Most misunderstood Kerry point

Submitted by Ron Polland (United States), Oct 27, 2004 at 15:52

To think, as George Bush does, that somehow he can singlehandedly rid the world of terrorism in four years is the absolute height of hubris and chutzpah. C'mon ... Maybe if we were living on the Planet Vulcan, we might put an end to terrorism as a geopolitical strategy or even an ideological necessity. But not here on good ol' Terra Firma where one does not have took very far to find the roots of terrorism.

The roots of terrorism begin with "moral equivalency," where there is no such thing as a moral compass, where absolute good or absolute evil are just platitudes, and commandments like "Thou shalt not kill" are merely suggestions. Every day, men, women, and children in our wonderful country are terrorized by Americans -- not foreigners -- for whom freedom means the right to rob, maim, and kill others for one's own personal gain.

Terrorism is meant to frighten us and to cause us to change our normal way of living. Surprize, it works! We no longer leave our doors unlocked or go walking alone at night. We may be safer here than in Mexico, but we are far from feeling like we can let our guard down.

Violent crime is a fact of life here and elsewhere. You will never here politicians say that they will rid the country of all violent crime. Yet, here we have a President who thinks he can do just that on a global scale no less.

What Kerry meant by saying that we have to get to where terrorism is an enforcement issue is that we have to eliminate terror as a viable stragegy for those intent on using it. In other words, we cannot live in a world where we constantly fear for our lives by becoming so preoccupied with terrorism. Each year, more than 300,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses, yet you will not hear a politician say that they will "destroy" the perpetrators of those deaths.

What kept us safe from nuclear attack in the Cold War was MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Does Bush or Kerry have a plan to assure the destruction of the "Enemy" should they set off a nuclear or biological bomb in the US?

That would be difficult to do since neither Bush nor Kerry has the guts to define who is the real "enemy" anyway.

Take away 9/11 and Bush becomes the least-liked President since Jimmy Carter. It is truly sad to read that the only reason one should re-elect Bush is because of the threat of foreign terrorism when everything else that threatens us goes by the wayside.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".