Posted on 09/13/2004 6:37:56 PM PDT by Pikamax
Saturday, Sep. 11, 2004 All You Have to Do Is Believe Though so much in Iraq has gone wrong, Bush still thinks he 's right By JOE KLEIN A long time ago last week, the vice president of the United States said that if John Kerry is elected President "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists. It was an outrageous statement, which exposed the rampaging hubris of the Republican Party these days—and it should have been a big story. But the Cheney flap disappeared within 24 hours, in a week that exploded a month's worth of political bombshells. A new book by the professional sensationalist Kitty Kelley accused George Bush of using cocaine at Camp David when his father was President. CBS News revealed documents that indicated Bush had disobeyed orders, avoided service and received "sugar-coated" treatment when his performance was evaluated in the National Guard. And then, within hours, both stories were knocked down—a source for the cocaine story recanted, and some conservative bloggers charged the documents were forgeries. By week's end, the mudslinging had been successfully muddled: the controversy was now about the stories, not the President.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Russia was recovering from a horrific terrorist attack that left at least 338 dead—mostly children—which put an exclamation point on the President's claim that we are fighting a global war against terrorism. At the same time, though, the U.S. military acknowledged the sobering fact that there were now "no-go" zones in Iraq, areas the U.S. had ceded to the terrorists—much of the so-called Sunni triangle, for example—which put a question mark on the President's claim that he was aggressively fighting that war. At the end of all that, the President's post-convention bounce had settled into a solid lead.
Democrats were perplexed, depressed and awestruck. How could Cheney get away with saying, in effect, that a vote for Kerry was a vote for terrorism? More to the point, how could Bush get away with, well, everything: a misspent youth, a lifetime of insider trading on the family name, a misfought war, a misleading inference that the invasion of Iraq had some vague relevance to 9/11, a presidency marked by rampant corporate cronyism at home and abroad? "If we can't beat this guy, with this record ..." a prominent Democrat said to me. He was unable to finish the sentence.
There are all sorts of theories for Bush's recent success. The Republicans are brilliant and brazen demolition experts. The Democrats play hardball at the peewee-league level. Kerry is Dukakis, after all—deadly dull, slow to respond, trapped in Democratic banality: he actually said he was for "good jobs at good wages" last week. All of which are more or less true, but peripheral. The real story is quite simple. Bush seems to believe what he says and Kerry doesn't quite.
That is not to say that the things Bush believes are true. The war in Iraq was not a necessity. It is more likely to result in regional chaos than in the "benign domino effect" of regional democracy promised by neoconservatives. But Bush truly believes—and these are admirable beliefs—in the power of "freedom" and the evil of Islamist radicalism. He is secure enough to acknowledge the possibility that he might be proved wrong. Two weeks ago, he told TIME that history would be the judge of his policies—it would take decades to sort it all out—but he was confident about the choices he had made.
Kerry seems unable, or unwilling, to confront Bush directly on this ground. Every word he utters about Iraq smacks of politics. Last week he finally said the war was "wrong," but then—in a crass, consultant-driven moment—turned the disaster into a financial transaction. Bush had spent $200 billion in Iraq that could have been spent at home. Leave aside the fact that $200 billion is a meaningless number to a nation inured to billion-dollar tags for just about everything. Leave aside the fact that most Americans would willingly have spent the money—and, more to the point, the lives—if the policy had actually made us safer. A much stronger argument was available, given the recent events in Iraq: Bush has chosen not to fight in the Sunni triangle, and the war cannot be won until he does. "You can't allow the enemy to have sanctuaries and expect to win," John McCain told me. "You have to go in and dig them out."
Kerry could have challenged Bush: "Fight the war, Mr. President, or bring the troops home." It would have been blunt, strong, simple—indeed, simplistic, just as Bush often is—but it might also have put the President on the defensive for a change. Kerry wouldn't even have to say what he would do: he could legitimately argue that would depend on the situation on the ground in January. It would also, I suspect, reflect Kerry's true feelings: that Bush has waged an incompetent war in Iraq, which he is in serious danger of losing.
WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Bush has many well articulated policies.
Kerry has none.
Bush has successfully brought down two dictatorships and freed 50 million people.
Kerry helped North Vietnam enslave millions.
Bush has tax cuts, education reform, and Medicare prescription drug policy successes.
Kerry hasn't passed any major legislation in 19 years.
Bush is a nice guy.
Kerry is a lemon.
Bush is willing to defend Western Civilization, and fight the War on Terror.
Kerry will defer to the French.
How long must one go on with reasonable, general logic before a leftist "gets it?"
Forever, apparently.
Guess what, Joe--it's not the Republicans who are rampaging with hubris; it's the Left, the Democrats. This is why you can't believe your eyes and ears: You are in denial. You are delusional. The entire Leftist paradigm is a delusion.
Denial and hubris are the stuff of tragedy. Wake up before it's too late. If you don't, you're in for a surprise.
We can only hope that thh gloves will be off in Falujah after ~50 days.
This is outrageous!!!!!!!
Maybe, just maybe, it is not our business to pacify the entire country. Maybe it is the business of the Iraqi government to pacify Samarra, Ramadi, and Fallujah by any means necessary.
Even some of the most rabid rats have finally realized that Kerry is an empty suit.
Just as the violence got ramped up in the lead up to the handover, it's been ramped up again in an effort to turn the American election. Until November 3rd, it's gonna be everything plus the kitchen sink time in Iraq.
Sure, Joe, sure.
What is that tune you're whistling?
I question the timing of this article.
YOU'RE D*MNED RIGHT!!!
This jerk doesn't even suggest forged memos and outright lies to sell books.
uh, hate to tell this guy, but he has no idea what is going on in iraq. we are trying to train the iraqis to do their job and fight for their own freedom.
sure, we could very easily go into fallujah and whip/finish the terrorist off (i wish we could in a way). Instead, since iraq controls its own destiny and is soverign, we are left to being the "enforcers" until the iraqi national gaurd is ready to go.
i swear, these guys do not understand a) what is really at stake and b) how real wars happen.
in terms of causualties, we were losing what, a thousand men a day on iwo jima.. and it was nothing more than a smoldering volcanic rock. How would you like to see the press report that one?
Then you would have engagments like the battle of the buldge. If the media then, is like it is now, eisenhower would have been fired on the spot. (can you read the headlines of the FAILURE of the allies to spot the on coming advance)
One last thing, the guy doesnt understand that while confidence is one thing, the core issue is that people understand that bush will stand toe to toe with the enemy and meet them there - NOT HERE. Kerry in his acceptance speech said that he would respond when attacked. guess what, we were already attacked.
perhaps the most interesting thing is what mc cain said (and is what tommy franks has said as well). You cannot allow your enemy to have a safe haven. Guess what iraq was? a safe haven for al qeadia.
It might not be perfect now, but it is a lot better than what it was.
Exactly-- we will be there to "assist", but when one or more of these safe-havens for Baathist and jihadi murderers is razed to the ground, it will be the Iraqis who were terrorized by these scum who kill them and the new Iraqi govt who will get the credit.
Doing his part to make the GirlyMan label stick to the Democrat party.
Klein is actually among the more fair-minded on the left. Which is why his critique of Kerry is even more devastating.
Joe Klein is a liar. Why do you post anything he writes? We don't have time to read lies. Would you post a "news" story by Dan Rather?
Bush has many well articulated policies.
Kerry has none.
Bush has successfully brought down two dictatorships and freed 50 million people.
Kerry helped North Vietnam enslave millions.
Bush has tax cuts, education reform, and Medicare prescription drug policy successes.
Kerry hasn't passed any major legislation in 19 years.
Bush is a nice guy.
With Bush the First Lady is the lovely, demure Laura
With Kerry, the First Lady would be Dustin Hoffman in drag
Jag!
What? LOL!
We all know he just wants to see more American soldiers die...anything to make this Administration appear wounded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.