The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, September 24, 2004, Image 9

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    Opinion
mber 24,2
fori
IpU Gores views are too extreme for John Kerry and party to succeed in November
K
r there is an ii
ganization
> reinvent thep
ting with other
s us to learn lit
id failures and
le past, we
o work with ot
ent organizatie
we will work
inue building
:Kinships with
e organization!
ase co-progn
g and truly sen jersonal attack. Due to the extremism of many of his statements, Kerry
needs of the T;
VI community,
hroughout this
, the MSC Cot
be focusing ot
e four priorities
purpose of the
tramming thai
irs in the MSC
lucate and sen
audents andce:
ity members
e programs that
tain and devefe
nd aware Astir:
vays welcome
g this valuable
invited to pros;
gh evaluation
im or through
C Web site (so
ling programs
i about whatis
Student Cente
hat has sugges
il me personall
is MSC presiii
education m
The Battalion
Page 9 • September 24, 2004
No more Gore
Pace Design • MATT RICNEY
S hock value is probably rather hard to come by once one has claimed
to have invented the Internet, but with each successively outra
geous comment, A1 Gore somehow manages to up the ante on
his commentary.
Gore’s propensity to exaggerate — to put it mildly — is
hardly a secret; this hyperbolic tendency of his has been
widely documented since his days as former Presi
dent Bill Clinton’s vice president. However, in
a recent interview with The New Yorker, Gore
crossed the line when he compared President
Bush’s Christian faith to the religious convic
tions of Islamic extremist groups such as al-
Jaida. Gore’s comments transcended the realm of partisan politics;
ikening Bush to terrorists who hate America is nothing less than a
lerson, thissho.
ionary note
University's
a mention of
i an animal
rably more
ould illicit sucl
McReynolds'
reflects a
\ of bats,
and the i
aedom.
places emphasis on “vengeance” and “brimstone,” according to WorldNetDaily.com. The absurdity
of this claim is especially evident in light of the fact that Gore is criticizing Bush’s mainstream,
Cindy McReynolds says
Bush can ensure U.S. safety
ihould not allow Gore to speak on his behalf, much less at his behest, as
jore alienates the very voters Kerry is trying to court.
A brief review of Gore’s most notorious verbal gaffes is in order.
There was, of course, his infamous comment about the Inter-
ict, which has already been noted. Then there was the time
ic regaled listeners at a union meeting with a rendition of
Look for the Union Label,” explaining to those assembled
hat the song was among the lullabies he heard as a child,
lowever, it was later pointed out that the song was writ-
:en in 1975, when Gore was 27.
And who can forget Gore’s anecdote about prescription
drugs, his dog and his mother-in-law? To illustrate the
tigh cost of prescription drugs, Gore told a Tallahassee
audience that although his dog and his mother-in-law take
same arthritis medication, his mother-in-law’s prescrip
tion costs SI 08, the dog’s S37.50, according to USA Today
It was later discovered that no such incident actually
occurred, at least not in Gore’s family.
Nevertheless, many of Gore’s supporters
find his commentary rather endearing, and as
long as a listener is willing to blur the line
between fact and fiction, falsified anec
dotes about his past do not seriously harm
anyone. Extreme accusations against a man,
particularly a sitting president, for something
as personal and intangible as his faith, however, do
Gore’s claims deal a serious blow not only to his
credibility, but the credibility of everyone for
whom he is campaigning, including Kerry.
“If s the American version of the same
fundamentalist impulse that we see in
Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in
religions around the world:
Hindu, Jewish, Christian,
Muslim. They all have cer
tain features in common,”
Gore told The New Yorker,
arguing that Bush’s faith
Chris Griffin • THE BATTALION
Christian faith, despite labeling himself Southern Baptist. The Bush
camp’s response to Gore’s recent comments can be summed up
by the words of a White House spokesman quoted by Fox News:
“Consider the source.” In addition to calling Gore’s
credibility into question, many Republicans also criti
cize his delivery and method. “Some of the things
he has said have been outrageous, and he says
them in this high-pitched scream,” said Republi
can strategist Keith Appell, who likens Gore to
“some kind of cheerleader on acid,” according
to Fox News.
But none of Gore’s vitriol has seemed to
deter the Kerry campaign from using Gore as one
of its front men. Fox News quotes senior Kerry
adviser David Morehouse as saying, “Gore will be a
tremendous asset to us in a number
of targeted battleground states,
and we’re happy to have his
help. He’s a former vice presi
dent who’s entitled to say what he
believes.” This statement seems logi
cally troubling at first. After all, most of
the battleground states Morehouse refers to
are so-named because they tend to be politi
cally moderate, and while Gore’s fervent accu
sations may hold some appeal for rank-and-file
Democrats farther to the left, it seems unlikely
that an extreme position would draw voters who
are moderate by definition. Andy Kohut, director
of the Pew Research Center for the People & the
Press, seconds this idea, saying, “Swing voters
tend to be moderate, and if he comes across
1 as too over the top, there’s a risk,” accord
ing to Fox News. Yet, Democrats are ap
parently willing to take this risk for a very
simple reason: Gore triggers the memory of
Clinton, whose glory days are Democrats’
bread and butter.
Any nostalgia Gore may arouse is un
likely to persist in the face of defamation
as extreme as comparing Bush to the ter
rorists who perpetrated Sept. 11. It stands
to reason that a characteristically moder
ate voter would be anything but swayed
by statements from a man who is so
quintessentially immoderate. So long as
Gore continues to make outrageous and
unsubstantiated claims and Kerry
looks to swing voters for sup
port, aligning Kerry with Gore is
a losing strategy.
Linsdye Forson is a senior
journalism major.
Jonathan Smith does not
feel safe in post-Bush world
ey L. Honeyt
ent of Wi
leries ScieK
/
A s Nov. 2 approaches and Americans solidi
fy their choices for a presidential candidate,
it has become clear that the central issue of
this election will be national security. Because the
defining characteristic of President Bush’s term in
office has been his leadership in the War on Terror,
many Americans will make their choice based on
two fundamental questions: Is the world a safer
place today than when Bush took office, and could
Sen. Kerry do a better job? The answer is clear. De
spite occasional mistakes. Bush has succeeded in
/ drawing a clear distinction between good and evil
and articulating America’s moral right to defend
itself. Bush is the only candidate who will keep
America safe.
In the years before Sept. 11, American foreign
policy had collapsed into a pattern of appeasement.
Both parties fell short of standing up to America’s
enemies, beginning with the 1991 failure to remove
Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm, and ending
with the Clinton administration’s lack of response
to the bombings of the World Trade Center in
1993, the American Embassies in Africa 1998 and
feUSS Cole in 2000.
These years of complacency finally resulted in
the worst terrorist attack in America’s history on
Sept. 11. Immediately, the Bush administration
recognized that drastic foreign policy changes were
necessary to stop the pattern of attacks. During the
next year, the Bush Doctrine , which places re
sponsibility for terrorist acts on nations that harbor
errorists, legitimizes preemption and unilateralism
and seeks to actively promote freedom and democ
racy throughout the world emerged.
Under Bush’s leadership, the United States
has successfully avoided major terrorist attacks at
ome for three years, which alone would appear to
ne an improvement over the past decade. However,
America has also taken steps to contain terrorism
abroad. Of the eight nations on the State Depart
ment’s list of terrorist sponsors, three have become
ar less of a threat. Afghanistan is now conducting
democratic elections and its terrorist camps have
teen destroyed. In Iraq, a brutal dictator has been
eplaced by an interim government committed
combating terrorism and bringing freedom to
the Iraqi people. Even Libyan leader Moammar
Gadhafi agreed to surrender his weapons of mass
destruction program, and the components he could
have used to enrich uranium are now in U.S.
hands. Furthermore, early this year, U.S. and Brit
CINDY
MCREYNOLDS
ish intelligence contributed
to ending A.Q. Kahn’s secret
nuclear proliferation network
in Pakistan.
Bush’s opponents often
cite recent terrorist attacks
such as those in Iraq, Spain
and Russia as evidence
that the War on Terror is
failing. However, the State
Department’s annual “Pat
terns of Global Ten’orism”
report indicates that since 2001, the number of
annual attacks and the number of victims killed
have declined.
Kerry believes that he could do a better job of
protecting America by building an international
coalition. When he acknowledges the 40 nations
with forces deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan at
all, he has referred to them as “some
taimped-up, so-called coalition of the
bribed, the coerced, the bought and the
extorted.” He has not, however, made
JONATHAN
SMITH
*ANT
dent
DAD
judder 50
Rudder 50
i
ISC 145
i/ISC 145
its only
ititute
reness
eds, call 8 45 ’ S to<
it clear whom he is accusing of bribery, coercion or
extortion, nor has he indicated whether the nations
he has just insulted will play any role in the coali
tion he hopes to build.
