Once again, a letter to the editor
of the News-Post has provided me with writing material.
This morning a letter by Kevin Moore of Mount Airy,
titled “Bewildered by Kerry Supporters,” had this to
“It bewilders me when I read
letters from people voting for John Kerry because he'll
raise the minimum wage, provide universal health care,
institute more gun control, give credits for college
tuition, and (my favorite) their hatred towards
Ok, those are pretty divisive
issues. Perhaps he just has different opinions on those
topics and doesn't understand the viewpoints of others.
“Folks, we are at war and
protecting this country from more 9/11's should trump
any social issue. Without security from terrorism, all
other issues are effectively neutralized. I know this
is inconvenient for liberals but it is reality.”
Ah, so we should ignore poverty,
the prohibitive cost of medical treatment, the fact that
we're leading the world in gun violence, the
skyrocketing price of college tuition, and everything
else that has happened under George Bush's watch because
we're afraid of terrorists? Way to be terrorized, Mr.
Of course I think we should fix up
our nation's security. We do need to modernize our
defenses for an age when we're not worrying about a
country waging conventional warfare on us.
But that DOES NOT mean we should
ignore the problems that affect our daily lives. In
2001, 11,106 murders were committed with firearms (this
statistic is even ignoring non-gun related murders).
That's a lot more victims than there were on September
11, although it obviously wasn't as much of a
spectacle. Instead we hear about gun crime every day
on local news.
The other issues he mentioned are
self-explanatory. The point is that we cannot simply
triumph over terrorists by keeping them out of the
country. We have to beat them by not being afraid of
them and by maintaining the high quality of life that
has made this country so powerful. We can be the most
ridiculously secure nation in the world, but what will
that matter if everyone is poor, sick, shot, or
uneducated? What exactly would we be defending then?
“John Kerry has now questioned Mr.
Bush's initial response to the 9/11 attacks, saying that
he would have excused himself from the classroom and
attended to the matter. Ah, another one of many Kerry
fallacies. Mr. Kerry himself has said that he and other
Democrat leaders were unable to think for 40 minutes
between the time the second plane hit the WTC and when
another plane hit the Pentagon.
How's that for action! Mr. Bush in
the same amount of time had written a three-page
statement, formed a makeshift command post at the
school, telephoned Cheney, FBI director, New York
governor, his chief of staff, communications director,
and spokesman, and taken are of business while Mr. Kerry
was sitting there wondering what flavor of ice cream was
Needless to say (or so I thought),
there is a difference between the President of the
United States and a Senator. Bush has been criticized
for sitting in the classroom for 7 minutes after hearing
that the nation was under attack because certain
defensive measures can only be authorized by the
President. Although Cheney apparently filled in, and
I'm not sure how he did this legally unless he decided
Bush was unfit to command at the time, supposedly only
the President can give the authorization to shoot down a
commercial airplane. What Bush did the rest of the day,
while he was being flown all over the country, was just
his job, which he took at least seven minutes too long
On the other side, a Senator on
that morning had no power to do anything at all. From
what I understand, most of them were scattered away from
the Capitol. So I'm not really sure what this letter
writer would have rather had him do.
“Sorry, folks. If you elect this
charlatan for president, then shame on you. Castro,
Arafat, Hussein, Jong-Il, Khamenei and terrorists want
John Kerry to win. Wonder why? Perhaps they know more
about Kerry than you do, though some of you do share a
similar feeling with these fine humanitarians: hatred
for President Bush.”
Yes, I suppose I do wonder why,
since I've never heard anything that would give anyone
this impression. Maybe this guy just believes in the
saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In this
case, Kerry opposes Bush, as do all of those “fine
humanitarians” the writer listed. On the other hand, I
think most of the world opposes Bush, which would mean
there are plenty of reputable people who support Kerry.
No, I take that back. “The enemy
of my enemy is my friend” is a dumb phrase no matter how
you spin it.
So I guess if Kevin Moore is
bewildered by Kerry supporters, I am bewildered by how
so many of the people who support Bush because he's
tougher on terrorism and security are still so afraid
that they're willing to let the country crumble behind
them as long as we keep converting the nation into a
huge Fortress of Solitude. Our President may be a
wannabe cowboy, but he's no Superman.
other political related articles written by Scott