Election 2004: The Bottom Line

        We have supported and voted for Republicans for almost 40 years. However, over the last several elections many of us old line Republicans have felt our party has moved away not only from our positions and beliefs on many issues including deficit spending, gun control, and now Iraq, but also away from common sense. And after seeing first hand what Ohio and national Republicans did to John McCain in the 2000 primaries, and then how this president Bush has repeatedly made bad decisions without acknowledging that any mistakes have been made, much less trying to correct them or hold anyone accountable, we and many others have become even more disillusioned and estranged from this Republican party. Thus, while we will work to get the Republican party back on the right track and off this far right track, in this election we will support and vote for John Kerry because, simply put, Son Bush has not only made some terrible decisions, he seems oblivious that any mistakes have been.
    For example, Son Bush’s record on even his supposed strong suit, terrorism and homeland security, is at best mixed, i.e.: Before 9-11 Son Bush’s administration proposed cutting various anti-terrorism funds and departments as well as expenditures to control loose nukes in the former USSR.
On September 4, 2001 the deputies committee recommended to destabilize the Taliban by arming the Northern Alliance. “Rice had National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) number 9 ready to go to the president on September 10.... the NSPD was numbered 9 – meaning eight other matters had been formally assessed, vetted, agreed upon and signed off on as policy by the president before dealing with al Qaeda. The question that would always linger was whether they had moved fast enough on a threat that had been identified by the CIA as one of the top three facing the country, whether September 11 was as much a failure of policy as it was of intelligence.” (Bob Woodward, Bush at War) And shortly after the collapse of the Taliban, attention and funds meant for finishing the job in Afghanistan and going after Osama bin Laden were diverted to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
    Spreading liberty if not democracy (and the two are quite different... we probably would not like the outcome of a popular vote in many if not most Muslim countries) is truly a noble vision, and one we should aspire to and work toward... and it certainly would help reduce terrorism... and far too often we have supported corrupt regimes and dictators in order to protect our “national interests” -- which far too often hasn’t been much more than securing a cheap supply of oil.... But spreading liberty is extremely difficult to do, and it surely can’t be just be imposed.
    But more importantly, how can anyone correctly weigh the noble rewards of overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime and his supposed WMD’s, and creating a democracy in the Middle East when every risk is minimized or ignored, e.g. from the intelligence that was mistaken on virtually every point, to the expectation that the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign would be enough to encourage Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, and if not over 20 precision bombing attacks specifically targeting Saddam would take him out, and if not the war would could be waged on the “cheap” with few forces and very few causalities, and then the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators (the CIA even wanted to get small American flags into Baghdad for the welcoming crowds to wave for the cameras), and then democracy and peace would quickly be in place, and the prosperity from a large and dependable supply of oil would pay most of the costs, and except for a permanent base with 30-50,000 American troops in Iraq, most American troops would be home by Christmas... indeed under this analysis the risks were so low and the rewards so great that the Bush administration not only felt it didn’t need other countries to join, it didn’t want the reluctant “hand-wringers” to share the glory!!!
    The decisions involved in invading Iraq are particularly troublesome because they completely ignored two examples of nation building in countries divided by ethnic strife and ravaged by war: Kosovo and Bosnia...

“More than 8 years after the deployment of troops in Bosnia, NATO decided it had accomplished its goals and would turn over operations to the EU later this year. ‘If we could do it over again, I don’t know how we could do it better. It could be considered a model or template for international peacekeeping missions,’ said U.S. Major General James Darden. The contrast with Iraq could not be starker. How has America managed to do so well in Bosnia and so badly in Iraq? First the Bosnia was a collective effort with NATO and the Russians, thus giving the effort an international legitimacy; second, there were a high number of “boots on the ground,” i.e. the 60,000 troops quickly created a secure environment, for both the Bosnians and the troops; and third, rather than disband the soldiers, they were required to report to barracks, and play cards, and get paid.” International Herald Tribune 9/13/04

    But even worse than Iraq are the Bush administration’s failure to admit that mistakes were made before 9-11. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice’s fatuous statement that “if we had known that an attack was coming against the United States... we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it” misses the mark; the real question why we didn’t know that an attack was coming. And 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey’s admission that “everyone knows that the FBI and CIA don’t talk to each other;” and Condi Rice’s incredible explanation that the “extremely unfortunate fact is that sometimes” the “change in thinking” that was necessary to recognize the many warning threats wasn’t possible until there was “a catastrophic event” is totally unacceptable.
    All of these decisions and excuses highlight the most fundamental danger of this Bush presidency: the flawed way this president gets information and makes decisions: i.e. he came to the presidency almost entirely on the basis of his family name; had the thinnest resume of any president in modern times with only 6 years of government experience as Governor of a state where the legislature only meets for 140 days every other year; he has limited access to information since he doesn’t read newspapers or watch television and since he doesn’t like "long" briefing papers or meetings, and since most all of his meetings are carefully scripted, and since his staff is reluctant to bring him any “bad news.” This was most obvious in his last press conference; all presidents, and certainly this president, need to prepare for press conferences but in this case Bush’s painfully fumbling answers to repeated questions about any mistakes he had made clearly showed not only that his staff had been afraid to raise and prep him on this question, it also revealed Son Bush’s unwavering certainly that his decisions have been “right”and beyond criticism.
    The bottom line is there are always more “right” things to do than can be done... and so every president’s major job is to set priorities by determining what is the smartest things to do with our limited resources... Overthrowing Saddam rather than pursuing Osama bin Laden wasn’t the smartest thing to do; cutting taxes on the wealthy rather than payroll taxes wasn’t the smartest thing to do; invading Iraq without learning from Kosovo and Bosnia wasn’t the smartest thing to do; pushing for more oil rather than energy conservation wasn't the smartest thing to do, and on and on...
    Son Bush has pursued some very laudable goals, and had some good successes, particularly by requiring testing standards in education. But overall this president has failed far more, and in far more important matters to deserve re-election... and Hobie is not alone in this appraisal. Republicans, from Father Bush who has never endorsed his son’s policies, to leading commentators like Tom Friedman who supported Bush’s overthrow of Saddam, to the Yoda of the press corps David Broder, also say Bush doesn’t deserve re-election -- with Broder saying Bush would be a true “miracle man” to get re-elected.
    Indeed, since an unwillingness to consider unpleasant facts and conflicting arguments is fatal for any executive, and potentially catastrophic in a president, Kerry’s promise to hold at least monthly press conferences is enough by itself to make him an attractive alternative.
    And if one needs more convincing just think what could happen in a second Bush term.