leads decisively in the wrong direction
are many words to describe Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry. Charismatic. Heroic. Long-faced. Indecisive
is not one of them.
I am tired of people saying that John Kerry is indecisive.
You ask them how so and they say that he flip-flopped
on his stance on the war in Iraq.
To those people I have one question: where are the WMDs?
John Kerry voted to send troops to Iraq to topple Saddam
Hussein because he was told that Hussein was harboring
al Qaeda terrorists and weapons of mass destruction
that were to be used against the United States.
Since then, our information has changed. There are no
WMDs. Numerous former White House aides and insiders
have openly said that George Bush knowingly lied to
the American people about his reasons for going to war
When will we be able to face the fact that it was just
a favor for daddy?
If you were supplied faulty information to make a decision,
wouldnt you want a do-over? Wouldnt you
want a chance to reconsider after being lied to? Of
I have heard students say that Kerry switched sides
because he wanted to gain votes. Because if he wasnt
running for president, he wouldnt flip-flop, right?
Wrong. Kerry abandoned his stance because he knows that
lying to the people is unethical.
Meanwhile, why dont we point out some Bush ignorance
that could have prevented Kerry having to be indecisive
in the first place?
During the Clinton-Bush transition, Clintons National
Security Advisor Sandy Berger warned Condoleezza Rice
about al Qaeda and its threat to America.
In Time, Condi denied that this meeting ever took place.
But I look to a New York Times article from December
30, 2001, and I quote: As he prepared to leave
office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor
and gave her a warning. He said that terrorism
particularly Mr. bin Ladens brand of it
would consume far more of her time than she had ever
It turns out that the Clinton administration had a plan
to eradicate al Qaeda, but to enact it at the time it
was finalized would have been handing the Bush
administration a war when they took office, according
Clinton had confidence in Bush to finish the job and
eliminate Osama. Was that too much for him to handle?
I had confidence in Bush when he was inaugurated. He
has failed the people and me.
It gets worse. In February 2001, a report from senators
Gary Hart and Warren Rudman warned Bush that mass-casualty
terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of
serious and growing concern. They recommended
the creation of the National Homeland Security Agency.
So why is it that it took a mass-casualty
act of terrorism to coerce Bush into creating the NHSA?
But you know, youre right. Bush is decisive. He
said he was going to invade Iraq from day one. Check.
He said he was going to give tax cuts to the wealthy.
Check. Kerry may not be as decisive as Bush, but at
least with Kerry you know that the decisions made arent
John Kerry cares about the American people. He does
not want to send jobs overseas. He does not want to
court Corporate America. He just wants to give Americans
the life they deserve and keep them safe. Bush had a
chance to keep us safe, but didnt.
As I write this, I have the news on and Iraqis are stringing
U.S. civilian bodies from bridges. If John Kerry were
president, I think he would have been decisive enough
not to risk the lives of our soldiers.
Halasz is a sophomore radio-TV-film major from Dallas.