National Security is #1

What is the number one priority for the people of the United States? Social Security? There are certainly a lot of older Americans that will say it should be but know better - they aren't stupid for the most part. The Economy? Everybody wants to make a good living and live the good life, but no, that's not it. Maybe it's immigration or world trade or the deficit. If you guessed these you would be wrong. The major debate is on National security whether most people want to admit it or not.

Okay then, who is best able to do this. Who has the moral courage and vision to see the problems that lie ahead of us and take effective action to resolve them. What party in this country has the proven record of placing the security of the country first instead of personal considerations of how this will effect the power that they control.

The Democrats have the number one spot when it comes to the absolute failures in foreign policy. They have failed in many other places as well, but never with such gross negligence as those of Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in the middle east hostage affair, Iran falling to hard line Muslims and, of course, Clinton's eight years of 'cut and run' polices all over the world.

Reagan and Bush #1 and Bush #2 have the number one spot for showing courage and taking action. Reagan won the cold war, Bush one won the first gulf war, and Bush two is trying to clean up the mess that Clinton left behind.

Are we more secure now than when the Democrats were in office? Let's take a look at what they have to offer. The Democratic National committee chairman, Howard Dean, along with many Senate Democrats, are demanding that we cut and run again. They say we have to get out of Iraq no matter what problems that would make for the Iraqi population or how bad it would make us look, and not to mention what would happen to our credibility in the eyes of the world. Are the Democrats more interested in the country or personal gain?

It really all comes down to the war in Iraq. What are we doing there and how will it keep us from being attacked again. Who is in control of our national security? The President of the United States, George W. Bush, or the outraged socialist members of the US Senate, Reid, Schumer and their like?

The President took command of the situation after 9/11 and took the fight for our security to the enemy where they live. He went on the offensive. He decided that we could not wait around to be attacked again. Virtually all members of Congress agreed, at that time, Saddam Hussein was a crazed killer, given his track record of mass murder and his use of weapons of mass destruction. All the leaders of both parties agreed that he had such weapons because he used them against people in his own country.

George Bush decided, after 14 United Nations resolutions of the security council demanding that Saddam give up his WMD to inspectors, that tried to find them but had no luck, to attack Iraq and remove a threat to world security that the entire world knew that he was, and they all testified to this effect, but lacked the back bone to actually do it.

After eight years of the United States folding like a paper bag in the face of terrorist attacks around the world in the nineties, George Bush took the fight to the enemy and is winning that fight as witnessed by over 50 million people that are free to decide their own destiny, free election in Iraq and Afghanistan and new elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon and Jordan's population is demanding the terrorists leave their country.

Now, who is sincere about the peace and security of the world, those that are will to risk it all to win the day or those that are more interested in power and personal advantage?

You decide. The Reagan's and Bush's of this world that fight to win the peace, or the Clinton's, Carter's, Reid's and Pelosi's that are invested in defeat, and the surrender of our national heritage?