Posted on 10/24/2004 8:45:33 PM PDT by mhking
Forget Purple Hearts and Swift boats. Forget the Alabama whereabouts of young Lt. George Bush. Forget John Kerry's impressive debate skills. Forget Dick Cheney's faulty memory on Iraq and 9/11. Forget Mary Cheney's sexuality. Forget Teresa Heinz Kerry's bursts of silliness.
Forget all the mini-tempests in a teapot. Even forget, to some degree, some big issues like the economy and jobs, the budget deficit, Social Security and Medicare.
The 2004 presidential election should hinge on one issue: America's role in a 21st-century world forever changed by the terror of Sept. 11, 2001. On this issue - how we defeat global terrorism, how we make America safe, how we export freedom and democracy to the rest of the world and win the hearts and minds of those who would fall prey to radical Islam - the differences between the two candidates are as noticeable as the gap in New York City's skyline from the missing World Trade Center towers.
President Bush believes strongly that the best defense is an aggressive offense. He argues that the United States needs to root out terrorists around the world before they strike Americans, and that rogue states which harbor terrorists or weapons of mass destruction are fair game. He believes it is more important to be right than popular around the world.
Sen. Kerry promises to "lead a new era of alliances" to fight terror. That necessarily means accepting a check on our freedom to act. And while it's nice to envision allies providing troops and money to help fight battles, many of our traditional allies have made it clear little would be forthcoming, at least in Iraq.
How has the Bush Doctrine played out?
After the 9/11 attacks, the president launched a war against Osama bin Laden, his terror network al-Qaida and Afghanistan, the country that sheltered them. U.S. troops destroyed terror camps and killed or captured most al-Qaida leaders (but not, unfortunately, bin Laden). Two weeks ago, millions of Afghans, including women, voted peacefully in that country's first-ever presidential election.
U.S. personnel, working with countries around the world, have disrupted many terror cells.
Libya, cowed by Bush's pre-emption policy, agreed to turn over its weapons of mass destruction.
In Iraq, brutal dictator Saddam Hussein has been toppled, and elections are planned in January.
Yes, Iraq has turned into a mess: After a quick and brilliantly executed war, the United States hasn't been able to win the peace. A growing number of insurgents and foreign fighters have made Iraq a much more dangerous place for U.S. troops and citizens, with mounting death tolls for both.
Without doubt, Bush has made his share of mistakes in Iraq, even if he is unwilling to admit them. He went to war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (a war Kerry voted to authorize); there aren't enough troops on the ground to quell the insurrection; Bush's misplaced loyalty kept needed heads from rolling after the embarrassing Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Nor has Bush's domestic agenda been everything we had hoped for: His tax cuts and prescription drug plan were too expensive; he has yet to veto a spending bill, even as the budget deficit soars to record levels; his administration has been too secretive; he has kowtowed too often to special interests on matters from the environment to energy policy.
Truth is, it's easy to make a case on many fronts against Bush serving four more years. But it's not so easy to make a case for Kerry as president.
Kerry has been one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate, opposing the views of this newspaper's editorial board on a number of issues, from abortion to stem-cell research to free trade. Nor has he sponsored any bills of note in 20 years as senator.
And on the election's defining issue, the safety and security of this country as we wage war on terror, Kerry's muddled internationalist approach pales compared with Bush's aggressive vision.
That alone is reason enough for voters to give George W. Bush four more years.
BTTT
bump!
And, I might add, Kerry repeats his long traitorous pattern of aiding and abetting the enemy.
Ping
Ping
Thanks for the PING. Some of the Birmingham Snooze Libs are writing that Bush is not a shoe in for Jefferson County. I think they are talking to their friends at Starbucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.