Jesse's Blog - Archived Entry

Bush began a new era in his campaign today.

Across the country, headlines rang out today: "Rationales for War Are Undermined Once Again" (Washington post), "U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's" (NY Times), and "No WMD" (MSNBC), reporting that Iraq's weapons had been destroyed in the early 90's and were completely finished off by '96.

Against this backdrop, Bush launched a new version of his stump speech which attacked Kerry for... well, all sorts of things that Kerry didn't say.

Bush accused Kerry of “proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous” and of pursuing a “strategy of retreat” in Iraq. Hmm, I don’t remember that, so please Mr. President, remind me what he said:

• “He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat.” – not true, he said we should have enforced sanctions and inspection requirements, given them time to work, and then have proceed to action, with allies, if necessary.
• “He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there.” – both true, but mismatched. Kerry advocates training more Iraqi security forces, but arguments about how much money we should be spending are of course part of the issue of going in without adequate ally support. By the way, Bush/Cheney have repeatedly said 100,000 Iraqi’s are trained, but most reports say far less than 35,000 have actually completed training, maybe as few as 5,000, this is one of their most inflated and most repeated figures.
• “He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.'” – this just ignores that Kerry has committed clearly to finishing the job now that we’re there, and that inviting other countries in is a key part of his plan for turning things around.

The New York Times notes: “Mr. Bush was silent on the weapons report. And he made no mention of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's statement on Monday that he had seen no firm evidence of a link between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, or of the statement by his former top official in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, that the United States had not put enough troops into Iraq to secure the country.”

On Tuesday Night, Cheney contrasted Bush's flabbergast debate performance with a sober and sincere-sounding delivery, but he too departed from the standardized messaging of the campaign. Cheney offered a brand new story for why we went to war.

Cheney stated that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda. Never mind that Nidal hadn’t been associated with any terrorist attacks in years, and was in fact already dead at the time, and that the relationship with Al Qaeda has been declared minimal and outdated or just nonexistant. Beside that though, why do we keep hearing new reasons for why we went to war. Do Bush/Cheney think that we don't remember what they told us before? Every time an argument is debunked, they just offer a new one. Having WMDs, having the capability to make WMDs, “mass destruction-related program activities” (State of the Union address), fighting to secure the freedom of the Iraqis, Saddam Husein was a dangerous person, etc.

There's no question that Kerry and Edwards have inflated a few numbers, but at least they use the numbers with some integrity and respect for the public’s intelligence. Bush and Cheney select evidence to construct solid sounding arguments, but those arguments crumble under inspection when we find that they are relying on debunked faked documents (Nigerian yellow cake), misinterpreted intelligence (rocket tubes said to be centrifuge cylinders), etc. Cheney tries to count Iraqi deaths as part of our Coalition casualties. Bush interrupts Kerry in the debate to tell him he forgot Poland as an ally going into Iraq, but Polish troops were not part of the original invasion. And Cheney still insists, straight-faced, that he never insinuated a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Public reaction to the debates is telling. If Bush and Cheney had any real credibility left, Cheney would have emerged as the winner on Tuesday. He gave a fine performance, and if people still believed this administration, more people would have been fooled. That the post debate spin puts Edwards as the debate winner reflects Edwards' decent job during the debate, but much more than that it is a testament to the colossal lapse in faith in this administration that is fortunately widespread throughout our country.

Still, Bush proceeds with his stay strong, no apologies and no regrets approach to the war, the campaign, and everything else.

From the New York Times again:
"Look, the decision's been made that the president just isn't going to get into an introspective mode of 'we could have done this better,' " said one administration official who sat in on many of the campaign's strategy meetings. Such concessions, the official said, would "play right into" Mr. Kerry's argument. There was a time for Mr. Bush to make such concessions, the official said, but "that moment passed months ago." To do so now, the official argued, would both undercut the campaign and the 138,000 American troops in Iraq.

Bush is so inundated with the simple views of things that he thinks admission of any regrets would be letting the troops down, just like any dissent is cowardly and unpatriotic, anything that helps stop terrorism is good, and anything that impedes the fight, like civil rights or personal privacy, is bad.

But his imaginary world came crashing down during the first debate when we suddenly realized how hard it was not to have people clapping and laughing at his scripted lines, and to be around someone who didn’t agree with him, actually asked hard questions. All the tried and true simplistic attacks and labels suddenly didn’t seem to stick so well to this real-life John Kerry.

With credibility down, confidence shaken, but stubbornness intact, Bush proceeds onward in his quest to have things his way. He’ll continue to project good-news, ignoring that he’s standing side by side with headlines of bad news in each morning paper. He’ll ignore damaging reports from weapons inspectors and the CIA. He’ll continue to act infallible while his faults are exposed, ignoring criticism from Kerry, and growing criticism in the media. Bush has a truly impressive capacity for ignoring, I for one am thankful that most voters do not share that skill.