Going It Alone, huh?

Stupid Liberal Distortion:
George Bush has a “go it alone” foreign policy in Iraq. We have a phony coalition.

Snappy Patriotic Reality:
President Bush built a solid wartime coalition against Saddam Husayn: the UK, Poland, and Australia fought with us. Dozens of Middle East, Asian and European allies allowed US ships, aircraft and support units to operate from their territories against Saddam’s Iraq. In the real world – not John Kerry’s world – this counts as crucial support. We can’t fight effectively in Iraq or Afghanistan without access to foreign bases, airspace, or sometimes cooperative aid arrangements.

Moreover, listening to liberal lies, most Americans don’t know that NATO forces were deployed to protect Turkey and Kuwait during the Iraq war. While these units did not fight with us in Iraq, they helped to protect the bases from which we and our allies launched our operations.

Multinational naval forces also continued to patrol the waters of the Persian Gulf with the US Navy, yet another defensive contribution to the overall Iraq war effort.

If we’re so alone in Iraq, who are all these foreign workers and soldiers being kidnapped and killed by terrorists?

President Bush brought the UN back into Iraq IMMEDIATELY after the war ended in May 2003. The UN re-established a headquarters, but in August 2003 terrorists bombed the building. The UN – which John Kerry relies on so much – turned tail and ran. A UN investigation blamed itself – not the US – for faulty security.

This year, the US asked two special UN teams to establish a presence in Iraq to help establish a transitional government and plan for elections next year. This was accomplished.

President Bush led the way in garnering UN support by successfully passing several UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) on Iraq, including UNSCR 1511 which endorsed the US-led multinational forces currently in Iraq and UNSCR 1441 which authorized the use of force if Saddam did not disarm. Not quite how John Kerry tells it, is it?

There are troops from about 30 countries helping us in Iraq today.

These include the first ever overseas deployment of Japanese combat forces since World War II and the first deployment of South Korean troops bolstering US policy outside of Asia – two major accomplishments by President Bush that will aid us in future multilateral operations.

NATO provides logistics and other support for the Polish multilateral command in Iraq today.

NATO is now providing training for Iraqi forces along with Jordan and the UAE. NATO would have started sooner but the French blocked our efforts for months.

At least 17 countries were part of the former US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq

Kuwait has been providing free fuel for US forces in the region.

Some 70 nations and international organizations attended the October 2003 donors conference organized by President Bush's team, pledging tens of billions of dollars for Iraqi aid and reconstruction.

LIBERALS CAN'T HELP BUT LIE ABOUT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS DOING ABROAD, AND WHAT WE'VE ACHIEVED SINCE 9-11. What the liberals really hate is that President Bush has backbone and promised that in the post 9-11 world, as our President, he reserves the RIGHT to preemptively strike enemies who threaten to attack our homeland, our citizens, our vital strategic interests abroad, and our allies (See his West Point speech, June 2002). President Bush believes this is his most solemn duty.

This does not mean we are actually acting alone, as Kerry likes to claim. The facts above are proof. However, if we know another 9-11 is in the offing, President Bush will not wait for the UN to deliberate and decide while our enemies launch their attacks.

The American people have to vote this November. Do we want liberals running our military and intelligence abilities into the ground as they did in the 1990s? Do we want our President to protect us, but only on the say so of the UN and the French, as the liberals prefer? Must we meet a "global test" as John kerry stated? And who defines that test? Russia? France? Cuba?

Or do we reserve the right to act IF NECESSARY to strike first before thousands or perhaps millions of us are killed? Do we want a resolute President; one with backbone, or not?