Posted on 12/30/2003 10:21:09 AM PST by Holly_P
MARSHFIELD, MASS. - When I was growing up, the family dinner was a tradition. Above the clatter of plates, my parents discussed the world around us from their perspectives at either end of the great oak table. Together, we'd review the news of the day put into context by the events of yesterday, and always we'd think about tomorrow. Politics was a main course, and being a working-class family from Massachusetts, we were fed a healthy serving of Democratic Party principles.
I carried those beliefs along with me when I worked for Democrats in both the US House of Representatives and the Massachusetts state legislature. More important, I've always carried them with me into the voting booth.
But I expect to break with that tradition. Come November, I'll be casting my vote for George Bush.
When Mr. Bush first ran for president in 2000, I found both his politics and his campaign methods anathema to the American concept of justice. I was with the many who questioned whether his intellect, interest, and experience were commensurate with the demands of being the leader of the free world. I didn't approve of his so-called middle-class tax cuts, nor his incorporating nuclear power into his energy plan, nor his judgment in appointing an attorney general inclined to sheathe immodest works of art.
But then Sept. 11 happened. Our nation needed the strength of a leader, and I wondered where we'd find one.
It wasn't until the president stood with firefighters and rescue workers at ground zero that I began to wonder if perhaps I'd misjudged him. Previously wooden while delivering prepared speeches, the man who shouted into the bullhorn from where the World Trade Center had stood demanded to be heard. And I listened - the whole world listened.
I began to hope that our country finally had a leader who'd have the moral fortitude to say to our enemies around the world: Enough.
For nearly 25 years, America has been under attack by Muslim fundamentalists - attacks virtually unanswered by all presidents as far back as Jimmy Carter.
We've somehow confused the systematic massacre of Americans for random acts of violence, though the collective onslaught - catalogued even incompletely - seems in retrospect to be a clear declaration of war:
• 1979 - The US Embassy in Iran was overrun by Islamic extremists who captured 66 Americans and held 53 of them for 444 days.
• 1983 - The US Embassy in Beirut was targeted by a truck bomb that killed 63.
• 1983 - The US Marine barracks in Beirut was destroyed by a truck bomb that killed 242 Americans.
• 1988 - US Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins, on a UN mission in Lebanon, was abducted, tortured, and hanged.
• 1988 - A bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 went off over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 people on the ground.
• 1993 - Terrorists drove an explosives-laden truck into the basement of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six.
• 1993 - Followers of Osama bin Laden killed 18 American soldiers in an ambush on the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia.
• 1996 - The Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia was destroyed by a tanker-truck bomb killing 19 Americans.
• 1998 - US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were simultaneously attacked by truck bombs killing 301.
• 2000 - The USS Cole was attacked in the port city of Yemen; 17 died.
Halfhearted rescue attempts, trade embargoes, and a smattering of cruise missiles thrown at the problem by former leaders had no follow-through, no long-term commitment necessary to stave off the continued systematic attacks. Not until George Bush vowed to protect the US from those who sought to destroy it - even if he had to stand without the support of UN allies.
I can't rely on the contenders from my own party to follow Bush's course. Only three of the nine running in Democratic primaries are viable candidates, and none is willing to risk political comfort to pledge a presidency to the messy business of routing terrorists and their sponsor nations. Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry are now all against the war in Iraq, though both General Clark and Senator Kerry supported it once, and may again.
But I'm tired of presidents fluent in the language of doublespeak.
Bush isn't timid about disappointing a nation used to instant gratification. He has reminded us repeatedly that the war on terror will be long, and people will die in the process. Many on both sides have died already. Yet Bush was resolute when he began by defending America in Afghanistan following Sept. 11. He then brought the fight to Iraq at a time when experts around the world were convinced Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing a nuclear arsenal.
And let's not forget the geography of the region.
Iraq borders Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, with Qatar not far away. We know that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis. We know there's increasing dissatisfaction with the House of Saud among their own countrymen because of the family's ties to the US. We also know that terrorist attacks within Saudi borders are on the increase by those emboldened by Muslims' discontent. Middle Eastern experts speculate that all this points to cracks in the palace walls of the House of Saud.
