foolmenot.comPrior to "9-11", Al Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden took responsibility for attacks on the "Cole", a U.S. Navy warship, and bombings in New York City as well as U.S. interests in other countries. There was no response from Democrat Bill Clinton that would lead to any sort of finality to these threats. I was concerned then that we were not taking mounting terrorist threats seriously. From what I could ascertain, we did not respond to those actions in a way that would communicate a message of; "don't screw with us". Instead, we allowed an impression that they could increase the amount of terror on us.
Then, the events of 9-11 occurred. The Republican Bush, responded by going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Where would Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership flee? Certainly they could hide in the mountains of Pakistan, but setting up reliable long-term training camps was not feasible because the Pakistani government was not sympathetic. Pakistan also knew, as did both Iran and Syria, that their was a new sheriff in town, George W. Bush. By virtue of his invasion of Afghanistan, there was no reason to believe Bush would not follow Al Qaeda anywhere in the world- in point of fact, he said so. Unlike their perception of the previous president, Clinton, Bush "the cowboy" could be trusted to keep his word! One lone stalwart figure in the region remained, Iraq.
Saddam had been mouthing off for years. Thousands of Iraqis and Iranians died in the Iran/Iraq war. Kuwait was brutally invaded and was only freed after the Cowboy #1 came to their rescue. Thousands of Kurds in Northern Iraq were murdered via poison gas; classified as a weapon of mass destruction for you Dem politicians. Information from intelligent sources around the world pointed toward the threat he posed to the region, as well as information that he was communicating with Al Qaeda. Yes my Dem friends, there is documentation that talks were going on between Iraq and Al Qaeda before and after 9-11. I might mention that Dems often say there is no evidence of Al Qaeda being in Iraq even though at least one letter exists between Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command of Al Qaeda, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who waged a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and beheadings. Be that as is it may, even the Euro-Lib United Nations Security Council passed numerous threatening resolutions against Iraq based upon the proof they had. Of course the UN never intended to back up their threats...
Hillary and other leading Dems said at the time they saw the same proof Bush saw, in fact they agreed with Bush. Of course their primary motivating factor for agreeing with Bush was public opinion polls! Barak Obama was alive and supposedly paying attention at the time. Listen to what he's saying now...
Back to the future...
To those of you who remember the events I've outlined leading up to the invasion of Iraq and understand the danger posed by Middle-East nations who are continuing to teach their young to hate Americans in their elementary schools, do as much as you are capable of to limit the power of Democrats.
To those who have been around for a few years and have denied the implications of what you have experienced but know in your heart to be true; for a few moments cast aside your bias and your outside influence-- rationalize what you know to be real events in your past and vote your conscience.
To those who are too young to have an articulate memory of events over the last ten years, spend some alone-time challenging your understanding of the impact of emotion on intellect. Ask yourself if what you are being taught or told is consistent with what you [know to be accurate]; if it is not, do your homework.