(This editorial appeared in the Dallas Morning News on Friday. It may be the most offensive opinion I've ever read in a "respected" newspaper. Please post your comments. I plan to go after the Dallas Morning News once I've had an opprtunity to catch my breath and your comments would be quite helpful. GS)
Dallas Morning News | Saturday, September 11, 2004
In the first presidential election since 9-11, foreign policy matters more than at any time in a generation.
The chief difference between John Kerry and George W. Bush on foreign policy is stylistic, and that's no small thing. Mr. Kerry favors a much more diplomatic and consultative approach, promising that he could talk European allies into following America's lead more readily than the more straightforward Mr. Bush. This may sound attractive at first blush, but Mr. Bush, chastened by setbacks in postwar Iraq, has begun to work more readily with others.
The fact of the matter is that European countries have national interests increasingly divergent from our own, and smooth talk alone cannot bridge the gap. Because Mr. Kerry prefers more traditional statecraft, including deference to international organizations, the senator would likely return the United States to the foreign policy it followed before 9-11. This concerns us. While the administration did act on poor intelligence before the war, it would be worse to lash our security interests too closely to nations that have a vested interest in containing American influence.
On the home front, Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry both support the Patriot Act, though the Democrat urges some refinement to limit the authorities' powers. Mr. Kerry fully endorses the 9-11 commission's intelligence reform recommendations, and we have urged Mr. Bush to do the same.
Yet consider: Would anyone on Sept. 11, 2001, have predicted that we would make it this far without a repeat? It could change tomorrow, God forbid, but Mr. Bush's watch bought us three unexpected years of homeland peace. Among other accomplishments, his government has clamped down on terrorist money launderers masquerading as charities and broken up domestic terrorist support networks. Though there have been excesses -- the Guantanamo Bay detentions stand out here -- we think Americans prefer a government that errs on the side of aggression against terrorists.
When it comes to national security, the decisive edge belongs to Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry has characterized the war against terror as a police action, which reflects a crucial misunderstanding of the conflict's nature. In the end, Mr. Kerry's record shows that his true passion lies not in making war on America's enemies, but in making peace between America and the world.
That's a noble goal, but insufficient for these times. Americans must know their president is willing to risk international scorn in order to protect them from terrorists. They need a commander in chief whose heart is in this anti-terror war, undivided. Which of these men do you trust more to prevent the next 9-11 -- and to act wisely and decisively if it happens again?
