Tweet
BUSH FOR AMERICA
October 22, 2004 -- The Post this morning proudly urges the reelection of President George W. Bush.
There are many issues before the electorate, but none more im portant than the War on Terror.
So let's be clear: America will be safer with George Bush in the White House.
Not totally safe; even the president concedes that.
But safer, and that's quite good enough for us.
On Sept. 11, 2001, he was a rock.
Since then, he has prosecuted the War on Terror with determination.
Not flawlessly, not by a long shot, but competently enough so that there has been no second attack on American soil — even though terrorists have struck in Bali and Beslan, Baghdad and Madrid.
Sure, domestic issues are important: The nation's economic health undergirds the War on Terror. And folks naturally worry about their pocketbooks.
Education is critical (and Bush's No Child Left Behind act may mark the beginning of true reform).
Social Security needs attention. Even issues like same-sex marriage and stem-cell research are topical.
We happen to think Bush has the right plans for America in these areas.
But in the end, no issue comes close in importance to the war: When suicidal killers are plotting to pounce, debates over, say, the Alternative Minimum Tax pale to insignificance.
HOW has Bush done on Priority One?
Quite well.
He has made enormous headway in eliminating threats from both global terror networks and hostile regimes, like that of Saddam Hussein.
Iraq, of course, remains a work in progress. But all wars are "two steps forward, one step back" propositions; this one is no different.
And while it is true that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, it is equally clear that they would have been there quickly enough after U.N. sanctions were lifted — a process that was well under way when Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
Most important of all, President Bush has kept America safe at home during the three-plus years that have passed since 9/11.
Oh, and Bush has done one other little thing: He's changed the course of world history forever — in huge ways.
For starters, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and aggressive promotion of freedom abroad has put dictator-thugs and terrorists everywhere on notice.
And given hope to the world's oppressed.
Yes, we have differed with Bush on numerous occasions.
But, again, when you consider his granite-like stewardship of the War on Terror, there's really no question that America has been truly fortunate to have had him in the White House.
And that America needs him there through the next phase of the war.
This presidential election will be the first since the terrorists attacked in 2001, thus ushering in a new era in world history.
Never before had America been surprised so totally, and with such grave consequences.
The country reacted swiftly and appropriately — but that response was hardly foreordained.
Indeed, it was President Bush's vision and fortitude alone that led the nation to wage its fiercest war in decades.
Nine days after the attack, Bush announced a War on Terror. It would begin with al Qaeda, but "not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
He said that in its "grief and anger" America had found its mission and moment — "the advance of human freedom." And he vowed to use every legitimate means of warfare at his disposal.
Every nation had to decide, Bush said: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. We will not tire. We will not falter. And we will not fail."
And George Bush has not flinched.
Within weeks of 9/11, the president launched a military offensive in Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime had given al Qaeda refuge.
Critics said the effort was doomed — that the Soviet Union had fought there for years, unsuccessfully. But within just weeks, the Taliban had been routed and terrorist bases closed.
Eventually, U.S. and allied forces killed or captured three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership.
Yes, Osama bin Laden — if he is in fact alive — remains at large. But he is increasingly a general without an army, and he is off-balance and on the run.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan has held the first democratic election in its history.
From a wider strategic perspective, President Bush, at West Point in 2002, proclaimed that deterrence was to be replaced by pre-emption.
"We cannot defend America . . . by hoping for the best," he said. "We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants . . . If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
America was going on the offensive.
"We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans . . . The only path to safety is the path of action — and this nation will act."
That formulation was exactly right in the post-9/11 age.
And thus was built the premise for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Let's face it: Saddam Hussein was viewed by everyone as a clear threat. France, England, the United Nations — even John Kerry — all believed he had WMDs. Clinton-appointed CIA Director George Tenet said the case was a "slam dunk."
Saddam denied it, but refused to provide proof — or even cooperate with inspectors and foreign officials.
For Bush not to have acted would have been highly irresponsible.
Again, WMDs were not found.
But you have to be blind — or delusional — to think Saddam wasn't a threat.
