Whos more dangerous? (Expanded)

Neal Boortz can't decide who's more dangerous, Islamic jihadist terrorists or people who think John Kerry belongs in the White House. I have to agree with him -- It's a tough call. Let me tell you why:

We're in a war, people. We didn't start it, but our only choices are to win it or die. The enemy is radical Islam and its followers. If the jihadists could, they’d kill every non-Moslem on the planet, even if it meant killing most of the Moslem population in the process. John Kerry would rather let that happen than do something about it without U.N. “permission” and the approval of our European “allies.” George Bush isn’t taking as strong a stance as I’d like him to on some things (immigration control is one important example), but at least he’s headed in the right direction. Kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan and forcing Al Queda into hiding was a good first step in that direction. Deposing Saddam Hussein’s Baathist thugocracy in Iraq was the next right thing to do. Both jobs still need a little more “tidying up,” but at least we’re off to a good start. Voting for Bush and Cheney means voting to finish those jobs and move on to whatever needs done next. Voting for Kerry means voting to leave those jobs unfinished, retreat to our own borders, and wait to be slaughtered like so many scared little rabbits.

No, Kerry voters won’t kill us themselves, but voting for Kerry is voting to let the jihadist terrorists do it. There is no more important issue, or more important set of issues, in the upcoming presidential election.

I could go on for hours about John Kerry’s elitist attitude; his dishonesty; his inability to take a position and stick to it; his leadership position in the Vietnam Veterans Against The War Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, And Veterans organization; and a dozen other reasons not to vote for him, but I’ll put those off for later posts.