Jihadists are busy electioneering for John Kerry in Iraq. I hope they don't try something like the Madrid 3/11 attack in the U.S. -- and I suspect that they know that it would probably backfire here. From the Washington Times, with thanks to JJP Mackie:
BAGHDAD -- Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home."If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.
Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.
"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
Again with the politics. What a shame. Hopefully the money doesn't stink.
Meanwhile, in Florida, Al-Ayran is being helped by the republicans, YET AGAIN. Now, since Mel Martinez (R-Cuba) is trying to use the Al-Aryan issue as leverage against Betty Castor in their neck-and-neck senate campaign, Al-Aryan's attorneys are pointing out that the poor "palestinian" can't get a fair trial.
So perhaps partisan politics, specifically republican partisan politics, is going to help yet another jihadi walk away scot free. Oh, I know: let's "punish" him by exiling him to Saudi Arabia!
The most important thing is: MAKE PEOPLE HATE LIBERALS MORE.
You bet the elections are linked to the Middle East. The Saudis "own" 7% of the US economy.
Mr. Bush is a globalist and his strategies for establishing the oil pipeline through the Middle East have lots of people over there angry.
The US Constitution does NOT permit a President to invade a sovereign nation that has NOT attacked us.
15 of the 19 Sep 11th terrorists were Saudis. Everyone knows that. The Iraq War was planned BEFORE Bush took office!
Both Bush and Kerry have serious conflicts of interest and should not be allowed to hold high office.
www.peroutka2004.com
If such an attack did occur, wouldn't it still get blamed on Israel/Zionists/Mossad etc., by all the usual suspects?
Yesterday, MEMRI.org posted an extract from the Saudi Government Daily citing a Guardian article claiming G.W.Bush's grandfather had sympathies/connections to Hitler and the Nazis. They further postulate that who else but the Israelis would have tracked this down and leaked this info to The Guardian. And why they are doing this? Either to extort Bush into doing their bidding or to help elect Kerry, who has some Jewish ancestry (two or three generations back on his father's side).
If this typifies logic in that quarter... ...what more do you have to ask about the sad state of affairs in the Arab/Islamic world.
We are able to attack anyone that is considered a threat to our national security. This is why I wonder why Muslims are still permitted to enter this nation and change the aroma........
Peggy:
Where did you get the Saudis own 7% of the American economy from (and the rest of the "factoids" in your post? Michael Moore?
The Saudis account for 7% of total foreign investment, a vastly smaller segment of the US economy.
As for the notion that the US is reaping payback for invading a "sovereign" nation that hasn't attacked us... ...I don't recall the US or other NATO countries being attacked by Slobodan Milosovitch.
And as for Saddam/Iraq... ...get real. For decades, Iraq has been a training ground and safe haven for countless terrorists who have indeed murdered US citizens and on US land, including the mastermind/bomb builder behind the 1993 Pan Am building bombing.
Yes,
1998 during the Lewinsky scandal Clinton attacked a 'sovereign nation'!!!!
No one said boo!
So with that out of the way all we got to do is wait and see.
If Bush wins terrorists will really be scared because they know Americans won't put up with their trouble any more.
If Kerry wins terrorists will be emboldened to attack anything they think resembles infidel or an affront to Muhammed. Then we'll probably see some fireworks and quite a few poilitical problems while Kerry tries to work out how to solve terrorism with appeasement.
Basically if we don't conduct a war on terrorism with Bush at the helm I think the whole world is in trouble. Maybe Europe will crumble and wear the consequences of its appeasement like WWII saw Poland and Czeckoslovakia etc etc.....
KJ;
"Treason" is an ugly accusation, but let's look at the record of people who give comfort to the enemy:
Michael Moore praises the terrorist in Fallujia as "minutemen."
Ted Kennedy exploits the Abu Ghraib prison scandal by suggesting the Bush adminstration is the "new managment" for torture.
Diana Kerry tells Australians that their participation in the coalistion "puts them in danger."
Nina Totenburg wishes death upon General William Boykin.
