Since global jihadists want to destroy republican government and the secular societies of the West, the war on terror should enjoy bipartisan support. I myself do not agree with the President on many important issues, but I appreciate his resolve to resist those who would destroy us. Unfortunately, however, anti-jihadist efforts are becoming a political football in the 2004 election.
Here is an interesting report from Kenneth Timmerman at Insight, which sheds some light on the infamous Kerry memo trumpeted by Iran's Mehr News Agency. (Thanks to "Allah.")
For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."
Why might Kerry want to make nice with the mullahs? Here's a report on "John Kerry's Iranian-American Fund-Raisers."
Kerry recently said that if elected he would appoint as special envoys to "the Middle East," a phrase that ludicrously means "to the Arabs and Israelis" with "Arabs" usually supplanted by the tendentious "Palestinians" (as in soi-disant "Palestinian people") Jimmy Carter, he of the hectoring of Begin at Camp Davied; the "I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust" phrase; and volunteeer public relations adviser (see Douglas Brinkley's book on Carter) to Arafat (not to mention Carter's bringing "peace in our time" vis-a-vis North Korea a few years back, or promoting Aristide's ascension, or praising Robert Mugabe -- Carter has always been wrong); James Baker, the Texas fixer and recipient of Arab largesse, whose Princeton undergraduate thesis was on the subject of why Israel should not be recognized, and who has never varied in his palpable distate for Israel; and Clinton, the amiable flimflam man, who entertained Arafat so often that he hardly had time to learn about what might actually make the Arabs tick. This week Kerry announced, in what was described as a pro-Israel speech, that he would appoint Dennis Ross, or Samuel Berger, or others of that ilk -- in other words, others who believe in negotiation and treaties because they no nothing about the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, who know nothing about the tenets of Islam, and do not realize that what is going on in the relentless Arab campaign against Israel is NOT that of "two tiny peoples, each struggling for their homeland, etc." but rather, a classical Jihad to destroy, by all means possible -- where military means will not avail, economic pressure (the hollow "oil weapon"), bribery (of diplomats and journalists), and propaganda (of the kind for which Jimmy Carter was willing to volunteer his own smilingly pious services)--the Infidel state of Israel, existing as it intolerably does within the dar al-Islam. Obviously its borders, its size, are utterly irrelevant to Arab Muslim hostility (one does not permit any Infidel sovereignty within Muslim lands -- and eventually, Muslim lands will encompass the entire world, but those closest to, or within dar al-Islam, are to be dealt with most immediately). There is not a hint that Dennis Ross, Berger, nor any of the other negotiatiors who, despite revealing at every turn their utter incomprehension (I have actually heard Ross, on an NPR show, express bewilderment when one caller mentioned the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya -- it is clear that in his years of toing-and-froing, he never took the time to study the political aspects of Islam; a day with Majid Khadduri's study The Law of War and Peace in Islam would have saved him a few years of fruitless travel). These people are ignorant and arrogant. Ignorant, because they are lazy, or because Washington life is so full of hectic vacancy that they have no time to sit, to study, and to think. Arrogant, because they presume to make judgments on matters of supreme concern without having done the kind of homework one would do simply before buying a car, or even a toaster oven.
And that, so far, is what we have to judge Kerry on. Given his nearly 20 years in the Senate, and his service on relevant committees, it is a scandal that he has not yet uttered the word "Jihad" or shown any understanding of the role of Islamic ideology, the essential role, in what is happening not only to Israel, but all over the MIddle East and indeed, in the rest of the world.
He could, if he understood things properly, attack -- quite appropriately -- the dreamy policy of bringing "democracy" to Iraq. A foolish and wasteful policy, one which will cost men, materiel, and political capital, and distract from the real need to identify and articulate the problem of Islamic teachings, Muslim demographic takeovers of part of the West, and Muslim WMD. And which will do nothing to limit the power of Islam -- very likely will make things worse.
