Tuesday’s election is shaping up to be the decisive battle of the Global War on Terrorism. If Bush wins the election, we’ll probably win the war. If Kerry wins, we’ll probably lose. Not since 1864 have the American people been asked to make such an important decision. For the first time in one hundred and forty years the people must choose between a candidate whose policies will eventually bring victory in the war and one whose policies will inevitably lead to defeat.
The election, however, is not merely a decisive battle in that war. It is also a critical battle in that other war: the culture war, the war for the very soul of America. The fight on Tuesday is fundamentally a religious war, a battle for the very soul of America against evil forces which seek to consume her and destroy that which makes her great.
The Chance to Score a Real Win:
It is not just the terrorists and the Democrats, but all of the enemies of the American people have set their hopes upon a Kerry victory. If Kerry wins on Tuesday, the cheers won’t be heard only in the bathhouses of San Francisco and communist bookstores of Madison: the loudest cheers will emanate from Paris, Ramallah, Tehran, Pyongyang, and other enemy cities. Those supporting John Kerry for President include not only Bin Laden, but also Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kofi Annan. The enemies of America have staked all upon this election.
For some reason I call to mind the end of the brilliant BBC television drama To Play the King. In it Francis Urquhart, an ultra-conservative Prime Minister, is confronted by a bleeding-heart liberal King. Urquhart, despite the best efforts of the King, manages to win a difficult election through the use of every means at his disposal. At the conclusion of the film the re-elected Prime Minister goes before the King to demand his abdication from the throne. The King, you see, had staked everything upon the defeat of Urquhart and the Prime Minister, in victory, had a perfect right to demand virtually anything that mortal power could grant and he used that power to maximum effect. That’s what victory in defeat in this kind of all-out war means.
I relate the story to make a point: our enemies have staked so much upon this election that, if we win, we will have a small window of opportunity to crush them thereafter. After four years of slander and merciless attack from both traitors at home and enemies of freedom abroad I, for one, do not merely wish to win. I wish to dismember the enemy and grind its bones into dust. I want revenge for their many crimes. If we win this election, the battle will not end there. We will drive on towards the final liberation of the American soul and the rededication of our hearts to those causes for which all good men must be willing to give all.
Our enemies understand this. That’s why they’ve thrown all of the accumulated capital of decades of liberal cultural rule into this battle. They know that a defeat for them now, after the great lengths to which they’ve gone to destroy this President, might well mean the end of them. Those who risk everything can lose everything. When we win, we should not be gracious in victory: we should collect the pound of flesh that is owed to us.
You see, what we all must understand is this: what the American people will be deciding on Tuesday is not simply the matter of who will be President for the next four years but the more fundamental question of whether or not the Americans of today retain that fundamental strength of character demonstrated by their forefathers in places with names like Khe Sahn, Chosin, Okinawa, Normandy, Midway, Belleau Wood, San Juan Hill, Gettysburg, Antietam, Saratoga and Lexington. Are the American people willing to take risks and sacrifice for victory? Or have they been irreversibly infected, as too many in some once-great nations have been, with the horrible mental diseases of pacifism, liberalism, and defeatism?
The European Path:
Victory for Kerry will be a sign that the United States is headed down the same dirty and disgusting road of nihilism and perversion that Europe has been speeding down for decades. A vote for Kerry isn’t just a vote for the candidate of the party of treason: it’s a vote for the ultimate destruction and dismemberment of our civilization itself.
All reasonable observers who do not flinch from the truth must see that Europe itself is dying. Its population is greying and its few remaining productive workers are crushed beneath the horrible burdens of socialistic welfare programs which reward the useless and punish the useful. The laughter of children is mysteriously absent from much of Europe as though Europeans as a whole decided, a few generations ago, that it was time for their proud races to commit a sad and slow suicide.
Today roughly 30% of the young in France are Moslems. In a few years those numbers will be even higher. Think about that. Those who speak out against this human invasion are silenced and even oppressed by the law. Unless things change dramatically, the victory of Charles Martel will be reversed without a shot being fired.
A century from now there may still be a country called “France”, but I doubt if it’ll be anything that a Frenchman from a time when the French were still a great people would recognize as his country. It’ll just be gone and replaced with the institutions and customs of other peoples. And, I think, as goes France, so will go most of Europe.
The election of John Forbes Kerry would commit the United States of America to that same sick path. The people of Europe, and many of the more feeble-minded among the American public, believe that the divergence of American policy and ideals from those of the rest of the world are a sign that something is wrong with America.
Of course the United States probably won’t be overrun by Moslems. If Kerry and his friends have their way, big chunks of the country will probably be overrun by Latin American illegals instead. Small comfort there.
