Monday, April 30, 2007

Who Will Defend America?

April 30, 2007

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niem̦ller (1892 Р1984)



Once again, we Americans find ourselves deeply entrenched in War. A War becoming increasingly unpopular for a variety of reasons. A War brought upon us that threatens the very survival of our way of life. A War that seems to be being used as a political football for some to use to thrust them into political power. A War where our Brave Troops fight and die for us while others use them as pawns in their quest for power.

We also find ourselves heading into a Presidential campaign season where the sitting President leading this War may not be re-elected, due to Constitutional restraints on term limits. A deep divide between the major political parties vying for control of the nation is denying our Troops the very funds and tools they need to survive on the battlefield and win this war.

Our President is portrayed by the opposition party as an ignorant, stumbling; uneducated foolish cowboy who was crafty enough to mislead them into a War they now say is a mistake. That party glosses over the fact that U.S. interests have been coming under attack ever since 1979, some 15 times now, twice upon our very soil.

The past two Presidential campaigns saw the Democrat party claim that prior Military Service in the Viet Nam War, a War they also ardently opposed and used for political gain, while abandoning a struggling ally, was essential to ones ability to lead the nation. Somehow, they forgot that in the previous two Presidential campaigns it was they who consistently claimed prior Military Service in Viet Nam had no bearing on a candidate’s ability to lead the nation. Of the current leaders in the Democrat party campaigns, none has Military Service. Of the hopefuls, only three have any Military experience, an Army Reservist, a disgraced ex-general and a Veteran of the Korean War era that is best known for releasing sensitive documents used to undermine our efforts in the Viet Nam War. CBS News, 2008 Democrat party Hopefuls.

Of the 3 front-runners from the Republicans, we have only one with Military Service, an ex-POW who is often looked upon as undermining fellow Republicans, a maverick. Of the hopefuls, 5 have Military Service, one was a Reservist as well, and 2 of them served Honorable Tours in Viet Nam, one (that I know of) with a son currently serving in the War on Terror. CBS News, 2008 Republican Party Hopefuls.

Candidates seem divided along party lines with Democrats favoring some sort of withdrawal, now or later, whether the mission is completed or not. Republicans seem to mostly favor seeing it through to the finish, with a possible exception being Tom Tancredo and Chuck Hagel who seems to feel the presence of our Troops is a hindrance to the Iraqis getting back on their feet and a withdrawal should commence in 6 months. Sam Brownback opposed the reinforcements sent to bolster our Troops. The other Republicans appear to still be supportive of the battle ongoing in Iraq, even if some are somewhat critical of the handling so far.

Curiously enough, one of the real hawks on Iraq and the candidate who seems to be the most popular with conservatives, Fred Thompson, hasn’t even entered the race yet. Like most of the Democrat party field, he too hasn’t served in the Military.

Military service alone doesn’t qualify one for the highest office in the land. The last two presidential elections saw the Democrat party trying to claim it did matter after them claiming in the previous 2 elections that it had no bearing on someone’s ability to lead. My guess is that once again, given the lack of Military experience in the Democrat candidates, it will not matter.

Looking around America one might be hard pressed to realize we are currently at war, but we are. That should give a slight edge to candidates with Military experience. Of course, we do have a rather large anti-war group within the country again, so I’m sure that group will push against Military experience, given that many of them have no use for the Military or Veterans, other than to use them for political gain.

We are also in a unique circumstance this time around, given that there is no incumbent or sitting Vice-president running. That opened the field considerably with several candidates running from both parties. We also are seeing the campaigning start much earlier than in the past for nearly all candidates. With so many we have a lot of information on each to digest. Tax cuts, abortion, illegal immigration and most important, the Greater War on Terror, which includes Iraq.

Out of all the candidates we must choose which one will best defend America, Western Culture and our way of life. Sadly, I cannot see any of the Democrat candidates advocating defending the country with their cut and run attitudes and calls. Should one of them gain office and we are attacked again, as we were on September 11, 2001, what will their response be? Will we hear glib speeches while little or nothing is done and they try to shift blame back onto President Bush? Will the lob a few cruise missiles into a desert somewhere and brag of a “strong response?” Or, will they seek who to apologize to?

I can even see some of the Republican candidates acting the same, were we to be attacked again.

I prefer to see the next President ready to take the bull by the horns, ignoring polls and the anti-war leftists and keep taking the fight to the radical Jihadists before they have a chance for another massive attack against America. I would much rather engage the enemy over there and not here.

Of the Republican front-runners, I honestly don’t think any would present as strong a front to terror as needed. Of the hopefuls, only Fred Thompson, should he enter and Duncan Hunter seem ready to fit that bill. McCain might have, but he has shown himself to be a fence straddler, often seeking too much middle ground with those opposed to maintaining traditional American values and other essential matters. He also would expect loyalty, but he didn’t offer very much himself during the past administration. Hunter hasn’t achieved the notoriety of Thompson and the front-runners, but wasn’t B.J. Clinton a dark horse himself?

While I haven’t committed myself to any candidate as of yet, I honestly can’t see one of the current Democrats getting in. Just being a Republican doesn’t automatically garner my support either.

As the campaigns grow, primaries are held, candidates drop out or jump in; I will be keeping a close eye on all of them. My vote will end up going to the one who impresses me will best defend America. I can only pray the rest of the country does the same.


Lew

6 comments:

Snooper said...

Bingo! Very well stated. The Double Standards of the Leftinistra are "Rather" evident, are they not?

I guess their summations as to military experience is dependent upon which one(s) agrees with them. If they agree, they are credible. If they don't agree, they are anathema.

The battles here on the home front are sharp and painful yet they MUST be waged and we SHALL overcome!

I would wholeheartedly support a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

Lew Waters said...

Snooper, if you didn't catch it, I did not include Ron Paul. Although he is running as a Republican, he is a self proclaimed lifelong Libertarian. He has been adamantly opposed to the War sinice it began.

Although a former Air Force Flight Surgeon, could we really entrust the defense of America to him?

I think not.

Thompson/Hunter sounds our best bet.

Tommy said...

Will say this in his defense; Thompson was married at 17 in 1959, and by the time Vietnam picked up, he already had three children to support.

merben said...

A Hunter/Thompson ticket for the election is fine with me but I feel that they have little chance of winning the election. The results of the recent election 2008 polls show that they are well behind the front runners.

Lew Waters said...

Tommy, Thompson needs no defense here. The comment about him not serving was just in fairness. FDR, considered by many to be one of the best, led us through WW2 and he never served either.

Merben, polls this far out don't mean that much, yet. Thompson hasn't even entered the race. Then again, the lamestream media is leaning towards the left, so they will give attention to those they find favorable.

We'll see how the polls go this time next year.

Flag Gazer said...

My vote will go to the person who best expresses their desire for and will to achieve victory.