This is just a quick list off the top of my head. In other words, modern liberals have EARNED this reputation. They cope with it by fantasizing about Bush-Saudi connections with Halliburton thrown in to find evidence for treason from the right.
Wake up! Modern liberalism doesn't only betray America, it betrays the true spirit of liberalism.
I am talking about the liberalism that was made so great by people like Montesquieu and Tocqueville, who would have NEVER been apologists for ILLIBERAL leaders or ideologies.
It is the conservatives of today that defend the very values that made liberalism stand so tall in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Get over it.
This whole Kerry v Bush, and Jihadists electioneering for Kerry, and Demo v Repub is a con game.
Bush and his neo con masters have already made Iraq into an Islamic state. In fact they can only guarantee the security of Iraq, and it's pipelines if Iraq is an Islamic (Shi'a) state.
Iraqi Interim Constitution
Article A makes clear that Shari'a is the law of the land
Article B makes clear that Iraqi Arabs are part of the pan Arab or Arab Nationalist movement (Nasser or the Ba'aths)
Iraq (thanks to Bush) is already a fledgling Islamic Republic, the Muslims should be praising Bush for overthrowing a secular regime, who had a record of exiling, murdering and persecuting religious clerics, and since the invasion has created a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.
Bush or Kerry, the only way the west can access Iraqi oil, is if is ruled by Mullahs, just like Iran. In fact Iran is the model for Iraq, regardless of who wins the election.
The "hostility" towards Iran is for public consumption, the west will dry up without mid east oil, a depression unlike anything we ever experienced.
The only secure source of oil in Muslim countries, given the ignorance and fanaticism of Muslims, are countries that are controlled by Clerics. Such as Iran.
Shi'i Islam is a centralized, top down, Islamic ideology. Sunni Islam is anarchic and decentralized.
The Saudis have managed to forge a relationship between the clerics and the royals, by coopting the grand Mufti, and buying out the religious police, (matawain) and clerics.. even there the relationship is sometimes fragile. Takes a lot of work and effort for non clerics to rule in an Islamic land. Much easier in Shi'ite countries like Saudi Arabia.
That's why the Iranian model is encoded in the Iraqi interim constitution.
Food for thought:
Since the ideological battle ground has devolved into a conservative v liberal war.
Islamics are conservative,ultra conservative extremists. Intolerant of liberals and liberalization.
Conservatives are reactionaries, believers who react,without thinking things through to their logical and unintended adverse consequences.
Because conservatives are reactionary, they are easily manipulated and used. They react Pavlovian to anything that they have been told to hate and fear.
The Jihadi's are self righteous, inflamed, reactionaries, who act without thinking and have an easily identified adversary.
However their real adversaries are their own leadership, who inflame them and have convinced them that "the other" is the enemy.
Reactionaries (conservatives) are their own worst enemy, they will pull down the foundations of their own home, out of fear and fueled by righteousness.
Lenin knew that and used the reactionary impulse to manipulate them. His dictum of indirect reversal was "oppose what you propose" propose what you oppose.
In the 1960's I considered myself a Goldwater Republican and a proud Right wing Extremist, until a decade later I figured out the game.
Tired of being someones puppet and gobbling up propaganda and ideology wholesale, I started to study, investigate and think.. forming my own opinions, not acquiring them and not acting out of belief.
Neithr liberal, nor conservative, nor libertarian or reformist I sift and sort and shop, taking that which makes the most sense, after evaluating the long range consequences from all parts of the ideological spectrum.
But I believe no one, nobody, especially those who have the money and means to influence public thinking and policy, and who have their own self serving agenda's. Not only do I question Authority, but I now know that so called "authority" are as self serving as the mullahs and mujtahids who jack and jerk the Islamics around.
Waterdragon52, if perhaps you did more than listen to your own echo (Limbaugh, Fauxnews and internet forums that reinforced your fears and prejudices) and became curious and educated yourself, you would find much evidence that the Saudis own a big stake of America, not to mention being partners and friends with George W. Bush and partners in the Carlyle Group.