Imagine if Saudi Arabia had been overtaken by Islamic extremists while Hussein was still in power. A significant portion of the world's oil reserves would be controlled by those bent on destroying the US. It's conceivable Hussein would have attempted another invasion of Kuwait.
The forward-thinking, big-picture scenario demanded the US protect itself from enemies gaining control of America's access to oil because oil still controls America.
It's a lesson we should have learned following the oil crisis of the '70s, but again we chose to ignore the inevitable at our own peril. Imagine if our enemies had been so empowered; what would the impact have been on the US?
It's conjecture, but all a leader has to base his decisions on are the events of the past, the news of the present, and his concern for tomorrow. Remember how absurd the terrorists' goals for the first WTC attack seemed at the time?
Bush alerted terrorists around the world that the US is no longer the hesitant giant it was after the Vietnam experience. We've licked our wounds and found our footing. We are fighting back. Already Libya has responded to our new foreign policy by agreeing to forgo weapons of mass destruction and welcome inspectors to confirm this newfound truce with the West.
So in November, I'll break with tradition and vote for a Republican. I'll place my trust, fears, and future in the hands of a man who has shown the world what it means to lead a nation. It's a tradition of leadership that began with Washington and Lincoln, continued with FDR, and has been resurrected by Bush.
It's a tradition I expect our future presidents to follow.
• P. Amy MacKinnon, a freelance writer, has worked for Democrats in Congress and the Massachusetts State House.
I heard another woman democrat, on the Sean Hannity Show, say she was changing her registry from democrat to independent or republican. When asked why, she said because she said she was scared that no-one in the party would defend our country from terrorists. When asked about which candidate she thought of the most of the democratic candidates, she said Lieberman and that he was most 'like' the old time democrats who weren't yelling all the time. But I got the impression that Lieberman wasn't a John F. Kennedy to her.
I've got the feeling that the majority of Military Dems have gone independant or republican after Al Gore invalidated military votes in 2000.
The trouble with what the Dems are doing and saying is that they are dividing people into warring camps. Senator Zell Miller said in "National Party No More" that they used to be uniters, but just look at Hillary... You either love her absolutely or spit in disgust. There is no middle ground for the dems anymore.
Means nothing. If the whole international socialist Rat party takes her position, it means nothing. It SHOULD have been their position since day one.
Heillary has already sent out the message that the correct Dem position on this matter is not the position of today's left In AmeriKa. As the election approaches, look for Dem-bits to soften on the war issue.
Agreed. Methinks the Dems are stupid...but not that stupid. Lets all remember that they are the party of socialism, abortion, "depends on what the meaning of is is", secular humanism, that says anything to stay in/regain power. I don't buy it one bit.
This pretty much says it. He is going against political pundits, his own party, and the world at times to do what is best for this country. I can only hope the American people can see past the lies of the left and some of the "right"to see that he is the leader for our times. If not, we will go back to ignoring this most dangerous threat from those who are determined to destroy us.
Trotsky??? Damn, I thought I was Wilson?? (Thanks again for all your money, we're still winning!!)
The DEM candidates are good at TALKING THE TALK, as long as you have no long term memory.
Otherwise you might notice they have no conviction. They contradict themselves the more they open their mouths, and for all their talk, have not solved any of these 'problems' with any of their suggested methods
Yep. "I would do this...." they say.
It's always easy to armchair quarterback.
Ask them what they accomplished towards their proposed solutions, during the past 10 years, while they were in positions of influence.
You will find them suddenly.... speechless.
When a lifelong MASS.liberal Dem activist " gets it ", FR's UNAPPEASEABLES should hang their heads in shame !
When a lifelong MASS.liberal Dem activist " gets it ", FR's UNAPPEASEABLES should hang their heads in shame!
I have a strong feeling that she is not the only one who gets it from the Dem Party
But when's he going to say "Enough!" to Mexico?
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.