BUSH OR KERRY?

Not a single terrorist would want George Bush to win!  Every one of them would be hoping and praying that Kerry comes out victorious. So, in principle, wouldn’t a vote for the terrorists’ candidate amount to a vote for the terrorist?

I may have a somewhat strange view as to determining which candidate US voters should give the majority support in their November 2 presidential election. But somehow, I feel my novel idea, even though it may appear simplistic, may well make some good sense.  My recommendation?  Ask the terrorists! Who would the terrorists hate to see as US President for the next term? Who are they really afraid of?  Will these agents of terror prefer a vacillating, passive John Kerry or a fiery, decisive, “we’ll hunt them down and smoke them out” George W Bush?  I don’t think there would be much of a debate on this. Not a single terrorist would want George Bush to win!  Every one of them would be hoping and praying that Kerry comes out victorious.  So, in principle, wouldn’t a vote for the terrorists’ candidate amount to a vote for the terrorist? The point is, despite the peaking hype and wild emotions being factored into the happenings of the US elections, the matter of terrorism has to be treated with utmost seriousness.

The economy, jobs, taxes, health care and other domestic issues are all very important.  But all of these being in place, while high-risk vulnerability in the area of terrorism still exists, would make little sense. Not only the US would be in trouble, but all of us by extension.  Remember how enormously 9/11 affected all of us? Whether we like it or not (or whether we like George Bush or not) this is the practical reality.  I would be among the first to agree that Bush has made some very silly and embarrassing blunders in his four years at the White House.  Some of his faux pas (aspects of the Iraq war, for example) evidently keep haunting him like an evil ghost. Bush’s pre-emptive strike doctrine has got him into some trouble because of the poor intelligence upon which he based his elaborate military assault against Iraq. Bush claims that his pre-emption policy against Iraq was based not merely upon Saddam’s indigenous capability to produce and use WMDs, but the dictator’s intention to do so.

We do understand, that in this age of nuclear weapons, no responsible head of state can afford to sit back and wait to be hit and then react. Proactive and pre-emptive action, based on intention, may be necessary, but this must be subject to good intelligence. Any other approach, as well-meaning as it may be, would be seen as reckless and irresponsible. The fact remains, however, that Bush continues to demonstrate a tenacity, fortitude and formidable resolve with respect to dealing with  the war on terror and foreign policy, in this context, that do make most Americans feel safe.  And, of course, they are happy that Saddam is out. While it would be utterly silly to dismiss Kerry as a nonentity, or less than a force to be reckoned with, his flip flopper image and related record, do little to help him in terms of winning security confidence in this era of terror. Another reason that I believe Kerry is not worthy to be the next man in the White House, is the Senator’s crooked views on major moral and spiritual issues.  In fact, this area is, in many ways, even more vital than the matter of security or the war on terror. The Bible says, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). The reproach of sin can attract untold evil against a nation. 

Up-to-date statistics show that most Americans believe that their President should have a strong religious belief and conviction. Kerry may have tried to convince the religious community, and Black evangelicals in particular, that he is “a man of God,” under the cover of “shepherds” such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But, I can tell you, the lanky Democratic presidential candidate will need more than a miracle to convince the approximately one hundred million evangelicals in the US that he is such a saint. Kerry’s liberal record betrays him badly. Nobody will believe his overnight conversion.  They may be more ready to believe Bush’s description of him as “the most liberal Senator in US history.” Kerry is an open supporter of the cold-blooded murder of abortion, including the heinous, brutal butchering of innocent babies in the diabolical act of partial birth abortion. To add to this evil, the silver-hair, silver-tongue Democrat gives open support to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Bush, on the other hand, has been absolutely unequivocal on his stand against homosexuality and abortion including the partial birth procedure. Despite being a man not immuned from human frailties, Bush makes no bones about his support for traditional family values and the biblical position on moral and spiritual issues. On the campaign trail, he calls himself, “the compassionate conservative.” There are the conventional terrorists and there are the “moral, social and spiritual” terrorists.  The latter group viciously attacks the value systems and moral codes of our society. Kerry’s stand on critical moral, social and spiritual matters is therefore tantamount to a serious kind of terrorism against society.  It would seem, therefore, that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism, either way you look at it — conventional terrorism or moral terrorism.