You might try reading: by Paul Unger
and The Battle for Saudi Arabia by As'ad Abukhalil, a dissident Arab (Lebanese) who is critical of the fundamentalist Islamics, and the Wahabbis.
As well as Chalmers Johnson's
But a picture is worth a thousand words.Picture of Prince Bandar sitting on the arm of a sofa at Crawford, disrespectfully looking down at his buddy George W. Bush.
Picture of Bandar Bush
Finally to blow away the disinfo that terrorists seek to defeat Bush. The opposite is the truth, OBL is betting on Bush, because Bush is the best friend the Jihadists ever had.
This is what Imad Khadduri,( a former Iraqi nuclear scientist with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968-1998. He is author of the book Iraq's Nuclear Mirage} said October 7th on Democracy Now
SourceInterview with Imad Khadduri
Giaour;
The main premise of that idiotic book was discredited by the arch-leftist Christopher Hitchens and no-friend-of-Bush Richard Clark.
Furthermore, your ability to fantasize so many ideas from one picture is nothing short of psychotic.
Finally, anyone with their common sense intact knows that there is NO WAY that terrorists would openly endorse the president they want. You just fell for a very crude attempt at reverse psychology.
BTW: I get half my news from NPR and PBS. When I get suspicious I compare what everyone says against primary sources.
Posted by: Giaour at October 27, 2004 01:53 PM
So you are a Canadian mussi?
Gary watch out??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Defeat the Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Eyes of the World to their Threat Amen
The only place Bush is going is into Fallujah.
I am sick of politics. What is true is the following: Many Americans no longer have a strong moral foundation. Muslims do. Many Americans no longer firmly believe in their right to influence the world. Muslims do. Many Americans no longer feel capable of saying: this is right; that is wrong. Muslims do.
Take the issue of marriage. Everyone I meet who favors gay marriage, thinks polygamy is OK too, even though that is a direct assault on American social customs. To put it in perspective: Many Americans today feel they have every right to tell their neighbor he can't paint his doorframe red, or that he needs to mow his grass; but they feel morally inadequate to say: One wife, please.
Until Americans can regain control over our own society and every friggin' social anarchist and activist judge, Muslims will have the advantage.
Giaour,
I don't think you read the article too clearly:
___
[(A) Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period. This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.
Article A makes clear that Shari'a is the law of the land
___
(A) states that Islam is the "official" religion and is to be considered "A" source of legislation, and that no law may be enacted that contravenes the tenets of Islam "AND" those of DEMOCRACY.
Hardly pure Shari'a if you have to uphold the tenets of Democracy as well.
I'm not surprised,the CIC and CAIR Canada both advied Muslims to not vote for a party that has pro-zionist foreign policies,the Canadian election proved that Dr.Elmasry of CIC does ascribe to anti-Jewish beliefs and his organization agrees with his views.
Elmasry is the man that went on a TV show and declared that all Israelis over 18 are legitimate targets for murder by suicide bombers because there're part of the whole agression against Palestinians.
Tonight the show was re-aired and his claim of being misunderstood was shown to be false,he didn't retract his view and three times the host allowed him to get out of the hole he dug.
CAIR mocks the American system for having a Christian dominated leadership yet doesn't appear to oppose Islamic run Countries and actually hopes America becomes a Muslim majority Nation.
Check out the archives for the links below,self professed Muslim leaders assume Canada's "Hate-speech" laws are for those OTHER bigots and
therefor any slurs by Muslims are protected by the free-speech laws and freedom of religion laws that allow Muslims to have Shariah-law in Canada and cite the Quran when attacking the infidels and Jewish PIGS.
