Author: Ali Sina
Publication: www.faithfreedom.org
Date:
URL: http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41007.htm
I watched the first round of the
presidential debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry with a lot
of interest. I am not an American but I believe the outcome of this election
will affect not just America but the entire world. If you don't accuse
me of being hyperbolic I dare to say that this is the most important election
in the history of mankind. On this election may depend the future of the
world and whether there would be another world war or perhaps it could
be avoid. This was one debate I could not miss.
I have to acknowledge that Sen.
Kerry was better prepared and was more eloquent than President Bush. But
do eloquence and being articulate really equate to wisdom and statesmanship?
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not drawing any comparison but merely
trying to make my point. Hitler was an impressive orator but of course
he was a very wrong person to lead his country.
So with this in mind I put aside
the eloquence factor and tried to understand the message that each one
of these candidates was delivering, peer into their character and appraise
their capability as the commander in chief of the most powerful country
in the history of mankind.
Sen. Kerry said many things that
sounded logical. He said North Korea now has nuclear bombs and Iran is
in pursuit of them and no one is doing anything about it. I agree with
that.
He said that not enough is being
done to buy the uranium-enriched stockpile that the Soviets had developed
and this could fall in the hands of wrong bidders. I agree with that too.
He said American ports are not secure.
This is true. But in reality terrorists do not need to send their destructive
terror through the ports. There are so many ways they could hit America
and the rest of the civilized world that only their diabolic imagination
sets the limit. We really can't protect ourselves everywhere. If you try
to secure the airports by checking the passengers, they could blow themselves
up in the crowded lines while waiting to be checked. They could attack
schools, subways, busses, hospitals, restaurants, water-reservoirs, shopping
malls., the list is end less. Can we really secure all these places? So
the point is moot. Yes it would be nice to secure the ports but does that
make America any safer? What if atomic bombs are delivered to various ports
and detonated simultaneously while waiting inspection? What Sen. Kerry
is proposing will only make Americans spend more money for a false sense
of security.
Sen. Kerry also berated his rival
and said that the war in Iraq was a wrong war at a wrong time. Then in
that debate he said something different. He said that he agreed with the
war but he would have fought it differently. In other words it wasn't the
wrong war at a wrong time but a war that was fought in a wrong way. The
Senator however did not go into specifics to explain in what ways he would
have fought this war differently. I wanted to know, and a google search
brought me the answer: The following is part of an interview that Sen.
Kerry gave in 1998:
"Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program
to build weapons of mass destruction and I support regime change, with
ground troops if necessary. I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and
I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country."
(http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/ashbury/2004/ashbury092804.htm)
It is clear that Sen. Kerry realized
the danger that Saddam was posing and he wanted to remove him by sending
ground troops to Iraq way before 9/11.
Isn't this exactly what the President
did? So in what ways Sen. Kerry would have fought this war differently?
In 2002 he reiterated his concern
about the Iraqi dictator and warned, "he may even miscalculate and slide
these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate
to use them against the United States". (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/ashbury/2004/ashbury092804.htm)
But what we heard in this debate
was completely a different story. The Senator said "Let me be as blunt
and direct with the American people as I can be; the invasion of Iraq was
a profound diversion from the battle against our greatest enemy -- al Qaeda."
Are we to understand that in previous
occasions when the Senator made the above statements he was not blunt and
direct with the Americans?
It seems that Sen. Kerry's bone
of contention with the President is that he acted alone without involving
other countries in the process. In other words the Senator wants to be
a team player and make sure that everyone is happy. How noble! But again
we remember him saying that if push comes to shove he would act alone even
if the UN Security Council fails to act.
2003 - "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling
to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he
will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the
hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council
fails to act." (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/ashbury/2004/ashbury092804.htm)
Wasn't this exactly what the President
did? So I can't understand why the Senator is attacking the president for
doing exactly what he [Sen. Kerry] said should be done.
In this debate, Sen. Kerry also
said a lot of things that are clichés, like "reaching out to Muslims."
What does reaching out to Muslims mean? Is that a new term for appeasement?
How does he plan to do that? Build more Mosques in America? Give more special
rights to Muslims? Make more compromises? Or perhaps offer them Israel
as the sacrificial lamb?
He said that he wants to enlist
the support of all other countries in the fight against terrorism. What
if other countries do not want to come aboard? Would he sit on his hands
and wait until the terrorists become stronger? The Europeans have totally
different priorities. All they care for is to sign lucrative trade agreements
with the rogue states. Terrorism and the stability of the world is the
last thing in their minds. This is to them an American problem.
Yesterday (Oct. 6, 2004) the French
carmaker Renault unveiled plans to build its new budget car, the Dacia
Logan, in Iran. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=445)
On the same day Rafsanjani, the ex-President of Islamic Republic and the
leading candidate in upcoming presidency elections of the Mullahdom, announced
that "Iran's missiles can now hit Europe" (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=435)
and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said "Iran will not
cede to international demands that it suspend all activities related to
the enrichment of uranium and the country is prepared for both confrontation
or negotiations". In fact on October 5th, Iran 's hardliner dominated parliament
began pushing for resumption of uranium enrichment. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=433)
And in the middle of all this a German trader is suspected of selling nuclear
secrets to Iran. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=364)
Whether the Europeans are asleep
or pretend to be asleep is unclear. But the fact is that America cannot
fall asleep in this crucial time when history is in the making and the
destiny of Mankind is at stake.
