THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2004:
WHY JOHN KERRY'S CAMPAIGN WILL FAIL
By Alan Caruba
What you don’t see are armies of antiwar protesters in the streets of American cities.
Americans, whether they call themselves Liberal or Conservative, appear to be united when it comes down to the question of waging war against the Islamist Jihad. They may disagree on where or how, but they agree they do not want to see another 9-11 here at home. And there has been none since President George W. Bush launched the war in Afghanistan and expanded it to include Iraq.
Kerry is running out of luck. On October 4, 2004, CNSnews.com reported an exclusive story revealing that Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces, “show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al-Qa'ida, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the Summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.”
If you are so naïve as to believe that Saddam Hussein did not deliberately encourage the belief that Iraq had WMDs, then I have a bridge to sell you. On the other hand, if you think that’s the real reason the U.S.A. invaded Iraq, you are still naïve.
Putting aside the issue of WMDs, the Washington Times has reported that, according to Department of Defense estimates, Iraq had anywhere between 650,000 to a million tons of weapons cached around that nation. Most were sold to Saddam Hussein by China, Russia, and France. These three nations sit on the United Nations’ Security Council. They were selling Iraq weapons all through the long years of endless UN resolutions demanding he disarm!
On the evening of September 30, 2004, Senator Kerry, during the first presidential debate, identified nuclear proliferation as the greatest threat to world peace, and there was no mention of chemical or biological weapons, either of which could kill just as many people, possibly more. Kerry specifically said that, if he were President, he would stop the building of nuclear bunker-buster bombs; the kind that would be needed to penetrate the facilities in North Korea, where the fissile material (plutonium-239 and highly enriched uranium) needed to produce nuclear weapons is being processed, or the facilities in Iran, where nuclear bombs are actually being built.
I didn’t hear a single “expert” comment on that amidst the endless blather that followed the first presidential debate, but it is singularly important when compared against the Senator’s voting record during his twenty years in Congress. Nor has anyone been impolite enough to point out that Kerry’s offer to send nuclear fissionable materials to Iran in return for a promise to only make electricity, not bombs, was rebuffed by the mullahcrats who run that nation. Even they thought it was “irrational”!
After the second Bush-Kerry debate, Senator Kerry would have voters believe that he would, despite his view that this is “The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” vigorously pursue victory over al-Qa'ida and the Iraqi insurgency. This is so ludicrous on the face of it that one wonders why he doesn’t just go home to Massachusetts and sit out the rest of the campaign.
For the record, here’s a brief look at Senator Kerry’s positions on national defense:
Can you imagine an America without the defense systems that Senator Kerry voted against? Neither can I.
Other than stalwart allies like Great Britain and Australia, why haven’t other nations joined the U.S. effort in Iraq, contributing large numbers of troops to safeguard that newly emerging, democratic nation? For one thing, most of Europe stopped spending money on any serious military defense decades ago. They didn’t need to. They had the United States of America to defend them. So, Poland sends what it can, and as does Italy, and, for a while, as did Spain. In all, some thirty nations have participated in the current conflict.
The two nations the U.S.A. liberated and/or defeated in World War II, France and Germany, have opposed the war. These are, presumably, the “allies” Senator Kerry is convinced he can bring to a grand summit conference for the purpose of ending the war in Iraq fast enough to bring our troops home in four months -- or in four years. It isn’t going to happen. These “allies” want to see the U.S.A. fail.
Voters instinctively know this. That’s why Senator Kerry will lose on November 2, 2004, unless the battalions of lawyers the Democratic Party is amassing can produce a coup d’etat and, unlike their efforts in 2000, manage to steal the 2004 presidential election.
American Government & the U.S. Presidency
The Threat of Radical Islam
The Middle East & the Arabs
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
War & Peace in the Real World
Military Defense & National Security
Military Weaponry & International Security
U.S. Intelligence & America's National Security
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Terrorism & American Homeland Security
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
LINKS TO PARTICULAR ISSUES & SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES
TREATED IN THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, U.S.A.:
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * France
Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1