So far the CIC has defended Elmasry and doesn't appear to be taking actions to purge Islam and the Muslim community of these camcerous Islamists that sneak in as defender of justice for Palestine.
http://www.canadianislamiccongress.org/
http://www.caircan.ca/
re the statement: "The Iraq War was planned BEFORE Bush took office!"
i do believe it is common knowledge that the pentagon has plans for numerous war scenarios. saying the war was planned in advance is no great insight. indeed, i'm sure americans would be quite nervous if their government was not prepared for any contingency
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/28/02937.shtml
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Why Jews Must Vote for President Bush
Joan Swirsky
Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004
American Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats and liberals, as their voting record over the past 60-plus years demonstrates. The simple explanation is that upon arriving in the land of the brave and the free after their near annihilation in the Holocaust, the values they held dearest, the values that Moses handed the first monotheists in human history through God – of life, family, education, social responsibility, equality in the eyes of the law, and peace – finally seemed realizable.
So it is no wonder that their arrival at Ellis Island and the sight of the Statue of Liberty shining her beacon of welcoming light on them inspired these straggling remnants of post-WWII to rejoice. And it is no wonder that they embraced the political policies of Democrats, who promised to protect the underdogs and victims of society.
But history has shown that many of their icons had feet of clay. Franklin Delano Roosevelt – Jews learned decades after World War II, to their everlasting heartbreak – knew for years about the Nazi extermination of the Jews but obdurately refused to bomb the railroads in Germany that were taking 6 million by-then-cadaverous innocents to their ghastly deaths. And, in spite of Churchill’s impassioned pleas, FDR ordered the Saint Louis, with 909 Jewish passengers, away from our shores and back to Hitler's crematoria.
Harry Truman, who declared Israel a state in 1948, subsequently went a long way in nearly sabotaging the fledgling Jewish state, which is no surprise given recently revealed correspondence showing he held views that were virulently anti-Semitic stereotypes.
Jimmy Carter’s animus toward Israel – which he considers an apartheid state – is widely known, both during his tenure and since he left office. He never failed to pressure and criticize Israel and, according to Prof. Douglas Brinkley in his book “The Unfinished Presidency,” was “buoyed by the Intifada” and passed his congratulations on to Arafat.
Clinton afforded honored-guest status to Arafat, the architect of Middle East terrorism, dozens of times in the White House and pressured Israel at the Camp David Accords to give up territory with no guarantees of safety, security or acceptance by the 22 surrounding Arab states that had sworn their enmity to the nine-mile-wide Jewish homeland since its inception. The result of this appeasement, of course, was the deadly Intifada.
But to many Jews – a good number from that bleak era still alive – whose relatives perished in the Nazi ovens, and to subsequent generations whose parents and grandparents have kept their memories as well as the historical persecution of the Jews alive, the few Jews who were saved from total annihilation were to Roosevelt’s credit and the state of Israel to Truman’s.
They believed that subsequent Democrat presidents would protect Israel not only because it so closely embodied our own democratic values but also because it was – and remains – an important strategic ally among surrounding Arab states, most of which we now know spawn, support and even applaud the terrorists bent on our destruction.
Numbers Don’t Lie
Those surrounding states include 300 million Arabs. But that is not the only imbalance between Jews and those who wish them dead. The global Islamic population is approximately 1 billion 200 million people, equaling 20 percent of the world’s population. In stark contrast, there are only 14 million Jews in the entire world: 5 million in the U.S. (or 0.02 percent of the population), 5 million in Israel and 4 million scattered throughout the globe. For a little perspective, in our own country, African-Americans number 35 million, or 12 percent of the population, while Hispanics number 13 percent.
So it stands to reason that for decades, Jews everywhere (with few but notable exceptions) have felt protective toward Israel, considering the tiny state the last haven in a world that has historically rejected them. Democrats used to be in the forefront of that support, but as Israel has grown stronger economically and militarily over the decades, many on their leftist flank (the anti-corporate, anti-military, pro-Socialist, love-is-all-you-need types) have joined the worldwide pandemic of anti-Semitism that, in America, now flourishes on college campuses and in the burgeoning left wing of the Democratic Party.
As Italian author Fiamma Nirenstein explains in her book “The Liberal Anti-Semites: The New Face of Ancient Anti-Semitism,” Israel was embraced as long as it was “a small, weak country evincing sympathy and support among the Left as a socialist nation, with a strong labor union and workers' rights. This dynamic, however, came to an abrupt end with Israel's victory in the Six Day War. The new Jew, who defends himself and even dares to win, loses all his charm in the eyes of the intellectuals of the Left.”