In October 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the
use of force in Iraq. Recently, when asked whether
he would have gone to war knowing what he
knows now, he responded, “You bet we might
have,” which would indicate that even in retrospect,
he stands by his vote. Unfortunately, he also said
in a CBS interview “I am against the war. The way
the president went to war was wrong.”
Kerry’s ambiguity cannot be trusted with the
lives of troops overseas or civilians at home. Bush’s
leadership has not been perfect, but it has been con
sistent; the principles he outlined in the days after
Sept. 11 have not changed over the past three years.
Bush has drawn an international line in the sand,
dividing those nations committed to fighting ter
rorism from those who endorse it. For the first time
since the end of the Cold War, Americans have
seen diplomacy and rhetoric translated into prompt
and decisive action, unhindered by endless requests
for international support. America needs a leader
who is committed to her security, even when her
international image is at stake.
resident Bush leads
democratic candi
date John Kerry 58
percent to 3 1 percent on
the question of who would
do the best job of defend
ing the country against
terrorists, according to a
Pew Research Center poll.
Bush supporters are hope
ful that terrorism will be
the most important issue
in this election, as their candidate may seem
safer to most Americans by a wide margin. In
reality, the country is only marginally safer
from terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, as there
are still huge problems with Bush’s anti-ter
ror philosophy.
The most significant danger
^ remaining in the post-Sept. 11 era
J\ O O O Nl * s America’s nearly open border
with Mexico and Canada. Ac
cording to Time magazine, three
Cindy McReynolds is a senior
electrical engineering major.
million illegal aliens enter the country each
year — or close to 8,000 a day. Those who are
assigned to protect our borders have insuffi
cient resources to combat a problem as large as
illegal immigration. The paths used by illegal
immigrants to enter the country can also be
used to terrorize America. Extremists who wish
to harm America can become lost in the large
crowd of Mexicans that cross over into our
country every year.
What has Bush done abut the problem of our
open borders? He made a bad situation worse
— instead of provisioning troops to stop the
flow of illegal immigrants or cracking down
on illegal immigrant labor, Bush has offered a
plan of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Even
though this plan has not come completely into
effect, the announcement has caused confusion
below the border, and many would-be illegal
aliens now think they are welcome in America.
This significantly increased the number of il
legal immigrants entering the country this year,
a group of people who blaze a path for enemies
of America to follow.
If Bush is going to turn a blind eye to the
entry points of potential terrorists, perhaps he
should attempt to catch terrorists before they
enter America. Unfortunately, since Sept. 11,
the Bush administration has failed to catch the
most dangerous terrorist in the world: Osama
bin Laden. Maj. Gen. Eric Olson told The As
sociated Press that Osama bin Laden’s trail has
turned cold. Yet, CBS News reported that some
military commanders believe Osama bin Laden
is still running the show based on “the involve
ment of well-trained foreign fighters in attacks
near the Pakistani border.” In other words, the
worst enemy of America still has power three
years after Bush attacked Afghanistan to cap
ture bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida.
What is even scarier than losing bin Laden
is the actions of countries in the so-called
Axis of Evil. According to Fox News, Iran
refused demands by Europe to end its nuclear
program last week. Iran still plans to produce
enriched uranium, an essential component
of nuclear weapons. In North Korea, accord
ing to a BBC report, the government stopped
negotiations to end its nuclear program last
Thursday. These two announcements mean
the enemies that Bush labeled as the most
dangerous in the world early in his adminis
tration are working toward having the capac
ity to make weapons of mass destruction. The
potential creation of WMDs in rogue states
combined with the openness of America’s
borders during Bush’s presidency created a
scenario where a terrorist is able to make a
WMD and bring it into our homeland.
During the Republican National Conven
tion, the primary theme (delivery by Zell
Miller and Dick Cheney) was that electing
Kerry could increase the likelihood of a future
terrorist attack. The truth of the matter is that
no one really knows how much better Kerry
could be at defending the country from terror
ist attacks because he has never had the job.
Unlike Bush, he doesn’t have a presidential
record to run on. Yet if Cheney’s words are
true, and “the biggest threat we face today is
having nuclear weapons fall into the hands
of terrorists,” Bush’s record fails at his most
crucial duty. Just because a politician says a
country is safer does not make it so.
Jonathan Smith is a
junior history major.