The Present Danger: Will we follow the path of Spain?

Saturday, October 23, 2004

The Present Danger
(Will we follow the path of Spain?)

I awoke this morning with the sudden realization of what could happen if (God forbid!) Kerry should be elected. First of all, as a general proposition it is foolish for the country to change Presidents in a time of war. This is because the enemy is likely to view such an eventuality as a victory for them. It is even more foolish to change Leaders of the Free World in a time when that world is under attack by terrorists who are dedicated to the destruction of that world.

Here for all intents and purposes the strength of the Free World lies in those nations who are taking an active part in the War on Terror, primarily the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. This is a 30 nation coalition assembled by President Bush, including, inter alia, most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The leaders of that coalition (Bush, Blair, etc.) are each under attack in their own country. For example, Australia's Prime Minister (Howard) won handily over his Laborite opponent who would have pulled Australia's troops out of Iraq. Both Al Qaeda and Kerry's sister were in Australia working for Howard's defeat. On the other hand our coalition has also suffered casualties. A terrorist attack on a train in Madrid brought down Prime Minister Asnar in Spain. It turns out that the terrorists in Spain were elements of Al Qaeda. The new Prime Minister of Spain (a Kerry backer) had pledged to withdraw Spain's troops from Iraq, which is what Al Qaeda wanted. Thus, Spain's "September 11" was a victory for Al Qaeda.

Should the United States (the primary target of the terrorists) follow in Spain's footsteps, Al Qaeda would view it as more than a victory. They would have won not only the battle, but the war, itself. This is because if America caved, there would be no nation capable of taking its place. One by one, the leaders of the nations comprising the coalition assembled by President Bush (the same coalition that Kerry insulted as "the bribed and coerced") would prematurely pull out from Iraq. Iraq would then be unable to stand on its own feet and terrorism would kill the fledgling democracy. The leader of that democracy Prime Minister Allawi has also been insulted by Kerry who called him a mere puppet of President Bush and refused to welcome him to this country. Afghanistan would also follow suit. Other countries unable to stand up to the terrorists by themselves would also elect appeasement candidates. The terrorists would then be able to dictate the terms of the "peace" and terrorism would have won around the world.

Kerry has said that pan-Islamic terrorism should be viewed (as it was under Clinton) as a mere "nuisance" to be dealt with in terms of international law through criminal investigations and prosecutions against each proven conspirator. However, before we could take preemptive military action against a mounting threat (terrorist organizations and the rogue nations that harbor them, such as Iraq, Syria, etc.), we would first have to pass a "global test," i.e., obtain a permission slip from the United Nations (which is controlled in part by the same terrorist harboring nations plotting our defeat, and which also includes nations which do business with those rogue regimes, such as France and Germany). Presumably, this would be Kerry's "more sensitive" approach to terrorism. We should also announce in advance a time table for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, from 6 months to a year. Terrorists could then bide their time until the coast was clear. In the meantime, we should cave in to terrorist nations with nuclear capability such as Iran by giving Iran nuclear materials on a promise that they would be used for peaceful purposes. This was the same approach that Clinton used with North Korea, making that nation into the threat that it is today. At the same time we should engage in unilateral disarmament, by canceling research into "bunker buster" bombs which might remove an enemy's nuclear capability. Supposedly this would set an example to the world that we are serious about combating the threat of "nuclear proliferation."

What sort of man would seek to undermine our coalition against terror by suggesting that there should be a "regime change" in the United States rather than in Iraq, by characterizing its mission as "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," and by insulting its members as "the coerced and the bribed?" Kerry's statements gave heart to our enemies abroad who took delight in repeating them throughout the Middle East. It seems to me that logic gives us only two choices. Either that man is a traitor or an utter fool. A close look at Kerry's history and legislative record suggests the former more than it does the latter.

Kerry has consistently sided with the enemies of the United States. In 1970, during the Vietnam War, while still a naval officer, he secretly met with the enemy in Paris, returned and joined Jane Fonda's communist-front organization Vietnam Veterans Against War. He then became the leader of that organization, holding anti-American demonstrations in this country, mocking the American flag, encouraging our troops to disobey their commanders, assembling a group of phony "Vietnam Veterans" to testify falsely against their country and its troops, and then repeating "their" false charges before the Fulbright Committee in the US Senate. In all of this he was parroting the communist line throughout the world. North Vietnamese prison guards at the "Hanoi Hilton" used Kerry's accusations alternatively with torture to seek "confessions" from American POWs. The demands Kerry made of this country (withdrawal and reparations before return of POWs) were the same as that of Hanoi's delegation in the 1971 Paris talks. More than any other single person (with the possible exception of Jane Fonda), he caused America and the Free World to lose the Vietnam War. Vietnamese communist leaders have admitted that prior to observing the success of their Fifth Column in America, they had yet to win a military victory and were resigned to coming to terms with the US. Today pictures of Kerry and Fonda are on display in Vietnam museums as having been instrumental in America's defeat. It turns out that Kerry really was a "war hero" - to the enemy!

