For President...
(The all-important and highly-sought Kellie endorsement... :)
I've tried not to include too much overt politicking on my blog and site. It's not that I don't have particular views (I do) but rather, in the current climate, no matter which candidate one sides with, close to half the country will disagree (and amongst many of the folks who might be drawn to my blog and site the numbers are probably quite higher.) Anyone who has taken the time to poke around here a bit can probably get a sense of my politics and such. Further, given the scurrilous campaigning by both candidates and their surrogates and supporters, it will be a welcome relief when this is over, no more reading and hearing- hopefully!- of how an Ivy League BA and MBA grad is the equivalent of the village idiot (he's not), or how a decorated veteran is going to turn over US sovereignty wholesale to the United Nations (he's not, either.).
There are many things one can be diasappointed in and critical of President Bush's term in office to date. Clearly, the aftermath of the- successful- toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq would head the list. Not far behind (and an item which has received less attention than it deserves) is the explosion in growth of non-defense/domestic security spending and programs and the resultant budget deficit (all the more disappointing with a Republican-controlled White House and both houses of Congress,) excesses of aspects of the 9/11-inspired Patriot Act, the proposal to grant amnesty to certain illegal immigrants (one should NEVER reward illegal behavior,) the spending of time and political capital on a Constitutional amendment barring states from allowing gay marriage. All of these, and there are several others, are things rightly to be critical of, and indeed, often cause as much consternation among constituencies of the Right as they do the Left.
Of course, the most overriding issue is the War on Terror. Re. Iraq; yes, as all the credible evidence now seems to point, Saddam's regime did not at that time possess WMDs. The possession by that regime of WMDs was the raison d'etre for taking him out. To his opponents, the absence of these "proves" that President Bush "misled" (for his critics) or "lied" (for the Lunatic Left.) No. What this does show is the woeful state of our- and many of our allies'- intelligence communties. Even a UN report stated that the best that could be ascertained with certainty is that no weapons or active weapons program had been discovered in Iraq, but could not state with certainty that no weapons or programs did exist. The failure of our intelligence communties to accurately describe the state within Iraq was just another failure of intelligence, failures that were not (in the colorful, but largely meaningless, words of the 9/11 Commission report) a "failure of imagination," but rather a systemic failure, a situation of woeful, and willful, neglect, stretching back decades and through Administrations and Congresses Republican and Democratic alike, with the attendant result that the "best" intel available to an American President contemplating military action was seriously lacking. Further, in regard to Saddam, his record, past and present, was one which deserved scrutiny. This was a thug who fought with his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait) used chemical weapons against his "enemies," both foreign (again, Iran) and domestic (the Kurds.) This was a brutal dictator who used rape rooms, torture, and mass murder to neutralize some internal foes, who used environmental despoilation to eliminate others (his eradication of the "Marsh Arabs" traditional homelands in southern Iraq.) This was a man who time and again, over more than a decade, thwarted, snubbed, ignored, and thumbed his nose at UN mandates, resolutions, etc...designed to contain him in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, when to comply would have meant the easing of sanctions upon his peoples and his regime. This was a leader who, together with certain of our "friends" in the UN, abused the "Oil-for-Food" program, designed to- again- ease hardships on his peoples, for personal gain. And given the parameters of our declared "War on Terror" (to defeate not only terrorists orgs, but regimes who activel support them) Saddam's regime WAS a supporter of terrorism. No, there were not direct ties betwen Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. But his regime's payment to the fmailies of Palestinian homicide bombers is but the most blatant example. The commingling between rogue regimes and various and sundry terrorist orgs in that part of the world is a fact. The transfer of monies and materiel from Iraq to, say, Hamas, and from Hamas to, take one's pick, Hezbollah, or al Qaeda, is not a huge stretch. Indeed, the STATED policy of the United States re. Saddam Hussein and Iraq was one of regime change, policy stated by the previous US Administration. Given all of these, AND given the intel that any President, of necessity, must find credible, if one wishes to still criticize President Bush on the invasion based on the fact that one is simply opposed to war, well, that may be a principled stand. But to say that the President intentionally "misled" or "lied" is crass political demogoguery. (And re. the War on Terror: it is a tragedy that any innocent lives are being lost. And the current situation in parts of Iraq is far from secure. But the situation is not quite as bad as much of the mainstream media portrays. There have been numerous success stories, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. An interesting blog to check:
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/)
Senator Kerry? In terms of policy in Iraq, and the larger War on Terror, Senator Kerry has offered no bold or drastically contrasting alternatives to those of the current Administration, at best offering what could be called "Bush-lite" versions. Too often, he has tried to have it both- or all- ways, criticizing the Adminstration for the action in the first place (the cliched "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time") as well as much of the prosecution of the war, while also saying that, even given the faulty intel that he has been so critical of the Bush Administration acting upon, he still would have gone to war against Saddam, and that a stronger military presence is needed, proposing the creation of two new divisions, while suggesting the current Administration may reinstate a draft. Senator Kerry seems to put tremendous store in gaining the acceptance of a few mid-level European nations as well as the imprimatur of the United Nations (neither of which exhibit tremendous concern for our interests) while denigrating the Coalition which was assembled and has assisted in Iraq. In debate, Senator Kerry has been critical of the alleged unilateralism of the Administration, yet on the issue of North Korea, has denigrated the Bush Administration precisely FOR seeking to engage in a multilateral manner, Kerry prefering direct engagement with North Korea (and we saw how well that worked 10 years ago.) The "nuance" that some see as a positive in Senator Kerry can just as easily be seen as waffling, and/or opportunism.
