Before I listen to the Big Pundits tell us what we should be thinking about this first debate between Kerry and Bush, I thought I would put down my early reactions.
On the ever-important style issues, as I predicted, Bush smirked like a frat boy through the whole thing, and Kerry sounded consdierably more wonkish than your average Oakland Raiders fan. Man, what a prognosticator I've become!
(Okay, so I was a little off on the outcome of the California's governor's referendum last year, but let's just let that one drop, okay?)
The biggest surprise to me was when Jim Lehrer asked the candidates what they saw as the most urgent foreign policy threat to America, that Kerry said straightforwardly and without mincing words, "nuclear proliferation." I agree with him 100%. But it's not the common way the Big Pundits frame the national priorities. How many times do the Big Pundits ask each other, "Well, Howie, how do we stand on nuclear proliferation this week?" "I'll tell you, David, I think we've made some real progress, though the last couple of days may have been a bit of a set-back."
And Bush even agreed with him, though he insisted on putting it in terms of "weapons of mass destruction." That "WMD" term has always been a weasel-word to try to blur the distinction between nukes on the one hand and chemical/biological weapons on the other.
I'm sure that, now that the political leadership of both parties have put this issue front-and-center, that the press corps will be examining the issue thoroughly for the remainder of the campaign. (Oh, come on, even a serious post needs some comic relief every now and then! Or, as they say on the Internet, BWAA-HAHAHAHAHHAAA!)
Hey, if I can imagine a world in which that would happen, I could probably start writing science-fiction like AOL blogmeister John Scalzi.
Kerry did the basics of what he needed to do: he kept returning to the deceptions, bad judgments, lack of planning, and apalling mismanagement of the Iraq War. He expressly declined to use so indelicate a word as "lying" (though I'm not sure why). And he stressed again and again that Bush should have concentrated the military effort against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not against Saddam Hussein. He also managed to get a clear focus on the priority choices that Bush made in giving Iraq priority over the more dangerous nations of Iran and especially North Korea.
One of Kerry's most effective moments was when Bush did one of his none-too-subtle Iraq=terror=9/11 routines and said "the enemy attacked us" in justifying the invasion of Iraq. Kerry made the point calmly, firmly and clearly that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did. If Bush had an embarassing moment from my viewpoint, it was when he was forced to insist in response that he knows that Osama bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11.
It's probably also in the realm of pure fantasy, but maybe, just maybe this debate will get at least part of our lazy press corps focused on the outrageous and continuing claims, sometimes directly but more often in the way Bush did it in this exchange, that the Iraq War was a response to the 9/11 attacks.
Speaking of fantasy, Kerry also made the point that Bush seemed unwilling to face the realities of the world, especially in Iraq. He passed up some opportunities to challenge Bush on some blatant misstatements of fact, like his claims on the number of Iraqi police and security personnel trained. But you can't have everything.
We can take comfort in the fact that the press corps will be thoroughly dissecting and fact-checking and corrrecting those claims of Bush's. [snort] {snicker}[struggling to suppress hysterical laughter]
Bush did have his strong points in the debate. Seriously. His business-school style of getting a set of talking points and repeating them over and over is an advantage for him, especially given the increasingly authoritarian nature of the Republican Party and the willingness of the Fox News-Drudge-Oxycontin-Freeper echo chamber to let those talking point resound endlessly. Kerry sends "mixed messages," he said, a leader can't do that, a leader needs to show "certainty," Kerry sends "mixed messages" on the Iraq War, he keeps changing positions on the war,a leader has to be consistent in being committed to his principles.
That fantasy press corps I've mentioned a couple of times could come up with a number of examples where Bush has sent "mixed messages" and taken contradictory actions on important policies. Our real existing press corps won't do that. But Kerry did drive home the point about the contradictory policies on proliferation among Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
(For the hardcore Europhile nerds, "real existing" is a sarcastic reference to the old Communist regime in East Germany.)
Also, if that fantasy press corps I've been imagining actually did follow up on Bush's claims in the debate, the whopper about how his administration had uncovered the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network in Pakistan would be a fruitful source of enlightenment and even amusement.
