Home > News > Opinion
Bush for president
Web posted Monday, October 25, 2004
| Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
|
Have a thought?
Go to the Forums or Chat.
|
|
|
Opposition to President George W. Bush has moved from the merely shrill to the utterly irrational.
He lied about weapons of mass destruction? If so, the United Nations, the French, the Germans, John Kerry and the rest of the civilized world "lied" as well. They all believed the weapons were there.
Meanwhile, the chief complaint about the commander in chief seems to be this: that he's gone too far in trying to protect us from terrorists!
If this is a vice, there's never been another one that has done more for you or your family.
A more rational assessment of the president's first term reveals the following facts:
Terrorists have failed to attack U.S. soil in over three years - a function, perhaps, of having been routed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Consider: Naysayers predicted a Vietnam-like quagmire - read: failure - in Afghanistan, based upon the Soviets' long, bloody misadventure there in the 1980s. President Bush not only proved the skeptics wrong, but scattered the terrorists like cockroaches and freed the Afghan people, who just concluded an amazing turnaround with a free election featuring the full participation of women.
One hornet's nest knocked down, and decades of improvement within a matter of months.
Another terrorist state was gutted, another threat eliminated, and another people liberated, when coalition forces toppled the evil regime of Saddam Hussein.
Critics assail the move because 1) Saddam's weapons have not been found and 2) the terrorists have not given up.
Interestingly, there is no argument whatsoever that Saddam once had them, wanted them again - and would have gladly participated in or sponsored a chemical, biological or even nuclear attack on a U.S. city. Does any rational president, facing that possibility, worry about what the world might think if he takes pre-emptive action?
As for the terrorists, why would anyone expect them to give up? Regardless, their ill-advised last stand in Iraq is doomed to failure - and when elections take place next year, President Bush will have mopped up yet another terrorist superfund site and set a country on the path to democracy.
Meanwhile, there can be no doubt that al-Qaida's ability to project violence around the world has been severely crippled under George W. Bush.
What more could we ask of our commander in chief in this most unconventional war?
Despite all this - and a recession that was exacerbated by the Sept. 11 attacks - the economy has rebounded and is on the right track. Adding tax increases and a much greater government role for health care now - as Sen. John Kerry is proposing - would only drag the recovery down.
A Kerry administration, if it got its way, would install activist judges who would continue the frightening propensity for unelected judges to rule America by judicial fiat.
Think that's an exaggeration? Think again. Just one example: Four Supreme Court justices from Kerry's Massachusetts overturned tradition, centuries of common law and explicit state law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. We've gotten to the point that laws mean nothing to judges who disagree with them. That's judicial tyranny, and it has to stop. It will continue if John Kerry is elected.
Moreover, consider the implications of this election on the war on terror. Make no mistake about this: As the anti-war candidate - he has said this was the wrong war at the wrong time - electing John Kerry will send a clear and uplifting message to terrorists throughout the world. A Kerry win will be seen in no ambiguous terms as a repudiation of America's war on terror.
It will be seen as a retreat, plain and simple.
Further, we sincerely believe Sen. Kerry does not understand the urgency of pre-emptive action or the kill-or-be-killed mentality of our enemy. His long anti-military record as a disdainful veteran and dovish senator provides a historical basis for concluding Sen. Kerry not only will eschew vital pre-emptive action against terrorists - if it is at all unpopular - but that military action to preserve and protect American lives and values will be anathema to him.
Our country, our cities and our towns have never been more in danger from a catastrophic terrorist strike. Our choice on Nov. 2 will be stark indeed: a choice between a longtime opponent of national defense - who has been on both sides of every major issue of our time - and a proven commander in chief who has instilled abject fear in the hearts of terrorists because he is strong and forthright and is not afraid to face down any amount of weak-kneed European opposition to keep America safe.
President Bush isn't looking to be liked around the world. He's looking to lead.
That's what we need.
Send the terrorists the right message. Send President George W. Bush back to the White House to finish this most important task.
--From the Monday, October 25, 2004 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle
|
