FORD
10-25-2004, 05:01 PM
Kerry for president
It's time to reunite America
Saturday, October 23, 2004 - With the presidential election just nine days away and polls showing a dead heat, the country appears as divided as it was four years ago, when George W. Bush eked out a victory over then-Vice President Al Gore.
And that's no place to be.
With the nation at war against terrorist radicals, there has never been a greater need for unity. We found that unity after the terrible 9-11 attacks, but under President Bush's leadership we have become dangerously polarized.
To wage an effective war on terrorism, we must restore national unity and repair our damaged international alliances.
And the candidate best able to do that is Sen. John Kerry.
In fairness, there is much to admire about Bush's four years in office. In the aftermath of 9-11, he applied a steadying hand that helped unite the nation and focus Americans on the enormity of the task we faced. He crafted a sound vision for what it will take to wage the war, and he has shown the resolve necessary to win it.
But for all the leadership Bush showed in those first days, the record has been far more troubling ever since.
In Iraq, he staked the American-led invasion on weapons of mass destruction that never materialized. And while years of faulty evidence from various sources weren't his fault, his response to this clearly documented failure certainly is. Other than the belated resignation of CIA Director George Tenet, no one in the administration was publicly held accountable for this enormous error.
Lack of accountability is, sadly, a recurring theme in this administration.
Administration officials who failed to spot obvious warning signs before 9-11 were never reprimanded, let alone fired.
No one in the Pentagon - specifically Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - has ever had to answer for the botched invasion and occupation of Iraq, with its insufficient forces and the ensuing insurgency. Instead, the administration to this day pretends as though nothing is wrong.
After hastily rushing the country into war, the administration has made little effort to patch up relationships with America's scorned allies, allies whose support will prove crucial in waging the long-term war. That lack of alliances has forced America to bear an unacceptable share of the burden - both in terms of lives lost and dollars spent - to liberate and rebuild Iraq.
Domestically, the administration's record has been just as uneven.
No, Bush can't be blamed for a recession that began before he took office, and there's no denying the tremendous economic toll 9-11 inflicted on the nation. But responsibility for the massive federal budget deficit and spiraling national debt falls squarely on his shoulders.
It was Bush who ushered in a massive tax cut while never even attempting to offer offsetting spending decreases. And, in four years, the president has not once used his veto pen to demand fiscal responsibility from his fellow Republicans who control Congress.
Yet, should Kerry win the White House and Republicans retain both houses of Congress, there's reason to believe that the system of checks and balances that the nation's founders envisioned could be restored. With both sides keeping an eye on each other's excesses, there's a better chance that fiscal responsibility will return to Washington, as it did when Democrat Bill Clinton had to govern with a Republican Congress in the 1990s. As president, Kerry would be wise to follow Clinton's example in seeking a moderate approach to the economy and other domestic issues, such as health care.
But the overriding issue is how America will respond to the overwhelming threat its enemies pose.
Kerry has promised to take a similar approach to terror as Bush, seeking out terrorists wherever they are and refusing to let foreign powers wield a veto over American policy. But he also promises to do it ``smarter.''
Whether he can live up to those promises remains to be seen, and his own contradictory comments about the war and a lackluster 20-year career in the Senate raise some fair doubts. But what remains beyond doubt is that Bush, through a combination of blundering and arrogance, has made too many enemies at home and abroad to remain effective.
A house divided against itself, Abraham Lincoln once famously warned, cannot stand. Under Bush, America has grown increasingly divided. And the alliance of nations that should be united against terror has likewise grown divided. New leadership is our best bet for bringing the country back together and forging the unity that we cannot win the war without.
Kerry offers us the chance for a new beginning, and throughout the past year's grueling campaign, he has demonstrated the toughness necessary to lead the country in a time of war.
