LIBERTY'S CENTURY

NEW YORK POST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 September 3, 2004 --
In accepting his party's nomination for re-election last night, President Bush told the nation exactly what it needed to hear from its commander-in-chief: "I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes."

Surely the nation - and the world - know by now that, coming from George W. Bush, they can count on that.

The president finished speaking less than an hour before his Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, launched an unprecendented - some might say desperate and petty - rhetorical broadside at the GOP ticket, and Bush in particular.

Speaking at midnight in Ohio, Kerry termed Bush "unfit for duty . . . unfit to lead this nation."

Strong words.

Will they resonate?

The sniping came as Bush laid out his fundamental responsibilities, as he sees them: "I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

So far, it hasn't.

America can only be grateful.

Then the president offered a hopeful vision for the future: "We have reached a time for hope. . . . This young century will be liberty's century."

He explained how, throughout the world, America is helping to make that ideal a reality.

But Bush said, rightly: "This election will . . . determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism."

That, clearly, is the critical issue this year.

Last night, the president laid out a compelling case for pre-emption in the War on Terror. And he gave one his best justifications ever for the campaign in Iraq.

"We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that 9/11 requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late."

This - let no one think otherwise - was no easy decision.

And this president has surely proved he can lead this nation in the critical times in which it finds itself.

Bush also laid out some specific plans for a second term. He called for greater personal "ownership" in America and a government that "gets out of the way." He spoke of health care, education and jobs.

"This changed world can be a time of great opportunity for all Americans to earn a better living, support your family and have a rewarding career. And government must take your side."

He spoke of creating jobs, via government-paid investment, spending restraint and making tax relief permanent. And about "transforming our schools by raising standards and focusing on results."

Bush also contrasted his plans with John Kerry's: "He's proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending," with tax increases to pay for it. And tax hikes are "the kind of promise a politician usually keeps."

SOME Americans may agree with Bush on the above issues, and some with Kerry.

But who can disagree with Bush's core goal? As he made clear last night, the president intends to win the War on Terror. Period.

Yes, there will be disagreements on the strategies and tactics he hopes to use to win that war.

Certainly, some folks believe Bush should have waited until Saddam Hussein had actually deployed weapons of mass destruction against the United States, or given them to terrorists, instead of stopping him in the early stages.

John Kerry (on some days, anyway) appears to believe that. (Assuming France and Germany agree, of course.)

But let's be honest: Since 9/11, George Bush has managed to keep America safe. Despite the demonstrated determination, skills, creativity and resources of the nation's terrorist enemies.

He has led two major military campaigns that successfully toppled two hostile regimes: the Taliban, which hosted al Qaeda, and Saddam's tyranny - which had ties to terrorists, shot at U.S. planes daily, tried to kill a U.S. president and was bent on WMDs, whether it had them or not.

And the president's prosecution of the War on Terror has yielded many other successes: Libya has surrendered its WMDs.

And, most importantly, the Pakistani nuke bazaar has been shut down.

Kerry, last night, said the War on Ter ror has been informed by deceit. But that's a fool's assessment, or a charlatan's.

Bush, indeed, has made mistakes. But there can be no guarantees when the need to act arises.

Regarding Iraq, Bush said going to war represented "a decision no president would ask for, but [which he] must be prepared to make.

"Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country?," he asked.

"Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Can Kerry be trusted to do the same?

That is, will this indeed be "liberty's century?"

Or will barbarism prevail?