Endorsement of Bush for President?
Reader comment on item: Capturing Osama

Submitted by lee Charendoff (United States), Mar 9, 2004 at 12:59

Daniel, I respect and mostly admire your views, subscribe to your newsletter and even contribute financially to the MEF. I went to see you in Hartford when you talked there at the Jewish Book Festival. I send your articles to countless people.

I think that your comment that the capture of Osama is necessary so that the reelection of Bush is assured to continue the war on terrorism is unfounded. You say that Kerry is a September 10 guy whereas Bush is a Sept 12 guy. Perhaps but where was Bush when the intelligence on or before September 10 was being ignored? If you believe Paul O'Neill the war on Iraq was planned before Bush was even President. With all of that time he failed to construct a real international coalition to go after Saddam, failed to see the real situation on the ground there, failed to make realistic plans for the war's aftermath and lied about Saddam's connections to El Quaeda.

As for OBL we brought about regime change in Afghanistan and drove OBL into the hills. We did not capture him or stoip his movement and then we failed to follow through in Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurfacing outside of Kabul. Al Quaeda is now present in Iraq where it was non existent before the Iraq war.

Bush plays patsy with Pakistan and supports that country even though they admit that they supplied atomic secrets and materiel to known terrorist countries (and terrorist organisations?). Khan was allowed to shed a few crocodile tears on TV but he is still there and Bush did not object!

Haiti is in our hemisphere where we have an embassy yet we did not seem to know what was going on there. One day Powell said he was the legitimate democratically elected leader and two days later he arranged for him to be deposed. Where was the intelligence there? Where are our democratic principles?

What will we do in Iraq when Sistani is "democratically elected" and turns Iraq into a fundamentalist state? Not an unlikely scenario.
There are other things besides the war on terrorism that need to be considered when one considers his vote on the presidency.
Bush set up the biggest beaureaucracy to deal with terrorism and then failed to fund it. ... All of those billions and all we got was a coloring book! As you often point out we are not safer today.

We are fighting a war but only the soldiers are asked to sacrifice! ...
I did not even begin to talk about Saudi Arabia the fountainhead of terrorism which Bush always describes as our partner... I don't see how the Democrats and Kerry in particular could do worse. We need change!
Lee Charendoff.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.