Bush best defender against terrorism

Editorials featured in the Forum section are solely the opinions of their individual authors.

Assuming you haven?t been living in a cluster this whole year, you know that tomorrow is Election Day, that you should vote (if you can), yada yada yada. The College Democrats and College Republicans have been fighting for weeks, with the Libertarians and Greens working to remind people that they have candidates running. Thankfully, the election season is drawing to a close. For the first time in months, the TV won?t be filled with campaign ads. But that?s after tomorrow. Today, it?s time for one last plug for President Bush.
There are obviously a lot of people out there who aren?t going to be convinced one way or the other. There are also some issues where there are clear differences between the candidates, and people who vote on these issues have clear-cut choices. If you favor abortion-on-demand, you?ll vote Kerry. If you don?t want the federal government funding embryonic stem-cell research, you?ll vote for Bush. For those of you who are still on the fence, here are some reasons to vote Bush.
President Bush?s plans for improving public education go beyond the No Child Left Behind Act. By holding schools accountable for failing in their duties to students, No Child Left Behind has already worked to reduce the achievement gap between poorer and richer schools. Expanding this to secondary schooling and increasing the amount of money going to the Department of Education will continue along this path.
When it comes to individuals retaining control of their economic freedoms, Bush has it all over Kerry. With plans ranging from private investment accounts in Social Security, to tax cuts allowing you more control of your own money, to reducing the number of regulations that stifle new business development, Bush gives power to the people, rather than the government.
Finally, the biggest question for this election ? who will do a better job with the war on terror? We can see the sort of support John Kerry has from the international community:
?I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world. But in the U.S., the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become president cannot change the policy towards Palestine radically.? ? former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, who earlier called on Muslim leaders to seek ?final victory? over ?the Jews who rule this world by proxy.?
?God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah. If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans? troops from Iraq ... then we will not fight.? ? ?Ahmed,? of the terrorist group Army of Mohammed.
?The president [Arafat] is frustrated with Bush?s policies.... The president [Arafat] thinks that Kerry will be much better for the Palestinian cause and for the establishment of a Palestinian state.? ? spokesmen for the Palestinian Authority.
In the end, Kerry wants to outsource the war on terror to the UN, rather than taking any responsibility on himself or the United States. This is nothing new ? he said the same thing to the Harvard Crimson after returning from Vietnam. ?I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.? And back in 1994 when speaking about what would justify troops losing their lives internationally: ?If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.? While working with allies to achieve goals is a goal of every President, it should not come at the cost of the United States? security.
And Kerry?s work has continuously worked to undermine the security of the United States. From voting against funding Reagan?s programs that bankrupted the Soviet Union (which he now lauds) to voting to reduce funding for intelligence (that he now says is faulty) to voting against the first Gulf War (which he now uses as an example of the sort of multilateralism is needed), he has missed the mark time and again. When one cannot be trusted in smaller matters, how can he be trusted with greater responsibilities?