It seems that Senator Kerry is trying
to adopt a more European approach vis-à-vis Islamic Terrorism. And
like the Europeans, he seems also to want to win the favor of the rogue
countries that support and even promote terrorism by appeasing them.
In a bid to "bribe" the Mullahs
and perhaps to improve the relations between the two countries Sen. Kerry
suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors
if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability. The offer was
of course rejected (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=412)
But this makes it clear that Sen. Kerry desires to "reach out" and tie
the broken knots with the Islamic Republic, which means more power to Islamic
Terrorism worldwide.
Sen. Kerry is a good man. He wants
to please everybody. But we had another good man who tried to please everybody
during 1930s in England. His name was Chamberlain and his policies of appeasement
allowed Hitler to gain strength. Shouldn't we learn our lessons from history?
Today Islam represents more danger to the world than Nazism presented 70
years ago. I don't think "reaching out to Muslims" is a right policy. I
think we should stand tough against Islam and its terrorism. Muslims interpret
"reaching out" as the sign of weakness and this encourages them to continue
with their quest to conquer the world.
The truth is that Iran's missile
program poses a serious threat to not just Europe but the entire Middle
East and US interests, which is compounded significantly by Iran's relentless
pursuit of nuclear weapons. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=434)
Senator Kerry plans to fight terrorism
defensively. The problem is that no amount of defensive measures can eliminate
the risk of being hit again. President Bush favors preemptive war, or in
other words he wants to fight this war in the backyard of those who started
it, instead of fighting it in the cities of the United States. Whether
he will succeed or not remains to be seen. But the fact is that no war
has ever been won by fighting defensively. So, although there is no guarantee
that the President's plan will succeed, the failure of Sen. Kerry's plan
in fighting terrorism defensively is foregone.
As one friend put it, "you cannot
just sit with a swatter waiting to hit the mosquitoes that come into your
house. You have to drain the swamp where the mosquitoes breed".
The real battle against Islamic
Terror is the ideological battle and this is not even being fought yet.
To destroy Islamic Terrorism we must destroy the ideology behind it. Neither
one of the candidates addressed this crucial point. Although the President
mentioned once "the ideology" of the terrorists, he fell short of saying
what he intends to do about it.
There is a saying, "Tell me who
is your friend and I will tell you who you are". One interesting way to
learn which side each of the two candidates stand is to look at their friends
and see who supports them.
Yesterday, the Arab-American Political
Action Committee in Dearborn announced their endorsement for the Sen. John
Kerry-Sen. John Edwards ticket in the 2004 presidential election.
"We believe Senator Kerry will make
America stronger, safer and more respected throughout the world," said
AAPAC president Abed Hammoud in a written statement. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/wdiv/20041006/lo_wdiv/2401288)
Really?!!
Since when, the Arabs became so
interested in the strength and safety of America? Last I remember, they
were dancing in the streets after watching 3000 Americans die in 9/11.
But that is not all. Among Sen.
Kerry's top fundraisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing
for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Most prominent among them is Hassan
Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. Nominated to become
U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Bill Clinton in 1999, Nemazee
eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations
of business improprieties.
Nemazee was a major Clinton donor,
giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 1996
election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising
coffees.
In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil
Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a "personal friend," Nemazee
joined the board of the American-Iranian Council (AIC), a U.S. lobbying
group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and
accommodating the Tehran regime. Nemazee told Timmerman of Insight magazine
he "now regrets" having joined the AIC board and resigned his position
after 12 months when he was vilified by Iranian exile groups. (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/Politics/John-Kerrys.IranianAmerican.FundRaisers-622667.shtml)
Another Iranian fundraiser in Sen.
Kerry's campaign is Susan Akbarpour who was a journalist in Iran, where
she was close to Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of former president Ali Akbar
Rafsanjani, the man who said in a nuclear confrontation Israel will be
totally destroyed while Muslims will only suffer casualties. She made programs
attacking the Iranian dissidents abroad and their anti regime activities
In an Interview with Kenneth Timmerman
Akbarpour boasted: "I am an actor in U.S. politics. I am a fund-raiser
for all candidates who listen to us and our concerns." (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/Politics/John-Kerrys.IranianAmerican.FundRaisers-622667.shtml)
My congratulations to Americans
for having an actress of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the same country
that called America the "Great Satan" and took their embassy workers as
hostage for 444 days, that masterminded the bombing of Israeli consulate
in Argentine and in 1983 killed 241 U.S. Marines in a terrorist attack
near Beirut airport, now starring in their political theater! This must
be nominated for the most hilarious show award.
Akbarpour is not even a U.S. citizen.
She came to America in 1997 as a tourist and remained as an illegal immigrant
until last year when she married to another Islamist Iranian-American and
now she is a green card holder and an "actor in U.S. politics".
One thing we can be sure of is that
the Islamists are no friends of America. They certainly have no desire
to see America become strong or safe. They are the enemies of America.
It seems that the enemies of America have chosen their candidate. Now we
have to wait and see who the American voters will choose as their next
president.
LETTER BY ALI SINA BELOW:
Dear friend of Faith Freedom International
I wrote the following article on
the upcoming presidential election in the U.S. and because in my view the
result could be crucial in world peace or war, I thought to share it with
you.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41007.htm
Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
I remain sincerely yours and thank
you for you support.
Ali Sina @faithfreedom2@yahoo.com
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm)
