"In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee. ... he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue."
Unlike how it's an issue this time.
"Where is the bi-partisanship in this country when we need it most?"
Oh, he's blaming the other party for this. Duh!
"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief."
What? Which side is running character smear ads? Which side says stupid things like "flip-flopper" every chance they get? But of course, 'your accusations are smear, mine are true'. Will we ever all know and agree on some truth?
"I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny."
Fuck you very much for implying that it's not true now. It's just that Bush's way pisses me off. How you oppose tyranny is important as that you oppose it.
"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator."
No, partisan politics have nothing to do with it. Simple interpretation of the facts. We are an occupier. If we leave it well we may yet be remembered as a liberator, many years from now, but not the way things are presently going.
"And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
Fuck your empty "support the troops" shill. Support the troops, bring them home, give them honest work to do. We support the troops, we're just pissed at the policy makers.
"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."
This is a fascinating tryptic. There is some truth to it but it makes me uncomfortable for its glorification of militarism. In that glorification it also diminishes the value of those alternatives.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But the problem is with our soldiers who aren't at home, isn't it?
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking.
Ah, so we're crazy I guess.
[long list of military prorgams Senator Kerry "opposed"]
Their TV ads claimed that Senator Kerry opposed buying body armor for the Army which actually was his vote against the $87 billion. After that I can't believe this shit. Give me citations! Tell me which votes these were! Then I can look them up on clerk.house.gov and see exactly what was voted on. I don't trust your legislative sumarry. (Later he reiterates the body armor lie.)
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.
I hear that's not true. Kerry would seek out alliances, yes. Defer, no? (anyone have a cite for a quote where Kerry said he would defer?) The Paris bit is silly.
George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.
Funny, he seems to like the same old bomb-and-put-up-a-puppet routine.
[a bunch of character, god, and dangerous-world stuff]
You know, standard conservative issue framing.