Indeed, all the evidence has shown that the tyrant had WMD programs — if not weapons — in place, that he was moving rapidly to erode sanctions and that it was only a matter of time before he had amassed deadly stockpiles.
It's also certain — as the various reports have shown — that Saddam's regime had ties to al Qaeda terrorists.
Not only had he given refuge to madmen like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, now believed to be directing terror campaigns in Fallujah, but the risk existed that Saddam could help al Qaeda acquire WMDs or other deadly weapons.
U.S. efforts in Iraq are not finished. More than 1,000 troops have died, and billions have been spent. And pockets of strong resistance remain.
But, again, only revisionists like John Kerry would argue that the progress there has not been astounding.
While Saddam rots in jail, the infrastructure is rapidly being rebuilt. And in less than three months, free democratic elections will take place.
Meanwhile, Bush has hardened Amer ica's defenses at home, bolstering anti-terror efforts at the borders and elsewhere. Intelligence-gathering and law enforcement have shifted their emphasis to prevention.
The Patriot Act has helped officials foil numerous plots.
The president also helped New York, in particular — channeling more than $20 billion to help rebuild downtown.
Has Bush ignored the economy?
Hardly.
A recession that took hold just as President Clinton was leaving office and the 9/11 strike led to the loss of more than 2 million jobs.
Bush acted quickly, winning hefty tax cuts that have turned things around.
In the past year alone, nearly 2 million jobs were created — and that growth would be even hotter were it not for breathtaking gains in U.S. productivity. (New York, by the way, benefited disproportionately from Bush's tax cuts — because they were geared, in part, to aid Wall Street.)
It is true that criticism of the president — particularly from Kerry and his backers — has been vicious this year.
But, again, the fact that Bush has weathered it, without surrendering an inch, is yet more proof that he is the man for the job, at a time when resolve in the war is America's greatest asset.
George Bush will keep the nation on course. He will continue the fight against terror unflinchingly, setting its terms and confronting threats before they cost American lives.
Americans — and, more important, their enemies — know that.
He deserves another term.
Given what's at stake, there should be no question about whom to back on Nov. 2: George W. Bush.
October 22, 2004 -- The Post this morning proudly urges the reelection of President George W. Bush.
There are many issues before the electorate, but none more im portant than the War on Terror.
So let's be clear: America will be safer with George Bush in the White House.
Not totally safe; even the president concedes that.
But safer, and that's quite good enough for us.
On Sept. 11, 2001, he was a rock.
Since then, he has prosecuted the War on Terror with determination.
Not flawlessly, not by a long shot, but competently enough so that there has been no second attack on American soil — even though terrorists have struck in Bali and Beslan, Baghdad and Madrid.
Sure, domestic issues are important: The nation's economic health undergirds the War on Terror. And folks naturally worry about their pocketbooks.
Education is critical (and Bush's No Child Left Behind act may mark the beginning of true reform).
Social Security needs attention. Even issues like same-sex marriage and stem-cell research are topical.
We happen to think Bush has the right plans for America in these areas.
But in the end, no issue comes close in importance to the war: When suicidal killers are plotting to pounce, debates over, say, the Alternative Minimum Tax pale to insignificance.
HOW has Bush done on Priority One?
Quite well.
He has made enormous headway in eliminating threats from both global terror networks and hostile regimes, like that of Saddam Hussein.
Iraq, of course, remains a work in progress. But all wars are "two steps forward, one step back" propositions; this one is no different.
And while it is true that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, it is equally clear that they would have been there quickly enough after U.N. sanctions were lifted — a process that was well under way when Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
Most important of all, President Bush has kept America safe at home during the three-plus years that have passed since 9/11.
Oh, and Bush has done one other little thing: He's changed the course of world history forever — in huge ways.
For starters, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and aggressive promotion of freedom abroad has put dictator-thugs and terrorists everywhere on notice.
And given hope to the world's oppressed.
Yes, we have differed with Bush on numerous occasions.
But, again, when you consider his granite-like stewardship of the War on Terror, there's really no question that America has been truly fortunate to have had him in the White House.
And that America needs him there through the next phase of the war.
