.freedom
.freedom
support our troops
Support Our Troops by Standing Behind Our President
 by Carmen Tassone
December 2, 2004

No matter what your thoughts were on the 2000 election, I hope we all can agree George W. Bush won the 2004 presidency. Furthermore, as Americans, I hope we all can rally behind our President and support our troops. Make no mistake about it. In order for us to support our troops, we have to stand behind our President. That's not to say we have to agree with everything he says and does, but rather we must trust he will perform his duties with our Republic's best interest ahead of his own. Such a vote of confidence will indirectly secure our troops and our nation.
     Now, if you think bringing the fight to the terrorists was wrong, you are not supporting our troops. If you don't believe in their mission or you don't understand why they are in Iraq, you are not supporting our troops. For decades Iraq was the epicenter of terror and a sanctuary for terrorists. And while liberals blindly question our presence in Iraq and suggest we don't have world support, they ignore the largest scandal in the history of mankind--the Oil for Food Scandal.
     France, Germany, Russia, and China (the world according to the liberals) did not support the invasion of Iraq because they were in Saddam Hussein's back pocket. The liberal world choose money over security. But where was the world's outcry when France invaded the Ivory Coast? I heard not a peep, not even a mouse.
     There are a number of reasons we are in Iraq, but the number one reason is for our national security. Also, America needs to understand our presence in Iraq sends a clear and distinct message to the world and to anyone who wishes to do us harm. Attack the United States at your own peril. Hit us and we will wipe you from this planet. After 9/11 we don't need anyone's approval when it comes to our national security
     Also, establishing a democratic Iraq will mark the beginning of the end to many terrorists Don't get me wrong, I do not delude myself in believing there won't always be people willing to terrorize us and others, but with a democratic Iraq as a model for other countries to emulate, the terrorists will have fewer partners-in-crime as they did in Iraq.
     To truly support our troops, we have to believe in their mission and know what they are doing is necessary. Just saying we support our troops is not enough. We must give our troops every resource at our disposal and that includes to let them complete their objectives without fetter. No matter your politics, we are all Americans and the cost of freedom is always too high, but it is a continual debt to be paid by our military. To think otherwise is a true disservice to the men and women who have sacrificed their lives trying to keep us safe and free.
     Granted, Kerry supporters will find it difficult to back a man they consider to be incompetent. But if Bush is incompetent, what does that make John Kerry? He lost. And for that matter, what does that make all those people who voted for Kerry? More than half of Kerry's votes were cast not because voters liked Kerry, but because they didn't like Bush. And why was that? I'll tell you why. It was because the left and the liberal media lied, deceived, and mislead the American people. Americans were told Bush was wrong for our republic for one reason or another, but the mainstream media's unrelenting Bush bashing was a blatant attempted to influence the outcome to our election, and if I'm not mistaken, such actions are criminal.
     Immediately after the elections, Kerry supporters were so distraught by Bush's victory they quickly sought therapy and were diagnosed with an apparently rare psychological disorder called Post Election Selection Trauma. I agree these people could be consider pests, but a more appropriate nomenclature for this disorder would be Liberal Opinion Selection Election Reaction Syndrome (LOSERS). But with all kidding aside and to show my compassion for the left, I believe these people were simply suffering from extreme disappointment. Sadly, they are still in a state of denial because they won't accept reality. They were so convinced John Kerry was going to win. However, it is now time for them to get over it.
     Also, days following the election, many liberal pundits questioned how nearly 60 million people could be so stupid. I, myself, contemplated this same question. How could so many people be so stupid to vote for a man who is a self-admitted war criminal, for a man who committed treason by conspiring with our enemies, and for a man who caused more pain and suffering for our military men and women than has had any individual in the history of our republic? Notice I've not mentioned Kerry's twenty years in Congress, or his record siding against legislation that would secure our nation.
     I'll tell you why Kerry lost. He never defined himself or stated what he stood for. Bush won because America knew what he stood for and trusted he would do nothing short of what is best for our republic. Most of America just didn't trust John Kerry. I think self-serving interests have always motivated Democrats to seek the highest office in our land, and Kerry was no exception. America did not see the Democrat's offering exhibit any love of country or patriotism found in the likes of George W. Bush, but I digress.
