October 1, 2004 - Unless life consistently passes you by you know that one of the most important elections in modern times will take place on November 2nd. And while the candidates address many issues, logic mandates that one in particular be deemed the most important. In the post September 11th world it shouldn’t be hard to figure out but then there are ideologues and the terminally narcissistic living among "We the People.” For them it shall be stated. No other issue this election is more important than War on Terror.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand there are many issues important to the day-to-day lives of every American. Healthcare, the economy, tax reform, Social Security reform and education are all serious topics that need to be handled in a responsible and non-partisan way (as if Congress will ever let that happen.) But compared to the War on Terror these issues have to take a backseat.

If any of you have taken a CPR class then you know that sometimes one action must precede another in a chain of events. During a CPR class the instructor drives home the importance of the ABCs – airway, breathing and circulation. While some advances have taken place since I taught CPR back in my firefighter/paramedic days the basic principles remain. In order for a heart attack victim to be recovered one has to attain an open airway. All of the chest compressions and defibrillations in the world will not reverse the patient’s state of "dead” if oxygen is not allowed to reach the brain, period, as Teresa Heinz Kerry would proclaim.

The same is true for our country and the War on Terror.

While the economy is of great importance, it really doesn’t matter how healthy it is if terrorists can strike at the heart of our nation at will. We all witnessed how long it took to recover financially from the attacks of September 11th. Airlines were affected most dramatically. The travel industry as a whole was devastated. And how many times did we hear not to go into shopping malls because of the targets they made? Commerce was significantly affected. In fact, the terror attacks on our nation were more of a reason for the stock market decline of 2001-2002 than any other factor, including the inherited recession. President Bush should be applauded for a tremendous job in fostering our economic recovery.

You can take any issue you’d like; it is trumped by the War on Terror. Healthcare. How can you be healthy when terrorists are blowing you up? Social Security. Are you really going to care if you’re dead? Education. All I have to say about education and terror is Beslan. The list can go on but I believe that I’ve made my point. The War on Terror and combating terrorism is the single most important issue of this election.

The reason I make this point should be abundantly clear. When it comes down to this single and most important issue, an issue that will be important for the rest of our lives, there is only one candidate that can possibly be considered when voting November 2nd. That candidate is George W. Bush.

This point can be made quite emphatically by spotlighting just one of Kerry’s quotes. It has nothing to do with the current debate on Iraq. It has nothing to do with the $87 billion that he allegedly voted for before he voted against. It has everything to do with mindset.

In Senator Kerry’s speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination he said, "Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.” The only problem with his declaration is that more Americans will have to die before Kerry would "react.” John Kerry’s battle plan in the War on Terror would be to "respond” only after more innocents, more children, are killed. That’s not good enough anymore.

George W. Bush has taken the fight to the enemy with steadfast determination. The Bush Doctrine was designed to take the battles to the terrorists, in regions where terrorism is allowed to breed, instead of waiting for them to come to our shores, death in hand, to slaughter innocent Americans. And while the Bush Administration may have seen its share of ups and downs in individual battles – absolutely no war ever goes the way it’s planned – its performance has been effective. The Bush Doctrine of preemption is far better than Kerry’s declaration of reaction.

So, the question is: Do we wait until the US experiences a Beslan of its own before we "react” to terrorism? Or do we go on the offensive, taking the fight to the enemy? In a post September 11th world the choice is clear. Our choice this November must be George W. Bush.