Giuliani speech (reaction)

The text of Giuliani's speech is linked in the title of this post. It is most notable because Giuliani understands the minds of the terrorists: these are not reasonable and civilized people upon whom sweet reason will have its desired effect. Instead, any action other than stomping out the terrorists themselves is effectively appeasement -- a sign of ultimate weakness and a signal that the appeaser FEARS the appeased. Giuliani traces the historical reaction to terrorism pre-Bush and, in the process, makes the strongest and most cogent argument for the Bush Doctrine since Bush's State of the Union address in 2002:

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun. The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

And after Italy released the terrorists who attacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship, Giuliani noted:

terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Even more beautiful is Giuliani's complete smackdown of Arafat:

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Giuliani said "was" but Arafat still supports the terrorist plague he created decades ago. And Giuliani also noted the essence of leadership and why John Kerry has no idea of it:

John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October, 2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace."

A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."

The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.

John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course.

President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense.

He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.

And that, in a nutshell, is why Kerry must not be elected.

_________
More reactions:

Captain Ed
Outside the Beltway
Allahpundit
Right on Red
California Yankee