John Kerry offers the change that America needs for the next four years. But more importantly, at a time when the nation and the world need it most, he offers hope.
link (http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E20951%257E2487608,00.html#)
It's time to reunite America
Saturday, October 23, 2004 - With the presidential election just nine days away and polls showing a dead heat, the country appears as divided as it was four years ago, when George W. Bush eked out a victory over then-Vice President Al Gore.
And that's no place to be.
With the nation at war against terrorist radicals, there has never been a greater need for unity. We found that unity after the terrible 9-11 attacks, but under President Bush's leadership we have become dangerously polarized.
To wage an effective war on terrorism, we must restore national unity and repair our damaged international alliances.
And the candidate best able to do that is Sen. John Kerry.
In fairness, there is much to admire about Bush's four years in office. In the aftermath of 9-11, he applied a steadying hand that helped unite the nation and focus Americans on the enormity of the task we faced. He crafted a sound vision for what it will take to wage the war, and he has shown the resolve necessary to win it.
But for all the leadership Bush showed in those first days, the record has been far more troubling ever since.
In Iraq, he staked the American-led invasion on weapons of mass destruction that never materialized. And while years of faulty evidence from various sources weren't his fault, his response to this clearly documented failure certainly is. Other than the belated resignation of CIA Director George Tenet, no one in the administration was publicly held accountable for this enormous error.
Lack of accountability is, sadly, a recurring theme in this administration.
Administration officials who failed to spot obvious warning signs before 9-11 were never reprimanded, let alone fired.
No one in the Pentagon - specifically Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - has ever had to answer for the botched invasion and occupation of Iraq, with its insufficient forces and the ensuing insurgency. Instead, the administration to this day pretends as though nothing is wrong.
After hastily rushing the country into war, the administration has made little effort to patch up relationships with America's scorned allies, allies whose support will prove crucial in waging the long-term war. That lack of alliances has forced America to bear an unacceptable share of the burden - both in terms of lives lost and dollars spent - to liberate and rebuild Iraq.
Domestically, the administration's record has been just as uneven.
No, Bush can't be blamed for a recession that began before he took office, and there's no denying the tremendous economic toll 9-11 inflicted on the nation. But responsibility for the massive federal budget deficit and spiraling national debt falls squarely on his shoulders.
It was Bush who ushered in a massive tax cut while never even attempting to offer offsetting spending decreases. And, in four years, the president has not once used his veto pen to demand fiscal responsibility from his fellow Republicans who control Congress.
Yet, should Kerry win the White House and Republicans retain both houses of Congress, there's reason to believe that the system of checks and balances that the nation's founders envisioned could be restored. With both sides keeping an eye on each other's excesses, there's a better chance that fiscal responsibility will return to Washington, as it did when Democrat Bill Clinton had to govern with a Republican Congress in the 1990s. As president, Kerry would be wise to follow Clinton's example in seeking a moderate approach to the economy and other domestic issues, such as health care.
But the overriding issue is how America will respond to the overwhelming threat its enemies pose.
Kerry has promised to take a similar approach to terror as Bush, seeking out terrorists wherever they are and refusing to let foreign powers wield a veto over American policy. But he also promises to do it ``smarter.''
Whether he can live up to those promises remains to be seen, and his own contradictory comments about the war and a lackluster 20-year career in the Senate raise some fair doubts. But what remains beyond doubt is that Bush, through a combination of blundering and arrogance, has made too many enemies at home and abroad to remain effective.
A house divided against itself, Abraham Lincoln once famously warned, cannot stand. Under Bush, America has grown increasingly divided. And the alliance of nations that should be united against terror has likewise grown divided. New leadership is our best bet for bringing the country back together and forging the unity that we cannot win the war without.
Kerry offers us the chance for a new beginning, and throughout the past year's grueling campaign, he has demonstrated the toughness necessary to lead the country in a time of war.
John Kerry offers the change that America needs for the next four years. But more importantly, at a time when the nation and the world need it most, he offers hope.
link (http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E20951%257E2487608,00.html#)