Hysterical men for Bush

Joseph Farah changes his mind:

Ask yourself today: Will America be safer with Bush or Kerry in the White House? That’s how simple the choice is today. All other considerations merely muddy the water and complicate what is seen by our enemies as a clear choice.

If we were at peace, this might be an opportune moment to consider building a third party. It might be a great chance to protest the choices we have. But we are not at peace. We are at war.

Again, it makes no difference who is in the White House. Neither Bush nor Kerry will have the capability of stopping terrorist attacks. It is more reasonable to think that Bush and Clinton ordered/permitted the 9/11 and OK City attacks than it is to believe that a president, any president, could stop another terrorist attack in the United States. In Israel, it has not made any difference whether Likud or Labor was in power as the terrorist attacks have continued regardless of who is in office, and certainly there has been no shortage of terrorist attacks on Americans in Iraq with George Delano in office.

If we are indeed at war, which I assert we are not in either a technical or a realistic national sense, then George Bush has been a horrendously inept Commander-in-Chief. Where are the comparisons to Germany and Japan now, as the violence continues apace? The borders are wide-open to the countries with whom we are supposedly “at war” and I daresay that the leaders in Washington are far more concerned with keeping the stock market afloat than ending the terror threat to Americans.

As Umberto Eco recognized thirty years ago, governments and terrorists have a symbiotic relationship with each other. Each needs the other, not necessarily to survive, but to thrive. There must always be a villain; if the villain actually exists, so much the better. I’m disappointed that Mr. Farah has fallen for the lamest and oldest argument in the centralist book, but then, he’s far from the only one to do so.