Winning the Terror War:
Now I’m sure that some liberal might object to my idea. It’s shocking, shocking, after all, to claim that liberals don’t want to win the war as much as conservatives do. It’s appalling that anyone would suggest that people who burn the flag are less patriotic than those who wave it. Etc.
Let’s get real. Let’s not be deterred from saying what we all know to be true in our hearts: the party of Michael Moore cannot be trusted to maintain American greatness nor can it be trusted to defend this country. For all his tough talk, John Kerry remains a captive of a party whose base is controlled by people like Howard Dean. Kerry’s only real option on terror will be to revert to Clintonian policies: talk loudly and carry a limp stick.
We know this. Each and every one of us understands this viscerally. Anyone who tells you that Kerry can wage the war as well or better than Bush can is either stupid or a liar. This is not a war which can be won by hesitation and diplomacy. The only way to defeat the Islamists is to kill them. Words of friendship from France will be as successful in stopping terror as the Kellogg-Briand Pact was in abolishing war. Only the decisive use of force will win this war. And the window in which it can be won relatively easily is closing quickly.
Liberals understand this as well as everyone else does, so they attempt to muddy the waters by attacking the President over the conduct of the war. They rarely, if ever, tell you how they’d wage the war better (and, when they do, there answer is usually something like, “We’ll call in the French Army”), instead they seek to undermine it while pretending to support it.
Anyone with a lick of sense knows the truth: there never was a perfectly waged war and there never will be. The only wars where everything goes according to plan are waged on tabletops. Bush made hard decisions: some of them were wrong. Most, however, were right. Certainly the overall course chosen by the President was the correct one. That’s what matters. If John Kerry were President, he’d probably still be warning against “rushing to war”… in Afghanistan.
Don’t believe me? Just wait and see. There’s no way that Kerry would have been bold enough to adopt the victorious strategy used by President Bush and I don’t think there’s all that much chance that he’d have thrown a hundred thousand troops into the mountains of Afghanistan either.
The liberal claim that Bin Laden wants Bush to win because he’s “been good for al-Qaeda” is simply nonsense. Any fair examination of the record of the past three years suggests that al-Qaeda is much weaker than it was on September 11th, 2001. Remember this fact: two-thirds of the people leading al-Qaeda thirty-seven months ago have been killed or captured.
Now the left responds to this by pointing out that new leaders have, in most cases, taken their place. This, of course, is true. But that doesn’t change the salient point: much of their best talent, including the people who actually planned the 9-11 attacks, have been taken out. If two-thirds of the top officials in the US Government were killed or captured during a three year period, how well would the Federal Government be functioning? Sure, the President and Vice President might both be along the third of survivors but if the White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and Join Chiefs of Staff were all dead and replaced by lower-quality subordinates, just how much would their effectiveness be degraded?
What’s been almost totally ignored in public discussions about the Global War on Terror is what some have called the “Shadow War.” These are the things which aren’t being talked about on CNN. They’re the secret prisons where high-value targets are being thoroughly interrogated. They’re the foreign nations willing to use various methods which would not meet with the approval of Amnesty International to seek information. They’re the US Special Forces who are engaged in secret missions in dozens of countries against al-Qaeda. They’re the covert assassinations of terrorists and their supporters. This is the real war against al-Qaeda.
During the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy attempted to make himself look stronger on defense issues by railing against a non-existent “missile gap” between the US and the USSR. Vice President Nixon fully knew these claims to be lies, but didn’t refute them because doing so would reveal the full extent of US intelligence on Soviet missile capabilities. I suspect that Senator Kerry is pulling the same trick: he knows that President Bush can’t come out and talk about the real happenings in the war against al-Qaeda, so he pounds him on the issues in the belief that the President is responsible enough to take a political hit in order to preserve US security.
A Dangerous Man:
If we lose this battle on Tuesday, I’ve no doubt it my mind that we’ll lose the war. Senator Kerry lacks the personal strength to carry on with the sort of fight necessary to actually beat the terrorists.
The public knows this. Beneath the rhetoric, beneath the ads, they know this: vote for Bush if you’re for victory. Vote for Kerry if you’re for peace at any price.
There are two possible conclusions that can be drawn from an examination of the public record of John Forbes Kerry of Massachusetts. Either the man has been wrong on every national security issue of the last three decades or he’s on the other side.
If John Kerry had been President in 1990, Saddam Hussein would own Kuwait today. If he’d been President in the 1980’s, much of the world would probably still be under Communist rule. When he did get his way, in the 1970’s, millions of people were consigned to death and slavery under communism.
Victory for Kerry means defeat for America. We must remember that in the days ahead. This sick and dangerous man cannot be allowed to become the Commander-in-Chief of our country.
We must have an overwhelming faith of God that we, those of us who remain loyal to him in the face of the opposition of the unbelievers and the pretend-believes, will ultimately prevail in this struggle for right and honor in which we now find ourselves engaged.