President Bush should quickly change the subject. What signal would it send to our highly motivated enemies should America change leaders in mid-war? One of the reasons the United States prevailed in World War II was the four terms to which Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. Continuity at home helped prosecute and win the war against Germany and Japan. The stakes today are higher. We cannot afford trivial pursuits in presidential politics during wartime.
This isn’t a game. It is about the survival of the United States of America and the values associated with Western traditions. Rejecting an administration that has built a (so far) successful defense against terrorism following 9/11 in favor of one with no such experience could give America’s enemies a unique window of opportunity to hit us again, and harder.
This is the line the Bush reelection team should take. We are at war, and we are likely to remain at war for a very long time. Political games can be played after we win. They should not be played during the battle.
Most agree that the ”War Against Terrorism” will last a long time, perhaps a generation. Thomas says ‘stick with Bush during the War’ — is he advocating Bush remain president forever? Or does he think Bush will win the war in 4 more years? mjh