The Endorsement, Part II

Without further ado... I don't have as much time on this one, but I'll try to boil it down rather simply.

Foreign Policy

If we elect John Kerry, it won't be pretty.

I personally believe that Kerry's posturing, handwringing and tendency to waffle at the slightest setback indicate that we will have two things -- someone who will micro-manage the war in Iraq to the point that nothing gets done, and a leader who will look to bail out of the country at the first opportunity he gets, partly in order to satisfy his base, and partly because he doesn't believe in the cause. I think John Kerry as President will find a way to achieve failure in Iraq. You may not think President Bush's plan to democratize Iraq will succeed, but it deserves a fair chance. A similar bold initiative is working in Afghanistan. I don't think John Kerry will give it the opportunity to succeed in Iraq. And we need to succeed in Iraq. Has Bush made mistakes in Iraq? Yes. Will Kerry correct them? No.

As for the War on Terror, I don't think Kerry wants to fight it in the same way I do. I think the other side wants to kill us. I say we kill them first. Bush agrees with this and is willing to fight. Kerry at his core thinks differently. He believes in multi-national groups working to track down, capture and prosecute terrorists. I think this model reveals a mindset that pre-dates 9/11 and is dead wrong.

Bush's leadership in the days following 9/11 was transendent. It was not, as some have claimed, something every President would have achieved. To be fair to the Democrats, Clinton might have achieved it. But Al Gore would not have done so. And John Kerry certainly would not have done so. It takes a lot to rally a nation to war. It is very difficult to do so when you're not willing to invest in the war personally. Kerry's not willing.

Kerry's instincts were wrong in the Cold War. He opposed Reagan's policies, policies which ended the Cold War early. He opposed the first Gulf War, for seemingly no reason that he's willing to defend. He only supported the current war in Iraq when it was politically expedient. I don't trust his instincts and I don't trust him to make the right choices, because he's been wrong so often. And because he's so willing to sell out his personal beliefs for politcal expedience, I don't think allies will trust him either. Clinton could lie and get away with it because he had personal charm. Kerry lacks personal charm, unless you're a rich heiress.

I think the best way to summarize Kerry's approach to the War on Terror is to look at choice for VP. Kerry could have chosen a number of Democrats with solid credentials on foreign policy and fighting the Terror War. Bill Richardson is a former U.N. Ambassador and a popular Hispanic governor of New Mexico. Bob Kerrey is a fellow veteran, a former governor, served in the Senate for many years and served on the 9/11 Commission. Wesley Clark is a retired general with countless accolades (not that I trust him in the least). Bob Graham, weird though he may be, had plenty of experience on intelligence issues in the Senate, not to mention executive experience in Florida. Joe Lieberman was out there. So was Dick Gephardt. Michael Dukakis in 1988 chose Lloyd Bentsen. Why couldn't Kerry choose Sam Nunn?

Instead, Kerry chose John Edwards. A one-term Senator from North Carolina whose greatest asset is the war chest of donations he brings from the trial lawyers. He can't even carry his home state in this election. And are you really comfortable with him as the man who would be hunting down Al Qaeada?

In the end, George Bush is the clear choice on national security. He's adapted in office from someone who opposed the idea of nation-building to someone who sees it as a necessity. He'd be cruising to re-election on the strength of his leadership post-9/11 had he chosen to take the easy way out in Iraq. He chose the hard way, in recognition of the fact that we would have to fight this battle one day, and it's better to fight it on our terms today.

For Homeland Security, I reiterate what I said on Friday, following the release of the bin Laden tape. In Spain, Osama used bombs to terrify the populace. Here, he used a videotape to try and accomplish the same thing. Anyone think he wouldn't try to bomb us if he could? Tom Ridge and his color-coded alerts may look silly -- but he and the Bush Administration have done a great job.

They've earned another four years.