VOTE FOR George W. Bush. Why, you ask? I think the reasons might take up the entire Opinion page, but alas, I am only allowed 700 words with which to spread my conservative propaganda.
John Kerry, along with the many rampant Bush-haters out there, talks a lot about what Bush should have done during the past four years. In fact, sometimes it seems like his whole campaign is based on the idea that he would have done things differently.
That's fabulous. But Kerry has the very significant benefit of hindsight. Bush hasn't exactly been dealt an easy hand, and in the face of constant and unseen threats his actions have reflected his desire to protect America at all costs. This is the guy we need.
A massive and completely unprecedented terror attack killed 3,000 Americans in Bush's first year of office. That's not really the transitional first year that most presidents enjoy.
And yet, Bush was the epitome of presidential. I think it would be preaching to the choir to say that he handled a terrible situation with strength, graceand, most importantly, resolve. Republicans and Democrats alike have praised Bush for the way he united the country in the aftermath of the attacks.
But, inevitably, the shock wore off, approval ratings fell and the bickering began. And Iraq came into the picture.
Bush was given information that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, had consistently refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, and had credible ties to al Qaeda. All of this came in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.
Imagine, if you will, that you're the president of the United States. It's less than a year and half after Sept. 11, 2001. The country is still reeling, and you have no idea when the next attack might occur. Your highest intelligence officers inform you that a brutal dictator is harboring both deadly weapons and al Qaeda terrorists. Some people have already begun to question why you didn't kill Osama bin Laden when you got the chance.
What do you do? You don't wait around to see what will happen, that's for sure.
And that is where this effortless hindsight bias comes in. It's easy to say now that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction -- at least, none that we've found. It's easy for Kerry to say that he would have handled the situation with Iraq differently. But it's not exactly comforting to have a presidential candidate who seems to focus more on what he would have done than on what he will do.
President Bush has proven himself to be resolved, steadfast and unwavering, all in the face of constant and unmitigated hatred from the left. Terrorism isn't going away, and terror attacks need to be viewed not as a series of isolated incidents, but as exactly what they are -- acts of war. John Kerry may have gone to Vietnam for four months, but he's not the man that anyone should want fighting this war.
Kerry has no fundamental guiding principles other than that of personal expediency. Sound harsh? Based on his record, there is little to suggest otherwise.
In his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry failed to pass one significant piece of legislation.
He voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but now repeats "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" over and over again. He voted for the Patriot Act and now wants to "replace" it. He pledged to spend whatever was necessary to fight the war on terror, then voted against a military funding package, including body armor for the soldiers, and now complains that the same soldiers aren't receiving sufficient equipment.
He really only became a so-called "anti-war" candidate after Howard Dean started getting publicity for it.
Does anyone really know what Kerry's plan for Iraq is? His only clear idea so far is to build an international coalition, because the 33 allies that America already has are apparently not enough.
International, then, might mean France and Germany -- both of which have said that they will not send troops to Iraq under any circumstances. Great plan.
It's one thing for a politician to change his mind about an issue. It's another thing to completely lack the ability to stick to a decision -- or even make one at all.
Bush hasn't been perfect. Stabilizing Iraq has proved to be much harder than expected, and a lot of American soldiers have been killed in the process. Bush was painfully slow to admit that he acted on bad intelligence.
Yet he has led the country in an unprecedented way. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. Afghanistan held its first-ever free elections. America survived the deadliest attack in our history and came out resolved to make sure it wouldn't happen again. And it hasn't.
Not bad.
Kristin Brown's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