Finally, was it just me, or did Bush seem particularly emphatic about his position that America should never join the International Criminal Court? He seemed quite concerned that the ICC might find occasion to seek indictments against high American officials for violations of international law.
Gosh, do you think the Secretary General of the United Nations calling Bush's war in Iraq "illegal" might have actually registered on the brains of the president and some of his senior advisers? Miracles are always possible. I would guess a more likely explanation is that he's got senior officials already lobbying for presidential pardons during the transition period if he loses the elections. The Valerie Plame affair, leaking of signals-related intelligence to Iraq through Ahmed Chalabi, torture in the gulag, Halliburton sweetheart deals, there's a lot to be concerned about. Heck, somebody might have even started taking a hard look at American laws affecting preventive war!
20 comments:
I think Kerry blew the question Lehrer asked about whether our Troops were dying in Iraq "for a mistake". He answered in the negative, pulling back from the raw assertion that people had already died in vain, but it undermined his credibility. After all, he does in fact believe the war was a mistake, and he has said so several times, as the President reminded us over and over again tonight.
What I would have liked Kerry to say:
"Yes, this war was a mistake. It does no good to deny that we were mistaken about Saddam's WMD. We were mistaken about his supposed link to Al Qaeda. We were mistaken to give the President the power to start this war -- and he has mismanaged it ever since. It has been a series of mistakes and misdeeds and misleading statements. Now it is up to us to fix it. We cannot afford to walk away and leave Iraq in chaos, because we are not safer for this war. We are stuck with this war and we need to bring it to a good end, or many more will die for the mistakes that have been made. We need a leader who can change the course, put the mistakes behind us, and bring peace and stability to Iraq and safety to America."
Instead, he seemed to contradict his prior statements and then offer a plan that sounded a lot like Bush's "more of the same" and some esoteric talk about alliances.
If I were on the fence, I doubt I would be jumping to Kerry.
Bush seemed a bit frazzled and tired, but that hardly makes up for Kerry's weak message.
Neil
Kerry's position on the Iraq War is a combination of Eisenhower in 1952 ("I will go to Korea") and Nixon in 1968 (the secret plan to end the war).
The main point he has to get across, and he stressed it Thursday, is that voting for Bush means "more of the same" in Iraq.
Jimmy Carter said this week that (to borrow a phrase from the Vietnam War, although Carter didn't put it this way) we should run up a flag, declare victory and leave Iraq as quickly as we can.
In reality, Bush created a horrible situation for the US by going into Iraq. And his mismanagement of the war since has meant that the exit options grow more grim by the day. Kerry also made a good point about the permanent bases in Iraq; I don't think Bush *intends* to exit Iraq completely.
Even if Kerry or Bush decided on Inauguration Day 2005 that we had to pull out as quickly as possible, it's not an overnight thing. If full-blown civil war is underway by January, a rapid withdrawal of American troops could mean heavy casualties.
And it's important to remember how fast the situation is deteriorating in Iraq. Which is another reason Kerry has to be careful in making specific promises about his "secret plan" for withdrawal. The options will almost certainly have shrunk far more by the time he takes office in January, and the fewer specifics he's tied himself to politically, the less difficult it will be to adopt a practical exit strategy. - Bruce
Unfortunately the Repubos are already jumping on Kerry's answer to the "dying for a mistake" remark. It's the only soundbite from the debate they can use to continue their 'flip-flopper' attack - which will be done until all Americans puke at the sound of it.
