9.24.2004
The Iraq debate rages: has Kerry made up his mind?
Kerry's mind is like the new Bush ad [I have not seen] where Kerry wind surfs left, then right, then left, then... It's not that Kerry isn't roundly intelligent - he speaks French. It's not that he can't make up his mind - his Senate record is consistent to a very high degree. It's that he is an opportunist. He vascillates because he wants the Presidency more than he cares about personal resolve. Decisiveness is an obstacle in his path. Irony of ironies. Fact is: the American electorate doesn't cotton to leftists. His leftism is an obvious barrier to the White House. Hence, one sees the waffling -- playing to his base [of leftists] even as he wabbles the center line.
No one issue has been more indicative of Kerry's wavering campaign than that of Iraq. The Economist has an article propounding the latest left-of-center hope that Kerry is finally gelling on positions that are substantively different from GWBush. Its sub-line: "This week, Iraq produced some of its most traumatic recent news for America. It also changed the election campaign" Think so?
But real differences have now appeared on three of the most important questions:
• How is the war going? In his UN speech, Mr Bush argued that Iraq is making progress to democracy. Iraq’s prime minister, Iyad Allawi, then claimed “we are defeating terrorists.” Mr Kerry argued that “raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees”; that the administration has been exaggerating the progress in training Iraqi security forces; and that reconstruction is a failure.
On the whole, voters agree with Mr Kerry. Our YouGov poll shows pessimism about long-term prospects for democracy in Iraq has increased sharply since early August. Three Republican senators—John McCain, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel—have worried aloud that the administration is painting too rosy a picture in Iraq (“right now, we are not winning,” says Mr Hagel). The army has admitted parts of Iraq are no-go areas. And the recent national intelligence estimate, a consensus of America’s spies, gives three prognoses: bad (tenuous stability), worse and worst (civil war).
• Is Iraq part of the war on terror? Yes, says Mr Bush. At the Republican convention, he asked: “Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country?” No, says Mr Kerry: the war is a distraction from al-Qaeda and has created the very terrorist havens that the administration claimed to be acting to destroy.
On this question, voters are undecided. The number of those who think Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked has fallen; just over half now say the war has not reduced the chance of a new terrorist assault on America; but roughly equal numbers think the Iraq campaign has strengthened and weakened the war on terror.
• Should America pull out? Mr Bush has said American troops will stay until Iraq has a stable government. Mr Kerry said his goal is to withdraw soldiers within four years, starting next summer.
Mr Kerry may be taking a risk here. He says he would not abandon Iraq, but talks of pulling troops out—which looks like a muddle or a smokescreen for retreat. If previous conflicts are any guide, Americans may well respond to reverses by demanding that more troops be sent in search of victory. Yet Mr Kerry’s position seems in tune with many voters: in a Harris poll in mid-September, 38% said troops should stay until there is a stable government; 54% wanted them home next year.
Kerry's road -- his gauntlet -- will be no easier for him than it will be for Bush. This election is 'going south' as they say. In any event, as the Economist excerpt subtly indicates. Kerry knows he must have resolve. He's trying to appear resolute by a process of constantly refining what he says until it resonates in the polls...'It's the polls, stupid.' However, JFKerry is no Bill Clinton.
Kerry's mind is like the new Bush ad [I have not seen] where Kerry wind surfs left, then right, then left, then... It's not that Kerry isn't roundly intelligent - he speaks French. It's not that he can't make up his mind - his Senate record is consistent to a very high degree. It's that he is an opportunist. He vascillates because he wants the Presidency more than he cares about personal resolve. Decisiveness is an obstacle in his path. Irony of ironies. Fact is: the American electorate doesn't cotton to leftists. His leftism is an obvious barrier to the White House. Hence, one sees the waffling -- playing to his base [of leftists] even as he wabbles the center line.
No one issue has been more indicative of Kerry's wavering campaign than that of Iraq. The Economist has an article propounding the latest left-of-center hope that Kerry is finally gelling on positions that are substantively different from GWBush. Its sub-line: "This week, Iraq produced some of its most traumatic recent news for America. It also changed the election campaign" Think so?
But real differences have now appeared on three of the most important questions:
• How is the war going? In his UN speech, Mr Bush argued that Iraq is making progress to democracy. Iraq’s prime minister, Iyad Allawi, then claimed “we are defeating terrorists.” Mr Kerry argued that “raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees”; that the administration has been exaggerating the progress in training Iraqi security forces; and that reconstruction is a failure.
On the whole, voters agree with Mr Kerry. Our YouGov poll shows pessimism about long-term prospects for democracy in Iraq has increased sharply since early August. Three Republican senators—John McCain, Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel—have worried aloud that the administration is painting too rosy a picture in Iraq (“right now, we are not winning,” says Mr Hagel). The army has admitted parts of Iraq are no-go areas. And the recent national intelligence estimate, a consensus of America’s spies, gives three prognoses: bad (tenuous stability), worse and worst (civil war).
• Is Iraq part of the war on terror? Yes, says Mr Bush. At the Republican convention, he asked: “Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country?” No, says Mr Kerry: the war is a distraction from al-Qaeda and has created the very terrorist havens that the administration claimed to be acting to destroy.
On this question, voters are undecided. The number of those who think Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked has fallen; just over half now say the war has not reduced the chance of a new terrorist assault on America; but roughly equal numbers think the Iraq campaign has strengthened and weakened the war on terror.
• Should America pull out? Mr Bush has said American troops will stay until Iraq has a stable government. Mr Kerry said his goal is to withdraw soldiers within four years, starting next summer.
Mr Kerry may be taking a risk here. He says he would not abandon Iraq, but talks of pulling troops out—which looks like a muddle or a smokescreen for retreat. If previous conflicts are any guide, Americans may well respond to reverses by demanding that more troops be sent in search of victory. Yet Mr Kerry’s position seems in tune with many voters: in a Harris poll in mid-September, 38% said troops should stay until there is a stable government; 54% wanted them home next year.
Kerry's road -- his gauntlet -- will be no easier for him than it will be for Bush. This election is 'going south' as they say. In any event, as the Economist excerpt subtly indicates. Kerry knows he must have resolve. He's trying to appear resolute by a process of constantly refining what he says until it resonates in the polls...'It's the polls, stupid.' However, JFKerry is no Bill Clinton.
// posted by HunterByrd @ 4:48 AM 
