Terrorists on the Ballot

The election ballots in New York City have always confused me somewhat. For example, our current Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, a previous Democrat who turned Republican to run for office, also appeared on the ballot under the Working Families Party (and probably a few others as well...I didn't vote for him, so I didn't pay that much attention). Admittedly, in general it's not too hard to figure out who you're voting for, but there can be some momentary confusion each time you pull a lever. And with all the talk about how "A Vote for Kerry Is a Vote for the Terrorists" I want to make sure I won't be sending a member of Al-Qaida to Washington come November.

A few days ago, Andrew Sullivan (who titled one of his commentaries about the election in Spain "BIN LADEN'S VICTORY IN SPAIN") later ran a bit quoting a Jerusalem Post editorial that implored Europeans to join "America's ideological cause" which I had interpreted to mean "Bush's ideological cause," but then I read this letter to the editor (also published in the Jerusalem Post*):

A vote for Kerry is not a vote for Terror

It seems some of you are buying the Bush line that Al Queda and other terrorists want Kerry elected because they fear Bush. After Spain, this is an easy sell for them. If there is an attack in the U.S. before the election, their spin will be it is Al Queda’s effort to sway our election, like Spain’s, and that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the terrorists. If there isn’t an event, it proves how effective Bush is being at fighting them.

The truth is that Kerry is Al Queda’s worst nightmare. He will root them out wherever they are. He will cut off their money, even if it passes through Saudi Arabia. He will punish those governments that harbor or assist them, but militarily, economically or diplomatically. And he, unlike Bush, can and will put together an international coalition to fight them and the other terrorists worldwide. He will not make the mistakes of this administration. He will not be diverted from the goal by liars like Chalabi, who had his own agenda, or swayed by family ties to the Saudis or business ties to big oil or Halliburton.

Why would Al Queda want Bush out after he’s already proven his ineffectiveness and ineptitude in prioritizing, implementing and coalition-building? No, Al Queda wants us to believe that, to manipulate our election in favor of Bush. They want him reelected. He is the enemy they know and they know his weaknesses. They fear Senator Kerry. He is their worst nightmare.

*Granted, letters to the editor from the general public in no way imply an endorsement of this opinion or even an opinion of particular note, but this well-written, well-reasoned letter does help calm my fears about the potential of handing bin Laden a victory when I vote for Kerry in November.

Comments

[Thorley Winston]

The truth is that Kerry is Al Queda’s worst nightmare.

Only if they have the misfortunate to ski on the same slope as Kerry.

He will root them out wherever they are.

And turn them right over to the Germans where they might get a good sound slap on the wrist (until they get released).

He will punish those governments that harbor or assist them, but militarily, economically or diplomatically.

Which is what we are doing right now.

And he, unlike Bush, can and will put together an international coalition to fight them and the other terrorists worldwide.

Unlikely since he referred to our closest allies of Britain, Australia, Japan, and Italy as being members of the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." Moreover on the issue of North Korea, it is Bush rather than Kerry who favors a multilateral versus a bilateral approach (which failed miserably when Clinton-Carter tried it in 1994) to get them to disarm.

He will not make the mistakes of this administration.

Nope, by all indications he plans to make worse ones.

[Jesurgislac]

Thorley, how is it possible to make worse mistakes than the Bush administration? Bush & Co reacted to the worst-ever terrorist attack on American soil by deciding to bomb Iraq, a country not connected in any way with the terrorists who attacked on 9/11. That was an awesomely bad mistake, but it wasn't a solitary mistake: Bush & Co have compounded it with many others, from stonewalling and delaying the 9/11 Commission (and, apparently, ignoring the clear warnings from the Clinton administration about the threat of terrorism), to letting bin Laden's family leave the US before they could be questioned by the FBI. Bush & Co have made so many, and so many awful, mistakes, that it's really hard to see what you could imagine Kerry could do that would be worse - let alone what Kerry would be likely to do. What's likely is that Kerry, when elected, since he won't have the financial ties and obligations to Saudi Arabia that Bush has, will finally be able to tackle the al-Qaeda danger at source. Bush, if elected, will doubtless continue ignoring the source of al-Qaeda terrorism while flailing wildly at easier targets.

[hilzoy]

And don't forget that going after Iraq wasn't just unrelated to the actual war on terror; it required us to divert resources from it. Moreover, it (along with Bush's general ineptitude) prevented us from doing something that would really have helped us in the Islamic world, namely really doing a good job at rebuilding Afghanistan. Imagine this alternative world: having taken down the Taliban, we proceed to make Afghanistan secure, to ensure the rule of law throughout the country, and to engage in serious reconstruction of the infrastructure. Since we are providing security, the various warlords inevitably lose power; meanwhile, the Karzai government actually has a chance to control more than Kabul, and normalcy returns, along with more economic activity unrelated to opium. Round about now, with the Afghan government firmly in control and an Afghan army and police trained, we withdraw, having changed an entire country from a failed state that was a danger to everyone around it to a functioning country, and having in addition liberated its people. And the best part: we do not require that they do whatever we want in return for this, but treat them like an independent state. To do this to a Muslim state would, in my view, have been much more effective than whatever it is we're currently doing in our attempt to change attitudes in the Middle East. It would have cost money, but a lot less than we're spending in Iraq. We could also have focussed our military on fighting Al Qaeda instead of distracting them with Iraq. This sort of thing is what we could have done instead of invading Iraq, and it would have been a lot more damaging to terrorists than what we actually did do.

[Paul Cella]

The case for Kerry vis-a-vis Terrorism would be alot stronger if he were to get to Bush's right on immigration (which would not be difficult, considering Bush's decidedly Leftist position). How vulnerable Bush is on that issue! Kerry could run ads with those infamous visa applications by the 9/11 thugs; he could point out that Muslim fanatics are expanding their operations in Latin America at precisely the moment when Bush proposes to obliterate our southern border.

And, relatedly, he could tie his economic critique of Bush to the latter's total subordination of our immigration policy to the mercenary calculations of corporations who favor mass immigration simply because it, among other things, gives them cheap labor, allows them to evade minimum wage laws and payroll taxes, and reduces the market pressure which would require them to modernize their industries.

Bush is immensely vulnerable on immigration, but Kerry will do nothing -- because he is even more spellbound by the siren's song of Liberalism than Bush.