10/19/2004: Funny, I asked the same question two years ago, and never got an answer....
Most Bush supporters are voting on a single issue -- the "war on terror" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. "Centrist" and "moderate" folks and even some "conservatives" who totally disagree with Bush's policies on every single other issue are willing to ignore all that and support him based on his "steadfast leadership" in the "war on terror".In my case, it was a similar response to a co-worker who said (two years ago) "I'm so glad it was Bush that was president on 9/11 rather than Gore." I asked her why she believed it would have been such a disaster if Gore had been president on that day.
But here's what I don't get. Bush just happened to "be there" when it happened (with apologies to Peter Sellers and Hal Ashby). John Kerry, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, Jimmy Carter, hell, even Gerald Ford or you and I or Pee Wee Herman would have responded as forcefully and decisively to the situation and brought all of the terrible might of the United States to bear against the threat.
In fact, it could be argued that any of them might have had a better strategy and executed it more effectively. The people who perpetrated 9/11 have mostly escaped and regrouped. Iraq was not a threat and now it is -- not only to our security, but also to our economy and our morale. It could also be argued that 9/11 might have been prevented by a more serious approach to counter-terrorism and managing our intelligence operations.
I just don't get what George Bush has done to make America safer or stronger. In fact, it could be argued that we might be weaker without our allies and with our military stretched to its limits. And his administration's constant fear mongering has made us a nation living in fear, which is sort of the point of terrorism in the first place isn't it?
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Len on 10.19.04 @ 12:16 PM CST