9/10 vs. 9/12 on 11/2

by | Oct 31, 2004

“I can wage a better war on terror than George Bush has.” So speaks Senator Kerry in the U.S. presidential campaign’s final days, again reminding voters that the key issue in this race remains as it was a year earlier – deciding which candidate will better protect Americans from terrorism. As with so many topics, […]

“I can wage a better war on terror than George Bush has.” So speaks Senator Kerry in the U.S. presidential campaign’s final days, again reminding voters that the key issue in this race remains as it was a year earlier – deciding which candidate will better protect Americans from terrorism.

As with so many topics, the basic difference between Kerry and President Bush is one of character, with the challenger repeatedly changing his mind and the president sticking with one position.

On occasion, Mr. Kerry adopts Bush-like terminology. For example, in September 2004 he talked about the war on terror being “as monumental a struggle as the Cold War.” When in this mood, he predicts that its outcome “will determine whether we and our children live in freedom or in fear.”

At other times, however, Mr. Kerry dismisses the war and its importance. In January 2004, after acknowledging that the war on terror is “occasionally military – and it will continue to be for a long time,” he described it as “primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation.” He has reiterated this point about the conflict not really being a war several times since, and most memorably in an interview earlier this month.

“We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

As is his wont, Mr. Kerry is inconstant. He one time pictures the war on terror as a world-historical event like the Cold War and another time it is small beer, comparable to prostitution and illegal gambling.

In contrast, Mr. Bush has since September 11 steadily argued for the profound import of what happened that day. He has since spoken of “a long-lasting ideological struggle” in which totalitarians use terror “as a tool to intimidate the free.” He sees the enemy’s goal as nothing less than a war to destroy America. Mr. Bush is nothing if not consistent – some accuse him of stubbornness – and he invariably assesses terrorism as the greatest challenge of our time.

As for Mr. Kerry’s terrorism-as-nuisance idea, Mr. Bush impatiently says he “couldn’t disagree more” with it and comments: “Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world.” More broadly, he says, Mr. Kerry “fundamentally misunderstands the war on terror.”

Others in Mr. Kerry’s camp also disdain the war concept. Richard Holbrooke, touted as the Democrat’s possible secretary of state, says that “We’re not in a war on terror, in the literal sense. The war on terror is like saying

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist for both the New York Post and The Jerusalem Post. His website, DanielPipes.org, offers an archive of his published writings and a si

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

If young people worry and wonder about their retirement future, their health care, and medical needs, their chance to afford a place to live, and a reasonable possibility for their lives to be better and more prosperous than their parents, it is precisely because government over the decades has either taken over or heavy- handedly imposed itself over all these and other sectors of the American economy — and brought them to financial crisis and imbalance.

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The most equitable and just sharing of the burden of America’s military is assured by its all-volunteer nature, and that conscription would be inequitable and unjust.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest