Random Thoughts

On Kerry and the War on Terror

by Heidi Parent
08/16/04

Bush Doctrine

When terrorists repeatedly targeted American interests, President Clinton didn't retaliate, I mean outside of a few token cruise missiles, and the result was the 9/11 attacks. After 9/11, President Bush launched the War on Terror and took action in Afghanistan, ousting a regime sympathetic to terrorists. He then moved on to Iraq, ousting another regime sympathetic to terrorists. Now we will never know if one or more 9/11s have been prevented because of this action. But we certainly do know that we haven't had an attack since 9/11. Which begs the question – which is better, inaction or action? Sitting idly by or going on offense? To me the evidence speaks for itself.

Kerry Doctrine

John Kerry hasn't been very forthcoming when it comes to specifics about his approach to national security, preferring instead to make broad statements like, “I will fight the War on Terror smarter”, whatever that means. But his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention contained one very revealing statement: “Let there be no mistake. I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” (my italics). In other words, rather than destroying the enemy before he can do us harm, President Kerry would wait until we lose 3,000 more people before he takes action. Sounds pretty Clinton-like to me. And we all know how that turned out.

Kerry's balancing act

In an effort to be all things to all voters, John Kerry is trying to walk a fine line between hawk and dove. On one hand he is trying to act tough in order to appeal to voters who support the war. But on the other hand he makes dovish statements in an effort to appeal to the anti-war crowd, a group whose vote he could quickly lose to a genuine anti-war candidate, Ralph Nader. But more often than not he makes noncommittal statements like, “Now, might we have wound up going to war with Saddam Hussein? You bet we might have, after we exhausted those remedies and found that he wasn't complying and so on and so forth.” Notice the “we might have” phrase? It could just as easily mean, “we might not have,” should John need to switch gears when in front of a different audience. It's this lack of commitment that reveals the type of leader John Kerry would be and it's the type of leader we can't afford to have at this point in history. When it comes to the most serious issue facing this country in generations, we deserve a president who has the guts to decisively state what he believes and act on those beliefs. What we don't need is someone who is afraid to be decisive for fear of alienating one group or another.

We need to feel the terrorists’ pain!

John Kerry recently said, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive War on Terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.” Sensitive? Leave it to a liberal to worry about waging war “sensitively.” But this quote is quite revealing as it exposes the difference between how President Bush fights the War on Terror and how John Kerry would fight it. And come November, voters will be able to decide whether they want someone leading this country who will fight the War on Terror sensitively or someone who will fight it seriously and aggressively.

The real enemy?

With our country at war and still being targeted by terrorists intent on destroying us, Ted Kennedy declared at the Democratic Convention, "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush." It's amazing anyone takes these people seriously with ridiculous rhetoric like this.

Sounds like a familiar strategy

A plot to blow up the Dirksen federal building in Chicago was recently foiled when federal authorities arrested a man who intended to sell 1,500 pounds of what he thought was ammonium nitrate fertilizer to terrorists who would then blow up the building with a truck bomb. The funny thing is he didn't actually have a bomb, just the capability to make one. When explaining the arrest, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said, “He had a rational plan to build a bomb. We weren't going to wait to see if it would work.” Sounds pretty preemptive to me. C’mon liberals, where's the outrage?

Me? I'm just an average guy running for President

Let's end on a lighter note….

When did the practice of putting candidates in “average guy” photo-ops begin? You know the ones I mean. Pancake flipping candidate, reading Dr. Seuss books to first graders candidate, working the assembly line at the factory candidate. At the very least, these staged photo-ops can derail a campaign faster than a camera's shutter. Remember Dukakis in the tank or Gary Bauer falling off the stage trying to catch his pancake? So why take the risk? Do these images sway even one voter? Is there actually someone out there who votes based on a candidate's ability to tighten a bolt on an assembly line or his interpretation of Green Eggs and Ham? I hope not. I sincerely pray most voters ask a bit more from a presidential candidate than whether or not he flips a good flapjack.