Re-Elect George W. Bush
by Mark Liberator (e-mail: [September 6th, 2004]

One should not attack the patriotism of those who question the Bush administration, even though such a view is not my exact brand. One should not attack those who support John Kerry, even though he doesn't stand for his own ideas, but of those that are simply opposite the Bush administration. Instead, to promote the positivism necessary to support a healthy democracy, a person can only support one’s own beliefs through the support of candidates who hold similar beliefs.

“It may be said that George W. Bush is definitely not as polished as Bill Clinton. Thankfully, the claim would be right because it is true our president is not slick. Our president is genuine, consistent, and resolute.”

However, I do take personal issue with any comment that attempts to capture Bush supporters as being blind. Simply because we supporters favor the decisions made by the Republican Party and are opposed to the ideas proposed by the Democratic Party does not make us blind. I have thoroughly examined the issues, facts, comments and possibilities. To characterize me, and everyone else who has done the same amount of research, as blind is a major logical error.

There were people who probably opposed The Revolution, which brought us physical and financial independence from England. There were people who probably opposed Franklin D. Roosevelt's decisions that led to our involvement in World War II, but it did not stop U.S. forces from defeating those who ruled by force, violence, and threat. President Lincoln did not want to go to war, but the Union had to be protected and slavery had to be abolished. As it can be seen, an anti-involvement mindset is not a position that automatically gains favor by me nor should it by any other thinking being.

The peoples of Iraq deserved to be free of their threat. It was a regime that ruled by fear and violence. It was a regime that allowed, and had a hand in, the rape of Iraqi women. It was a corrupt regime in desperate need of change.

John Kerry would like to have us believe we could have dealt with terrorism like modern television programs deal with self-esteem issues by performing make-overs. Kerry advocated two options. To some reporters he led us to believe long-term economic solutions was the solution. To other reporters, it was only to attack the Bush administration’s plan of attack, not to divulge how he would overcome the problem of terrorism to any level of detail.

Kerry wanted to turn to the United Nations (U.N.) for a solution to the terrorist act of destruction on our twin towers. The U.N. suggested to solve the problem through long-term economic sanctions. It would not have been an effective course of action. Clearly, it would not have been a course of action that would have responded with the immediate threat, future threats, nor regained confidence in our own economy. It would not have given us back our own well-being. John Kerry’s ideas for sit-ins, make-overs, and group kumbaya sing-alongs would most definitely not have been as effective as the necessary reconstructive surgery that the Middle East received.

The argument that we entered Iraq because of oil is one that is totally unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to suggest our administration is taking oil from Iraq, profiting from Iraqi oil, or using Iraqi oil for anything other than rebuilding the country of Iraq under a democracy. There is no issue of oil-for-profit as some misguided, conspiracy-mongering democrats have insisted.

American troops, along with troops from several other countries, entered Iraq as a coalition force because of Saddam's regime. It had a history that included weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Saddam's regime ruled by fear. It played with weapon's inspectors and the U.N. Without a doubt, the regime was playing a cat and mouse game instead of behaving in a mode of compliance and global peace.

Even though CIA intelligence seemingly miscalculated Iraq's WMD, the decision to enter Iraq was still sound. The benefits of gaining a democracy in the Middle East, while also literally destroying a vicious regime, are tremendous and will compound over time. A foothold of peace and reason is necessary for the evolution of the region, which will generate a wholesome environment. It will allow Iraqis to benefit and explore their own freedoms.

The regime in Iraq was linked to terrorism even though the 9/11 attack has yet to be tied to Iraq. It has been shown that the regime in Iraq had government sponsored ties to various terrorists and terrorist organizations throughout the region. Therefore, Iraq was a favorable avenue to pursue considering its involvement with destructive individuals and organizations.

For those who insist we must support direct, intrusive involvement against terrorism, we should agree. We belong in Iraq because we are against dictatorships, against terrorists, and for liberating people from such environments. For those people who believe our fight needs to be in Afghanistan to defeat known terrorist groups or groups with ties to terrorism, like the Taliban and al Qaeda, we should again agree. That is why we have an excess of 20,000 troops dedicated to such a duty in Afghanistan.

American led forces have literally toppled corrupt governments so that peace in the Middle East and the world can be actualized. By taking the fight abroad where terrorism is manufactured and bred into cultures, it shrinks the chances that terrorists will attack urban areas and threaten innocent lives. It forces terrorists from infiltrating and dominating governments in order to reproduce like-minded people who entertain and act upon violence as their means for bargaining. To have approached terrorists and terrorist organizations with any other course of action would have most definitely been a farce and a complete waste of time. It most assuredly would have resulted in the loss of more innocent lives.

There will always be people who believe war is never an option. They stand on ideological ground telling us war is immoral, wrong, and evil. We should agree that war is hell and that life is sacred. We should also agree that freedom in life is paramount and without it life is not worth living. We should have empathy for our brothers and sisters who are abroad and live without freedom, exist under persecution, punishment and pain from dictators and terrorists. Our own desire for the inherent rights of others must not end at our own borders.

In order to insist on rights for all peoples and also gain informed decision-making for the upcoming election, all of us should encourage debates, whether it be by the candidates or by we concerned voters. There certainly are uninformed, or worse misinformed, people who may vote this November. It is our collective duty to demand these voters make purposeful decisions based on their intellect as candidates relate to their beliefs, not decisions based on sheer emotion nor half-truths.

There is a strong rationale supporting American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration, however imperfect its detractors may report, has made the decision to enter the Middle East to strategically combat terrorism. It is a decision many people support, including a number of Vietnam veterans, namely Swift boat veterans who served the same time as John Kerry.

It is not the case that a slim margin supports the Bush administration, as polls from Time indicate. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) but before the Republican National Convention (RNC) that support for Bush was higher than that of Kerry. After the RNC, support for Bush rised to a double digit lead, making it clear that the Bush administration‘s actions abroad are supported.

As far as political conventions go, the RNC shined brighter than the DNC. With speakers such as Giuliani, McCain, and Democrat Zell Miller, the convention speeches perfectly captured the republican’s position and invigorated people across the globe. These speakers defended our freedom fighting position in the Middle East, defeated the efforts of a disingenuous film-maker, and divulged Senator Kerry’s 20-year anti-military voting record.

The convention had a perfect capstone of speakers. Vice-President Cheney’s thorough presentation could not have been argued against by any intellectual. President Bush’s speech covered many topics, including healthcare, the tax code, terrorism, and the economy. He also spoke about education, conservatism, and values. A portion of his speech that can especially resonate to a patriot was…

“I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.

“The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.”

It may be said that George W. Bush is definitely not as polished as Bill Clinton. Thankfully, the claim would be right because it is true our president is not slick. Our president is genuine, consistent, and resolute.

Consequently, I agree with many people who have chosen to support the Bush administration. His presidency can boast the downfall of dictatorship in Iraq, Saddam being tossed in jail, Osama forced into exile, and the formation of democracies in two Middle Eastern countries. The world has been delivered a dose of hope. I will vote for George W. Bush as an informed voter.

Reference List

  • CBS News: Transcripts of the Republican National Convention - President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani, Zell Miller, and Arnold Schwarzennegger.
  • Time: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

    Click here to return to our Articles @ The Liberator