Bush leads ‘decisively’ in the wrong direction

Ty Halasz
COMMENTARY

There 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 in Iraq.

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, wouldn’t you want a do-over? Wouldn’t you want a chance to reconsider after being lied to? Of course.

I have heard students say that Kerry switched sides because he wanted to gain votes. Because if he wasn’t running for president, he wouldn’t flip-flop, right? Wrong. Kerry abandoned his stance because he knows that lying to the people is unethical.

Meanwhile, why don’t we point out some Bush ignorance that could have prevented Kerry having to be “indecisive” in the first place?

During the Clinton-Bush transition, Clinton’s 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 Laden’s brand of it — would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined.”

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 to Time.

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, you’re 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 aren’t bad.

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 didn’t.

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.

Ty Halasz is a sophomore radio-TV-film major from Dallas.