     I think I've stumbled upon the answer to the question. "How so many people could be so stupid?" First however, I think stupid is far too harsh a term to explain this phenomenon. I instead think most people are just misinformed and just don't know the complete truth. I think most people are easily mislead. Now I've reached this conclusion without a complicated study on the human psyche or a grant from the government, so I could be wrong. I used only my limited observation of the everyday person and saw how most people were too busy or were just not willing to seek out the truth about an issue, or in this case, the truth about a particular candidate. Most people believe what they see or hear the mainstream media machine churns out. I call this "blind compliance."
     Many people in our electorate fall in this category. They never question what they're spoon-fed by the liberal media. And now they are confounded as to why so many people voted for George W. Bush. If you listened carefully to many Democrats before the election, you would have heard them echo the left and the liberal media bias against George W. Bush. "He's a moron...an idiot...a tyrant...another Hitler."
     But when confronted with facts or proven fraud, most Democrats quickly qualify their own sources as "the best." When questioned where they get their news, they rattle off the most liberal news agencies in America. And there in lies their problem. Without knowing it, they've been dipped in the vile political waters of Marxism.
     The likes of CBS, CNN, and the New York Times have been for decades presenting their reports with a liberal slant. And during this last election, these supposed impartial news agencies could hardly hide their desire to help get Bush out of office. During the run up to the election, all the major news outlets presented America with pro-Kerry and anti-Bush reports.
     Thankfully, most of America questioned their actions and questioned why bad news for our country helped John Kerry. Why dead American soldiers meant more support for Kerry? Why a bad economy and lost jobs made Kerry look better than Bush? Why American-bashing was good for the Kerry campaign? I don't want to be the one to pop their liberal bubble, but America saw through their dishonesty and re-elected a man who loves his country.
     Yet the liberal mantra of "diversity and tolerance" continues to be chanted. But when confronted with an opposing view, liberals immediately become intolerant. Why is that? Simple. They really don't want diversity or tolerance. They only want you to think like they do, or they will shut you up. The Democrats don't want to improve your life situation. They just want your vote so they can regain their power. Never forget they were in power for forty years and what did we get? A large portion of our society is and has been dependent on the government. I'm not against the government helping people. I agree there are times when the government should help people to their feet when they are down. This act of compassion is perfectly fine, but I draw the line when I see a political party purposefully imprison generations of people into a life of poverty only in hope to receive their votes. People living off the teat of society is not exceptable.
     Moreover, liberals believe government is the solution to all our problems, while conservatives know government is the cause. Liberty is the only solution to the human condition. If you carefully listen, you'll notice that the today's liberal is yesterday's Marxist. Liberalism is not what it was forty years ago.
     Nonetheless, we cannot forget our countrymen and women are sacrificing their lives everyday to keep our republic safe and free, and the longer it takes the liberals to get onboard with our President; the more of American blood will be spilt on the sands of Iraq. I ask all Americans to come together and stand behind our President, and fight against all who wish our republic harm, as we did on September 12th, 2001. God bless you all, and God bless our Republic.

 Works Cited:
          ACLU. "Freedom of Expression." The American Civil Liberties Union. 1997. Online: Available: http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp10.html. 16 February 2000.

          Leibowitz, Wendy. "Suits-a-Rama: The Virtual World Gets More Litigious-and Weird." The National Journal. 1996. Online: Available: http://www.ljx.com/tech/wendy/wendy16.htm. 14 February 2000.

          Michaels, R. "New Medium, New Rules - China takes a hard line on Internet discourse." Asiaweek. 2000. Online: Available: http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/technology/2000/0211/tech.internet.html. 15 February 2000.

          Quittner, Joshua. "Unshackling Net Speech." AllPolitics. 1997. Online: Available: http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/30/time/cda.html. 16 February 2000.

back