Bob Just of WorldNetDaily.com has an equally bleak picture: “Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is alive and well as a political force – and so is appeasement. The two will combine, and my Democratic Party will soon betray Israel. It may not be an overt betrayal. It may come in a thousand cuts rather than with a single blow. But it will come.”
Today, with the presidential election but days away, moderate Jewish Democrats are faced with a dilemma: Vote for John Kerry, who has an inordinate fondness for anti-Semitic organizations like the United Nations and the World Court, embraces countries like France that have been historically antagonistic to Israel, and wholeheartedly accepts political and financial backing (and endorsement) from Israel-loathing Jews like George Soros, Arab billionaires and dictators worldwide. Or vote for George W. Bush, whose record of marginalizing all of these entities and supporting the safety and security of Israel is second to none among American presidents in the last 65 years.
Kerry’s Record
Moderate Jewish Democrats should be aware of the following FACTS about John Kerry:
• In April, when Kofi Annan said that Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, was “the great poison in the region,'' Kerry said nothing.
• When Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., claimed that a Jewish cabal stood behind the Iraq war, Kerry said nothing.
• When former Vermont Democrat Governor Howard Dean labeled Hamas members “soldiers,” Kerry said nothing.
• When Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., former Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan, and former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga. (who took money from anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorist supporters during her campaign for Congress), slammed Israel as the root of all evil, Kerry said nothing.
• When Democrats Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) as well as members of the Congressional Black Caucus John Dingell and John Conyers, both of Michigan – along with the likes of Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al Sharpton (of the Harlem anti-Semitic boycott and Crown Heights incitement fame) – repeatedly slammed Israel, Kerry said nothing.
• When MoveOn.org. – the 527 organization that has given multimillions to Kerry’s campaign – compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler, Kerry said nothing.
• Kerry, in front of Arab groups, condemned Israel's security fence (which has resulted in a staggering reduction in innocent Israeli casualties) as “a barrier to peace,” but of course reversed his position in front of Jewish groups. Even liberal New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer said that he was in “more or less complete agreement with President Bush” about the fence and that the “barrier to peace” is Yasser Arafat. As journalist Suzanne Fields noted, “John Kerry tells Jewish audiences what they want to hear, and when he imagines he's safely out of their sight, flip-flops.”
• Kerry announced that he’d send as his envoys to the Middle East longtime antagonists to Israel Jimmy Carter and James Baker, but of course reversed this position when it proved unpopular with those whose support he has always taken for granted, i.e., Jewish Democrats.
• Kerry fully supported and still supports Clinton’s plans for Israel, which include: land swaps involving Israeli territory, which Bush rejects; the notion that Palestinian refugees find homes in other states including Israel; “security guarantees” rather than the “defensible borders” Bush insists on; that a peace treaty should produce security for the Israelis and not, as Bush insists, that security must be a prerequisite for peace.
• Kerry continues to adhere to the “honest broker” position (between Jews and Palestinians), ignoring the potentially disastrous consequences of “final status” peace negotiations adhering to the contrived 1967 borders, while Bush has made it clear that those negotiations will only involve a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Last June, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to affirm the new Bush policy, it passed in the House by a 407-9 vote. In the Senate, the vote was 95-3, with Senator Kerry being one of the dissenters.
• Kerry has never challenged the Palestinians’ claim to the “right of return,” while Bush became the first U.S. president to formally reject it.
• Kerry has said the U.S. never should have gone into Iraq, while Bush succeeded in eliminating the source of the $25,000 that Saddam Hussein paid to each family of Palestinian homicide bombers and the firing of Scud missiles into Israel.
• Kerry’s candidacy has been endorsed by every America-hating, Israel-hating dictator and terrorist in the world, including Yasser Arafat, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad, Korean president Kim Jong il, Hamas, Hezbollah … the list goes on.
