Like Duh, Of Course Al-Qaida Would Prefer That John Kerry Become President
John Kerry’s ultra-liberal mentor, Ted Kennedy, has been out on the campaign trail talking about the war on terror and George Bush.
Kennedy has been, as per usual, wrong about almost EVERYTHING…incidentally, what does it say about John Kerry that he has an ultra-left-wing dove out on the stump enunciating what he thinks about Iraq?
In any case, I wanted to discuss this particular remark that Kennedy made…
“It’s a campaign of anger and insult and the most egregious examples are the examples of Vice President Cheney. When he even goes on to suggest that the al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win, that is the most outrageous charge. It’s the most anti-American — it’s McCarthyism of the first order.”
First off, let me point out that Dick Cheney has never said that, “al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win”. However, that being said, I’M SAYING that, “al-Qaida wants John Kerry to win”.
And why wouldn’t they?
It’s not exactly a tough choice, is it? Let’s see, there’s George Bush who has dedicated his entire presidency since 9/11 to going after terrorist groups with international reach and the nations that support them and then there’s John Kerry, who says he opposes everything that Bush did in his first term and thinks it’s vitally important to suck up to the French and the UN.
Why is it so wrong to point out the obvious: that George Bush is 100% committed to fighting terrorism and John Kerry isn’t?
Who’s more likely to retreat in Iraq and let the country collapse into Civil War? George Bush who’ll be judged by history on how well it turned out or John Kerry, who now says he never would have invaded in the first place?
Who’s more likely to keep security measures in place that’ll make it tougher for al-Qaida to strike in the US? George Bush who pushed the Patriot Act and wants the Patriot Act part 2 or John Kerry who wants to strike down part of the Patriot Act and has legions of supporters who think any new security measure is the next step towards putting them in camps?
Who’s going to keep fighting the war on terrorism? George Bush who invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, strong-armed Libya out of the WMD business, blew off Arafat, and has slaughtered terrorists across the globe or a liberal Senator from Massachusetts who was a useful idiot for the Soviets during the Cold War, opposed invading Grenada, voted against the Gulf War, opposed funding the troops in Iraq, and who tried to slash military and intelligence budgets over and over again?
These are not hard questions to answer, but a lot of people don’t want to bring it up because they’re afraid they’ll be accused of “dirty politics”!
But what’s “dirty” about pointing out the obvious?
Think back to the Civil War. Who do you think the South was rooting for when Lincoln went head to head with McClellan? Gee, there was Lincoln who intended to prosecute the war to the finish and then there was McClellan who in essence wanted to call it a draw. Boy, that would have been a tough call huh?
How about a more recent example? Think back to 1984: do you think the Soviet Union wanted the most dedicated anti-Communist ever to inhabit the White House, Ronald Reagan, to come back for a second term or do you think they were really terrified of wimpy liberal, Walter Mondale? This is not hard to figure out.
The reality is that if you want a Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy type of candidate in office who’s more concerned about whether the French & Germans like us than defending America, then John Kerry is your guy. But, he’s also al-Qaida’s guy because there’s nothing they could use more right now than a 4 year long break to catch their breath, rebuild their organization, and pursue weapons of mass destruction. If John Kerry’s supporters were honest about what they want and expect him to do when he gets in the White House, they’d admit that what I’m saying is the truth. If you want a candidate who’s going to fight the war on terror, you’re voting for Bush, not Kerry…