Domestically, Senator Kerry has sadly engaged in the worst aspects of class warfare; the oft- and falsely- derided tax cuts for "the rich" (hint: EVERY tax payer received a tax cut, Senator, not only the wealthier ones.) In terms of delivery of social services and programs, Senator Kerry seems stuck in a 20th century, top-heavy, hierarchical mode, believing that more and larger federal programs should be the first, and are the best and most efficient, solution to any perceived problem. Contrast this with President Bush's proposals to create an "Ownership Society," starting with tax cuts so people can keep more of the fruits of their labors, to use as they best see fit, not as politicians and bureaucrats in Washington do. President Bush has touted personal health savings accounts as one way for individuals to exercise more control over their health care costs, and proposes allowing private health care companies to compete with Medicare to provide effective and affordable coverage to seniors. (The Administration should also embrace the free market by allowing unfettered access to Canadian and overseas meds.) The President has- albeit tentatively- bandied consideration of privatizing aspects of Social Security for younger workers. The President has embraced increasing the role of private sector- including but not limited to religious- orgs and agencies to provide services to those in need. The President favors giving parents of K-12 students the means for greater education choice, instead of being limited to the public schools, the worst performing of which are often only those available to low income families. Senator Kerry has been highly critical of the economic performance of the Administration. There is some merit to this. Too many good, decent, hard-working people are un, or under, employed. Job creation has been sluggish, and some areas of the country certainly are faring worse than others. Some jobs (tho' not nearly as many as are anecdotally remarked) have gone overseas, particularly in the tech sector. Energy costs have soared. But in fairness, these are not all, nor solely, the fault of this- nor any- Administration. By most accounts the economy began to slow in the last year of the previous Administration, a slowdown which was exacerbated both by several major corporate accounting scandals (again, all of which had their geneses before Bush took office) and of course by the 9/11 attacks. There have been two significant military actions undertaken (Afghanistan, Iraq.) The growing economies of China and India in particular have placed increased demand upon the world's oil markets. Tax cuts and easing onerous regulations upon and proposing pro-growth policies toward business both large and small have helped to ease what had been, and have helped to nurture, a sluggish economy and nascent growth. To be sure, there are areas to be critical of the President, but this President, this Administration, has a coherent economic and social welfare vision that often seems more forward-looking than that of Senator Kerry.
Whoever wins in November, there will be much work to do. Iraq, the larger War on Terror, ensuring domestic security while not infringing upon liberties, meaningful intelligence reform, dealing with North Korea, dealing with Iran (a topic neither candidate has addressed with any meaning, to our detriment,) increasing economic opportunity for all citizens, and allowing for the means to provide relief for those in need, reducing the deficit and debt (perhaps the best case for a President Kerry; divided government, with a GOP Congress, creating a spending stalemate ala the post-'94 90's with President Clinton and the Republican Congress) and countless more issues, large and small. Perhaps as importantly, whoever wins is going to HAVE to endeavor to unite a nation that, with the exception of a few months in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, has been bitterly divided since the 2000 election. The levels of invective, of acrimony, of not mere disagreement but contempt, not merely questioning policies but impugning motives and intent, from both sides, has coarsened and poisoned our politics. Focusing too often on the minutiae that divide us rather than the many more things that unite us. We cannot afford this; there are those who would destroy us in a New York minute who couldn't care less if we are Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, black or white, gay or straight, Christian or Jew or Muslim or atheist, wealthy or poor...you get the picture. The petty partisan bickering has to cease.
I've left out several important issues and considerations (the role of the judiciary/appointments of justices, environmental regs, energy policy, gun control, abortion, drugs, size, role, and scope of government, many more.) The world has changed significantly since 2000; things have become less easy, less safe. In a changing world, many of the assumptions of the past can no longer be relied upon as truths. In 2000, then-candidate Bush questioned the results of an Administration and a decade that seemed so full of promise but often bereft of purpose. In certain ways, the same could be said of the last four years. But Senator Kerry has offered no compelling alternative. With considerably less enthusiasm and support than four years ago, nevertheless (and for what little this has all been worth!) I endorse, for President...
George W. Bush.
"Hail to the Chief, we have chosen for the nation/Hail to the Chief, we salute him one and all..."
