funding for embryonic stem cell research” (Laura Bush, August 31, 2004).
John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all invoked falsehood when they said there is a “need to lift the ban on stem cell research.” The issue is not research, or funding for research. The issue is federal subsidies.
There should be no restrictions on the private sector, President Bush argued, from a reasonable middle-of-the-road position. Additionally, he said, according to an institutional editorial from The Wall Street Journal, that federal subsidies “should be limited to lines that have already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of embryos.”
Our traditional friends, like Ireland, and our current friends, such as Austria and Germany, ban even the private sector from creating embryos for stem cell research. Kerry and Company would not place such a ban, and would demand that the federal government – our tax dollars – pay for the destruction of embryonic life.
The claim: President Bush is to blame because North Korean is producing nuclear warheads.
The truth: North Korea has never kept any part of the Clinton Administration’s 1994 nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The thugs in Pyongyang used their signature on the document, a document they never intended to honor, to get fuel oil and two light water reactors from the United States.
The Bush Administration is demanding that North Korea’s weapons program be verifiably dismanted before considering any new agreement. That is too harsh, Mr. Kerry says.
John Kerry’s idea of containing Pyongyang is more talk, based on the 1994 treaty. The fact that Clinton-style “talk” produced only deception and a continuation of North Korea’s nuclear program seems to be totally lost on Mr. Kerry who wishes only to maintain the status quo. To prove that Mr. Kerry is his man, Kim Jong Il, has withdrawn from a six nation disarmament summit until after the election. In case anyone has any doubt about Kim’s mind-set, last week he threatened to turn Japan into a “nuclear sea of fire.”
Does anyone remember Neville Chamberlain? On September 30, 1939, he stepped off an airplane, the day after the Munich Conference had ended, waiving Adolph Hitler’s guarantee of peace.
Standing in front of 10 Downing Street he proclaimed he had brought “peace with honor ... I believe it is peace for our time ... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.” That seems to be John Kerry’s foreign policy.
And the list goes on.
President Bush will suppress black votes, John Kerry and former president Jimmy Carter declare.
Mr. Carter says that it seems likely there will be a repeat of irregularities seen during the disputed 2000 presidential election, which was decided by only a few hundred votes. Carter whines that Republican election officials have tried to disqualify 22,000 African American voters in Florida, voters who are, he says, “likely Democrats.” Carter neglects to mention that the disenfranchised are convicted felons who, by virture of their non-virtue – their felony – are automatically deprived of their civil rights, including the right to vote.
At a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus, Kerry said, “We are not going to stand by and allow another million African American votes to go uncounted in this election. We are not going to stand by and allow acts of voter suppression.”
Another million? Where and when was the first million suppressed?
“What they did in Florida in 2000, they may be planning to do this year,” Kerry said.
There will be voting irregularities Carter warns. He should have been watching the last time.
During the 2000 election, 46,000 people were registered to vote in both New York and Florida, according to election records in both states. Never mind that voting in two separate states is a violation of federal law, 1,700 of those dual-state voters asked for write-in ballots (so they could vote at home and away).
And underline this – 68 percent of the cheaters were Democrats, 16 percent claimed no party affiliation, and only 12 percent claimed to be Republicans.
Now let’s plug in the actual figures.
After all of the recounts, which were supervised and scrutinized and upheld by all panels of observers, both legislative and judicial, President Bush won Florida by 537 votes. The number of Democratic Party voters who asked for write-in ballots for both New York and Florida was 1,156 – double the margin of the President’s victory.
Because election records are routinely purged, there is no way to tell how many people – from either party – voted twice, but the fact that George W. Bush won Florida by even one single vote is nothing short of a miracle – and I use “miracle” in the literal, biblical sense.
And on the issue of Iraq.
President George W. Bush has never wavered from his claim that Saddam Hussein was an enemy of free people everywhere who needed to be removed from power, by diplomacy or by force. Like every President since his father, and like virtually every world leader over the last decade, President Bush expected to find weapons of mass destruction. No weapons have been discovered, but after watching Hussein ignore world opinion for a dozen years, President Bush toppled the dictator and today he sits in a jail cell, awaiting justice for his crimes while Iraq anticipates a free election.
But John Kerry’s stand on Iraq is another matter (maybe I should say his position on Iraq, because he certainly has not stood on any position for very long).
On CNN’s “Crossfire,” John Kerry said, “We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.” The date of that quote was 1997.
In October 2002 Kerry voted for the war.
In an early debate this year among Democratic candidates, John Kerry said, “I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we disarmed him.”
In April Kerry said, “It would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake.”
Last month Kerry said, even knowing everything he now knows about events in Iraq, “yes, I would have voted for the authority” of President Bush to wage war.
Now Kerry’s line is, Iraq is “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”
Kerry’s stump speech now declares that it was a mistake to topple Saddam Hussein. The brutal dictator, responsible for the deaths of uncountable thousands of his own country men, plus other tens of thousands in the Iran-Iraq war, should have been left in power – according to John Kerry.
In the face of no evidence to support his outrageous claim, Kerry says that President Bush has stopped looking for Osama bin Laden. It may be impossible for John Kerry to walk and chew gum at the same time, but President Bush is quite capable of carrying on the war against terror on two separate fronts.
Meanwhile John Kerry announces that if he is elected, he will quit in Iraq and go home. If you were an Iraqi insurgent hearing that, would you stop the suicide bombings, the beheadings, and the attacks on coalition soldiers and fellow Iraqi’s, or would you step up the pressure in hopes of weakening America’s resolve?
And to top it all off Teresa Heinz Kerry, with a cynicism surpassing that of the junior Senator from New York, suggests that the capture of Osama bin Laden may be orchestrated in an attempt to defeat her husband.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if he appeared in the next month,” she told a group of Arizona Democrats last week.
Coming from a supporter of former president Bill Clinton, that statement should surprise no one. As early as 1996, Sudan offered to give bin Laden to the United States, and the Clinton White House said, “There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into U.S. custody.” At the same time, the U.S. State Department was calling bin Laden “the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world.”
Now Heinz Kerry has the temerity to suggest that the capture of Osama bin Laden would be a bad thing, politically motivated to defeat her husband.
Oh, did I mention that President George W. Bush is responsible for the crash of the Hindenburg, the Chicago fire, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, the Lindbergh kidnaping, and the blizzard of 1888 and 1996?
Copyright 2004 by David Sisler. All Rights Reserved.
Your comment is welcome.
Write to me at: email@example.com
Back to David Sisler's Home Page