Tampa Tribune Refuses to Endorse Bush

[Jon8503]

This is good news in Florida:

The Tampa Tribune, which has endoorsed every Republican (except Goldwater) since 1954, says that it will not make an endorsement this year because Bush has betrayed his conservative beliefs.

As stewards of the Tribune's editorial voice, we find it unimaginable to not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president's re- election. We had fully expected to stand with Bush, whom we endorsed in 2000 because his politics generally reflected ours: a strong military, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and small government. We knew him to be a popular governor of Texas who fought for lower taxes, less government and a pro-business constitution.
But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a "uniter not a divider" within the United States and the world.

His administration terrified us into believing that we had to quickly wage war with Baghdad to ensure our safety. Vice President Dick Cheney said he had ``irrefutable evidence'' that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear program. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice wrongly asserted that aluminum tubes found in Iraq could be used only for nuclear weapons. And the president himself said he couldn't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a ``mushroom cloud.''

Again, this editorial board stood solidly with the president in his resolve to take the fight to the terrorists where they live, forever changing American foreign policy with our first-ever "pre-emptive" war.

Once we got to Baghdad, however, we found out that the president was wrong and that the reasons for launching the war were either exaggerated or inaccurate. There were no stockpiles of WMD and no link between Saddam and the terrorists that struck on 9/11.

What bothers us is that the president says that even knowing what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq because Saddam had the "intent" to make nuclear weapons and was a ruthless dictator who killed his own people.

http://www.patridiots.com/001042.html