Karen H. Pittman
Character counts - - so vote for it
By Karen H. Pittman
Author's Endorsement: If you believe as I do that President Bush has worked hard since 9/11 to defend you and your family, tell him so by voting for him. Recall the horror of that tragic day and reflect on this good man's genuine travail . . . . Remember how we all feared the next attack was not only imminent but inevitable? Well, in three years, it never came. In large measure, we have George W. Bush to thank for that. If you are grateful for the remarkable character and tenacity this President has shown in the face of terror, send him a message. Thank him. Let him know you were out there, in the silent majority, rooting for him. Make your voice heard. On November 2nd, vote to return George W. Bush to the White House. Your future — your family's future — may well depend on it.
Charles Krauthammer, in his latest column called "Kerry's Afghan Amnesia," laments the Massachusetts candidate's regrettable tendency to second-guess, sardonically dubbing him "the retroactive genius."
Kerry, ever the boastful king-of-the-playground-hill, regularly taunts the President on the campaign trail with his alleged failure as Commander-in-Chief to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. This is precisely the kind of behavior you'd expect from an opportunistic braggart. He is, in effect, saying to Bush, long after the fact and well within the safe confines of an analytical comfort zone enjoyed by no one (least of all a know-it-all retro-whiz-kid who played hooky during most of his Senate Intelligence Committee meetings) at the actual time of the Afghan war, "Seeeeeeee, I told you so." Next I fully expect him to launch into a smarmy rendition of "Anything you can do I can do betterrrrrrrr, I can do anything better than you."
Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.
Trouble is, he didn't "tell him." At the time our military conducted its Tora Bora operation, Kerry, already an all-but-official candidate for the White House, sensing the political headwinds, loudly lauded our Commander-in-Chief's discretion thus: "I think we have been smart. I think the administration leadership has done it well, and we are right on track."
And yet, on the stump, John Kerry the backward-looking wunderkind never overlooks a chance to remind us that he has been "saying for two years now" that our troops should have caught bin Laden. Very clever, Cicero. What this oily orator doesn't tell you is what he was saying three years ago, when the Tora Bora campaign concluded. The coy chameleon told CNN on January 20, 2002: "I do think some people have asked some questions about how that particular component of the mission sort of played out. But the fact is that [Tora Bora] is a difficult place. [Osama bin Laden] is elusive. I think [the troops and the administration] are doing the maximum amount right now possible to try to track him down."
You don't say. Funny. Sunday on the trail, alluding to the military's Tora Bora strategy, he huffed, bantam-like, "I would never have done that." Yet his own comments reveal precisely the reverse — that, in fact, had John Kerry been Commander-in-Chief, at that time he would have "done [just] that." Here, after all, in his own words, is irrefutable proof that he expressly approved of the Pentagon's plan to rely on Afghan warlords as surrogates for our ground troops (a maneuver he now calculatingly disparages as "outsourcing"), primarily in order to reduce American casualties and prevent a Soviet-like entrenchment.
I, I, I. This man is the Frito Bandito of political discourse. As Rich Lowry notes of the bin Laden brouhaha, "This controversy is only more evidence that what the senator will never miss is an opportunity to be opportunistic."
As I see it, this election boils down to a fundamental choice, one which has less to do with issues of war and survival than with character, for it is the heart and soul of our Commander-in-Chief that ultimately determines how he defends us.
If you are still undecided, ask yourself this: In an uncertain world, would you feel safer casting your lot with a man who has demonstrated time and again that he will say and do anything to be President, or with a President who has shown by his actions that he will stop at nothing to protect you and your family, even if it means risking your vote?
In short: During war, would you rather be led by a man who is guided by principles or a politician who is steered by polls?
In a time of terror, this is the one and only litmus test a candidate must pass. Character counts.
No one can honestly deny that President George W. Bush has doggedly defended us. This decent man deserves to be rewarded for his steadfast determination. He has earned not only our gratitude, but our approbation as well. Repay him by voting for him. You will be doing yourself and your country, which is at a crossroads, a crucial service.
