Little Red Blog

There was a reason that Senator Pander avoided press conferences and the media during the last 3 months of the Presidential election. The left would like you to believe that it is because the media, long known as a bastion of conservatism, was out to get the Senator and to distort the very consistent view he has expressed of the war in Iraq and other issues. The truth, the Senator has avoided the media because the more the American people see of him the more certain they are that he is not the man for the job. His two latest examples are his three-question exchange with the press last week, and now, the New York Times Magazine story by Matt Bai.

The first thing noted by many from the Bai story are Senator Pander’s comments regarding terror, specifically, about when Americans will 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,'' Kerry said. ''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."

While this particular comment irks the hell out of me and reminds me of the intellectual fluff that fills the text books it reflects none of the wisdom gained from having served in the military at war or in times of peace. Bai, however seemed to find sustenance in the nuance availed to him by Kerry, as will many who read the drivel.

Of particular delight are the comments regarding Kerry's past service, where rather than seeking external justification of Kerry's significance, Bai looks to Kerry who says:

"Of all the records in the Senate, if you don't mind my saying, I think I was ahead of the curve on this entire dark side of globalization," he said. "I think that the Senate committee report on contras, narcotics and drugs, et cetera, is a seminal report. People have based research papers on it. People have based documents on it, movies on it. I think it was a significant piece of work."

Once again Senator Pander shows that he sees his success in the most important arenas. "Movies" based on his work. It must be really important work.

Today Marines and Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors, Guardsmen and civil servants of many organizations fight to bring justice to a land that has been starved of justice for too long. No serious movies are made of their efforts, unlike WWII, yet they know the significance of their acts both by the moral justification for it and the response they receive from those who rejoice in Freedom. Like the millions voting in Afghanistan yesterday.

Senator Pander is a disgraceful return to an era and an ideology based on social interaction and warm fuzzy ideals of peace and togetherness, yet shows the imbalanced reactionary impulses of a juvenile bully.

"You know, my instinct was, Where's my gun?" Kerry told me. "How do you fight back? I wanted to do something."

Bai notes that Kerry has failed to show a worldview that counters the President's global war on terror. What he fails to note is that Kerry has in effect shown all there is to his worldview. As we've seen before, his view is as follows:

1. Follow international rule of law and seek approval of global bodies before national interest.

2. Attack only after we have been attacked.

3. Seek political interaction with axis of evil nations, we know they are trust worthy, right.

4. Look to eliminate social, economic and political causes for the disenfranchisement of the good people who become terrorist.

5. When in doubt, follow France, at least you'll make a buck off it, and be popular with the Socialist.

Those on the right, including those who council the President, know that this war is one of both military actions, supported by police and investigative actions, as well as on one of ideological reform. The failure of Senator Pander to recognize the significance of the war, the strategic elements of the war, as shown in his statement that by liberating 50 million people we have "imposed" democracy rather than invited them to it, shows his utter confusion as to the ideological fault in the Islamic world. It is not the U.S., as Bob Kerrey asserts, who must acknowledge the gulf between the U.S. and the Arab or Muslim world, it is the Muslim who must demand more of his government, more of his Imam and more of his faith. Until he does, we will defeat nations that present a threat not just in their leadership or military capacity, but in their policies, practices and popular support for Islamo-fascist ideals.