Every four years pundits and politicians alike opine about how this particular presidential race is the defining election of the era. "This is the most important vote we'll ever cast," they exclaim every four years. Usually, this brand of breathless hype is nothing more than an attempt to sell newspapers, grab ratings, or get votes. In these extraordinary times, however, it is not hyperbole to say that the decision this nation makes on November 2, 2004 will echo for decades.

Al Qaeda and its murderous allies want to kill all Americans regardless of their views on social and economic issues. This being the stark reality, the choice of who will lead the nation for the next four years boils down to a question of which candidate is most capable of destroying the evil forces of radical Islam and protecting American lives.

In an attempt to determine the best candidate to conduct the Global War on Terror, Eternal Vigilance Society has for six months monitored both campaigns, listened to speeches, surfed websites, watched interviews and read platforms. This independent and non-partisan attempt to discover which man is more capable to lead the United States at this crucial period in our history has compelled EVS to endorse President Bush's re-election.

Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Unclear

Senator Kerry's plan to defeat the forces of Islamic terrorism is dangerously unclear.

Kerry said recently, "When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one thing differently, I would've done almost everything differently." This intriguing statement was rendered meaningless when the Senator failed to give one concrete detail about how he would have done things differently.

Similarly, Senator Kerry now opposes the USA-Patriot Act but offers no alternative method of gathering the information about espionage and terror plots that the Patriot Act currently yields. It appears that Senator Kerry's desire to protect the sanctity of innocent human life gives way to his desire to protect the sanctity of the library card.

In the span of a few months, Senator Kerry has demanded that we increase the number of troops on the ground in Iraq and boasted that he has a plan to reduce the troop strength in Iraq. This begs the question: Which is it Senator, more troops or less? Indecision is not a leadership quality.

The ambitions of the terrorists are frighteningly clear: kill as many Americans as possible. At minimum, the plan to thwart that deadly goal must be equally well defined. A strategy to protect the lives of Americans that begins and ends with, "the Bush plan is bad. My plan is better." is not a strategy at all. It is vague and uninspiring.

Kerry's decided lack of clarity is disheartening to American troops prosecuting the War on Terror and to the American people whose lives depend on their success. This lack of a defined plan to deal with al Qaeda is eerily reminiscent of the nation's pre- 9/11 posture. Sadly, it is likely to embolden terrorists exactly as our pre-9/11 lack of commitment to deal with the threat did.

Senator Kerry has a plan to win the presidency but has failed to put forth a coherent outline of how his presidency would protect American lives. We find this utterly unacceptable.

Kerry Supporters Are Soft on Terror

On November 2 nd the nation will not only select a Chief Executive. We will also be choosing an entire administration to prosecute the Global War on Terror. Cabinet positions traditionally go to campaign advisors and convention speakers. Team Kerry is riddled with dubious figures. Former President Jimmy Carter is a pleasant and decent man, but the last 400 days of his presidency were marked by Islamic radicals holding American citizens hostage and his inability to do anything about it.

Top Kerry supporter and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean stated flatly, "I continue to stand against his (Bush's) policy of preemption." Opposition to preemption is by definition an endorsement of reactive rather than proactive policies. Dean's 'they attack us and we'll attack back' mentality ignores the lessons of 9/11.

Replacing the experienced leadership of Colin Powell, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld with Dean, Carter or any other neo-pacifist is a dangerous gamble that puts the lives of all Americans at risk.

Although Kerry pledges to continue to support the war in Iraq and aggressively fight global terror, the driving force behind his campaign is the same reflexive anti-war ideology that specifically opposed U.S. action in Afghanistan and Iraq and which opposes the use of force in general.

As president, Kerry could turn his back on the people who got him elected and vigorously fight the War on Terror. Or, with an eye on his re-election, he might advance the agenda of his anti-war base and put American lives in jeopardy. The EVS analysis of John Kerry indicates that it is at best a toss up whether he would risk re-election and fight the War on Terror or succumb to the pacifist wing of his party in exchange for the chance at a second term. With the United Sates in the crosshairs of a bloodthirsty enemy we need better than a toss up.

The Bush Plan is Clear and Proven

President Bush's detractors claim that because he has not performed the most difficult job in the world at one of the most difficult times flawlessly, he is a failure unworthy of re-election. This is transparent, power-seeking, irresponsible nonsense at its worst. EVS acknowledges that the Bush anti-terror plan is not without its faults but also realizes that the successes have far outweighed the failures.

Those who oppose the Bush Doctrine of preemptive national defense assured us that the U.S. military would suffer the same fate as the Soviets in the mountains of Afghanistan. Under Bush's leadership the brutal Taliban regime that harbored Osama bin Laden was destroyed, terrorist training camps were shut down, and a democracy was born in a matter of months not years.

The "Anybody but Bush" crowd laments Bush's decision to liberate Iraq without a UN resolution as "unilateral." They ignore the fact that the U.S. bond with our most vital and committed ally, the British, has never been stronger and that the Bush Coalition boasts more than thirty nations.

In the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom sporadic ambushes and a vicious sandstorm temporarily slowed the allied advance to Baghdad. Kerry and his band of pessimists declared a quagmire. Under the President's leadership the able and dedicated U.S. military stayed the course. Less than three weeks later the genocidal regime that had been entrenched for thirty years was vanquished and the Iraqi people were dancing in the streets. Soon they will hold their first national elections. A new, free nation is born.

The President's political opponents assured us that Bush's preemptive strike would jeopardize our national security. Yet, shortly after Saddam fell, Libya's Momar Kadafhi, another terrorist killer of Americans, voluntarily handed over to the United States his entire nuclear weapons program. Similarly, Bush-haters insisted that his bold and decisive leadership would lead to more terrorist attacks on the U.S. Yet despite being its favorite target, radical Islam has been unable to perpetrate one single attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, while inflicting hundreds of deaths in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and Russia.