That Happy Chica,
Marcia Ellen
Okay, here's my two pennies worth. Both candidates did an excellent job last night, both in presentation and in substance, in attacking their opponent's positions and in defending their own. The result was either a draw, or a marginal victory for either Bush or Kerry. However, I also think that last night's debate has doomed Kerry to defeat in November. Behind in the polls and facing a strong incumbent, he needed to impale Bush last night, and he clearly didn't. Kerry was not able to capitalize on the mistakes made by the Bush administration and the United States government regarding Iraq because he himself is a senior figure in the United States government, a senior member of the United States political establishment. If the Democrats had nominated a credible outsider, one not so closely associated with the Washington, D.C. political establishment, not involved in supervising the running of a deeply flawed intelligence community etc., then they would have been able to have made a much stronger case for replacing President Bush in November. Kerry's fine performance in the debate last night illuminated his flaws more clearly - that he's too closely associated with the mistakes of the Iraq war to be a convincing satisfactory replacement for Bush in November.
David
Mistakes? David, surely you're not, no, it can't be... You're not suggesting that Bush the Magnificent has made *mistakes* in the Iraq War, are you? :)
But I see that you've reached the point that Vietnam War fans had reached by 1969 or so, when the war *supporters* were saying, "We never should have been there in the first place, but once we're there we should go ahead and WIN it."
You know things are going really badly in a war when the *supporters* are saying, "We never should have been there in the first place!" Now, there's a slogan to inspire 19-year-olds to sign up to get shot at.
Of course, Iraq War supporters can't quite adopt that position now. After all, we had "Mission Accomplished" almost a year and a half ago on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.
But it's the same idea when the *defenders* of the war are reduced to saying, "The other party is almost as much to blame for the war as Bush!"
The Democrats are unlikely to be so cooperative with new invasions of Iran, Syria, etc, that the Bush team is already cooking up. So what will supporters of the Iran War be saying a year later? "The Democrats are to blame because they didn't opposed the war hard enough"? - Bruce
"But it's the same idea when the *defenders* of the war are reduced to saying, "The other party is almost as much to blame for the war as Bush!""
Excuse me Bruce, but that's not what I said at all! To quote myself: "Kerry was not able to capitalize on the mistakes made by the Bush administration and the United States government regarding Iraq because he himself is a senior figure in the United States government, a senior member of the United States political establishment." To give one specific example: Kerry, as a twenty-year senator, bears some responsibility for the weaknesses in the US intelligence system that led the Bush administration to underestimate the scale of the present Iraqi resistance before the war began - one of the mistakes I was alluding to.
Despite some bad operational and tactical mistakes I will always be a supporter of the war to liberate the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein, even if the present chaos lasts for some time. To back the status quo was to allow the perpetuation of a wicked and powerful tyranny, to condemn the Iraqi people to unending oppression. Achieving stability and democracy in Iraq will require steady, patient support from the outside, but is above all else dependent on the will and strength of the Iraqi people, ultimately something that is beyond the control of outsiders, certainly beyond the control of any US president. But I am optimistic for the long term, as long as we can maintain our hopeful spirits and continue to do what we can for the Iraqi people.
So, be patient. And don't panic!
David
David, I never did quite get the part about how Kerry couldn't credibly criticize Bush's mistakes in the Iraq War. (Which mistakes were those again?)
But your second comment is otherwise clear: you're ready to see more of the same in Iraq. So Bush is your guy. Kerry's is not going to approach the Iraq War the same way.
Will Bush be able to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan and lead us on to new wars of liberation in Iran and Syria? Probably not. Reality is crashing in pretty hard right now. But I'm confident he thinks he will be able to.
So if at least *attempting* more of the same is the goal, Bush is the only game in town. - Bruce
Bruce, In my opinion the main reason there is so much anarchy in Iraq today is because of the complete failure of the US intelligence community to give Bush proper advice on how to stabilize the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein. An incompetent intelligence community was not built in a day however. Its flaws were built up over many decades, with Republicans and Democrats sharing the blame. Since Kerry is very much a member of the Democratic establishment, and has served for example on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he is complicit in the making of a flawed intelligence system - in fact he shares a greater responsibility than Bush for its failures!
"But your second comment is otherwise clear: you're ready to see more of the same in Iraq. So Bush is your guy. Kerry's is not going to approach the Iraq War the same way."
