OPINION: Endorsement of John Kerry and John Edwards
The Daily Cal has endorsed John Kerry for president stating, “we hope we do not have to endure ‘four more years’ of President Bush.” The terrorists are saying the same thing. With two-thirds of their leadership dead, Al-Qaeda cannot endure the strength and leadership of George W. Bush. They can deal with John Kerry because John Kerry is not serious about dealing with them.
Always remember September 11th. Rather, never forget. The 3,000 lives lost at the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field. 265 passengers on the four planes. 2,602 people cvilians at the World Trade Center. 343 firefighters who fought to save lives. 125 workers at the Pentagon. Their lives should not have been lost, nor should our memories of their senseless departure.
Facing Bush is a candidate who will do anything and say anything to get elected. Whether it is goose hunting, professing his deep Catholic faith, or attempting to eat at Wendy’s, Kerry has made it clear that he is a phony.
What is especially phony and extremely dangerous is his stance on the war on terror. He has criticized Bush for expanding research of a bunker-busting nuclear weapon. Kerry declared, “It's very hard to get other countries to give up their weapons when you're busy developing a new one.” How dare John Kerry put us on the same moral plane as regimes such as North Korea and Iran? A lasting peace is achieved through overwhelming strength. Only America has the wisdom to use the strength to achieve a lasting peace for this Nation and the entire world, and only President Bush understands this. Kerry, however, would like to subject our troops, our citizens, our families, and our overall national security to a “global test.” Kerry supported a nuclear freeze during the cold war and voted against the Gulf War that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We do not need a pop-quiz from France and Germany or any other nation that abetted Saddam Hussein to defend our nation.
The wars we are in, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, are wars we did not start. The war started in 1993, when the basements of the WTC were bombed, the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and finally on September 11th. Only President Bush has had the strength and courage to respond. Kerry might have responded only after passing some sort of worldwide standardized exam.
Those who disagree with the operation in Iraq must realize that it is the battleground on which our US soldiers are fighting our terrorist enemies. The war in Iraq has called out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist thug who has been beheading aid workers and civilian contractors. Where would al-Zarqawi be if he were not in Iraq? It is better that he is there where our trained soldiers can confront him rather than somewhere else in the world, hiding and plotting murder against defenseless American office workers. Voters should ask themselves this question: who would Osama Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi vote for?
The answer is clear, for they share the “anybody but Bush” with many left-wing Americans. Terrorists dread Bush’s re-election. This has been made evident in a recent tape obtained by ABC, in which a terrorist warns of more attacks if Bush is elected. If Bush loses, the terrorists will celebrate, shooting their guns in the air and dancing in the streets. We as Americans cannot grant theses terrorists this sick victory party.
If you feel that Bush started this war, let him finish it. The troops want President Bush to lead them to the end of this war. If there is one group of individuals that voters should consider the most important on November 2nd, it should be the US troops. They are the ones who are sacrificing their lives to keep us safe. The troops prefer Bush over Kerry, 4 to 1 as their commander in chief. We should not dishonor the wishes of the men who truly know which commander-in-chief they can better serve under. They left their families behind to face the dangers of unfamiliar Iraqi streets, and the least we can do is provide them with a leader they prefer. Our troops should not be part of the political rhetoric that has consumed this campaign. All Americans can agree that we must support our troops. Support means providing them with the weapons they need, even when that weapon is Commander-in-chief Bush.
This election is about our safety and about those fighting for our safety. It is about preserving an enduring future. During the last debate, President Bush talked about a painting in his office that showed a sunrise. President Bush mentioned, “It is the sunrise side not the sunset side. It’s the side to see the day that is coming, not to see the day that is gone.” We must ensure that their will be days to come in America, not days mourn over what was taken from us. For the men and women overseas, for the families who want a safer future for their loved ones, and for those who believe in an eternal freedom, vote for George W. Bush.
COLUMN: Whispers and Weaknesses
Columnist Aaron Azlant suggests that the questions surrounding John Kerry’s war record are apart of a whisper campaign orchestrated by Karl Rove. He writes, “[Rove] is…the undisputed king of smear and the probable source of much of Democratic presidential Sen. John Kerry’s bad Vietnam press.”
Azlant is right, because Rove has such powerful foresight that he has been orchestrating this bad press for over 40 years. He started planning for Kerry’s Vietnam service misinformation since he was about 18. Rove foresaw that he would be a political adviser to a president and also knew that John Kerry would run against that president 33 years later, so during the 70’s he somehow coerced Kerry to testify in front of congress and forced him to accuse an entire generation of soldiers of war crimes. Rove also made sure Kerry brought a camera to the battlefront, film fake war footage for his own political aspirations, and run on his illustrious war record. To add to Rove’s clairvoyant genius, he made sure the soldiers who were about to serve with Kerry kept their eyes open for any funny business No wonder the Democrats fear Karl Rove. He really plans ahead.
