I remember a comic from years back, Calvin and Hobbs as I recall. Calvin is sitting on a bench at lunch time, eating. Just then, the school bully sits down next to him, for once minding his own business. Calvin works himself up into a frenzy, thinking about how the bully is going to hit him. Wound up to the point of exploding, Calvin coldcocks the bully, knocking him out. When the teacher shows up to see what happened, Calvin exclaims, “I HIT HIM BACK FIRST!”

I think this best explains our current policy against terrorists. We know they are going to hit us, we know it will hurt, we know the loss of life will be horrendous.

So why not hit them back first? We no longer face a reasonable country as a foe, one who will weigh the advantages and disadvantages before attacking. We face a relatively small group of men who are not afraid to give their lives killing thousands of us in the process.

If we hit them where they live, keep them disorganized, disrupt their plans, we can keep them from hitting us. Which is exactly what our policy has been since Sept. 12th, 2001.

Senator Kerry doesn’t like that policy. He prefers to wait until we and our economy is in ruins before doing a damn thing about it. He would rather be REactive than PROactive.

Want proof? here it is, in his own words:

“I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.”

What I want to hear are words like this, paraphrased from President Bush:

“In this day of global terror, we will relentlessly pursue the terrorists and any other clear and present threats of the American people until they are dead or captured. No more will we wait until we are attacked, because the next attack will result in mushroom clouds appearing over our cities.”

That may make me a warmonger, and you could be right. But I ask anybody who would prefer waiting until New York, Chicago, LA, Cleveland, Dallas, et. al. are radioactive craters, please speak up and tell me you want to wait to do something until after a terrorist attack like that.

So what should we do? Hit them back first, or be reactive? Comments, please.

Found on NewsMax, this article should give you some pause: Comes Death on a Pale Horse.

He walked steadily but not hurriedly. He was neatly dressed in a three-piece Brooks Brothers suit. As he walked he looked directly ahead with a slight smile on his face; no one paid any attention to him. He was everyman; dark-skinned, clean-shaven, with straight black hair neatly combed.
When he reached the front of the largest building in the very center of the busy city, he put his suitcase down and checked his wristwatch. It was 9:54 a.m. His timing was impeccable. He picked up the suitcase and turned toward the street. Traffic was light; most people had already arrived at their jobs and were working. He said his prayers. A few minutes later he placed the suitcase on the sidewalk and slowly bent over and initiated the firing sequence.

“Allah Akbar!” he said, smiling.

Within seconds a huge fireball rose above the city. Already tens of thousands were dead, while buildings blocks away were twisted and ripped open by a wind calculated to approach 700 miles per hour. Within three minutes the dead and wounded would exceed 1 million Americans.

This same scenario was repeated at exactly the same time in six additional American cities. Fortunately, two other bombs failed to detonate. The death toll was over 7 million. America was physically devastated, her economy in shambles. No help came from the United Nations. No European countries sent aid.

Is that our future? I hope not, but we’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?