Actually, Kerry did much to reassure me on Thursday night that he will stay the course on Iraq if elected president, that his policies there will pretty closely resemble Bush's. Kerry would try to win some more international support, but beyond receiving a few token crumbs, he will essentially receive nothing and will fail in the attempt. So the war will continue much as it is going now, if either Bush or Kerry is elected president in my opinion. It will be a long haul, but we will win in the end if we are steady.
Which brings me to my question for you Bruce. If you are so deeply opposed to the war in Iraq, if you still believe immediate withdrawal is by far the best option, why are you giving your support to Kerry and not Nader?
David
Sorry Bruce, this bit had to be cut out from my last comment, I'm too prolix for your blog!
You can plausibly argue that Bush and his team should have been smarter, they should not have listened so passively to the intelligence they received - I think that will be the major historical criticism of the Bush administration and the Iraq war by the way. But Kerry did no better, he accepted the flawed intelligence, did not question it, and voted for war.
Kerry is too much a part of a flawed political establishment that helped cause Bush's mistakes to be able to criticize Bush as strongly as he could be criticized.
David, your comments are combining the serious and the snarky in a way that's a bit hard to tell which is which. So I'll respond in a strictly serious vein here.
Nader: Every serious voter knows that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Kerry is not trying to offer a 14-point peace plan for Iraq; he's presenting himself as more likely than Bush to get the US out of this disaster.
Iraq War past: The "intelligence community" may serve for Republicans as an adequate excuse for Bush's irresponsibility in the Iraq War. But you must know that it's a True Believers' argument only. You know about Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans and the similar operation in Cheney's office, both set up to "stovepipe" Ahmed Chalabi's false claims to policymakers *bypassing* the intelligence community. Similarly, ignoring the State Department's postwar planning work was not the fault of the intelligence community; it refected the arrogance and incompetence of Bush, Cheney and their senior officials.
Iraq War present: It's possible for the US to win the counterinsurgency war in Iraq. But it's no accident that the advocates of staying the course prefer to rely on abstract phrases about not panicking and being patient. Because it would require the US to put in twice the number of troops we have on the ground there now, maybe four times as many. No other country will provide them. Putting them there ourselves will mean a large draft and big expenses.
Do you really want to see that done? Or do you seriously think that the war can be won with the current number of troops, additional bombing of urban neighborhoods and even less effort to avoid civilian deaths? - Bruce
Bruce, here are my 30-second rebuttals to your comments:
Point One: "Nader: Every serious voter knows that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Kerry is not trying to offer a 14-point peace plan for Iraq; he's presenting himself as more likely than Bush to get the US out of this disaster."
That's why I think Kerry will lose in the end, it's because I don't think enough voters will believe that he would do a better job than Bush in fighting the war on terror and stabilizing Iraq. I'm not saying that Kerry is wrong, he might be able to do a better job than Bush, it's just I don't think enough voters want to take that chance, as chance it would be. If Nader more closely represents your political position than either Kerry or Bush then it doesn't make sense not to vote for him in my view. Nader may not win this election, but his support may grow in the future - especially if Kerry wins and things go badly.
Point Two: "Iraq War past: The "intelligence community" may serve for Republicans as an adequate excuse for Bush's irresponsibility in the Iraq War. But you must know that it's a True Believers' argument only. You know about Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans and the similar operation in Cheney's office, both set up to "stovepipe" Ahmed Chalabi's false claims to policymakers *bypassing* the intelligence community. Similarly, ignoring the State Department's postwar planning work was not the fault of the intelligence community; it refected the arrogance and incompetence of Bush, Cheney and their senior officials."
Bruce, I am far from being a Bush "True Believer," but I am sure that the US intelligence community let Bush down in a big, big, way over Iraq, and it went way beyond just Rumsfeld's and Cheney's offices. I am much more of a Tony Blair supporter than a Bush supporter, and I believe British intelligence - which is I think better organized than US intelligence - also let him down badly. US foreign policy could be much improved by a radical reform of the US intelligence community - but I doubt if either Bush or Kerry would be capable of doing it.
