Who could have done such a deed? Spanish officials first thought that it was the work of the Basque terrorists , a seperatist group in Spain. After all, these bombings took place only three days before Spain's Sunday general election. However, a London-based Arabic newspaper said that it had received an e-mail claiming responsibility in the name of al Qaeda. "This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader, and America's ally in its war against Islam," said the e-mail. Another letter was faxed to Reuters by an Al-Qaeda-backed group. They referred to the attack as "operation death trains." The attack occurred 911 days after September 11th. Another letter was faxed to the Associated Press office in Cairo warning that America was next. That's right; Al-Qaeda says America is next.
Imagine, if you will, with me for a minute. Could this kind of attack be perpetuated on American soil? And if so, where? Well, New York has a huge subway system carrying tens of thousands of people to work a day. What about the Northeast corridor or in Chicago where tens of thousands of people also commute by rail? Maybe Boston (the BIG DIG looks like a really good place to drop a few bombs to me) or maybe Washington DC's subway system?
The fact of the matter is that the War on Terrorism is the biggest issue facing America right now. No matter how much it pains me to say it, tax cuts and social security reform (my two pet issues) don't even come close to being as important as the War on Terror. There are people out there who want to kill us and take away our freedoms. What good is the end of the income tax if our country is ruled by Islamic Fascists?
Currently there are four candidates running for office of the President. Let's take a look at how each one would respond to this threat. We will look at them by starting with the one who will more than likely get the least amount of votes and end move up from there.
First, the Libertarian Candidate, Aaron Russo, doesn't have much about the war on Terror on his website. However, he is clearly against the War in Iraq. He believes in true isolationism. Now, I am a conservative-leaning Libertarian. Many of the Libertarian's party planks are ideas and values that I hold dear. However, I must split with the party over this very important issue. The fact is we are under attack from Islamic Terrorist and we have a war to fight. Even if we pull our troops out of every country and bring them home (practically impossible), this would not appease the terrorist and they will still attack us. This means, then, that we can either fight that war on our soil when the terrorist get here...if we can find them. OR, we can pre-emptively strike and destroy their training grounds, collapse their financial support, and dispose of leaders of countries who let terrorist work in that country against us. I say it is better to put the fire out of your neighbor's house than wait until your house is burning to take care of the problem. Remember, a friend of my enemy is also my enemy. Sure, this is a hard line approach and may seem bully-ish. However, the lives of Americans, my friends and my family are at stake. It would be irresponsible and childish to ignore a problem of this magnitude because it "offends your sensibilities", upsets some other people who are not in danger, or because this actions makes us "look like the policeman of the world." I voted for Harry Browne in 2000. I vote for Libertarian Candidates in local elections and have been doing my part to get my congressman (but not my Senators) replaced with a Libertarian. For me to vote for Mr. Russo just because of his party affiliation is not right. He is wrong on the most important issue and must not be supported.
Secondly, we have the former Green party candidate (he is running as an independent this year...I think), Ralph Nader. In true "watermelon" style (i.e., green on the outside, red on the inside...meaning he disguises his purely socialistic beliefs as "saving the environment"...he is nothing more than a Commie), Nader wants the UN to handle the war on Terror. I don't know how the UN can fight the War on Terror since nations that support terrorism and terrorist activities are part of the UN. The UN is clearly an anti-American organization and I don't think it is wise to trust them to defend our lives and our freedoms. We need to take care of ourselves...so he should not be supported (of course, Nader is the anathema of everything I stand for since he is an avowed Socialist...but I don't care about any other issue).
Now, as we actually get into Candidates with a chance of winning, we need to examine the Democratic Party's front-runner John Kerry's views...before they change again. Kerry is on record saying that he sees the War on Terror as "primarily an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation." This is a dangerous view, in my opinion, because this was the mindset that dominated our handling of terrorism before 9/11. This view assumes that, even though terrorism is awful, it is an endurable tragedy that can be prosecuted after the fact, like a home invasion or a murder. This temptation is understandable but dangerous. Fighting a war, especailly one like the war on terror that is often in the shadows, is expensive and hard. It's not surprising that many Americans would like to return to the "good ole' days" when terrorism was something that happened to other people--in Israel or somewhere far away. But that vacation from history ended on September 11.
Finally, we can analyze how the Republican Candidate, President George W. Bush would like to handle the War on Terror. This is the easiest because we don't have to examine theories and speeches...we can actually look at actions that he has taken. Bush is the one who declared the War on Terror. Under his leadership America has driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan, freed Iraq from the death-grip of Saddam, convinced Libya to cease their WMD programs, and has changed the face of the Middle East. He has made it clear that America will seek out and destroy our enemies. We will not be bullied by cowards who will send others to kill in the shadows. We will defend ourselves and our way of life. We will bring liberty to the oppressed. We will not rest until the scoundrels have been pulled from their stinking spider holes and caves and made to answer to the world for their despicable acts.
The facts are clear. The War on Terror is the most important issue for this election cycle. We have four candidates with four different views. You can choose the candidate who thinks we should huddle up in our own little world and maybe the big, bad guys will just go away and we will not have to be bothered by the mess (Russo). Maybe you want to choose the candidate who thinks we should turn the defense of our sovereignty over to "the global government" (Nader). Or maybe the man for you is the one who says that this is all a law enforcement problem; someone who, if he does manage to catch these Islamic predators with his glorified police force, will then turn them over to some international tribunal for trial (Kerry). Personally, I am going to choose the man who has proven that he will use the American military and whatever other resources are available to him to hunt these terrorists down and kill them (Bush).
As I go, I leave you with this truly libertarian axiom:
Use wisely your power of choice!
No comments:
Post a Comment