The reality is John Kerry provided the fuel for this smear campaign himself. No one, especially not Karl Rove, forced Kerry to contribute to the Winter Soldier Report, which maligned the soldiers who served in Vietnam. No one forced Kerry to say, “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border… a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops,” even though Nixon had not assumed the presidency until January 1969. No one even forced Kerry to bring up his Vietnam service in the first place.
John O’Neill, the head of Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, has been challenging John Kerry on the facts since 1970, long before Karl Rove rose to prominence. In fact, Rove was still a teen. Kerry’s service should be applauded, but there is no orchestrated attack against his war record. The reason Senator Kerry only has his war service to run on is because his actual senate record is dismal. He can’t be proud of a record that earned him the Non-partisan National Journal ranking of the “most liberal senator.
OPINION: Endorsements
The Daily Cal thankfully rejected most measures and propositions that raise taxes, but still endorsed a few that reached into the pockets of California citizens. With regards to the alphabet measures sought by the City of Berkeley, don’t feed the spending addiction of the city council. Vote no on B, J, K, L M, and N. The city has to learn to live within its means. No one wants to live in a city with high taxes and a city council that guts them for cash every election year. To obtain more revenue, the city should not undermine the incentive of earning more money through work.
The Daily Cal rejects Prop. 64, which ends frivolous lawsuits that punish doctors and take money from job-creating businesses. This forces them to endorse prop 63, which raises taxes to pay for the health services for the mentally ill. The reason such services are unavailable is because frivolous lawsuits, which would be limited under Prop. 64, are driving up the cost of liability insurance for doctors. Discouraged doctors would then move to a state that is less litigious than California. If the Daily Cal wants more mental health services, they should go to root of what is causing such a shortage, rather than contribute to this unfortunate and wasteful cycle.
Click here to see our endorsements (Berkeley Measures | State Propositions)
FRONT PAGE: Al Gore Heats Up Campus Stage
It’s hard to believe that Al Gore could actually “heat up” anything with his level of excitement. During a recent visit to Cal, Al Gore once again enlightened the audience about the environment, warning that the “atmosphere was thinning, glaciers are retreating, and sea levels are rising.” Now we know who did the voice over for the Day After Tomorrow movie trailers. We all know Al Gore loves to talk about protecting the environment. But talking is all he does. Gore is a demagogues the environmental protection issue, with impassioned rhetoric that has never translated into any real action.
Where was Al Gore when Clinton neglected to submit the Kyoto treaty to senate for ratification? Where was Al Gore during the first six years of the Clinton Administration, when arsenic and carbon dioxide emission levels were left untouched. Gore can blame Bush for his supposedly dismal environmental record, but it isn’t different from the policies that were in place during the mid-90’s. The arsenic levels under Clinton were at fifty parts per billion, a number that had been the same in every other administration since 1942. Clinton didn’t change it until his last two years in office, when he finally lowered the allowable emission level. The same took place with carbon dioxide emission levels. When Bush took office, he put all the levels back to where they were during the first six years of Clinton’s reign. Bush’s new policies, are Clintons long-held old policies. Why won’t Al Gore get heated up over his own environmental record?
COLUMN: A Biologists Dilemma
Columnist Andro Hsu goes on a meaningless tirade about his stem-cell research dilemma, and suddenly attacks Cheney and Halliburton. He says Halliburton is influencing Cheney’s energy policy and he is “disgusted with the war profiteering.” To set the record straight- Halliburton has been in contract with the Department of Defense for 12 years. They received their contract in 1992, before Dick Cheney was CEO. Clinton granted Halliburton contracts, including one during the war in the Balkans. Hsu should not denigrate an organization that has had 41 contractors kidnapped and beheaded while trying to provide a beneficial service to Iraq. When Clinton employs Halliburton it is acceptable, but when Bush employs Halliburton it is “war profiteering” and cronyism. Thanks for the double standard, Hsu.
FRONT PAGE: Speakers Feud Over Race and Education
During a debate about affirmative action, the proponent of the policy Shanta Driver claimed, “testing companies deliberately put in questions biased in favor of white students.” When all else fails, resort to a conspiracy theory to substantiate your failing argument. I imagine a smoke filled room with old white guys huddled around a computer, thinking of questions on an SAT that only a white person could answer. The best that they can come up with:
WALK : LEGS
a. blink : eyes
b. chew : mouth
c. dress : hem
d. cover : book
e. grind : nose
My god, she’s right! Only white people have ever heard of such things. By the way, the answer is B for you non-whites.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot