Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Terrorists for Kerry

Anti-Iraqi terrorist Abu Jalal claims:

"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."
What is particularly disturbing about this is how the Democrats and the MSM (sorry for being redundant) have made it a point of argument that the number of casualties suffered by the US. Kerry has stated that we're suffering 90% of the casualties (why the nationality of terrorist victims matters is beyond me, they're still victims of torrorists). Michael Moore has pandered to the American people over US casualties, even distorting people's feelings about having lost a loved one or being gravely wounded. Others want insist on showing the flag-draped coffins returning to Andrews AFB. In other words they want to place the horrors of war squarely in our face so as to defeat President Bush.

The question before the President's political enemies is this: If gaining electoral advantage over the president requires playing into the military-political machinations of terrorists would you rather defeat the President or deny the terrorists a voice?

In all fairness, another portion of the same article says that Bush being a polarizing figure serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists. However, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, Mogadishu and other plots both foiled and unclaimed were perpetrated long before Bush took office. I am also willing to wager that political opportunists crying,"War for oil/Halliburton" do more to feed Islamofascist propaganda purposes. So again I ask: What's more important defeating Bush or denying the terrorists the media manipulation that is the lifeblood of their operations?

UPDATE: Via Powerline, a letter written to Mark Steyn from a compatriot in Iraq:
The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government...Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.

The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.

This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."

I myself have questioned why nobody asks if maybe the terrorists have erred in starting a war with an "implaccable foe." Now is the time we find out who is truly most implaccable, but America has the advantage in every regard--except how the war plays in the media.


Post a Comment

<< Home