TruthNews Commentary, November 3, 2008

Both candidates in this year's election have made big promises. Neither candidate can keep his promises. Remember Bill Clinton's health care plan? He couldn't get it through a Democratic Congress. Remember George W. Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security? He couldn't get it through a Republican Congress. Presidential candidates may come up with big plans, but Congress is the only branch of government vested with the authority to make laws. So whose health care plan is better -- Obama's or McCain's? Who cares? There are 535 congressmen and senators who have their own plans. If we get a health care plan, it won't be anything ckose to Obama's or McCain's. The best a president can do is promise not to veto something. So forget about the candidates' big plans. They can't deliver.

The one area in which the president has signifocant authority is as commander in chief. Once Congress declares war, it's up to the president to carry out the war. When Congress declared war on Iraq in 2002, most Republicans and many Democrats voted for the war -- including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden (Obama wasn't wasn't in the Sente yet). As the war bogged down, , Clinton and Kerry turned against the war, while Biden came out with a plan to partition the country.

John McCain supported the war and pushed for a surge before anyone else did. Obama and Biden opposed the surge. Today, with the success of the surge obvious, Obama still denies the success of the surge and still promises to pull the troops out immediately. So who would make the better commander in chief -- McCain or Obama?

But, you might ask, wasn't Obama right to oppose the war? When the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred, it's true that Al Qaeda was operating out of Afghanistan, not Iraq. But Al Qaeda is first and foremost an Arab terrorist group. In the Middle East in 2001, four countries were recognized as state sponsors of terrorism -- Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya. Iran isn't Arab, and Syria doesn't have any money. But Iraq and Libya were known to fund various terrorist groups. Saddam Hussein was never linked to the 9/11 attacks, but that's like saying that Barack Obama hasn't been linked to voter fraud. Obama gave money to ACORN, and ACORN engaged in voter fraud. Iraq gave aid to Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

In addition to Iraq's sponsorship of terror, Iraq never complied with its obligations to disarm following the first Persian Gulf war. The sanctions were crumbling thanks to the UN's Oil for Bribes program. And everyone recognized that, as soon as the sanctions ended, Iraq would rearm. Since Hussein refused to disarm, the only options were to take him out or let him rearm. McCain supported taking Hussein out. Obama says he opposed the war. So who would make the better commander in chief -- McCain or Obama?

But, you may ask, we never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- doesn't that mean the war was a mistake? That depends on two things, why you think we went to war and what you consider to be a WMD.

We went to war for several reasons, but the primary reasons were that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, and that Hussein refused to disarm. As noted above, sanctions were crumbling and Hussein would rearm as soon as the sanctions were effectively ended -- either formally or through blatant violation and lack of enforcement. In fact, Hussein was rearming even during the sanctions, building several hundred ballistic missiles that violated the range restrictions of the cease fire agreement. President Bush never said that Iraq was an immediate threat -- what he said was that we couldn't afford to wait until Iraq was an imminent threat.

With regard to the false canard that we didn't find any WMD, we found several hundred canisters of nerve gas after the war that Hussein had managed to hide. What we failed to find was any new production of nerve gas. The deputy commander of the Iraqi air force says Iraq flew a several tons of nerve gas to Syria before the war. Given that Hussien flew his entire air force to Iran during Desert Storm, the Iraqi general might be telling the truth. But this is not particularly relevevant. The question shouldn't be, did Iraq have nerve gas? Rather, the question should be, should we have let Hussein rearm?

Saddam Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwait. He fired ballistic missiles at Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. He used nerve gas on the Kurds and the Iranians. He sponsored terrorists, including Al Qaeda. Do you think we should have let him rearm?

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein rid the world of a brutal dictator who had previously shown his willingness to invadevother countries to grab a bigger share of the world's oil reserves. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein allowed the Iraqis to establish a functioning democracy, the first in the modern world. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein allowed us to capture the terrorist Muhammad Abbas, the hijacker of the Achille Lauro and murderer of Leon Klinghoffer. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein put pressure on Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafi to give up his nuclear weapons program because as Khadafi put it, he saw what happened to Hussein and he was afraid.

So who do you think would make the better commander in chief -- McCain, who sees clearly the threat of Islmic terrorism, or Obama, who wants to negotiate directly, without preconditions, with the state sponsors of terrorism? Who would you rather have as commander in chief the next time Russia decides to invade a neighbor? Who would you rather have as commander in chief if China decides to invade Taiwan? Who would you rather have dealing with Iran's nuclear program? Who would you rather have negotiating between the Israelis and Palestinians?

John McCain was a naval aviator who spent six years in Hanoi as a prisoner of war. While McCain was being tortured by the communists in Hanoi, Barack Obama's good buddy Bill Ayers tried to blow up the Pentagon -- 29 years before Al Qaeda tried to do the same thing. So who would you rather have as commander in chief?

Think about it, and on election day, choose wisely.