Tune into a presidential primary debate and you’ll find some comic relief and a bunch of presidential pretenders so blinded by their loathing for President George W. Bush that they are tripping and stumbling over each other, trying to be the next one to deliver another low blow against him. The once-civil debate forum has been transformed into an insult-hurling free-for-all. The object? To see who can earn the honor of being the candidate that hates Bush the most. It gets so ridiculous that sometimes it would seem more efficient to just go down the line and have each candidate share a statement that begins with the words “I hate Bush because…” and then declare a winner.

Someone really needs to wrestle the microphone away from Howard Dean and the rest of his French-sympathizing crowd and tell them that, much to their and French President Jacques Chirac’s chagrin, the war is over, we won, Saddam lost, and the world’s a better place because of it. I can see it now. Dead silence fills the room, all 10 candidates' faces drop, mouths hang open agape. But … but … (a mad scramble for the microphone) – “Bush is a miserable failure!” “Bush lied!” “Bush is a war criminal!”

With no message of their own to articulate, the Democratic Party is left with no choice but to go negative. As House Republican Leader Tom DeLay rightly pointed out, “Democrats have spewed more hateful rhetoric at President Bush than they ever did at Saddam Hussein.” It makes you wonder whom Democrats consider more evil, a man who took action to liberate two nations, or a man that oppressed, starved and tortured his people for over two decades.

The only coherent statement that the party has been able to scrape together is that the Bush administration’s execution of the War on Terrorism has been nothing but an abysmal disappointment.

So that’s what they are calling it these days? Oh, what a miserable failure it’s been. In the past two years all the Bush presidency has done is: capture or kill two-thirds of al Qaeda’s leadership, destroy the terrorist-harboring government of the Taliban and replace it with a peaceful and freedom-loving democracy, thwart terrorist activity by working with the international community to freeze millions of dollars in terrorist assets, increase safety measures for American civilians through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and, if that wasn’t enough, topple a tyrannical regime that murdered and tormented its own people, supported terrorism, and possessed weapons of mass destruction, in just three weeks time.

Not half bad for an unsuccessful presidency.

Democrats choose to sidestep the facts whenever most convenient and instead opt for the much more fun policy of launching baseless attacks at the president, like the ones levied by Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, who stated that the Iraqi war was both “made up in Texas” and “a fraud.” All right, Mr. Kennedy, these are serious accusations from an elder statesman, so we better start up those impeachment hearings right away. What’s that? No evidence, you say? Here’s some advice: next time you want to accuse a political adversary of fraud and bribery, it would be a good idea to have a little thing called proof on your side.

The Democrats’ favorite pastime at the moment is labeling a liar anyone who claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the war began. That is, everyone except Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman or any other Democratic elected official.

How might Al Sharpton and the gang have handled Bush’s “failings” differently? The most likely scenario is they would have gone with the We-Don’t-Want-To-Anger-Them Strategy and then sat back biting their nails in trepidation waiting for the other shoe to drop – or the next plane to hit.

Or they could have taken a more proactive approach. Something like rounding up a few dozen al Qaeda, and then making sure not to dispense too much justice by turning them over to – oh, I don’t know, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals Now there’s a bunch that clearly has America’s best interest in mind. Last we heard from these clowns in black robes, they were prohibiting school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and calling off elections that had been called for by the people.

I can see how the Court’s decision would have played out: the justices rendering a verdict of community service and an explanation of “well, we understand your whole ‘Great Satan’ argument, and we believe in the principles of the Constitution which calls for equal protection of the law, so it is clearly within reason that this must be extended to militant Muslims that want to murder innocent American civilians.” Is that good logic or what?

Lucky for us, we have a president who uses some good logic of his own. President Bush has grasped a concept that 10 Democrats with all their brain cells combined still can’t figure out: the best defense is a good offense. The most proficient way to combat terrorism is to take the battle to their turf rather then waiting for them to strike on ours. In the past two years, this method has proven to be an overwhelming success– regardless of what the critics might think.

Sports Editor Julie Gunderson is a junior from Omaha, Neb. She majors in integrative studies.

Printer friendly version | Email this | Write the editors | More articles by Julie Gunderson