I think this NY Daily News article is an excellent example of how even voters who do not support Bush's domestic policies are torn this election season (ht: the Corner). Their choice is between risking a wartime Kerry presidency (and the absence of any actual plan for the war) for the sole purpose of implementing social and domestic policy change - and maintaining the tried and true leadership of President Bush during the war on terror and risking the possible implementation of what some might call 'newfangled' domestic policy (such as the potential for privatization of social security - for young workers, while the status quo remains for those already receiving and soon to receive social security benefits; or the collaboration of small businesses to acquire cheaper health insurance benefits).
The spectre of terrorism looms large in the minds of millions of Americans, and the recently released Bin Laden tape solidifes the reality of terrorist groups that, if left to their own devices, would likely repair the damage inflicted on them these past few years and come at us harder and stronger than ever in the future. The danger of an isolationist, appeasement foreign policy is clear and ever present in a Kerry presidency - the fact that Bin Laden appeared by video tape rather than simply attacking us (as was done in Madrid) may be a sign of his weakness. We must continue to strike while the iron is hot.
The threat to our way of life, the risk to the lives of our families, will be the final deciding factor to many Americans - and will hopefully be enough to give George Bush a decisive victory, without legislation, on Tuesday night.
As the editorial board of the NY Daily News put it:
The News endorsed Clinton and Gore in the three races beginning with 1992, each time judging their domestic agendas in the best interests of the American people. But it is no longer Sept. 10th. The world has changed. And nowhere has it been more tragically altered than in New York. And nowhere are the stakes higher.
and:
Tested severely by 9/11, Bush recognized it was not enough — it had never been enough — to treat Islamic terrorism as a criminal-justice matter, or just to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen. The President had two crucial insights: First, that rogue states were a grave threat in that they could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists as a force multiplier. And, second, that the Mideast's backward, repressed societies were generating virulent, homicidal hatred of the U.S.
And so Bush led the country to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq, enraging some allies and alienating half the American people. We supported the President and we continue to believe he made the right decision. At the time, the world was convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. No one knew for sure, but, having exhausted diplomacy, Bush refused to run the risk that a criminal head of state might turn an arsenal on the U.S. through the likes of Al Qaeda.
Only later was it learned that Saddam had disarmed, provoking roaring Democratic attacks and told-you-so clucking in Europe. Now, though, CIA weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has confirmed that Bush was right not to chance Saddam's intentions. Duelfer's report concluded that while Saddam had no weapons stockpiles, he was itching to restart Iraq's armaments programs, including nuclear, as soon as he bribed his way around UN sanctions. His first production capacity would have been soon in coming — mustard agents within months and nerve agents in a year or two.
Bush's move into Iraq exemplifies a commitment to stay on the offensive against terror, and to do so militarily where necessary and feasible, as was the case in Iraq. The message has been clearly heard in capitals around the world. That's why strongman Moammar Khadafy relinquished Libya's WMD program, and it's why a nuclear black market operating out of Pakistan has been shut down.and, finally:
Most seriously, Candidate Kerry's clearest position on the war undercuts the cause a President Kerry would be obligated to fight. As Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland put it: "Kerry's repeated denunciations of Iraq as the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time weaken the moral and perhaps even the legal base for ordering Americans to continue to fight there if he becomes President." World leaders — those Kerry intends to rally and those already committed — could not responsibly risk their citizens in a misbegotten fight.
At this critical juncture, America cannot afford such a lack of clarity — or even a hint that a President would revert to playing defense rather than staying on the offensive. Nor would it be wise to change commanders midbattle in Iraq and around the globe, replacing a tested leader with a man who would have to learn on the job under the most difficult circumstances. With so much at stake, that's a transition not to be wished for.
Exactly.
