God, I miss 2002. It was so easy to pick a side. MostNorthwestern students were cynics, who wanted to wrestleintellectually with Sept. 11, 2001 and cringed at the way Americawas battling terrorism. I was with George W. Bush, who hadhumiliated his doubters by conquering Afghanistan in eight weeksand declaring a ballsy jihad on Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Therewas a clear choice in those days: You could fight terrorism or youcould diagram Noam Chomsky essays with NOWAR.�
At NU, from fall 2001 to my final quarter with the NorthwesternChronicle, I supported Bush without question. Not any more. I’mstill a conservative, but I’m voting for JohnKerry.��
I’m sure the people who used to tolerate my opinions in TheDaily and the Chronicle are backing the president, but theyshouldn’t. For starters, most of us believe the war on terror is abattle to save Western Civilization. Kerry might win a war onterror. Bush is losing it.�
The evidence is pretty stark. Three years after Sept. 11, 2001,we still don’t have a unified terror watchlist. There were moreglobal terrorist attacks in 2003 than in 2002. And who thought thatthree years after Sept. 11, we wouldn’t have nabbed Osama bin Ladenor Mullah Omar? Those Sept. 11 pictures of bin Laden are whatturned me into a solid Republican. I wanted him caught. Bushfailed.
And in Iraq, Bush failed some more. He sent in an army of140,000 and expecting to pull it back to 30,000 by September 2003.He cancelled at least two plans to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, thefirst proposed in June 2002. Even without considering the spread ofnukes in Asia or wringing your hands about Iran and North Korea,Bush’s attempts at tackling terrorism have seen one humiliatingreversal after another. And he’s done it, increasingly, byinflating our debt and driving down the value of ourdollar.�
This all would be bad enough if Bush wasn’t convinced it wasworking. But according to his stump speeches, he’s completelyconvinced. Bush says the last three years have seen us going “onthe offensive,” and Dick Cheney says these policies are the lastbest hope protecting us against WMDs in Manhattan.�
They’re wrong, and Kerry is right. Kerry looks at the immediatethreats of terrorist cells as a job for law enforcement andinternational alliances, and it is — notice how Bush quantifieshis success by saying we’ve “apprehended 75 percent of al-Qaida.”He doesn’t think that setting up governments in the Middle Eastwill spread democracy. Two years ago I thought that was defeatism,but it’s been proven right. Last week, Bush was forced to admitthat if Iraqis elect a fundamentalist Shi’ite government, “I willbe disappointed. But democracy is democracy. If that’s what thepeople choose, that’s what the people choose.” �
The last Bush talking point I swallowed was that a Kerry victorywould give comfort to “the terrorists,” who had taken out ourleader with voters’ complicity. But that’s not true either. The newgovernment of Spain, which was elected on the promise to pull outof Iraq, has been nabbing terrorists much more effectively than ourbumbling, politicized agencies. Even Jimmy Carter stood up to theSoviet Union. Kerry’s not going to surrender toterrorism.�
Kerry holds plenty of positions that repel conservatives, andthere’s reason to fear his Supreme Court nominees. But the mostcrucial issue of the decade is keeping America the preeminentglobal power. Bush’s tough talk isn’t cutting it. We should electKerry and let the Republicans regroup until they take war seriouslyagain.
Dave Weigel, Medill ’04, is a former editor in chief of theNorthwestern Chronicle and Daily columnist. He can be reached at
