In the debate last night (transcript), President Bush’s closing statement began: “If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy.”
More specifically, he repeated several times the his view that:
Now I usually try to avoid partisan debates here, but I really didn’t understand President Bush’s point here. It seems that “our troops … our allies … the Iraqis” all are keenly aware that there were serious problems with the we have conducted the war and the post-war occupation. It seems to be the height of cognative dissonance to say in hindsight and with the currently available evidence that the choices made at the beginning of the Iraq war were the correct ones that we would make again today.
Why, particularly after a change of administration, can’t we admit that the decision to invade Iraq was ill considered, but we’re here to make the best of the situation? More generally, why will there be “drift toward tragedy” if “America shows uncertainty or weakness”?
I agree Biffy that that is the intent behind Bush’s statement - “present a unified front of resolve”
Having said that, what about Republicans outcries of protest when Clinton bombed Kosovo? NOTE - I am not saying what Clinton did was right (that’s another debate).
What I am saying is that it is appropriate for Americans with an opposing point of view to raise issues - Dem’s with Republican policy, Republicans with Democratic policy, independents/other beliefs as they see fit. It is part of the process.
To think that someone can’t voice an opposing view, then assume office and lead effectively is a simplistic position that seems condescending to me as a voter. Bush comes across poorly with that position, IMHO. America is capable of weighing different points of view and acting to stop terror.
I’m not sure whether this comment is serious or a quip, particularly in light of Kerry’s jab at Bush about confusing whether we were attacked by Saddam or Al Queda.
In either event, answering the soundbite with another equally unexplained soundbite doesn’t really answer the question.
I wish Kerry had hammered this point. “Look,” he could’ve said (only in politicese), "I know I’m giving forth a grim assessment of the war, and I wish I could give forth a positive assessment, because if it were true, it’d really boost the morale of the troops.
"But the soldiers in Iraq know that things aren’t going well. They’re getting attacked by the people they came to rescue. They’re watching news accounts of hostages being bloodily executed, and they’re unable to help those hostages. They’re not able to go into entire regions of the country, because those regions are controlled by nationalists and fundamentalists.
"If I tell them that things are going well, that we’re winning this war, it’s not going to boost their morale. It’s going to make them lose confidence in their commander-in-chief. It’s going to make them think I’m out of touch with them.
"When you’re in a hole, it doesn’t help to declare yourself on top of a mountain. You’ve got to quit digging.
"I’ll tell those soldiers that yes, things are bad, and I know things are bad. But I’ll also tell them that together, we can turn this mess around.
“And that’s a far more hopeful message than one that denies the reality of the situation.”
Bush did word it badly… but to try and balance comments… I think he meant to say that at times its good to appear resolute and unwavering. (Even if your wrong).
That might work against “terrorists” up to a point… but that signals your allies that you won’t change positions once committed… and so they will always be afraid to give you reasons to be committed. An example is Iran. No one wants to give the US causus belli… but that also means not putting Iran against the wall either (as far as europeans and UN go).
In the end this "resolve" doesn't make terrorists shake much... after all the terrorists aren't prone to being voted out of office... or criticized much. Terrorists can be more stubborn than Bush... so not much to gain from being unwavering.
I think that there was an order of magnitude difference betwenn Republican disapproval of the Bosnian war and the left’s hatred of the Iraq conflict. I don’t think any Pubbie directly said that the war was “concocted in AR for political gain” (innuendo, perhaps, but nothing analogous to that TKennedy quote. Similarly, I don’t think there were any protests approaching those found at the RNC.
I think that the President was clumsily drawing the distinction between disagreement about the validity of war and undermining our country’s position in said war. Kerry has done both; he has made valid criticisms of the plan for war, but he has also insulted our allies with slogans such as “a phony coalition” and “coalition of the coerced”. That, I think, is what Bush was getting at.
Kerry’s biggest failure during the debate was not answering this charge directly. As Dorkness points out, it wouldn’t have been hard to do.
As for the legitimacy of the actual charge, I think Kerry somewhat agrees with Bush (not out loud, of course). The reason that Kerry has had to take such a contorted stance on Iraq is because he can’t uniquiviqually speak out against a war that he might have to lead in the near future unless he wants to promise to withdraw our troops upon his election. As most people agree that an immediate withdrawl will only make a bad situation worse, Kerry’s only option is to disagree with the execution, timing, etc. of the war in Iraq without condeming the thing as a whole, at least not in terms that he can’t go back on after Nov.
But LHoD did NOT address the issue directly. This isn’t about a current assessment of the war, it’s about whether it was right to go to war in the first place. Those are two entirely different things, and when Kerry says “wrong war…” he implies the latter, not the former.
I agree with Kerry’s statement-- that it was wrong to go to war in Iraq. But it still puts Kerry in a very sticky situation. How do you come out and say that without making the troops think they might (to paraphrase) “be asked to be the last man to die for a mistake”? That was the nature of one of the questions that Leher asked Kerry.
“We should’ve gotten Hussein out of power through other means. But Bush foolishly chose to go to war. Well, we’re here now, and we’ve got to make the best of it; fortunately, there’s a way to succeed, if we change our strategy right now.”
My point was more to address the whole, “You can’t be negative and still win!” idiocy. When the truth is negative, you can’t be positive and still win.
LHoD: I’m not sure there IS an effective way to say “the war was a mistake” in this campaign. I think Kerry is a bind about that, and maybe dancing around the subject is the best anyone can be expected to do.
Maybe. I think he DID say it pretty effectively, but then of course I agree with the sentiment. Had he explained that telling the truth is more important than remaining sunnyfaced, I think it would’ve been perfect how he said it.
Sorry, LHoD I did mischaracterize your post. Not sure exactly what I was thinking there.
Kerry still could have responded to Bush’s charge more directly, emphisizing again that he was against the execution of the war and not the war itself, but that probably would have been too easy to spin as flip-flopping, so perhaps Kerry was wiser not to rise to Bush’s bait.
No problem :). It’s kind of a confusing point: how does one make it clear that a nuanced position is not a contradictory position? I have trouble remembering how my post applied myself, unless I reread it.
I’m sorry, Malodorous, and LHoD- I am afraid I’m missing something…
I have seen/heard several people of the opinion “<snip> Kerry still could have responded to Bush’s charge more directly, emphisizing again that he was against the execution of the war and not the war itself… <snip>”, but I keep remembering Kerry saying, last night, something like (paraphrased):
“I have always had one position on this war: Saddam was bad, there was a right and a wrong way to go about removing him. Bush chose the wrong way.”
I don’t know how he could have made it any more clear.
Can you help me through this fog? (I’m not necessarily saying that he couldn’t have made it any clearer… just that I don’t immediately see how he could have.)
I agree that he was clear on formulating his position; I wish he’d responded to the idea that speaking grimly about the war was always a bad thing. He should’ve clarified the obvious (to me) point that you don’t boost a soldier’s morale by telling her that dogshit is chocolate ice cream.
That seems to be Bush’s position: unless you deny the mess we’re in, there’s no way you can get us out of the mess.
And that’s a stupid position, but Kerry never really addressed it. He just addressed the fact that we’re in a mess.
So (for my clarification), it’s not so much a matter of Kerry saying that the war was a mistake, but of Kerry mentioning how the Iraq picture painted by Bush is unrealistically colorful…?
(I’m not necessarily saying that he couldn’t have made it any clearer… just that I don’t immediately see how he could have.)