During my two-week hiatus from the Eagle's editorial page, my rest was interrupted by some columns that would be laughable if they weren't about such serious issues. Natalie Marechal showed yet again why America cannot afford another Democratic administration, especially at this critical juncture in human events.
By putting forth the idea that there is no such thing as a post-Sept. 11 world, Ms. Marechal disqualifies her column off the bat. How can anyone seriously defend an idea like that today? Because of the terrorist (yes, terrorist, not "insurgent") attacks of three years ago our lives have been changed forever. Security lines are longer and more cumbersome, holidays and events are met with heightened security instead of fanfare, and we have been forced to scour the earth in search of the human scum that are al-Qaida.
Yes, terrorism has existed for a long time, but the first attack on the U.S. mainland ever should shake people out of their La-Z-Boys. The U.S. economy lost an estimated $1 trillion that day. I think that should radically change the way we approach the threats that come our way. I haven't heard something so absurd since Clinton said America brought Sept. 11 upon itself. If Ms. Marechal really believes there is no terrorist threat or post-Sept. 11 world, she should forget John Kerry and write in Michael Moore on her ballot tomorrow.
Even more disturbing than her failure to grasp the new world in which we live are the reasons Ms. Marechal gives for voting for John Kerry. I read each one of them, and while to her credit she was creative, her reasons are nonetheless bunk.
Marechal's Reason 24 was, "You don't get rid of problems by declaring war on them." Well, how, pray tell, would you get rid of terrorists trying to harm the United States? Perhaps she would join her candidate in going back to making terrorism just a nuisance, and subpoenaing the terrorists. You know how good they are at leaving their caves for a New York courtroom. I'd love to hear the plan for Iran. Along with attempting to have a dialogue, I would like to see our nuclear arsenal updated to enable our missiles to penetrate the ground. After all, the weapons won't be in a storefront window. Apparently Kerry thinks we should go knock on the door, wait for it to open and then drop a bomb. America should not disarm while rogue nations arm, as Kerry has recommended, calling it "leading the way." That is the same attitude liberals had in the 1970s when they allowed the Soviets to surpass us militarily. Thankfully Ronald Reagan showed up to reverse course.
Reason 26 stated, among other things, that "Osama wants Bush re-elected." Now if anyone is na?ve enough to believe that, God help them. I would think that Osama would prefer that we go back to the days of Clinton, when Monica roamed the West Wing and the United States was a "paper tiger," offering limp-wristed responses to affronts against it. I think Osama sees Kerry and hears the echo of the 1990s. Why else would the terrorists work harder to defeat Bush than George Soros? I don't think the Arab and Muslim "fringe elements" need any more antagonization. What did Bush do to them before 9/11? Remember, weakness to these terrorists is like blood to sharks - they sense it and move in for the kill. Thus far I think we've projected strength. I'd like to keep it that way.
A few of her other reasons pay lip service to liberal pet issues, such as the ever-evil, but highly qualified Halliburton, and the "right" to end a child's life. These Democrats neglect to remember that Halliburton was loved by the Clinton administration, getting no-bid contracts just as they do now.
I really see no problem with not funding abortions abroad, and abstinence is a lot more effective than popping a pill. I think teaching people how to pull up their zippers would fight AIDS, as would aid money, with President Bush giving the most of any U.S. president.
Saying, as she did, that we should work with "democratically" elected Jacques Chirac over Putin, raised my eyebrows. Does Ms. Marechal really think we could have worked with France (or Russia for that matter) when it was receiving millions of dollars and barrels of oil under the table from Saddam? We spent a lot of time talking at the United Nations when action could have been taken. Apparently our "allies" were more interested in Iraqi oil than Iraqi freedom. Kerry's "Hocus Pocus" foreign policy of promising to magically bring every nation to our side should be. Notice that the people who didn't get Iraqi oil vouchers or money were George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Don't hold your breath waiting for CNN to cover that story, though.
Additionally, the idea that Kerry will 'increase his own taxes while leaving ours alone' is the height of ignorance. As Bush said, when politicians talk about raising taxes, it is a promise they usually keep. In regard to Kerry and his wife's taxes, we now know that they paid only 12.8 percent in taxes last year. Compare that with Bush who paid 30 percent last year and makes $400,000 as president, a lot less than Teresa's billions. I thought Kerry and his wife suffered from that liberal guilt and would "donate" more of their evil wealth to the government. I guess that's just another instance of there being what Kerry says, and then what Kerry does.
The fact that people around the world oppose us should make Ms. Marechal and her fellow liberals think. After Sept. 11 we had the world's sympathy because we were victims. If we stayed in that state we probably would have maintained their good graces. But what good would that do? The attacks demanded justice, and that is exactly what we have been meting out for the past three years. I, and Bush for that matter, do not want America to be anyone's victim. If you enjoy sympathy, vote Kerry. If you want to go on the offense against terrorism, project strength, and keep Kerry from casting spells on America, vote to re-elect Bush.