© Karen H. Pittman
Author's Endorsement: If you believe as I do that President Bush has worked hard since 9/11 to defend you and your family, tell him so by voting for him. Recall the horror of that tragic day and reflect on this good man's genuine travail . . . . Remember how we all feared the next attack was not only imminent but inevitable? Well, in three years, it never came. In large measure, we have George W. Bush to thank for that. If you are grateful for the remarkable character and tenacity this President has shown in the face of terror, send him a message. Thank him. Let him know you were out there, in the silent majority, rooting for him. Make your voice heard. On November 2nd, vote to return George W. Bush to the White House. Your future — your family's future — may well depend on it.
Charles Krauthammer, in his latest column called "Kerry's Afghan Amnesia," laments the Massachusetts candidate's regrettable tendency to second-guess, sardonically dubbing him "the retroactive genius."
Kerry, ever the boastful king-of-the-playground-hill, regularly taunts the President on the campaign trail with his alleged failure as Commander-in-Chief to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. This is precisely the kind of behavior you'd expect from an opportunistic braggart. He is, in effect, saying to Bush, long after the fact and well within the safe confines of an analytical comfort zone enjoyed by no one (least of all a know-it-all retro-whiz-kid who played hooky during most of his Senate Intelligence Committee meetings) at the actual time of the Afghan war, "Seeeeeeee, I told you so." Next I fully expect him to launch into a smarmy rendition of "Anything you can do I can do betterrrrrrrr, I can do anything better than you."
Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.
Trouble is, he didn't "tell him." At the time our military conducted its Tora Bora operation, Kerry, already an all-but-official candidate for the White House, sensing the political headwinds, loudly lauded our Commander-in-Chief's discretion thus: "I think we have been smart. I think the administration leadership has done it well, and we are right on track."
And yet, on the stump, John Kerry the backward-looking wunderkind never overlooks a chance to remind us that he has been "saying for two years now" that our troops should have caught bin Laden. Very clever, Cicero. What this oily orator doesn't tell you is what he was saying three years ago, when the Tora Bora campaign concluded. The coy chameleon told CNN on January 20, 2002: "I do think some people have asked some questions about how that particular component of the mission sort of played out. But the fact is that [Tora Bora] is a difficult place. [Osama bin Laden] is elusive. I think [the troops and the administration] are doing the maximum amount right now possible to try to track him down."
You don't say. Funny. Sunday on the trail, alluding to the military's Tora Bora strategy, he huffed, bantam-like, "I would never have done that." Yet his own comments reveal precisely the reverse — that, in fact, had John Kerry been Commander-in-Chief, at that time he would have "done [just] that." Here, after all, in his own words, is irrefutable proof that he expressly approved of the Pentagon's plan to rely on Afghan warlords as surrogates for our ground troops (a maneuver he now calculatingly disparages as "outsourcing"), primarily in order to reduce American casualties and prevent a Soviet-like entrenchment.
I, I, I. This man is the Frito Bandito of political discourse. As Rich Lowry notes of the bin Laden brouhaha, "This controversy is only more evidence that what the senator will never miss is an opportunity to be opportunistic."
As I see it, this election boils down to a fundamental choice, one which has less to do with issues of war and survival than with character, for it is the heart and soul of our Commander-in-Chief that ultimately determines how he defends us.
If you are still undecided, ask yourself this: In an uncertain world, would you feel safer casting your lot with a man who has demonstrated time and again that he will say and do anything to be President, or with a President who has shown by his actions that he will stop at nothing to protect you and your family, even if it means risking your vote?
In short: During war, would you rather be led by a man who is guided by principles or a politician who is steered by polls?
In a time of terror, this is the one and only litmus test a candidate must pass. Character counts.
No one can honestly deny that President George W. Bush has doggedly defended us. This decent man deserves to be rewarded for his steadfast determination. He has earned not only our gratitude, but our approbation as well. Repay him by voting for him. You will be doing yourself and your country, which is at a crossroads, a crucial service.
© Karen H. Pittman
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
