The coming election is only weeks away, and the results of the first Presidential debate are still resounding through the political spectrum.
To no one's surprise, that debate followed typical lines. Kerry was a good speaker. Bush was not. Kerry told us charming anecdotes about JFK in Paris. Bush grasped for an appropriate word to describe terror groups, finally referring to them as "those folks" who want to kill us.
Kerry was deemed the winner of the debate [and subsequent ones] by the media and many Americans, simply because of his better performance. However, performance and substance are not the same thing. This is something lost not only on the man-in-the-street, but on the entire media establishment, which has discussed the stagecraft of the debate ad nausium, but has said little of substance about the ideas articulated therein. It is no doubt that Sen. John Kerry is the better public speaker. But we are not electing a professional lecturer. We are electing a wartime President of the United States of America.
Kerry's plan to give Iran nuclear fuel if it promises not to use it for weapons applications, mentioned briefly during that first debate, is as alarming as any far-left scheme by George Soros and his world-government agenda. Could it be that Kerry, who in the same debate criticised Bush for letting North Korea go nuclear, fails to see that it was that very same sort of plan by President Clinton's administration that permitted North Korean nuclear capability to be where it is today?
At least North Korea is only run by communists. As aweful as communist dictatorship is, however, at least the communist rulers think of their survival. That is why, with them, nuclear weapons in our hands were considered a deterrent back in the days of the USSR.
However, the mullahs in Iran are not nearly as earthly in their consideration of their own mortality. Indeed, the entire Islamicist terror stage is characterized by a belief in suicide missions, if necessary, to slay Americans and our allies. As evidence, witness September 11, the bombings in Iraq, the bombings in Israel. Even now, terrorist fighters in Iraq are taking mind-numbing drugs to heighten their "courage" as they attack U.S. troops. As if their religious fervor were not dangerous enough they are now under the influence of narcotics, totally abandoning reality and considerations of their own mortality. Mutually assured destruction will not work with such an enemy. We cannot allow them to go nuclear. We cannot trust them.
Yet Kerry's plan to give Iran fissionable material in echange for empty promises not to use it to kill us rests on the concept that these fanatics are rational and can be trusted. Niether premise is rooted in reality. At best, Kerry's plan amounts to unilaterally assured destruction -- ours.
Sen. Kerry further illustrated his distance from -- or liberty with -- reality when he repeated the far-left conspiracy about the U.S. going to war in Iraq in order to make profits for Haliburton. Kerry mentioned this several times and acused Bush of favoritism because he did not want to give reconstruction contracts to those who obstructed our efforts in Iraq -- such as France, for example. Just because we refuse to reward those who stood in our way, it does not follow that the President is giving a cash cow to the politically connected. That is, however, one of the myths of the Michael Moore leftists, along with oil tankers stashed off the coast to keep gas prices high. The fact that Kerry doesn't understand the seriousness of France's anti-Americanism, and persists in referring to France and "old Europe" as our "allies" in spite of their efforts to hamstring the U.S. and recently surfaced allegations that they were selling arms to, and being bribed by, Saddam's regime, are just another indication that Kerry misses the point. Kerry calls those who stood by us the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed" -- but refers to France and other do-nothings as "allies" in spite of both their statements and actions. His is a 20th century worldview in this regard -- as is his lackluster approach to dealing with a nuclear Iran and Islamicist terror in general. It will be of no value in a 21st century world against an enemy that is not dissuaded by "mutually assured destruction", and would certainly welcome out own unilaterally assured destruction at the hands of a Kerry administration willing to arm it with fissile material in exchange for promises it would gladly break.
This is the real issue of the campaign: Will we be here tomorrow? Kerry does not seem to understand the threat -- all he did was clearly articulate his lack of comprehension.
My Favorite Web sites
Back to lonerider's main page!
Back to Rants page.