This presidential election will be the first since the terrorists attacked in 2001, thus ushering in a new era in world history.
Never before had America been surprised so totally, and with such grave consequences.
The country reacted swiftly and appropriately — but that response was hardly foreordained.
Indeed, it was President Bush's vision and fortitude alone that led the nation to wage its fiercest war in decades.
Nine days after the attack, Bush announced a War on Terror. It would begin with al Qaeda, but "not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
He said that in its "grief and anger" America had found its mission and moment — "the advance of human freedom." And he vowed to use every legitimate means of warfare at his disposal.
Every nation had to decide, Bush said: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. We will not tire. We will not falter. And we will not fail."
And George Bush has not flinched.
Within weeks of 9/11, the president launched a military offensive in Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime had given al Qaeda refuge.
Critics said the effort was doomed — that the Soviet Union had fought there for years, unsuccessfully. But within just weeks, the Taliban had been routed and terrorist bases closed.
Eventually, U.S. and allied forces killed or captured three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership.
Yes, Osama bin Laden — if he is in fact alive — remains at large. But he is increasingly a general without an army, and he is off-balance and on the run.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan has held the first democratic election in its history.
From a wider strategic perspective, President Bush, at West Point in 2002, proclaimed that deterrence was to be replaced by pre-emption.
"We cannot defend America . . . by hoping for the best," he said. "We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants . . . If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
America was going on the offensive.
"We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans . . . The only path to safety is the path of action — and this nation will act."
That formulation was exactly right in the post-9/11 age.
And thus was built the premise for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Let's face it: Saddam Hussein was viewed by everyone as a clear threat. France, England, the United Nations — even John Kerry — all believed he had WMDs. Clinton-appointed CIA Director George Tenet said the case was a "slam dunk."
Saddam denied it, but refused to provide proof — or even cooperate with inspectors and foreign officials.
For Bush not to have acted would have been highly irresponsible.
Again, WMDs were not found.
But you have to be blind — or delusional — to think Saddam wasn't a threat.
Indeed, all the evidence has shown that the tyrant had WMD programs — if not weapons — in place, that he was moving rapidly to erode sanctions and that it was only a matter of time before he had amassed deadly stockpiles.
It's also certain — as the various reports have shown — that Saddam's regime had ties to al Qaeda terrorists.
Not only had he given refuge to madmen like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, now believed to be directing terror campaigns in Fallujah, but the risk existed that Saddam could help al Qaeda acquire WMDs or other deadly weapons.
U.S. efforts in Iraq are not finished. More than 1,000 troops have died, and billions have been spent. And pockets of strong resistance remain.
But, again, only revisionists like John Kerry would argue that the progress there has not been astounding.
While Saddam rots in jail, the infrastructure is rapidly being rebuilt. And in less than three months, free democratic elections will take place.
Meanwhile, Bush has hardened Amer ica's defenses at home, bolstering anti-terror efforts at the borders and elsewhere. Intelligence-gathering and law enforcement have shifted their emphasis to prevention.
The Patriot Act has helped officials foil numerous plots.
The president also helped New York, in particular — channeling more than $20 billion to help rebuild downtown.
Has Bush ignored the economy?
Hardly.
A recession that took hold just as President Clinton was leaving office and the 9/11 strike led to the loss of more than 2 million jobs.
Bush acted quickly, winning hefty tax cuts that have turned things around.
In the past year alone, nearly 2 million jobs were created — and that growth would be even hotter were it not for breathtaking gains in U.S. productivity. (New York, by the way, benefited disproportionately from Bush's tax cuts — because they were geared, in part, to aid Wall Street.)
It is true that criticism of the president — particularly from Kerry and his backers — has been vicious this year.
But, again, the fact that Bush has weathered it, without surrendering an inch, is yet more proof that he is the man for the job, at a time when resolve in the war is America's greatest asset.
George Bush will keep the nation on course. He will continue the fight against terror unflinchingly, setting its terms and confronting threats before they cost American lives.
Americans — and, more important, their enemies — know that.
He deserves another term.
Given what's at stake, there should be no question about whom to back on Nov. 2: George W. Bush.
Comment