At the end of the day, any lack of commitment to national security will undermine the United States other strengths. The United States is at war, and is continuing to work to prevent attacks on the United States' homeland. The war against terror must not only be a bipartisan issue, but also it is a matter of national survival.
Any political party or any political candidate that does not respect that as a priority should not be supported by the American people.
Moreover, as the issue of Jihad and the attacks (and continuing threats) on the United States are perhaps the #1 issue regarding national survival, it continues to amaze me that the media has not prioritized this issue in discussing the views of political candidates for office in the USA.
The fact that Robert Spencer (and others) have had to go to the trouble to create this Web Site to distribute information to the public is a serious statement by itself.
The 4th Estate has largely failed the United States in its greatest time of need of information and education. What if we only had "mainstream media" to provide information on such threats? The idea is deeply disturbing.
There is a direct link between the silence or negativity of much of the media regarding the war against terrorism and the lack of such meaningful debate among political candidates.
I will call it a "9/10" mentality. It is mostly a sense of wishful thinking that Jihad is not really a problem, that law enforcement can address all issues of terrorism, and that terrorists do not really view themselves "at war" with the USA. They are just upset with our foreign policy in the Middle East, which if that changed, all problems will vanish. In the "9/10 mentality", there is no need for pre-emptive action against terrorists, and certainly not a PATRIOT Act, because all that does is stir up people, who really wouldn't wish us ill otherwise.
The "9/10 mentality" believes that the USA can negotiate its way out of any problem, and even negotiate terrorism away. The "9/10" thinkers believe, as John Kerry has stated that "threat of terrorism is exaggerated". They find calm and peace in believing if the USA is just more "peaceful", then everything will go back to the way it was before 9/11.
Their "regressive" approach to the war against terror is Luddite in nature where they believe if we are nice to people and don't get anyone upset, all the bad people will go away on their own.
This pacifist position is very alluring to many who don't know what to do in fighting an "unseen enemy". Better to just "forget about it". Moreover, the pacifist philosophies were also very popular as people warned against Hitler and the Nazis in late 1930s. They question not only the existence of threats but also (in a morally relativistic world) the existence of evil itself.
Unfortunately the "9/10" thinkers do not just threaten themselves. The threaten the entire country. Pacifist isolationism and pacifist "multilaterism" has been proven not to work with some elements of the world that would continue to threaten the United States and the world with destruction.
The next USA election will largely be decided between those who have a "9/11 mentality" and those who have a "9/10 mentality".
Hopefully, enough people have learned the lessons of 9/11 that when they do choose a political candidate for office they will say with their vote: "Never Again."
in his favor, i will admit that john kerry is a most predictable politician -- i.e. he will hem and haw and obfuscate his rhetoric to the point of complete confusion as to what his position really is, and then, when decision time comes, he will most assuredly choose the most left-wing option on the table. what is embarassing to americans is that his platform is on the table to begin with -- we can all blame howard dean and his legion of screaming maniacs for that ill phenomenon.
The issue of National Security has got to be hammered in the election process. Kerry hasn't said anything about it from what I've seen, and I've been watching.
Our economy will mean nothing if we're not alive to deal with it. Kerry, like Nathan said, is a loose cannon, with a flimsy barrel that points in all directions. Islamists want a President that will bow to their ridiculous requests. This is just another step they're taking toward trying to take control of our country.
If Kerry gets in office, we are in big trouble. Thankfully, Congress will be there to offset him. At least that's the hope...
Maybe instead of the Presidents just talking their way into office, they should be signed to a contract, all promises made by them included. If they breech their contract, they can be ousted.
Sounds radical, but it might keep them more in tune with the promises they made.
Support the people of Iran in their quest for freedom. Visit www.activistchat.com Tell your local media the truth about Iran!
We once had a president called "The Great Communicator" , Let us hope we don`t get a president called " the Great Equivicator.