Brain Fertilizer

Thanks to NRO's The Corner, I found this article on the Weekly Standard regarding Kerry's reaction to the most recent Osama bin Laden tape.

The Corner post emphasized the article's main point: that in Kerry's unscripted reaction, and through his surrogates, Kerry attempted to score political points. Personally, I find the argument weak. I didn't think Kerry's statement ("I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush.") was unexpected, out of line, or convincing in the least. And surrogates, well, that's what surrogates do: they make more outrageous statements the candidate himself can't make in order to persuade voters. So what?

But to me, they ignored the juiciest statement by Holbrooke. It's also a point the Bush campaign should jump on and hammer right up until all the polls close:
"Now, [Osama bin Laden] is able to send out this vicious threat through al Jazeera and everyone else in the world."

Oooh. I'm scared. He sent out a threat. Oh, pardon me: a vicious threat. I'm trembling. Maybe if President Bush gets re-elected, Osama bin Laden will taunt us, or even attempt to intimidate us.

See, under Bill Clinton, bin Laden was unpursued, and free to do more than sending out threats, he was sending out terrorists, funding, and training to blow up the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, two African Embassies, and even establish a team of hijackers to fly planes into the World Trade Center Towers (although the attack was actually carried out after Bill Clinton left office, the bulk of the planning and training was done long before President Bush took office*). Under Bill Clinton, al-Qaida were considered mere criminals, and pursuit was half-hearted. This is the model Kerry wants to re-establish and follow. It is only because of President Bush and his clearly-stated vision that Islamic Extremist terrorists (not just al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden) have declared war on the United States and we will not rest until their will to destroy us has been eradicated. Kerry apparently would only continue until they captured Osama bin Laden, a mere symbol of the war. Then they would declare victory and quit fighting terrorism, adopting the attitude that terrorism is only a "nuisance" because the "Main Man" of terror has been "brought to justice"**.

We cannot afford to have John Kerry as a President, a man who focuses on Tora Bora and claims it was a failure of "outsourcing", even though the reason we had done so well to that point with a low loss of US life was because we "outsourced" nearly the whole war in Afghanistan, using the Northern Alliance as the main ground troops to defeat the Taliban, with US ground (Special?) forces only providing leadership, guidance, and expertise; and the USAF providing precision air strikes for Close Air Support. Brief Conclusion: Despite being in the Navy more than 30 years ago, Kerry really doesn't understand our current military at all. He is unserious about defeating terrorists, and will say anything he can to get elected without the political or personal will to back it up.
Which is pretty much the diametric opposite of George W. Bush.

So if you prefer to be threatened, taunted, intimidated, and insulted, vote for George W. Bush. If you prefer to have terrorist attacks on US soil killing thousands of civilians, vote for John Kerry.

*why don't Republicans also point out that the combination of Al Gore's petulant and (ultimately proven) incorrect attempts to take the Presidency and the Democrat Senators' subsequent obstructionism in confirming Bush's nominations assured that President Bush would not have time to investigate and prevent al Qaida's plans for September 11th...?

**Even though his living conditions and abilities to communicate with his followers from prison would be far better than his current location in caves. Yeah, I have no confidence that Democrats have the will to execute him.