Since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans are safer than they were before George W. Bush was president.
Bush's handling of the war on terror has done more to strengthen national security in four years than the Clinton administration accomplished in two terms. Under Clinton, the World Trade Center was bombed, American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked, the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed and the U.S.S. Cole was assaulted.
In Bush's first term, terrorists attacked America once, on Sept. 11, 2001. Since that infamous day three years ago, MSNBC reports that fewer than 60 Americans have died in terrorist attacks, not including soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of Bush's aggressive stance on fighting terrorism, Kerry suggests fighting a "more sensitive war." As usual, his rhetoric doesn't clearly establish how he will prevent American civilian casualties due to terrorist attacks. The only thing Kerry has established is that he does not condone the use of the pre-emptive attacks.
According to CBS News, Kerry believes pre-emptive attacks are acceptable with improved intelligence. However, in 1995 Kerry voted to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion over a five-year period.
And while Kerry touts the eight years he spent on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he missed 76 percent of the Committee's meetings between 1993 and 2001, including every single meeting held after the attack on the World Trade Center -- hopefully his attendance record would be better as commander in chief.
Bush obviously understands the threat that Islamic terrorists present to this nation. When NBC anchor Matt Lauer asked whether the war on terror could be won, Bush responded, "You can't win it.'"
Kerry, Edwards and the media immediately jumped on that sentence and declared Bush a pessimist. However, Bush explained that there is no end to the battle against terrorism when terrorists hate America and its liberty. There is no safe, only safer.
"Ideologies of hate" are defeated, Bush said, when "democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are non-democratic." He suggests that terrorists lose their stronghold when countries establish greater political and economic opportunities.
By attacking terrorists first, we decrease their ability to coordinate, assemble and function.
By strengthening our intelligence community through increased funding, we see threats far ahead of time and more clearly.
And by doing what is best for this great nation rather than what the international community agrees upon, we ensure our freedom and independence.
Robert Sneddon is a political science junior. Reach him at robert.sneddon@asu.edu.