Point Three: "Iraq War present: It's possible for the US to win the counterinsurgency war in Iraq. But it's no accident that the advocates of staying the course prefer to rely on abstract phrases about not panicking and being patient. Because it would require the US to put in twice the number of troops we have on the ground there now, maybe four times as many. No other country will provide them. Putting them there ourselves will mean a large draft and big expenses.
Do you really want to see that done? Or do you seriously think that the war can be won with the current number of troops, additional bombing of urban neighborhoods and even less effort to avoid civilian deaths? - Bruce"
My first reaction is that I completely disagree with your military analysis here Bruce. It reminds me of something that General Westmoreland might have said to President Johnson in the mid-sixties. That analysis was wrong then and it's wrong now. In my opinion the key to victory in Iraq, for a whole host of reasons, is to have as few US troops in there as possible. But US troop numbers can only go down once the Iraqi army and police forces reach competent levels of training, and that will take time. That is why I say patience and calm are necessary now. Time is necessary to train the Iraqi forces, not to just wait and hope that things will get better. My second reaction is that your comments have nothing in common with anything I have ever heard Kerry or his advisers saying regarding what to do in Iraq.
Final point. Me, "snarky"?! I hope you have known me long enough to know that I am never snarky! (Well, perhaps if Jack wakes me up at 3:00 a.m. because he's lost his lion I might be less than mellow for a while, but otherwise I don't get too ruffled. And if Kerry wins the election I don't see it as being a cataclysmic disaster, in part because I believe so little of substance will really change.)
Hope you're having a good weekend.
David
David, nothing wrong with snark. It's one of the Unwritten Laws of the Blogosphere that you have to inject snark on a semi-regular basis.
No, Kerry's stated positions on the Iraq War don't match what I've been saying. I think it was a big mistake to have voted for the 2002 war resolution, because it was obvious Bush would use it as a political excuse for going to war. Although it's also true that Bush *violated* that resolution in the way he went to war. And Kerry's promise to "win" in Iraq will be thrown back in his face by the Republicans if he gets elected, because the best we can hope to "win" out the mess Bush has created in Iraq is a Nixonian "peace with honor," where we pull out without overt humiliation.
On keeping the same level of troops, I've noticed that your friend Tony the Poodle (that's snark) has reduced British troops levels by 1/3. Training of Iraqi troops and police requires not just time and patience but SECURITY. The guerrillas have been especially targeting "collaborators" who join the army and security services. Here's a recent look at how the training is going:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=590914§ion=news
I was shocked, shocked to see that Bush and Rummy have been wildly exaggerating the progress in training. (That's also snark.) For comparison, pre-war Iraq had 400,000 soldiers in the regular army alone. In effect, the army and newly-trained security services are barely in existence. And if the current troop level hasn't been able to create the level of security required in the last *year and a half*, it's hard to see how it will improve any time soon. - Bruce
Bruce, I think your obsession with the Vietnam War and loathing of Bush has made you turn your brain off (is that snark?!). No, I'm just kidding, I'm not into insults! What I will say though is this: the parallels between the current Iraq War and Vietnam are only superficial in my opinion. From the geography to the quality of the anti-US forces (in Vietnam the US was facing battle-hardened North Vietnamese regulars) so many elements are different. Above all the stakes are so much higher in the Iraq War than they were in Vietnam. As I understand it Vietnam was insignificant economically, and fairly remote from any economic or strategic areas of importance. But Iraq is the complete opposite! If a president were to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda, it would be such a catastrophe that it could easily lead to the end of the West's global hegemony. At the least it would lead to the destruction of Israel, and severe economic disruption to the world economy for some time. That's why I'm sure the war will go on, whether Bush or Kerry is president. If more US troops are needed for the short-term in Iraq present global deployments will be stripped to the bone, with little danger to the US's overall global position. That's another reason why there is little parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. During the Vietnam War the US had huge global military commitments to maintain, in Western Europe, Japan etc. But there's no superpower threat now - US forces could in theory be stripped to zero in Western Europe for the short-term with no bad strategic consequences for example - an impossibility during the Cold War. So there will be no draft.
