No wonder they didn't publish my letter (which I will send to them again, in modified form).
What a bunch of dumbfucks (pardon my language).
They endorsed Bush...AGAIN.
I've posted their stupidity below the fold.
[filler material, because, yet again, the diary god hates me]
The horrific vision of jetliners knifing through glass walls, office workers leaping to their deaths and the twin towers collapsing united Americans and united the community of nations with America.
In those wrenching months after 9/11, President George W. Bush led with clarity and resolve. The United States, it seemed, could harness that nearly universal good will and its own newfound sense of determination as we tried to heal our wounds and prepared to confront this new evil.
[what, he read "My Pet Goat" for seven more minutes before he got off his ass and did something?]
It was a pivotal moment for the nation and the defining moment for a president who, after being elected by the narrowest of margins, was suddenly handed a mandate covered in ashes and blood.
[Yeah, just like the Iraqis who have died because of his illegal war.]
It was a mandate he would have gladly rejected. But there is no choice in matters such as this. The terrorists had declared war on us years before, and their words were matched with far-off violence. But, few of us paid much attention until a plan hatched before this administration's watch played out on American soil, setting George Bush on a path of action that led through Afghanistan and Iraq.
["mandate"... as in, from heaven?]
Even those who believe the path leads in the right direction can find along it twists and turns to criticize. Three years after 9/11, Bush has lost much of the support citizens give a wartime president, and the United States has lost much of the international sympathy it enjoyed.
While the record is mixed, the recommendation, ultimately, is to re-elect George W. Bush.
Aside from the mistakes -- one of which is great reluctance to admit to mistakes -- Bush has done one essential thing correctly. He has put America on the offensive against a new kind of threat.
[uh, he doesn't admit to any mistakes!]
The invasion of Afghanistan, haven to Osama bin Laden's thugs, was no mistake. The results are stunning: this month's voter turnout in a country with no democratic tradition and in the face of Taliban-threatened violence puts our elections to shame.
[but...but... where's Osama, George?]
And come January, Iraqis will have an opportunity to vote in an election in which less than 99 percent of the vote goes to Saddam Hussein.
[Well, no... not if the insurgency keeps up, which it will.]
As in Afghanistan, the military drive to Iraq was brilliantly prosecuted. But the diplomatic lead-up to the war was far beneath the standard established by the president's father. It is not necessary for the United States to get permission, but it is unnecessary to alienate allies we will need in the future.
The aftermath of war has been mismanaged at times, fostering animosity throughout a Muslim world that Bush hopes will turn from fanaticism toward the moderating force of democracy. Among the miscalculatons: We were not prepared for the rapid military success, and we never had enough troops on the ground to transition from strike force to police force. Failure to plan the peace led to fiascos like Abu Ghraib. The prison that symbolized Baathist brutality for Iraqis, came to symbolize American depravity throughout the Muslim world.
["mismanaged"? This is worse than Vietnam!]
One hopes the administration has learned from these mistakes. What Kerry's mistakes might be are a matter of speculation. But he has offered no real alternative in Iraq, beyond hollow prouncements of "better" and "smarter." While Bush has alienated old allies like Germany and France, Kerry has ridiculed those who stand with us like Britain, Australia and Japan.
[Don't forget Poland!]
One thread runs throughout the Senate record of this would-be commander in chief. The man who volunteered to fight in Vietnam fought just as hard against measures to make the U.S. military stronger, to give our soldiers the best tools to get the job done. He voted against the first gulf war that had such strong support internationally. His votes on the war in Iraq send a mixed message, at best.
The attacks of 9/11 were not a mixed message. Since then, the United States, under George Bush, has been sending clear messages to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The defining issue in this election is whether voters will send a clear message of resolve in the face of threats renewed by bin Laden in a video released last week.
The mission hasn't changed. The threat hasn't changed. It's the wrong time to change leadership.
[Don't change horsmen in the middle of the Apocalypse!]
On the domestic front, the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act is producing measurable progress in our schools -- a dramatic improvement over earlier reforms. At the very least, the Medicare drug benefit is easing the pain of high costs for poorer seniors. Both initiatives should be seen as first steps that can be improved upon, but both are steps for which this administration and Congress deserve credit.
Bush inherited an economy in recession. The terrorists' well-aimed blow at the nation's financial nerve center took it down another notch, further choking off revenue as military efforts abroad ramped up spending. The economy is growing again, but fiscal discipline in the White House and in Congress is necessary to rein in deficits.
On the jobs front, America faces enormous competitive challenges in a new global economy. Politial rhetoric on saving or protecting certain jobs is a hollow promise. We must retool and restructure. Our view is that Bush is best equipped to do that.
The "to-do" list for a new administration is a long one that includes strengthening international relations, addressing the deficit and the integrity of Social Security and Medicare, achieving consensus on energy policy and keeping America's competitive edge sharp through research and development.
Bush is capable on all issues. But all of these ultimately are trumped by the wild card of terrorism, the issue on which the president is the clear choice. The Journal endorses the re-election of President Bush.
["Gotta get them evildoer terr'ists!"]
Man, I'm embarrassed. Stupid, stupid, stupid people running this newspaper in my hometown.
But you know what? Kerry's going to win New Mexico. And the Albuquerque Journal, and all the Bush supporters here, are going to be crying in their cheap beer.