Vote Kerry for inconsistent leadership

America has a critically significant decision to make on Nov. 2 — who will lead our country, and consequently, the free world? The man who occupies the White House on Jan. 20, 2005 will superintend the security and sovereignty of the United States. It is not a hyperbole to say that one man will bring more security, one less security; either man will undoubtedly distinctively affect future generations. Therefore, who can we trust most to manage domestic and world affairs during wartime, especially considering the mission of Islamic terrorists to destroy America and Western culture? Most Americans want a strong leader with a history of consistent commitment to American principles and perpetuation of American greatness.

Senator John F. Kerry's consistency can be found easily in a cursory review of the 33 years since he returned from his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam. In 1971 he undermined American troops by testifying against them before the U.S. Senate, slandering and falsely accusing them of gross atrocities; his testimony was later used as propaganda by the enemy and to coerce false confessions from POWs still in Vietnam. His radical anti-war stance encouraged the enemy, shattering the morale of our troops. As a U.S. senator for 20 years he subverted America's military. Kerry consistently voted against legislation to strengthen the American military and weapons systems that won the Cold War, and against defenses that are being used today.

He also voted to cut funding for intelligence-gathering capabilities. As a candidate for president, Kerry is weakening America's interests, contradicting himself; stating that our soldiers are not fighting for a mistake, yet calling the liberation of Iraq a "colossal error" and "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Yet Kerry wants to hold a summit meeting to invite other countries to join the war? Kerry further displays his confusion when he states that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat, but then he also said that we need to do more to train Iraqis but shouldn't be spending so much money in Iraq.

Kerry speaks of "bringing allies to the table" (as though the ones we have aren't enough); he speaks of America having to pass a "global test" to use pre-emptive force legitimately. He wants to wage a "sensitive war on terror", meaning that America will be respected if we smile while we kill terrorists, or tell them that we understand why they are so upset, but still we must kill them. This notion of a sensitive War on Terror is preposterous nonsense.

Perhaps his incoherent positions are based in his multi-lateral viewing of America as a bully in the world, arrogant, imperialistic and needing outside supervision. He also has an aversion to imposing his personal beliefs on America by translating them into legislation — "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist."

This statement is stunningly revealing about his ability to lead. Presidents are supposed to lead. Kerry boldly pledges that "any attack [against the United States] will be met with swift and certain response," however, at that point how many Americans will be dead? A Kerry presidency would mean impending disaster for this country.

Alternatively, President George W. Bush leads with principle and consistent resolve, putting the best interests of America first. This has earned him the scorn, disdain and hatred of Americans and others in the world but he clearly understands the grave long-term global implications of not completing the war on terror, especially in Iraq. The enemy must be crushed and Bush is willing to withstand personal attacks to defend our country and its citizens. A lesser leader would have caved in long ago. He obviously understands and subscribes to the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

The choice seems obvious — clear leadership vs. confused vacillation.

Michelle Gomez is a third year political science and journalism major at CSULB. This article is the last in a four-part weekly series on terrorism.