veritas on the candidates and World War IV
OK -- the overarching issue in this election is World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorists. Against what The Federalist Patriot calls, quite properly, Jihadistan. I describe Jihadistan as a nation without a state.
Some say it's hard to say whether President Bush or Senator Kerry would protect us better. I disagree, but I also know that's not the best way, the clearest way, to frame the issue.
The better way to frame the primary question of the first half of this century is to ask this: who is more likely to go after the terrorists -- with ferocity? With finality as his goal? As his primary task in office?
Because, with the destructive possibilities of normally-benign technologies (remember 9/11?), and with the weapons that terrorists seek to acquire from like-minded rogue states, terrorists have access to the means to slaughter by the thousands -- tens of thousands, or more. They also have utter determination to do so. That combination of reality and wish carries more danger than we can risk. But the Left refuses to so acknowledge.
Does re-electing Bush mean no more terrorist attacks? No.
But it does mean a lot fewer terrorists than a Kerry administration would mean.