John Kerry’s campaign is complaining about a proposed Bush advertisement highlighting Kerry’s comment in a New York Times magazine article.

An on-line CNN piece describes the article in question:

The article, a largely analytical cover story in the magazine, says the interviewer asked Kerry "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again."

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply. ''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.''

This quote is further proof that Kerry does not understand the GWT (Great War on Terror). He compares it to commonplace law enforcement efforts against prostitution, gambling and organized crime. I don’t understand how this could be taken out of context. If anything it is comparable to what he has previously said.

Imagine that instead of terrorism, we were discussing slavery or genocide. Would any decent human say “we are never going to end genocide or slavery?” Would it be acceptable for a presidential candidate to say, “we're going to reduce slavery and genocide to a level where it isn't on the rise?” To placidly accept the premise that terrorism is an unavoidable irritant that we can only hope to minimize is to demonstrate one’s unworthiness for the Presidency.

Kerry, always the political opportunist, at least recognizes that this position is a political liability. So Kerry intones the mantra “terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the U.S.” or the variant “the No. 1 threat to America is international terrorism, al Qaeda.” What does this mean? Nothing. It is completely consistent with a position that terrorism is a law enforcement problem or a civic nuisance like clogged storm drains. The only purpose for these repeated strings of nonsense is to fool enough people long enough to make him President.

It is abundantly clear that Senator Kerry doesn’t understand that the enemy in the GWT is not the same type of person as a criminal and cannot be deterred the way criminals can.

There are two key differences between criminals and terrorists. The first difference between criminals and religiously motivated terrorists is in their motivations. The religiously motivated terrorist is not motivated by petty human vices such as greed or carnal lust. They are motivated by religious hatred. Hookers, drug dealers, and Mafiosi are all motivated almost solely by economic incentives. In short, they all do it for the money. Raising the potential for lengthy incarceration will deter criminals. The religiously motivated terrorist, however, is not dissuaded by economic cost. The suicide bomber does not fear the grand jury. Incarceration is only a hindrance in that it keeps them from going about their mission to destroy non-Islamic America.

The second major difference is that the religiously motivated terrorist does not want to feed off American society like the criminal does. The criminal wants to make enough money to enjoy America’s material benefits. Whether it is another hit of crack cocaine, gold jewelry, or a mansion with servants, the criminal is simply seeking economic reward within American society. The religiously motivated terrorist, by comparison, wants to destroy American society. The mafia does not want to lay waste to New York City – but al Quaeda does.

Because threatening to deprive them of America’s benefits cannot deter the religiously motivated terrorist, the law enforcement approach to terrorism is doomed to failure. The only course that will deal successfully with the religiously motivated terrorist is to kill them and to destroy their movement. We cannot co-exist.


- posted by Thomas @ 3:50 PM