Click
here for info on the Print Journal
(and to purchase your copy)!
Just 155 Days To Go: Iraqi Positioning
By Mark Grueter
---------------------------------------
Representative Nancy Pelosi appeared on Meet the Press Sunday to defend her allegation that President Bush is “incompetent” and has “no experience and no knowledge of the issues he decides upon.” Coming from the sweet, pretty and earnest House minority leader Pelosi, this language felt rather harsh. During her discussion with host Tim Russert, Pelosi was still clearly upset with Bush – she was emotional and nervous. Russert, however, did not appear to sense her obvious discomfort as he fired away with some relatively tough questioning. Things got a little awkward and at one point Pelosi teared up and was forced to pat her eye with a handkerchief. The questions were not personal; she simply felt exposed and flustered.
Pelosi was clumsy in answering questions relating to John Kerry’s position on Iraq. Russert, in chorus with a New York Times piece he quoted, wondered what distinguished Kerry’s views on Iraq from Bush’s; they both support giving the United Nations more authority, they both support the June 30 deadline for transferring power to Iraqi civilian leaders, they both say they would send more U.S. troops if necessary, and neither has supported a deadline for removing U.S. troops. The following exchange then occurred:
RUSSERT: John Kerry voted to support the war, and The New York Times analysis is that his position with George Bush is very similar.
PELOSI: That's because, as you've just indicated, George Bush is moving closer to John Kerry's--President Bush is moving closer to John Kerry's position.
RUSSERT: So what's your complaint?
PELOSI:
My complaint is that it's a year too late. We have a situation where if
the president had made the speech he made a year, a year-and-a-half earlier,
we would not be in the mess that we are in today. And that's the problem.
People said to him, "You've got to internationalize it. You've got
to make a case to the American people. You've got to make your case to
the allies. And if you have a good case, then we can move forward with
it," especially when you're talking about a war of choice. And a
war of choice that will take resources and intelligence away from the
fight on a clear and present danger, which is terrorism.
You saw the sense of community yesterday at the dedication of the
World War II Memorial. I think it's really time for America to return
to that spirit of community, and that has to be done in a bipartisan way.
And so that these young people will not have died in vain, as President
Lincoln said, we have to recommit our country to a sense of community.
He said freedom--a rebirth of freedom. I would say a rebirth of community
at this time.
Her rambling response, though admirable in some ways, misses the point. It was another blown opportunity by a prominent Democrat and a sound example of why the Democrats are not doing better in the polls, despite an obviously weak opponent. Pelosi should have added, quite simply, that the Bush Administration could no longer be trusted with anything it says or does. Bush has squandered the nation’s legitimacy with former allies and the United Nations by defying them in the first place. When Bush speaks of ‘bringing the U.N. in,’ it’s with cynicism and extreme reluctance and should only be interpreted as an admission of failure on his part. (Not that Bush would ever openly concede having done wrong. That’s not his style; he’s a Texan and Texans do not show their weak and vulnerable sides).
But now more people are talking about Ralph Nader because he offers a clearer alternative to John Kerry’s presumably muddled position. Nader wants all U.S. troops out of Iraq, a stance that becomes somewhat more plausible as casualties mount and as U.S. prestige in Iraq weakens. But there is too much being made of this. For one thing, Nader’s position is no different from Dennis Kucinich’s and Al Sharpton’s positions during the Democratic primaries. It made no sense to ‘cut and run’ then and it still makes no sense. Other than the rhetorical call to withdrawal, has anyone put forward a coherent plan and argument for a withdrawal?
Whether
or not one agreed with the decision to invade Iraq is not the issue. It
may sound nice to pull the troops out, but how can anyone seriously claim
that the U.S. government is now not responsible for its actions in Iraq
and, to an extent, for Iraq’s future. We have made promises to the
world and to the people of Iraq to repair the country, to help stabilize
the region and to set up a new government. Our status in the world may
be low now because of Bush’s lies, Abu Ghraib, the continued chaos,
and such, but it would absolutely plummet if we followed Nader’s
reckless advice. And this is why even the generals who oppose Bush on
Iraq (namely, Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni) don’t take Nader seriously.
The U.S. government and military have the power to do good things in Iraq,
but it all hinges on the actions of the individuals who are running these
institutions. And this is why it’s so crucial for Kerry to win.
John Kerry does need to do a better job of making his views clear. Kerry
has the foreign policy experience, insight and level-headedness to trump
both Bush and Nader. Uncommitted voters are confused right now and desire
a leader who knows what he’s talking about. If the situation in
Iraq remains more or less the same until November, the electorate will
likely give the race to the candidate who appears most trustworthy. Kerry
can be that man.
Presently, the Kerry camp is watching from the sidelines as Bush self-destructs. The prevailing motto: if a man is trying to hang himself, do not try to assist him. Kerry is keeping his language moderate – he does not want to be seen as kicking the President while he’s down. There is no rush to criticize. Democrats are very optimistic. In fact Nancy Pelosi, on Meet the Press, “guaranteed” that Kerry would beat Bush in November.
One of the risks of this strategy, however, is that – with an approval rating of only 45% - right now could be the low point for Bush. With the economy growing and jobs finally being created, any good news at all out of Iraq could significantly bolster the President’s chances. Kerry might later regret not seizing this moment. Even with all the terrible news coming from Iraq and with serious people who used to work for Bush questioning the integrity of his administration, Kerry has only managed to tie the President in the most recent head-to-head national polls. The election is by no means ‘in the bag’ for the challenger.
Liberals and Democrats should realize that about 40% of the electorate supports the President almost unconditionally. As criticism of Bush becomes sharper, the Republican base becomes more defensive and tends to rally. It’s not about reason and logic anymore; it’s about money (of course), and Bush is still seen as the protector of established interests. But for the hardcore conservatives, it’s also about pride and about winning – it’s about kicking the shit out of all the liberal fags on the coasts and in the media whom, they believe, really do want the terrorists to win.
Click here for Grueter's previous column.
---------------------------------------
Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City and the Managing Editor of Canon Magazine. He can be reached at grueter@methree.net.
©
2004 Me Three