• Kerry voted against the Patriot missile, which saved Israeli lives when Saddam Hussein fired Scud missiles into Israel during the Gulf War.
• Kerry, in his 20-year Senate career, has consistently voted against every major intelligence, defense and military budget and now opposes the U.S. developing bunker-busting weapons that will deter nuclear attacks on our troops and on Israel. Significantly, he was rated by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy “among the worst” legislators on national security and defense, with a score of 5 out of a possible 100. More recently, they rated him zero!
• Kerry, reports blogger Rick Richman, is definitely not “second to none” in his support for Israel. After consulting the Jewish Virtual Library, he found that Kerry opposed the FY 2000 Foreign Aid Conference Report’s pro-Israel position; in 2000, he failed to support the “Middle East Peace Process Support Act” that called on the president not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, and he refused to co-sponsor the pro-Israel “Peace Through Negotiations Act.” And in 1993, he failed to join 55 senators demanding that the State Department include Hamas as a terrorist group in its annual report on terrorism.
• Kerry, in his 20-year Senate career, has authored only a few pieces of legislation, including World Population Awareness Week, the designation of the Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a Small Business Act, the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to Jackie Robinson and the like. None to defend either our country or Israel.
• Kerry delivered a 5,400-word acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, never once mentioning the word Israel (or terrorism!).
• Most chilling, Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke, stated just last week on "The O'Reilly Factor" that Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East by starting "intense talks with the allies ... and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all."
Kerry’s Scary Record Continues
In addition, according to WorldNetDaily.com, Kerry, during his first debate with Bush, said that as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel for a “promise” to use it for peaceful purposes only. This when he knows that Iran is only months away from developing nuclear weapons!
But he failed to mention that among his top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans with questionable ties to their native country: Hassan Nemazee, also a major Clinton donor; Faraj Aalaei, the chief executive officer of a publicly traded company, and his wife Susan Akbarpour, who recently started a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran. WND cites an article by Kenneth Timmerman in this month's issue of the American Spectator, saying Kerry has embraced the entire political agenda of Akbarpour et al., including ending the fingerprinting of Iranian visitors to the U.S.; helping Iran join the World Trade Organization; and offering a “dialogue” with the hard-line, terrorist-supporting clerics in Tehran – the same regime that the State Department, in 2002, called “the most active state sponsor of terrorism,” the same regime that held Americans hostage for 444 days under President Carter, that has openly funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and that has sworn death to Israel!
Kerry knows all this but purposefully ignores the fact that Iran test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile (that can reportedly carry nuclear warheads) capable of reaching Israel on September 18 and also in August, and that Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated, “We must have two bombs ready to go in January” and that his goal is to “destroy the Zionist regime.”
In addition, Kerry, according to WND’s Andy Wilcoxson’s explosive article last week, has accepted money from the terrorist organization Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an organization with ties to Osama bin Laden, Islamic terror organizations and the Iranian government. Its leader, Hashim Thaci, a Brooklyn resident, attended the Democratic Party’s convention in Boston this summer as well as a Kerry fund-raiser in New York at which a video was made (http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/18793157) showing KLA members writing checks to the Kerry campaign. According to Wilcoxson, “The KLA is directly threatening the safety of American personnel stationed in Kosovo. … John Kerry, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 until 2000, must know who the KLA is, but he clearly doesn’t care.”
No wonder Kerry told the New York Times a few weeks ago: “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.”
And no wonder the English journalist Paul Johnson, in nationalreviewonline, has said: “All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit – politically, financially, and emotionally – from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.”
Morrie Amitay, the former executive director of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC, is fearful as well. A Kerry administration, he says, will be “retreads from the Clinton administration and its failed ‘peace process team’ … [and] based on the track records of these readily identifiable individuals and their worldviews, we can expect they will look to Israel for more concessions … they will invariably eschew the use or the threat of force in dealing with terrorist harboring regimes, preferring diplomacy and a multilateral approach.”
