Good column from Aaronovitch, on the debate and keeping your eye on the ball:
And this takes me to what was the most worrying part of Kerry's thinking, as revealed in Miami. 'You know, the President's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra,' Kerry told viewers approvingly. 'And the reason he didn't is because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today.'Posted by Dr. Frank at October 3, 2004 05:39 PM | TrackBackQuite so. So, instead, he allowed the Shia and Kurdish rebellions to be crushed and the result was 12 years of crippling sanctions, of bombings to enforce the no-fly zones, of non-compliance with UN resolutions and, of course, of Saddamite state terror. Of course, there were no cameras there, except when the Baath command wanted there to be, no visitors except when Saddam allowed in his tame Galloways. Was that, as Kerry was never asked, good policy, because no US troops died, though hundreds of thousands of Iraqis did? And what did that stoke up for the future?
There are a thousand reasons for hoping that John Kerry wins the election in November, not least because of the chance of cooling the Anti-American fever in much of the world. But I will also want to know that he sees the same hard ball flying through the air that I see.
I agree that Kerry's failure to focus on all the poor decisions made by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the initial conflict in Iraq is tantamount to shooting himself in the foot. The timing of the start of the war is a legitimate point of criticism, but Kerry needs to realize he's already won the nomination and continuing to implicitly suggest that we had no right or reason to take action in Iraq only makes him look weak and is not going to help him in the general election.
Bush wins an argument over whether we had the right to act against Saddam if we believed it to be in our self-interest to do so, but Kerry wins the argument over whether the specific, detailed course of action we took was wise and well reasoned. Kerry and the rest of the Democrats need to stop worrying about pacifying their left wing. The danger to Kerry's candidacy and the party is if they fail to convince the public that they can be trusted to fight this war with fierce, unrelenting determination.
I think Kerry actually will fight the war effectively if elected, but he needs to do a better job of convincing the country that's the case.
Posted by: MikeR at October 3, 2004 06:40 PMFolks, one thing to remember as we all disect, poke and prod at the debate (particularly Kerry's performance); is that probably a large (too large) segment of the population may be hearing his position for the first time.
In my mind, that's the primary reason for the repetition. And with Bush using his typical redundant accusatory tactics, Kerry has to reply directly and answer every time; otherwise it doesn't sink into certain folks' skulls.
Sad but true.
Posted by: TroyM at October 3, 2004 07:37 PMNobody disputes the fact that Iraq was a horrible place to be before we "liberated" them from Saddam. It's true that the atrocities there should and do make anyone cringe.
But how much of the world's injustice is the U.S. responsible for alleviating. Why start with Iraq when there are places in the world where people suffer more?
Why say that the war is about protecting America from weapons that don't exist, instead of saying that we're going over there to liberate people from an oppressive regime?
It's great that Iraq is free now, but in my opinion, that alone is not worth the price America pays for it.
Posted by: Steve C. at October 3, 2004 10:03 PMSteve,
Not to quibble, but the fundamental problem is that Iraq isn't "free now." I do think it's vital to review Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since it turns out the Administration was just dead wrong about WMD, links to Al-Qaida -- read today's NYT to see how they wildly exaggerated the case for believing that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. But the issue people are pointing to here is precisely this: deposing Saddam has not made Iraq free, and Bush has shown little understanding of what it will take to make Iraq free in the future.
Saddam is gone, but thousands, likely tens of thousands, of Iraqis have died in the process, and what do they have now? A country occupied by our invading army, ruled by a man who (a) was an ally of their erstshile oppressor, Saddam Hussein, then (b) had a falling out with Hussein and became a CIA operative, and (c) was essentially selected by the US to rule over a country he hasn't lived in for years. Violence is rampant, civil war is a possibility, the economy and environment are shambles...we all know the details. Iraq today is hardly an example of people experiencing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Even if you believe invading Iraq to depose Saddam was necessary, it was obviously not sufficient to achieve any of the original goals of the war...except for the ones directly related to ending the "threat" posed by Saddam himself -- a threat which was much more dubious than Bush/Cheney admitted before the war and which, subsequently, has turned out to be basically non-existent. As much as the neocons brag about the wonderful, shining future in the Middle East when a thousand flowers of democracy bloom in Baghdad, the risk we're running now is of ongoing chaos and misery and failure, which would probably be worse in the long run than never having done anything in the first place. And that's why GHWB and Cheney's original reticence to occupy Iraq is still relevant today.
Posted by: Nick at October 4, 2004 12:52 AMHell, I hope he(Kerry) wins just so the people who don't like him and the people who support Bush can say I told you so later on. Just to reiterate my stance on this: I'm not a big Bush fan, I just feel that Kerry is worse.
Posted by: Zaphod at October 4, 2004 01:34 AM