David
While I'm an optimist that the war in Iraq will be won, with the steady training of Iraqi forces (there must be some places in Iraq where they can train in peace?), I'm not saying that the task won't take a very long time. Many years, possibly outlasting the next presidency. Who will do a better job of staying the course? Bush, probably. But I think Kerry would do a competent job also.
David
David, I don't think there are any easy analogies between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. I'm skeptical of them, in no small part because the road to war in Iraq was paved - or at least billboarded - with endless bad historical analogies.
I have made a number of posts this year about the similarities and connections between the rightwingers' attempts to demonize war critics today, and similar tactics used and encouraged by the Nixon administration. Some of those connections are quite direct, as in the person of Swift Boat Liar John O'Neill.
My reference to Nixon's "peace with honor" was only to the general concept of finding a respectable fig-leaf to leave a losing war. At this point, even Bush may be forced to realize he has no real alternative but to accept something like that.
You are very optimistic, not only about the draft but about the viablility of keeping 140,000 US troops in Iraq indefinitely.
On Bush, it's been common Republican rhetoric these days to claim that Democrats criticizing Bush are motivated by hatred. I won't bother comma-dancing on the nuances of the word. But I find it hard to think it terms of personal hatred for someone I've never even met. In a social setting, Bush is probably a very pleasant guy. Rumsfeld and Cheney seem to have far higher levels of personal nastiness.
"If a president were to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda," is a frigtening image. Just like the mushroom clouds, anthrax, botulinum and nerve gas that were Bush's excuse for invading were very scary. So are the destruction of Israel and severe world economic disruption. Has the Office of Special Plans been reconstituted to produce reports predicting stuff like that? - Bruce
"On Bush, it's been common Republican rhetoric these days to claim that Democrats criticizing Bush are motivated by hatred. I won't bother comma-dancing on the nuances of the word. But I find it hard to think it terms of personal hatred for someone I've never even met. In a social setting, Bush is probably a very pleasant guy. Rumsfeld and Cheney seem to have far higher levels of personal nastiness."
The rhetoric from both sides in this election campaign at times seems nastier than from any previous US presidential election I can remember. Both sides are demonizing their opponents in a way that seems to me to come close to being destructive of the democratic system itself. Still, I shouldn't worry, it's probably all genteel compared with the vitriol of, say, the presidential election campaign of 1800.
"You are very optimistic, not only about the draft but about the viablility of keeping 140,000 US troops in Iraq indefinitely."
I don't think I'm an optimist. If I were I'd be saying the war will be over next year, or 2006 at the latest. It's more like 2010 at the earliest. I believe that implementing a draft would be the quickest way for us to lose the war, and I don't understand why President Johnson didn't grasp that fact in the mid-sixties. The British army, all volunteer, fought an insurgency in Northern Ireland for over twenty years. It was on a smaller scale than present-day Iraq of course, but at times it came close to being equally vicious. It also included attacks on civilians on the British Mainland. In the end the IRA grew tired of the war, and it ended. The same will happen to the Iraqi insurgency in time. How long is anybody's guess - the US intelligence community certainly doesn't have a clue!
""If a president were to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda," is a frigtening image. Just like the mushroom clouds, anthrax, botulinum and nerve gas that were Bush's excuse for invading were very scary. So are the destruction of Israel and severe world economic disruption. Has the Office of Special Plans been reconstituted to produce reports predicting stuff like that? - Bruce"
Maybe abandoning Iraq to al-Qaeda is the grimmest scenario, but any way you look at it leaving Iraq would be a catastrophe to the West (not just the US). In the best case anti-Western forces, probably backed by Syria or Iran (or both), would come to power, and all pro-Western elements in the Middle East, including Israel, would soon be in mortal danger. If the West weren't so dependent on Middle Eastern oil a pull-out from Iraq would have few serious consequences of course (other than psychological ones). I note that neither Bush nor Kerry have a decent energy policy that might begin to lessen our dependence on this unstable and violent region.
David
Post a Comment