The Bush Factor
In less than four years, President Bush has revolutionized American foreign policy and instead of engaging in the terrorist-appeasing policies of his predecessor – which resulted in September 11, 2001, and the unmasking of the vast Islamo-facist network and its supporters, who wish only death to America – “brought the fight to our enemy.” In so doing, he put the world on notice that he fully understood and would aggressively fight the terrorist threat to our nation – as well as to Israel.
“The clarity of the president’s understanding of the nature of militant Islam is illustrated by his strong support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Arab terror and xenophobia,” said Kenneth J. Bialkin, former chairman of the Anti-Defamation League and now chairman of the America-Israel Friendship League. “He also understands the essential goodness of the people of Israel, their fierce adherence to the same principles of freedom and justice that define America, and the struggles they have endured to maintain their existence in the face of an implacable, atavistic hatred that burns in most parts of the Arab world and is abetted by the indifference of much of the world. As Yogi Berra said, ‘When you come to a fork in the road, take it.’ I choose the Bush fork.”
Bialkin’s admiration of Bush is echoed by many major Jewish organizations, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, B'nai B'rith, the Orthodox Union, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
And it explains why the president is up in polls of Jewish voters. For instance, exit polls conducted by Voter News Service for the Associated Press and television networks show that Jews voting Republican increased to 35 percent from the previous 21 to 26 percent, escalating as much as 60 percent between 2000 and 2002.
And a nationwide survey by the American Jewish Committee in August showed Bush's Jewish support up to 24 percent, with 60 percent among Orthodox Jews. While Jews make up only 4 percent of the electorate, their typically large turnouts can be decisive since so many live, in large numbers, in many of the battleground states.
Unlike Kerry, who failed to even lip-sync the word Israel during his convention speech in Boston, Bush, at the Republican convention, demonstrated in both words and gestures his unflinching support for Israel. The convention, in fact, featured numerous examples of the philosophical and strategic affinity the U.S. and Israel share.
Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani cited the 1985 Palestinian Liberation Front’s murder of the wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer, murdered “solely because he was Jewish,” the murder by Palestinian terrorists of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, and the preposterous awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat in 1994.
In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney, who lauded Israel's “remarkable success” in fighting terrorists, was joined on the podium by Israel's ambassador. And Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis was the first Jewish woman (of either party) to deliver the closing prayer.
Bush’s Record
Indeed, recognition of Jewish concerns has become a hallmark of the Bush presidency and of a president who has repeatedly echoed what he said at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in May: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state. Israel is a democracy and a friend, and has every right to defend itself from terror.”
Further, Bush’s unprecedented and visionary efforts to democratize the Middle East and to rid it of the terrorist vermin that threaten all peace-loving people, and certainly the people of Israel, are breathtaking in scope.
Moderate Jewish Democrats should be aware of the following FACTS about President Bush:
• Captured or killed two-thirds of al-Qaida’s leadership, dismantled the Taliban, and liberated 25 million people in Afghanistan, where the first free elections were recently held.
• Achieved a key ally in Pakistan, which is now fighting with us against nuclear weapons but formerly was one of only a few countries to recognize the Taliban regime, active in the proliferation of WMD and heading for possible nuclear conflict with its neighbor India.
• Achieved unprecedented cooperation with Saudi Arabia, which formerly was a prime donor of weapons and logistical support to terrorists.
• Destroyed the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which is now a sovereign government in alliance with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism but formerly harbored Abu Nidal and provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Palestine Liberation Front.
• Defanged the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, which has now rid itself of its nuclear equipment.
• Frozen the funds of charities that supported Hamas and inspired the European Union to do the same.
• Sanctioned Syria for its support of terrorist organizations.
• Designated al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade a terrorist organization.
• Since February 2001, the United States has been the sole veto of six Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for defending itself against terror.
• For the first time in decades, helped secure Israel's membership in the Western European Group in the United Nations.
• Was the first Republican president to visit Auschwitz.
• Instructed U.S. diplomats in 2001 to walk out of the Durban conference when it became a forum for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agitation.
• Called on Arab nations in 2003 to end their state medias' incitement of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments.
