Thursday evening, 6:42 p.m.: ABC News aired for the first time in history a warning, given by an al-Qaida operative who in cold, calculating English declares that the “streets of America will run red with blood.” He cites his “leader” as Sheik Osama bin Laden and says that the attacks of Sept. 11 were but the “opening salvo” in the “global war on America.”
Let that sink in … normally we end that “global war” phrase with the word “terror.”
The CIA and FBI say the tape has every marking of an al-Qaida production, but now the threats come in crystal clear English that penetrates the air and stings the bones. The man on the tape says that the retaliation will come for electing George Bush and Dick Cheney and that anyone who supports them will be equally deserving of death.
I guess we know which candidate al-Qaida is now endorsing.
A serious candidate would’ve made the choice harder for the terrorists. But instead of being a serious candidate, John Kerry has been running around in his last-minute haughty and elitist panic denigrating the troops calling them “incompetent” for not guarding weapons that we now know were never there.
A serious candidate would have purposefully made himself harder to distinguish to America’s enemies from his opponent. At least then – regardless of who won – at least the terrorists would’ve wondered who would serve their purposes easier. In this election, that sort of mystery is missing because Kerry puts winning ahead of the American public’s well-being.
A serious candidate would’ve done all he could to never put himself in a position 35 years ago where the mere mention of his name or voice causes former POW’s to cringe. And a serious potential commander in chief would not resort again to relying upon baseless New York Times assertions (assertions that lack evidence) to advance the idea that the storied 3rd Infantry and 101st Airborne Divisions were somehow negligent in their duties.
After all, Sen. Kerry, the 3rd Infantry and the 101st Airborne Divisions were fighting for your protection so that you could have the right to stand on a podium and oppose them or anything else that came to mind. The least you could have done is to oppose them with dignity. Instead you rushed to your assertions – and the production of your attack ad against them – with all the grace of an untrained bull in a china shop.
A serious candidate would’ve been more inclined to attend security briefings. A serious candidate would’ve never tried to act as though he knew everything about the delicacy of the War on Terror, vote to send our troops, and then fail to fund them in their life-and-death calling to protect us all.
A serious candidate would not be more beholden to the United Nations than he would be to our own nation – the same United Nations which worked directly to undermine our efforts to keep America secure, while they profited from billions off the oil-for-food scheme that was thought up by our enemies.
And a serious candidate would never subject the security and safety of America to the will and the passage of a “global test.”
On Thursday evening, on TV sets across America (and partially due to the advanced notice from the Drudge Report), al-Qaida officially endorsed John Kerry for president, and threatened the lives of every American who voted against him.
Count me as one who will defiantly stand my ground, vote my conscience and cast a vote for the candidate who has terror on the run.
For while John Kerry is the “wrong man, wrong place, wrong time,” he didn’t need a terrorist’s endorsement to convince me.
