Patriots and Traitors

This election may be the most important in living memory. I believe that it is the most important since 1864, when the voters of the North were asked to choose between the folksy Republican who had led them through three years of war and a Democratic “war hero” whose election would almost certainly lead to capitulation and defeat. There were two sides in 1864: patriots, who were willing to save the Union regardless of the cost, and traitors, who were willing to lose the war for ideological reasons. The same is true today.

Let us understand the cause for which we are fighting. The enemy is both like and unlike any other which America has ever faced: like our foes of the past, the Islamist hates the West and seeks to establish a totally new world order. Unlike our other enemies, the Islamist lurks on the periphery, fighting by dishonourable but effective means. They have no armies of tanks, no fleets of Aircraft Carriers, no armadas of bombers: yet the danger posed by this enemy is the greatest that America has ever faced.

Consider, for a moment, what it would mean if a single nuclear bomb went off in a single American city. What would the effects be? Would any form of Constitutional government even survive? Would it if, instead of one bomb, it were five? How would American society cope with a Smallpox plague that killed millions?

The Democrats assume that such suggestions are an exaggeration, a ploy to scare Americans. John F. Kerry assures us that the terrorist threat is, “exaggerated.” But is it? If I’d told you, on September 10th, 2001 that terrorists were going to hijack civilian planes and crash them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, what would you have said? A single nuclear bomb, in the right place, could kill hundreds of thousands, wound millions, and cost the American economy trillions of dollars. In one second everything could change.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not because our enemies are irrational or insane. They have very good reasons to believe that a nuclear attack on America would be successful.

Suppose that al-Qaeda destroyed New York City tomorrow. What would the nation retaliate against? Perhaps a few tactical nuclear weapons could be used against suspected terrorist sites: perhaps. But, because al-Qaeda controls no countries, any form of retaliation which would serve as a deterrent is problematic at best. While, logically, it would make sense to respond to any nuclear attack on the United States with an all-out nuclear assault on any target with the slightest connection to the terrorists, does such a course seem likely?

The fundamental Islamist strategic concept in the war on America is this: America values life more than they do. This means two things: first, that the United States is prevented from retaliating reciprocally for most of their outrages and that, second, Americans will do almost anything to avoid sustaining losses.

Early on, al-Qaeda made a basic calculation: kill enough Americans, and the United States will leave the Islamists to do as they like. Osama Bin Laden came to this conclusion when, after the “Blackhawk Down” incident, President Clinton ordered the withdrawal of all US troops from Somalia: kick the Americans and their leaders will run.

Given this, the campaign launched by al-Qaeda through the 1990’s makes perfect sense. The series of escalating outrages were designed with a single purpose: to convince the American people that the price in blood was not worth standing in the way of an Islamist takeover of the Middle East. Each attack escalated in severity: right up until 9-11.

At the present moment, al-Qaeda’s war is directed at driving President Bush from office: an event which would vindicate their strategic theory. That is because a vote against President Bush this November will, in effect, be a vote against the War on Terrorism (whatever silly motivation happens to be in the mind of each Democratic and Third Party voter is largely irrelevant). Our enemies would see the defeat of President Bush as a rejection of the forward strategy of fighting terror.

Like George McClellan in 1864, the Democratic Party today officially maintains that it has a plan for fighting terror while, with a wink and nod; they let everyone know that they mean to do no such thing. The Democrats of one hundred and forty years ago called for peace convention to restore the Union when virtually everyone knew that it would result in exactly the opposite: permanent disunion. Similarly, modern Democrats occasionally try to talk though about terrorism, but lack any plans for actually doing anything about it (aside, of course from “consulting with our allies”).

Democrats seem to be seized by the strange notion that Clinton’s policies for “fighting terrorism” were just fine and will work well if re-implemented. This seems to be based largely on the specious theory that, “well, no 9-11 happened when Clinton was President, so everything must have been ok.” A vote for the Democrats means more terrorist attacks on America, more orphans, more bereaved families. Maybe millions of them. If a Democrat is elected President, the odds of a major attack on America go up seriously for two reasons: the pressure on al-Qaeda will decrease and the leadership of that group will, given that the War on Terrorism resulted in the defeat of Bush, come to the conclusion that another major terror attack will push the United States to let up altogether.

After all, were there a nuclear attack (and one might happen no matter what we do), no one had any idea what will happen next. It is possible that the United States will lash out in vengeance but is it not also possible that, especially with the right leader, the nation might decide simply to throw up their hands, meet the short-term demands of al-Qaeda, and kick the rest of the problem to a future Administration? I can easily see such a thing happening: a nuclear attack is followed by a major increase in homeland defense efforts, combined with a withdrawal of troops abroad needed to “defend the homeland.” A single retaliatory nuclear attack is launched to cover the President politically (“he used nuclear weapons,” Democratic pundits will shout, “what more do you want!”). As part of a program for “energy independence” the United States then cuts free the Islamic world, and under some other pretext, Israel as well. The Islamists have enough people in their own region to kill to keep them busy for years.

Naturally such approach would guarantee even more problems in the long run, but I’ve never known Democrats to think much about that. Liberals simply believe that marrying buggery partners is much more important that fighting murderers and thugs who seek to kill millions of Americans.

There is only one way to defeat the terrorists, as I’ve explained many times before. We must, as Lincoln once said of the Civil War, bring ourselves to grasp the mathematics of the situation. In any society there are only a limited number of people who are willing to knowingly commit suicide for any cause. The number willing to do so in a losing cause is even less than that.

Look at the experience of Japan in the Second World War. While, in battle, organized units of Japanese were willing to, essentially, commit mass suicide in battles- the number who were willing to volunteer to be kamikazes was actually rather small, given the size of Japan’s population. Similarly, despite lavish subsidies, the Palestinians have managed to (at the most) recruit only a few hundred suicide bombers from a population of millions. In both the cases of the Japanese and Palestinians these efforts were aided by a state apparatus which dwarfs anything that al-Qaeda possesses.

In other words, al-Qaeda operatives are extremely valuable and difficult to replace assets. For this reason, the method for defeating them is obvious: we must take and hold ground for which they will fight and give their lives. We have done this in both Iraq and Afghanistan. No reliable account exists of how many terrorists have fallen in these campaigns but, based on the numbers of prisoners taken, I reckon that it must be in the thousands. Each al-Qaeda member who is killed in the sands of Mesopotamia is unavailable for action elsewhere. Every terrorist we kill in Baghdad is one who won’t be able to kill in Boston.

The last two and a half years have put al-Qaeda on the defensive. Contrary to the claims of some on the left, their recruitment is down in this time. In fact, according to its own leaders, it peaked right after 9-11. There’s good reason for that: murderous killers don’t want to join a losing team. Even during the great Afghan Jihad, no so mythologized, most of the rich Moslems who rushed off to join in the war did little more than fire their weapons into the air a few times and then head home. The Islamists are incapable of action without the support of the local population, something they plainly lack in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If they Iraqi people were so eager to fight the Americans, al-Qaeda wouldn’t be killing hundreds of them in car bombings. The fact that al-Qaeda has resorted to such tactics there indicates that they are desperate and lashing out- and that their efforts to stir up an authentic insurrection have failed.

Take that pressure off and let al-Qaeda get a few shots away: what happens? People flock to the banner of Jihad. The years of the Bush Administration become the Islamists’ Valley Forge, a difficult and nearly impossible ordeal that they endured. Much of the world will interpret the defeat of the President as a victory for al-Qaeda.

President Bush has been willing to sacrifice some of his domestic priorities to fight and win this war. Franklin Roosevelt did the same during the Second World War. It is right and just that a President should do so. Some Republicans howl about this, but in truth it is necessary. A President at war must pick their battles carefully.

That is the problem with the Democratic Party today (as it was in 1864), they are so determined to advance their political goals that they are willing to sacrifice the security of the nation. When I say this, I am not referring to the hate-America left. If Nazi Germany were to magically resurface, they would praise Hitler for his anti-smoking and gun control initiatives, as well as how he managed to, “provide free health care for every Aryan.” I’m talking about the mainstream of the Democratic Party. They are the real danger, for they are the ones with the votes.

Any look at exit polls, any look at the speeches of the candidates, shows one thing: they don’t take this war seriously. They’re more worried about “jobs” than they are about killers planning on murdering them with nuclear bombs. They are a danger because they are unaware of the threat their attitudes pose to America. They don’t hate America, but they don’t quite love it either. It is a fact they live with.

That is the choice that must be made this November: between a party which takes the terrorist threat seriously and is prepared to fight it to the point of sacrificing many things they want, and between a party whose adherents place their own individual issues take precedence over the security of the nation. In short, this election is a choice between patriotism and treason.

KERRY SAID PRESIDENT BUSH “MISLED” ON WMD

Kerry Attacked President Bush. “Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. ‘He misled every one of us,’ Kerry said.” (Ron Fournier, “Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans On War,” The Associated Press, 6/19/03)

BUT JUST 72 HOURS EARLIER ON ABC’S “THIS WEEK,” SENATOR KERRY SAID IT WOULD BE “IRRESPONSIBLE” TO SAY THAT!
George Stephanopoulos: “People are really upset that they feel misled by President Bush on this issue weapons of mass destruction. I know you said you’re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?”
John Kerry: “George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table. What I know is we have to get that evidence. We have to have an investigation to know to a certainty whether or not it was hype, whether we were misled …” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/15/03)

TRUTH IS, FOR OVER A DECADE, KERRY HAS CITED EVIDENCE OF SADDAM’S WMD . . . EVEN AS RECENTLY AS 2003
2003
Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)
2002

Kerry Said We Owe It To US Troops To Be Informed Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Arsenal. “We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.” (Faye Bowers, “Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’,” Deseret News, 9/18/02)

Kerry Said Threat Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Is Real. “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Said U.S. Should Make Clear We Will Not Be Blackmailed By Iraq’s WMD. “I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create to simply be ignored by this dictator.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As A “Real And Grave Threat” To The United States. “Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran and potential 2004 presidential contender, said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)
2000

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said WMD Destabilize World. “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8322)
1998

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Used WMD And Has Intent “To Continue To Do So.” “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said We Must Make Clear We Cannot Allow Saddam To Use WMD. “[I]t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous. … But we cannot be pressured into a position that calls on us to give up what are the legitimate interests of our country and of the world with respect to the behavior of Saddam Hussein.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Stressed Need To Eliminate Saddam’s Weapon Capability. “Saddam Hussein has violated ... that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Decision Must Be Made Concerning Iraq’s WMD. “We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Has Used Hesitancy Of Other Countries To Hold Him Accountable To Influence International Community. “Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq’s call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. ... These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq’s weapons capability. ... France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98, p. S12287)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Defended President Clinton’s Decision To Bomb Iraq. “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam veteran, said Wednesday that no one should question the ‘legitimacy’ of Clintons decision to bomb Iraq. ‘I am confident that every reasonable member of the United States Congress and reasonable people of this country will understand the legitimacy of this moment. And no one will question that once again, once too many times, it is Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.’” (Eric Schmitt, “Many In GOP Voice Suspicion Of Attack Timing,” Topeka Capital-Journal, 12/17/98)
1997

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production. “[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do To Address “Grave Threat.” “[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam. “Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Warned Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD. “In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
1991

Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record,1/12/91,p. S369)
1990

Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. … The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.