The following is a message received from the Author
Terrence Robertson that he wrote in response to my article Kerry
Where to start? Well,
working my way down ... you stated;
have to acknowledge that Sen. Kerry was better prepared and was more
eloquent than President Bush. But do eloquence and being articulate really
equate to wisdom and statesmanship?]
preparations for the debate pretty well parallel his preparations for his
actions as president. If he's unprepared for a debate that virtually had
all the surprises already planned not to happen, then he should have been
able to focus upon getting his message across. But he didn't prepare for
it! And that lackadaisical attitude follows through in every initiative
that he's ever put forward. He never planned for winning the peace in
. He never planned on what the actual
costs would be for
'No child left behind,' he never planned for what the tax cuts would cost,
and he never planned on what the actual costs of the war would be ... see
my site http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/Chap23.htm
His lack of
preparation, his unwillingness to listen to advisors who know what the
picture really is, and the ineptitude of his execution when combined with
the most powerful military, and the strongest economy in the world are
serving only to deplete our strengths.
Uppermost in Bush's
statesmanship failures was in how he allowed and abetted 9/11 to happen
(see my http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/Chap20.htm
"perceived" wisdom that you refer to is nothing but an
ideological bent that was formed at
). That wisdom is actually jingoistic, nihilistic, misogynistic, bigoted,
and imperialistic. Further, it comes from a revolutionary movement that
broaches no dissent, demonizes to the point of character assassination
anyone who stands in their way, and views those having opinions different
from their own to be enemies worthy of deportation, thus potentially
opening the door to "final" solutions.
In short, Bush lacks
entirely both wisdom and statesmanship!
[Kerry] said American ports are not secure. This is true. But in reality
terrorists do not need to send their destructive terror through the ports.
There are so many ways they could hit America and the rest of the
civilized world that only their diabolic imagination sets the limit.]
There is no argument
that this is true. Did you know that one year after 9/11, Mexican banditos
were disconnecting rail cars from Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific)
trains on the mainline of the Southern Pacific Railroad in southern New
Mexico so that they could loot those rail cars of their contents? Further,
they carried out running gun battles with INS, border patrol and federal
marshalls so that they could do their looting? This is a prime example of
how Bush has done nothing to secure our borders! Further, Bush has issued
orders that limit the ability of both INS and the border patrol to do
their jobs ... and backed up those orders by cutting funding to both the
INS and the border patrol. What message does this send, I ask you? It
would seem to me that the message is very clear; go ahead and terrorize,
we won't stop you!
Kerry also berated his rival and said that the war in Iraq was a wrong war
at a wrong time. Then in that debate he said something different. He said
that he agreed with the war but he would have fought it differently. In
other words it wasn’t the wrong war at a wrong time but a war that was
fought in a wrong way.]
Kerry provided Bush
with the resources to fight Iraq based upon 'doctored' information that
the Bush regime gave congress. Understand that Bush is not the brains
behind this regime, he's only the figure-head. The brains are a consortium
of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and a whole host of other people
behind the scenes that you've probably never heard of. Did you know that
only nine months into operations in Afghanistan, Bush was already freeing
up military personnel for redeployment into Iraq? This is why the capture
of Osama "bin hiding" fell to the responsibilities of Pakistani
forces, because we no longer had the people there on the ground to do it.
Had we finished up in Afghanistan, we'd be able to focus more power on
those real threats such as those coming from the Saudi Arabian peninsula.
And as the current
news is making abundantly clear; (a.) Saddam was never "in-bed"
with al Qaeda. First and foremost, the secular Saddam saw Islamic
fundamentalists as a threat to his hold on power. Osama, in turn, regards
Saddam as a socialist and as such, a secularist or infidel who is harmful
to the cause of Islam. The only thing they had in common was a hatred of
America. And while politics may make strange bed-fellows, for instance
republican support of Ralph Nader, and one's enemy's enemy is one's
friend, virulent Islam does not compromise. Therefore, there is no
possibility for Saddam to have any association with Osama or his network.
Further, the insinuation that Saddam was somehow responsible, wholly or
partially, for the 9/11 attacks based upon reports that Mohammed Atta, one
of the principle hijackers on 9/11, met in Prague with an agent of Iraqi
intelligence, was discredited before the invasion began, and now the 9/11
Commission report underscores the earlier debunking even more.
Hussein's Iraq did support international terrorism. In the Middle East,
there was a "cold war" of sorts being waged between Israel and
Iraq. Iraq waged this war through the proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah
through funding to the organizations, and by cash awards to the families
of suicide-bombers. However, Hamas and Hezbollah are not al Qaeda! There
is a MAJOR distinction between Hamas and Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Both
Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally avoid killing Americans for fear that
Americans will step up their aid to Israel, which would cease any hopes
for a Palestine free of Israel (see my http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/Chap22.htm
(b.) Iraq only became
a terrorist hot-bed AFTER we took over, leaving the borders wide open for
terrorists to enter to do their dirty work.
(c.) Iraq has not had
since before the first Gulf War any WMDs.
(d.) we never had
enough "boots on the ground" to do the job in Iraq.
Iraq was the wrong
war (Saddam had no relationship to al Qaeda), fought at the wrong time (we
should have finished up Afghanistan first), and fought in the wrong way
(you don't win wars WITHOUT HAVING BOOTS ON THE GROUND TO CONTROL THAT
GROUND, that military doctrine hasn't changed in over 4,000 years).
Go to page