• Led efforts to encourage Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation to hold two major conferences on anti-Semitism.
• Personally confronted and condemned Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad in 2003 for making anti-Semitic comments that were “wrong and divisive.”
• Called for new Palestinian leadership, making clear that Palestinians’ first responsibility is renouncing and fighting terror.
• In 2002, ruled out negotiations with Yasser Arafat, who was the most common visiting foreign leader under the previous administration but since Bush’s election has never stepped foot in the White House.
• Has hosted Prime Minister Ariel Sharon more than any other world leader.
• Has held personal meetings with over 200 rabbis and Jewish community leaders to discuss issues related to the Jewish community.
• In 2003, hosted the first kosher dinner at the White House to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Holocaust museum.
• In 2004, spoke before the U.N. General Assembly, telling the leaders from all Arab and Muslim states directly that “Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel.”
For Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the New Republic, Bush’s decisiveness in dealing with the U.N. is clearly preferable to the “global test” that Kerry embraces. “Save for the U.S. veto in the Security Council, Israel loses every struggle at the U.N. against lopsided majorities. In the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, Muslim states trade their votes to protect aggressors and tyrannies from censure in exchange for libels against the Jewish state. I've searched to find one time when Kerry – even candidate Kerry – criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring.”
Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, has the same misgivings. “The message,” he says, “is we don’t know where John Kerry really stands. Right now, given how important things are and how many lives are at stake, John Kerry is a risk the Jewish community cannot afford.”
For Jews, the Choice Should Be Clear
When faced with the clear disparity in the statements, intentions and, most important, actions of Bush and Kerry, Democrats get that eyes-glazed-over look in their eyes and inevitably cite the president’s close ties to Christian fundamentalists and the “threat” that “what they really want is our conversion.”
While they may overlook the fact that Nazism and Communism were both based on secularism, they would do well to heed the words of journalist Mona Charen: “After all, would you prefer to have someone on your side because they like you (which can change) or because they believe it is part of God's plan for the world to have a Jewish homeland? As for the end times, maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong. We can leave that part to God. For now, Jews should know who their friends are.”
Charen’s view is in line with journalist Don Feder’s: “Israel’s most eloquent champions today are Christians, among them William Bennett, Pat Robertson, Cal Thomas, George Will and House Speaker Tom DeLay. In 2004, support for Israel is far more philosophic than genetic.”
Even the other issues that that consume Jewish liberal Democrats – the Supreme Court, abortion, the environment et al. – should not dissuade them from voting for the incumbent president, whose consistent defense of Israel and “hard work” to bring democracy to a region that wants nothing more than to destroy the tiny state has proven unshakeable.
“American Jews should consider emulating the eagle, rather than the ostrich,” Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder wrote recently in the Jewishworldreport.com. “The life and well-being of any Jew, anywhere in the world is connected to the fate of Israel.”
Perhaps a man who goes by the whimsical name of Rabbi Nightingale, who heads the Jewish outreach organization Aish HaTorah, gives the best advice. “In the Talmud we have a principal that when we are faced with a vadai (certainty) versus a safek (doubt), we always go with the vadai. Bush is the vadai Kerry is a safek.
Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength and Courage to Victory to Defeat the Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
"But a picture is worth a thousand words.Picture of Prince Bandar sitting on the arm of a sofa at Crawford, disrespectfully looking down at his buddy George W. Bush."
Nope, sorry, I don't see it. Looks like he's just hanging out at the ranch to me.
"Finally to blow away the disinfo that terrorists seek to defeat Bush. The opposite is the truth, OBL is betting on Bush, because Bush is the best friend the Jihadists ever had."
Psssst, Giaour,
Is it purple haze or orange sunshine you're tripping on?
Maybe I"ll break off half a tab and say something like..The Military think tank has this whole isalmic thing figured out. That the puppet masters behind the Presidency have a self preservation mechanism that will not allow isalm or any other threat to their powerbase to do much of anything. That in 20-30 years this will all be over and democratic capitalism will be expanded throughout the Islamic world.