Stop Beating Around The Bush
The election is finally upon us, which means all you mythical undecided voters are going to have to get off the fence. Our own William Broyles and Paul Burka have known for months who they’re supporting and why.
(Page 2 of 3)
I want to watch the debate too, but I can’t let this shot go unanswered. Say what you will about Bush, but when you start messing with the Cowboys, you’ve gone too far. Remember Jimmy Johnson, Jerry Jones’s first coach after he became the owner? Jerry fired him, all right, not because he lost but because he won—back-to-back Super Bowls. But Jimmy got the credit Jerry craved, and so he had to go. Come to think of it, you remind me of Jerry: You want the American people to fire George W. Bush when he is winning. I’m not talking about Iraq; that game isn’t over yet. I’m talking about the home front. Just imagine that on September 12, 2001, pollsters had asked voters when they thought Al Qaeda would strike America next. I’ll bet that very few would have believed that no attack would occur over the next three years. That alone is reason enough to extend Bush’s contract for another four seasons.
TO: Paul
FROM: Bill
September 30, 7:43 p.m.
Winning? I don’t think so. And American voters are too smart to think that Coach Bush’s defense is impregnable. They know terrorists can strike anywhere, anytime. And since 9/11, they have struck all over the world, from Bali to Spain, killing more innocent Europeans, Americans, Asians, and Africans than died in the World Trade Center. No matter what George Bush or John Kerry might do, terrorists may strike us again, anytime. Even Bush knows better than to stake his presidency on that. We’re in for a long, long struggle. Are we keeping our eye on the ball or are we sinking our economic and precious human resources into a mire of distraction in Iraq? So far everything Bush has promised us about Iraq has been spectacularly wrong: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; he was linked to 9/11; our troops would be greeted as liberators; oil prices would fall . . . I could go on and on. And if your coach keeps trying trick plays that fizzle, you find a new coach who can go back to basics with a new game plan.
TO: Bill
FROM: Paul
September 30, 8:02 p.m.
It isn’t game plans that win football games—or wars. It’s determination. Have you forgotten? “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” You may have heard this before, but . . . you have to be steadfast and resolute.
TO: Paul
FROM: Bill
September 30, 10:42 p.m.
You left out one thing. You have to be steadfast and resolute and fighting the right war. That’s what George Bush doesn’t get. Look at the debate tonight: It wasn’t just about foreign policy; it was about character, George Bush’s character. The flaws that were so evident during the debate were character flaws: narrow-mindedness, incuriosity, aversion to challenge and criticism. If this is what Bush is like in meetings when the great issues of our time come up, then the decision-making process is completely corrupt. He kept saying what “hard work” it all is, over and over. I got the distinct impression he was overwhelmed by his job and needed a good long vacation, say, starting in January.
The fact that he still has a small lead is testimony to the ruthless efficiency of the Republican attack machine and to some lingering goodwill he still has in the hearts of the American people. But I think the American people are smart enough to see through the attacks, and that goodwill has its limits.
TO: Bill
FROM: Paul
October 1, 4:36 p.m.
Debate? What debate are you talking about? When I turned on the TV, all I could find were Saturday Night Live reruns. Isn’t it amazing how much Will Ferrell looks like the real George W. Bush? He even has that same glassy stare, as if he can’t think of anything to say.
If only it were true. The debate was a disaster for Bush, not only because of the glassy stares but also because he gaffed by mentioning the tax gap as the reason for the shortcomings in homeland security. He should have defended his tax cuts as a standard economic tool to jump-start a faltering economy. The pundits should have jumped on his answer; instead, they wanted to talk about Bush’s mannerisms. That’s TV for you: pictures over substance.
I think you fell into the same trap. You interpreted his mannerisms as evidence of a weak character. In fact, they are nothing more than evidence of a weak debating technique. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
So don’t get too carried away with your man’s performance. I don’t think it was the kind of victory that means a whole lot. Kerry’s bearing was better, and he exceeded expectations. But Bush won on themes: Our enemies are evil people. America is safer because Saddam Hussein is out of power. Freedom in the Middle East is vital to America’s security. America’s leader must be steadfast and resolved and can’t send mixed signals to the world. Kerry’s themes, on the other hand, were all about process: Reach out to our allies. Reach out to the Muslim world. Reach out to the U.N. Call summits. Don’t rush to war.
