Republican Convention Summary and Kerry's (Belated) Response
The Republicans wanted to send three clear messages:
1) The war on terror is the issue that matters most.
2) George W. Bush is the man to fight that war.
3) The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.
And you know what, they did. I thought the convention on these terms was incredibly effective. They set a limited goal and reached it. This convention was not about the economy, health care, the budget, or any domestic issue. This was a one issue convention, and that was its strength and its weakness. They did it by spending much of their time tearing up John Kerry on these issues, saying he was "weak and wobbly," "unfit," "wrong," and basically a big sissy who wants to fight a "more sensitive" war. Bush was able to do this in such a way that he appears above the fray and still look presidential, which is a tough thing to do. So, for the convention at least- Mission Accomplished!
Kerry has responded to this by attempting to shift people's attention towards domestic issues. He came out firing in Springfield, Ohio- about 45 minutes west of Columbus to defend his record and shift the issue. He needed to come out strongly and defend himself, and finally he did. Asking the crowd whether Cheney's "five student deferments" make him more "fit" than his "two tours of duty" is good stuff. Really, Kerry finally met this head on. And then...
He changed course and talked about health care, jobs, and how much Iraq is costing the American taxpayer. This is a mistake on many levels, but let's start out with Iraq. The issue is not how much money it costs but a few simple facts. 1) There are now (as of 9/7) 993 American soldiers dead. 2) There have been 6497 (as of 8/14, last DoD update) American soldiers wounded . 3) The casualty rate is not tailing off, but actually has increased the last few months. 4) We have no plan for when we are going to leave. 5) There have been no weapons of mass destruction found, and this of course was the primary justification for the war. 6) Any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were informal, furthermore there is no evidence of any joint operational planning or execution.
Why does Kerry not beat Bush over the head with this stuff? He does always use the line about how Bush "misled" us into war, but this is, at best, arguable. Why not use facts? Ask the president to really defend his actions. The problem is, Kerry has boxed himself in. By still defending his vote even if we knew what we knew now, he has limited himself to criticizing only the management of the war. He cannot criticize the decision to go (as by voting for this authority, he is at least culpable) and hence is forced to embrace it. So, Kerry is in a box with all Iraq's slings and arrows. I think he is so afraid of being labeled a flip-flopper one more time he cannot bring himself to do it. But people can change their minds on things when new facts present themselves. I do it all the time, even on war and peace. I know, because I supported this war.
I supported it, because my president and this administration told me things that turned out not to be true. NOTE: I am not accusing them of being liars or distorting intelligence. I think they made the best decision based upon the information available to them. Did they overstate the case- sure. But that is a very big difference. But knowing now there were no weapons I would not trade 7500 soldiers killed or wounded to liberate Iraq. Deep down, would John Kerry?
Whether he likes it or not, terrorism is the issue of this election. John Kerry could make a compelluing case for why he would fight a smarter, better, more effective war. Why doesn't he? He can meet this issue head-on on offer America a real alternative. He can offer a plan for how to make our intelligence better. He can tell us what he would do differently right now in Iraq. He can tell us how long our troops are going to be there. He can tell us what criteria he would use in the future to send our troops into battle. If he can't he will lose, and we will deserve to.
1) The war on terror is the issue that matters most.
2) George W. Bush is the man to fight that war.
3) The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.
And you know what, they did. I thought the convention on these terms was incredibly effective. They set a limited goal and reached it. This convention was not about the economy, health care, the budget, or any domestic issue. This was a one issue convention, and that was its strength and its weakness. They did it by spending much of their time tearing up John Kerry on these issues, saying he was "weak and wobbly," "unfit," "wrong," and basically a big sissy who wants to fight a "more sensitive" war. Bush was able to do this in such a way that he appears above the fray and still look presidential, which is a tough thing to do. So, for the convention at least- Mission Accomplished!
Kerry has responded to this by attempting to shift people's attention towards domestic issues. He came out firing in Springfield, Ohio- about 45 minutes west of Columbus to defend his record and shift the issue. He needed to come out strongly and defend himself, and finally he did. Asking the crowd whether Cheney's "five student deferments" make him more "fit" than his "two tours of duty" is good stuff. Really, Kerry finally met this head on. And then...
He changed course and talked about health care, jobs, and how much Iraq is costing the American taxpayer. This is a mistake on many levels, but let's start out with Iraq. The issue is not how much money it costs but a few simple facts. 1) There are now (as of 9/7) 993 American soldiers dead. 2) There have been 6497 (as of 8/14, last DoD update) American soldiers wounded . 3) The casualty rate is not tailing off, but actually has increased the last few months. 4) We have no plan for when we are going to leave. 5) There have been no weapons of mass destruction found, and this of course was the primary justification for the war. 6) Any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were informal, furthermore there is no evidence of any joint operational planning or execution.
Why does Kerry not beat Bush over the head with this stuff? He does always use the line about how Bush "misled" us into war, but this is, at best, arguable. Why not use facts? Ask the president to really defend his actions. The problem is, Kerry has boxed himself in. By still defending his vote even if we knew what we knew now, he has limited himself to criticizing only the management of the war. He cannot criticize the decision to go (as by voting for this authority, he is at least culpable) and hence is forced to embrace it. So, Kerry is in a box with all Iraq's slings and arrows. I think he is so afraid of being labeled a flip-flopper one more time he cannot bring himself to do it. But people can change their minds on things when new facts present themselves. I do it all the time, even on war and peace. I know, because I supported this war.
I supported it, because my president and this administration told me things that turned out not to be true. NOTE: I am not accusing them of being liars or distorting intelligence. I think they made the best decision based upon the information available to them. Did they overstate the case- sure. But that is a very big difference. But knowing now there were no weapons I would not trade 7500 soldiers killed or wounded to liberate Iraq. Deep down, would John Kerry?
Whether he likes it or not, terrorism is the issue of this election. John Kerry could make a compelluing case for why he would fight a smarter, better, more effective war. Why doesn't he? He can meet this issue head-on on offer America a real alternative. He can offer a plan for how to make our intelligence better. He can tell us what he would do differently right now in Iraq. He can tell us how long our troops are going to be there. He can tell us what criteria he would use in the future to send our troops into battle. If he can't he will lose, and we will deserve to.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
1:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home