Over on Crosswire, I was talking about how most of the Republican Convention was not an attack on John Kerry's patriotism, but on his qualifications for the job of Commander in Chief.
Bubba replied with a simple question:
"What were Bush's qulifications in 2000?"
That's a good question. Bush was Governor of Texas prior to the Presidency, and his military experience was limited to his time in the National Guard. Obviously, his qualifications for CinC were fairly slim, so how can I justify giving Kerry such a hard time over his qualifications?
First of all, the question itself reveals a refusal to accept that our national priorities changed on September 11, 2001. I hate to keep coming back to this, but until everyone recognizes the essential truth of that statement, we're divided, and therefore weakened.
The 2000 campaign was waged primarily on domestic issues. (Info on the debates including quotes are all found here)
For example, the first question in the first debate went to VP Gore, who was asked about Bush's qualifications for the Presidency. Gore used the question to outline his policy for the next four years, and every issue he listed was domestic. Terrorism was not mentioned, and there was only a brief discussion of the military in a 90 minute debate. In the second debte, the issues of the Middle East and Saddam were discussed, yet Gore and Bush basically agreed that their respective approaches would be similar. The issue of qualifications for Commander in Chief never came up. And in the third debate, just two questions dealt with the use of the military.
In short, the emphasis in 2000 was on domestic issues, as that was our national priority. (Incidently, Bush's response to some of these questions should provide good material for Dems in light of the Iraq invasion. On the other hand, pressing Bush on the invasion gives him another chance to lay the case for war before the American people, which would counter many Dem talking points.) The relative qualifications for Commander in Chief wasn't considered a major campaign issue in 2000.
Compare that to 2004 where it is central to the campaign. It is clear that, no matter what happens over the next four years, our President will be a wartime President. As such, his qualifications as Cin C are of paramount importance.
While Bush 2000 didn't have much of a record to run on, Bush 2004 does. That record is open for debate, and should be, as should John Kerry's. Is America safer today that we were in 2000? Given the marked upswing in global terrorism over the last three years, and given the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, arguably, the answer is yes. The tragedy at Beslan happened in Russia, not in America. Islamofascists have shifted the focus of their war on freedom to other, easier targets. We've successfully shown them that it is too difficult, and too costly, to attack America.
At the same time, we've reduced their bases of operations. Iraq no longer shelters them; Syria is coming around; Libya is dismatling it's nuclear program; Pakistan is working to flush out the last remnants of al Qaeda.
At the same time, we're working to reduce the forces that create terrorists by fighting oppresion, tyranny, and poverty in the Middle East. A free, prosperous, and democratic Iraq will serve as an example to the Middle East that freedom and Islam can co-exist.
It is a tremendous gamble that President Bush is taking, but the stakes are made worthwhile by the potential payoff. There's no doubt that we could have taken out Saddam without a single American casualty, but the destruction and civilian casualties would have been devastating. Instead, we went in surgically, removing the cancer of Hussein, and allowing the Iraqi people to try and heal their country themselves.
President Bush has a detailed resume to run on this time.
So does John Kerry. His Viet Nam war experiences, his post war testimony to Congress, his post war protest activities, and his 20 year Senate record comprise his resume for CinC. It is up to the voter to check out both resumes and decide who will make the best CinC.
Posted by Rich at September 7, 2004 11:45 PM | TrackBack[Skb asks:] "What were Bush's qulifications in 2000?" That's a good question. [..] First of all, the question itself reveals a refusal to accept that our national priorities changed on September 11, 2001.
No, Rich, I accept that our priorities have changed. They've changed from being responsible world citizens By Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest of the PNAC gang who wished for an "event on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to advance their imperialist agenda (look it up). And they have been changed by people who live in fear on a day to day basis who have stupidly bought in to their hype.
Also, I there was an interesting quote in Newsweek this week:
The ultimate aim is to [..] to allow people to return psychologically to their pre-9/11 sense of ease, says Parney Albright, who oversees science and technology for the Department of Homeland Security."
That doesn't seem to square at all with the Bush administration's, or your, fear mongering message that "9/11 changed everything". How exactly has it changed you day-to-day routine (other than asserting that "liberals" wish for more terrorist attacks, when in fact it is your heroes that wished it and got it). What are you so afraid of? Progressive policies for America?
I hate to keep coming back to this, but until everyone recognizes the essential truth of that statement, we're divided, and therefore weakened.
No, Rich. Any time the people question our government, the people and the government are strenghtened. To deny this is to deny 200+ years of U.S. history.
Posted by: skb on September 8, 2004 6:46 PM(Please excuse the typos).
Posted by: skb on September 8, 2004 6:47 PMIf typos were a problem here, I'd never get a post off.*grin*
No, Rich, I accept that our priorities have changed. They've changed from being responsible world citizens By Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and the rest of the PNAC gang who wished for an "event on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to advance their imperialist agenda (look it up).
1. Nice sidestep. Do you believe our priorities should have changed? By what you write here, the answer is no. You say our priorities changed because we've been hijacked by a cabal of imperialist warmongers, not because we were attacked by terrorists, which leads me to infer that you don't think our priorities should have changed after 9/11, or that they should have changed, but not the way they did.
So, let me ask you point blank: Do you believe that, in the face of compelling evidence that our national security is at risk, the US should act pre-emptively and unilaterally if needed?
2. PNAC "wishing" for an event similar to Pearl Harbor.
The actual text is (ref)
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Rather than a wish for another Pearl Harbor, what we see is a true statement; that, absent a major threat, sweeping changes in the constitution of our military will take time. The whole PNAC-Pearl Harbor connection has been debunked before; I won't waste anymore time with it here.
That doesn't seem to square at all with the Bush administration's, or your, fear mongering message that "9/11 changed everything".
Actually it does square perfectly with it, because if we have to "return to pre 9/11" then implicit in that statement is the realization that we've changed. You can't return to something you never left. We want to get back to the peace we knew pre 9/11, and the best way to do that is to make sure our enemies can't ever do it again.
How exactly has it changed you day-to-day routine
I'm infinitely more aware of what's happening in the Middle East. When a news alert sounds on the TV, I don't automatically assume it's a weather thing. Any time I'm in a large crowd, say, Sunday's football game, I'm aware that it is a potential target. I'm armed. I have bottled water at home. I'm not living in fear, but I'm more prepared for the unexpected, which is actually a good thing. But mostly, I no longer take our freedom or our safety for granted.
Any time the people question our government, the people and the government are strenghtened.
I'm not talking about questioning the government, and I think you know that. I'm talking about a deliberate perversion of dissent in order to advance a political ideology. This is difficult to address in a comment since there's enough material for an entire essay,(maybe next Monday?) but here's the condensed version:
I'm willing to bet that Michael Moore knows that 90% of his last movie is crap, but he's willing lie, distort, slander, and malign if it gets Bush out of office, regardless of the damage it does to our country in the process. And you can say the same about Limbaugh, for that matter. Instead of a mechanism to maintain political balance, dissent becomes just one more weapon for Karl Rove and James Carville to tear down the opposing candidate.
The hard part is to discriminate between legitimate dissent and divisiveness. I think a good rule of thumb is that if you have to distort or omit facts to make your case, you've crossed that line. I see Democrats doing it all the time; I see Republicans doing it as well. Just because both sides do it doesn't make it right.
Posted by: rich on September 8, 2004 8:41 PM