HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
 By Jack Lepiarz Mar. 25, 2006 Apparently, it is impossible for me to go two or three articles without taking a hit from that delicious drug known as politics. Oh well. It just means my inbox of e-mails gets a little less...encouraging, shall we call it? Anyway, there was an article in the Star Ledger yesterday regarding various remarks by both Bush and Cheney accusing the Democrats of being soft on terror. Not that this is anything particularly new. Republicans in general have bashed Democrats on their defense policy since 9/11. "If they're [Democrats] competent to fight this war," said Vice President Cheney, "then I ought to be singing on 'American Idol.'" Most of the time, any self-respecting Democrat will simply ignore these comments and move on. However, I'm going to argue the other side and say that Republicans' stance on terrorism has actually been worse for the country. Anyone that has read the 9/11 report (co-chaired by the president of one of the colleges in my town) will know that Bush was by no means in the dark regarding terrorism. There were plenty of documents citing how terrorists might hijack airplanes and ram them into buildings. Like the August 6th, 2001 report entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." Some more extreme liberals will try to hold that against Bush. In a way they have a point, but I'm willing to overlook that because because it was largely ignored as a threat. However, the way that Bush and Republicans have used 9/11--yes, I say used--is simply despicable. As Al Franken put it, quoting Dwight Meredith's wife, 9/11 is Bush's "little black dress," which basically means that he could use it for whatever occasion he so pleased. If someone asks you why the economy's bad (earlier in the presidency. I understand we're at about average growth now.), you can blame it on 9/11--as Bush did for much of his presidency. If somebody asks you why we have to invade Iraq, well, you can just slip on that little black dress and explain how we must fight those who attacked us on our own soil, blah blah blah. Now that I think of it, that brings me to my next point. Why are we in Iraq? We invaded in March 2003, and since then, whenever asked about Iraq, Bush has responded by dropping 9/11 and saying how we were attacked by evil terrorists. Okay, sure, but how many of those terrorists came from Iraq? Zero. So why did we go into Iraq? We still hadn't found Bin Laden, and there were still plenty of Al Qaeda leaders at large in Afghanistan. Why divert our resources? At the same time, many sources also show that our presence in Iraq has actually created MORE terrorists. In March 2004 there were an estimated 5,000 terrorists in Iraq. In March 2005, that number had increased to 18,000. It has yet to decrease. Along similar lines, why have we not found Osama Bin Laden? We have been hunting for this man for four and a half years and have gotten nothing. Nowadays, Bin Laden has been almost completely forgotten. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush never even mentioned Bin Laden. In all of 2003, Bush only mentioned Bin Laden four times publicly--each time in a direct response to a question regarding Bin Laden. Bush talks about winning the War on Terror and the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, but the number one terrorist behind it all--Osama Bin Laden, remains at large and, at least in the president's vocabulary, forgotten. The Republicans accuse Democrats of being "soft on terror." To them, I say, "so what?" It's not like the Republicans have done an extraordinary job reining in the terrorists. The next season of American Idol isn't far away, Mr. Cheney. Start singin'. ------------ About the author: Jack Lepiarz is a senior at Madison High School. Born in Waco, Texas, he lived with the Big Apple Circus for much of his early childhood, eventually moving to Madison, New Jersey, where he now resides. Although he is often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open-mind towards new ideas and treat people the way he would like to be treated. Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