Similarly in Nicaragua, in 1985 when President Reagan was trying to remove the communist threat from our own hemisphere, Kerry intervened. The communist Sandinistas had taken over Nicaragua and their counterparts were conducting guerilla war in El Salvador. Opposing them were the patriots later dubbed the "Contras." Kerry went to Nicaragua to meet with the Sandinistas, worked out terms of peace favorable to the communists, and then returned to this country to plead the enemy's case before Congress and the American public. Fortunately, the Nicaraguan people took advantage of the promised elections to depose the Sandinista regime (which nevertheless attempted afterwards to hold on to some of their power). Kerry was thus unable (at least to date) to repeat his Vietnam "success."

Now in the War on Terror, Kerry once again has sided with the enemy. Even before receiving the nomination of the Democratic Party, Kerry's office sent an e-mail to the government-controlled news media of terrorist Iran, pointing out the benefits to the Iranian regime of his candidacy (i.e., of "regime change" in America) and seeking Iran's assistance in his campaign against President Bush. Kerry's overtures to Iran rewarded him with Iranian American fundraisers who sympathized with the ayatollah regime and opposed Iran's democratic student movement. In an unguarded moment, Kerry boasted of having the support of "foreign leaders," but subsequently refused to name them. They turned out to be, besides Iran, North Korea (Kim Jong Il), Al Jazeera (Al Qaeda's propaganda outlet), Castro's Cuba, Palestinian terrorist Yassir Arafat (who enlists Arab children to become suicide bombers against Israeli civilians), avowed anti-Semitic former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, and the leading symbol to date of terrorism's success, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the newly elected Socialist Worker Party Prime Minister of Spain. Teresa Heinz Kerry has funded terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Kerry has voiced support for the Iranian puppet Al Sadr in Iraq, despite the deaths of some American troops as his hands. In addition, Kerry's candidacy has been endorsed by the Communist Party of the United States.

Kerry's voting record has been the most left-wing of any Senator. Legislatively, Kerry voted against our 1991 UN-backed coalition to force Saddam out of Kuwait. If Kerry had been successful in 1991, Saddam would be today not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait, as well as probably Saudi Arabia. It was Saddam's ambition (which he viewed as his destiny) to control the entire Middle East, including that part occupied by Jordan and Israel. Although our 1991 coalition managed to frustrate Saddam for the moment, it left his regime in place (as an offset against Iran). Saddam's hatred at being humiliated by the United States led him to ally himself with Al Qaeda. This alliance in turn eventually led to the attack of September 11, 2001, with Saddam training, financing, and providing intelligence to the hijackers. Saddam then sought to undermine our coalition against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (including some Islamic countries such as Pakistan), by rewarding families of Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Israel. In 2003, the time came for the Senate to vote on authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq. For political reasons Kerry voted in favor of the war, but then voted against the necessary armaments and equipment for our troops. Had Kerry's position prevailed, our casualties and fatalities in Iraq would have been far higher and the outcome might have been different, leaving Saddam and his regime in power.

We are now faced with a choice whether to continue with the war against terror, or to appease the terrorists at our great peril. This in turn depends upon whether we agree with President Bush that liberty and democracy is the ultimate weapon against world terrorism, or with Kerry that we should abandon the war against terror and simply seek to coexist with rogue regimes (such as Iran) which harbor terrorism. The outcome of our presidential election this year will have reverberations throughout the world. Will we continue to be a free nation triumphant over our enemies or resigned to live continuously under the threat of the next terrorist attack (i.e., the kind of life experienced in much of the world today, including Israel and the Middle East, and even in Russia where school children were taken hostage and tortured). Kerry's "global test" would force us to endure the next "September 11" attack rather than seek to prevent it (with or without France and Germany.) In other words, should we have "regime change in the US" (as advocated by Kerry) or rather regime change in countries which harbor terrorism (as advocated by President Bush)?

Leading members of both parties support President Bush, including, inter alia, Senator Zell Miller, keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention which nominated Clinton, and Mayor Ed Koch of New York City. Senator Lieberman (Dem. Conn.), has been quite critical of Kerry's evasiveness and opportunism. Our valiant troops who fought and risked their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq to make our each of us more secure are solidly behind President Bush. Knowing this, the Democrats will once again attempt to keep military votes from being counted.

If Kerry should win (God forbid!), the members of our coalition would be unlikely to want to work with the so-called "diplomat" who denigrated their mission and insulted its participants and the sacrifices they made. The French and German who had economic interests in common with Saddam would be unlikely to fill the gap. Moreover, Kerry has belittled sacrifices made by troops fighting under the flag of the United States, while exalting those made under the flag of the United Nations. Our men and women in uniform have confided that if Kerry were to win (God forbid!) there would be a great exodus from the military. They will not willingly serve under a traitor as their commander in chief. We owe our allies and our troops not to have to make this choice. Instead, we should make the choice to support our country, our coalition partners, and our troops, and to reelect our courageous President George W. Bush.