A Libertarian for Bush

Why Dubya's the only choice

by Thomas Lindaman
04/01/04

I've been accused of being a Republican lapdog by modern liberals more times than Larry King's been married. And I guarantee some modern liberal is going to take what I'm about to write as proof that I'm a Republican in a Libertarian's clothing. But, I have to say it.

I'm seriously thinking about voting for George W. Bush in November.

This isn't a change of heart or ideology, or even a desire to be on a "winning team." It comes from reading Sean Hannity's latest book Deliver Us from Evil. In it, Hannity goes into great detail about the importance of standing up for what's right, especially against the backdrop of the War on Terror. The more I read, the more I realized how on target he was. Even though the truths he wrote about were so easy to understand, some are still struggling with them.

That's right. I'm talking about the Democrats.

Hannity outlines quite a few of the Democrats' more outrageous and audacious actions since George W. Bush launched the War on Terror following 9/11, ranging from snide comments about Bush's ineptitude as Commander in Chief to the now-infamous memo circulating around Democrat Senate Judiciary members' offices. They all have one common theme: undermine the President at all costs.

But there's another theme that they're not seeing. Every action they've taken shows they don't have the slightest clue of what's going on. And this trend continues. Recently, Democrat Presidential hopeful John Kerry said that if he were elected, he would seek to negotiate with the terrorists and get the United Nations more involved. What Kerry and Democrats fail to understand is that evil will never negotiate in good faith. A dishonest person will always seek the weaknesses out in any agreement and exploit them for all they're worth.

Take Saddam Hussein for example. We have ample evidence showing that he openly defied the United Nations, used chemical and biological weapons on his own people, encouraged his soldiers to rape women in order to extract information, tested weapons on dogs, stole money intended to go to feed his people, and bribed foreign leaders to oppose the War in Iraq. Yet, the United Nations kept believing that eventually the sanctions they kept passing against Iraq would break him. Folks, Saddam thinks a UN sanction is like being sent to bed without dinner, and he's right. The UN lacks any real power to force him to change. All they can do is shake a disapproving finger at him.

And the same goes for the terrorists. When Bill Clinton went after the terrorists who tried to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993, he did so by choosing to bring them to trial. That's one of the dumbest ideas to come down the pike since Eve believed the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Bill, let me explain it to you in terms even a Rhodes Scholar could understand: terrorists don't care about our laws. They want us dead. And they think their belief in Allah makes them above our laws.

We need a leader who understands this, and so far the only candidate I've seen who grasps this concept is George W. Bush. The War on Terror isn't perfect and I still have some major issues with the way he's handled it and social policies. Those aren't going away, George. What is driving my decision, though, is my desire to live in a country where we don't have to live through another 9/11. One was bad enough, and I guarantee if someone other than Bush wins in November, we will see another one in the near future. It's not hyperbole; it's a certainty.

Kerry and the Democrats are too busy trying to tell us everything that's gone wrong with the War on Terror to come up with a viable alternative. We've tried coddling the terrorists before and it didn't work. The only thing they understand is force, so we need a President who can deliver that force upon command. In short, we need another four years of George W. Bush as President because the alternatives just aren't that impressive.

And that's the Bottom Line.