This is feel-good stuff, but it won’t work—France and Germany have said they’re not going to send troops—and it does nothing to clear up the fuzziness of his views on Iraq, which has been Kerry’s albatross from the start. So, while Kerry stopped his month-long slide, gave heart to his supporters, and found some chinks in Bush’s armor, he failed—again—to establish his credibility as a commander in chief in Iraq.
TO: Paul
FROM: Bill
October 3, 10:15 a.m.
Just how do you think Bush has established his credibility as commander in chief in Iraq? Our military is stretched thin and exhausted. We can barely manage to maintain the number of troops we have there, and that number is well below what it would take to actually win the peace. Our reserves and National Guard troops have been ruthlessly exploited; my radioman in Vietnam has just been notified he is being called to active duty in Iraq. He is 54 years old. That represents a colossal failure of military leadership. Regular troops have seen their enlistments forcibly extended. In effect, men and women who have given voluntary service have been drafted. Before the Iraq adventure, we had the appearance and the reality of power. Now we have neither. Our enemies have been emboldened. Those who wish us harm in Iran, North Korea, and especially Iraq could not be happier. President Bush could not be doing more to further the terrorists’ interests.
As many generals tried to tell the president and the cloud-cuckoo-land neoconservatives in the Defense Department, to handle their fantasy vision of Iraq would take much longer and far more troops than was planned and would be problematic at best. All that is coming true. My own son is there on his second tour. I ache for the misuse of his patriotism and sacrifice and for that of all the men and women there. And this abuse of our dedicated military means we have no power to finish the job in Afghanistan, where we could have had Osama bin Laden (remember him?) when he was cornered in Tora Bora. But the president was so intent on taking down Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, that he blew the chance. And we are in far more danger because of that failure.
Kerry emphasized his Vietnam credentials at the Democratic convention for two reasons. One was because the Republicans had been so successful at painting Democrats as “soft” and unpatriotic. The other is that it does help to have served in combat. That experience teaches you that the military is an imperfect instrument. When the head of the joint chiefs of staff tells you it is going to take 400,000 troops to do the job in Iraq, you’d better listen. Bush didn’t. The lack of real military experience made it possible for the neoconservatives, and the president, to overestimate and overromanticize the military. I don’t think Kerry, because of his Vietnam experience, would have made that mistake.
I close with a question for you. You talk a lot about Kerry having no plan to fight terrorism. What is the president’s plan, exactly?
TO: Bill
FROM: Paul
October 4, 6:48 p.m.
The plan is very simple, really: Use American power to scare the hell out of every government that might take up with terrorists. Change the paradigm in the Middle East by putting our troops in the middle of the action. The objective is to make Iran, Syria, and especially Saudi Arabia think twice before they aid Al Qaeda. The idea is to isolate the terrorists and eliminate their financial support and their havens. The president can’t come out and say that, but he doesn’t have to. They get the message, just like Libya got the message. You may think it’s awful and embarrassing that our president is thought of as a cowboy and a gunslinger, but when you’re dealing with countries that regard you as decadent and soft, it’s not such a bad thing to have a leader who is thought of as quick on the draw.
I can’t tell you that the strategy is going to succeed, but I can tell you that it’s worth the gamble. I can also say that it has made us safer. Think back to where we were four years ago. We faced a tyrant in Iraq who was flouting United Nations resolutions and kicking out weapons inspectors. In eliminating him, we have removed the only ruler in the Middle East who had the motive and the resources to fund a major Al Qaeda attack on the United States or Israel. Some would say that in doing so we destabilized the Middle East, to which I would respond: When was it stable?
Since 9/11, we have seriously disrupted Al Qaeda’s ability to wreak mass havoc. Their leadership is dead, imprisoned, or in hiding, and their communications are not secure. Their sanctuary and training camps no longer exist. Governments and charities who would deal with them know that they do so at their peril. Today’s nascent jihadists have to consider that they are more likely to become casualties than to inflict them.
My Library