What Message Will We Send On Election Day?

The choice the nation makes on Election Day will send a message to the terrorists, to the people we've liberated, and to our loyal allies.

A defeat of Bush would send an unmistakable message to our enemies: that the American people do not have the stomach to defeat them. It would signal to the nations of the world that harbor terrorists to continue doing so, because the American people have lost interest in snuffing out terrorism at its source. To those terrorist-friendly nations like Iran that are desperately trying to develop nuclear weapons the defeat of President Bush would keep them keeping working on that bomb that could, in a matter of seconds, kill thousands of Americans. Surely, our terrorist enemies would be emboldened by the political defeat of our commander-in-chief.

To the 55 million Afghanis and Iraqis liberated in the past three years the defeat of President Bush would say, "It was a mistake to free your country. Sorry, but we're going to go in another direction now."

Many Afghanis and Iraqis are wary of cooperating with the U.S. led Coalition because they fear a coalition withdrawal would leave them vulnerable to reprisal if an extremist government comes to power. The election of Kerry throws into doubt the American commitment to Iraq and the pro-democracy Iraqis will be reluctant to join the coalition's effort to build a free and stable Iraq.

To our allies like the British, the Italians, and Poles, whose soldiers fought and died with ours, the defeat of Bush says we do not appreciate your sacrifices. We want to be lead by Senator Kerry who belittles and ignores your efforts by claiming the United States acted unilaterally and refers to us as "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed".

On the other hand, a Bush win in November tells Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , and all other murdering terrorists that the American people want you brought to justice. It guarantees al Qaeda at least four more years of being pursued tirelessly by the fiercest military machine the world has ever known.

Bush's re-election represents a solemn promise by the American people to the terrorist world that we are coming for what is left of your assets, we are going to destroy what remains of your training camps and we will continue to bring you to justice or send you to Allah.

A Bush victory will in many ways demoralize the terrorists. It will also tell those Iraqis and Afghanis who feared reprisal if they cooperated with the U.S. led coalition to participate in the new democratic government because the United States is a solid ally committed to their prosperity and freedom.

Re-electing Bush tells the freedom loving people of Iraq and Afghanistan that they can count on four more years of unwavering support from the U.S. and her many allies.

Finally, a Bush re-election reinvigorates the coalition by ensuring continuity of proven leadership and re-affirms America's appreciation of those countries that answered the call to eliminate the scourge of terrorism.

Conclusion

Days after the deadly attacks of 9/11, President Bush stood atop a pile of rubble that was the World Trade Center and shouted through a megaphone that those who inflicted this devastation would soon hear from us. While his words were memorable, reassuring, and inspiring they would have been meaningless had President Bush not spent the past three years subjecting our enemies to the mighty roar of a free and determined people defending themselves. Eternal Vigilance Society endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush not for making this pledge, as any president would have done. EVS endorses Bush for his determination and leadership in fulfilling that promise when to do so was political dangerous but absolutely necessary to American freedom and security.

Here are a few More Reasons Why:

- Bush realizes that the War on Terror trumps all other issues and has put protecting
American lives ahead of politics. Cleary, victory in the War on Terror is the
number one priority of his presidency.

- Bush's aggressive policies have lead to the capture and death of thousands
of terrorists.

- The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken the fight to the enemy forcing the
terrorists to fight and die thousands of miles away from the U.S.

- The Reelection of Bush demoralizes terrorists.

- Bush policies have a proven track record of keeping Americans safe.

- Kerry has refused to be a leader in the war on terror. Despite 19 years in
the Senate, including three years since 9/11, Kerry has never proposed one single
bill to combat terrorists.

- The Kerry campaign is influenced by well-meaning but misguided, pacifists who
advocate policies that endanger American lives.

- Many Iraqi's are wary of cooperating with the U.S. led Coalition because they
fear a coalition withdrawal would leave them vulnerable if an extremist government
comes into power. Re-electing Bush tells the freedom loving people of Iraq that
they can count on four more years of unwavering support from the U.S. and her
many allies. Conversely, the election of Kerry throws into doubt the American
commitment to Iraq and the pro-democracy Iraqi's will be reluctant to join the
coalition's effort to build a free and stable Iraq.

The Numbers Don't Lie

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S ANTI-TERROR RECORD BY THE NUMBERS

2

Tyrannical Pro Terrorist Governments overthrown and replaced by democracies

1

Mass Murdering Dictators Brought to Justice

55,000,000

Number of People Liberated

31

Members of the American Led Coalition in Iraq

$196,000,000

Terrorist Assets Seized or Frozen

0

Terror Attacks on American soil since 9/11

EVS IS NOT ALONE IN ITS INDEPENDENT NON-PARTIASAN SUPPORT FOR BUSH

"Why have I endorsed George W. Bush when I don't agree with him on a single domestic
issue? Because I believe the issue of international terrorism trumps all other
issues. I don't believe the Democratic Party has the stomach and commitment to
deliver on that issue."

- Mayor Ed Koch, Liberal Democrat Icon

"I hate that it took the awful tragedy of September 11, 2001, to wake us up to
reality. But I'm sure glad we did wake up. And I'm grateful that George W. Bush
was leading America exactly when we needed a steel spine and a clear head in the
White House."

-Senator Zell Miller, Lifelong Democrat

"President Bush has provided the steady, consistent and principled leadership
to bring our country through the worst attack in our history. His leadership on
that day is central to his record, and his continued leadership is critical to
our ultimate success against world terrorism."

- Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Two-Term Republican Mayor of New York City

"Please join us in setting the record straight and showing your support for President
Bush -- a leader who has proven his support for those who have served, backs our
troops defending our nation and shares our values.