I may never understand this

Bush Moves on Kerry to Keep Campaign 'Terror' Lead
Fri Jul 2, 2004 05:46 PM ET
By David Morgan

Analysts said the real message is that the terrorism issue has emerged as a vital asset for Bush and Kerry in a race that has them running neck and neck.

"The president is continuing to fall both in overall approval ratings and on most of the major issues with the exception of fighting the war on terror," said Calvin Jillson, political science professor at Southern Methodist University.

"This suggests that Kerry is leading the president by various amounts on most of the domestic policy issues and the war in Iraq had now turned negative. But the war on terror continues to be a strong suit."

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll showed Bush's overall approval rating at a new low of 42 percent, while 45 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view of the president.

Yet Americans were still more likely to believe Bush would do a better job in steering the United States through a foreign crisis and protecting it from future attacks.


I have asked a number of people who feel Bush handled Iraq better than Kerry would have, exactly what could have turned out worse than it did? Don't tell me we could have had higher casualties; not with our weapons technology. What could have been handled worse than Bush's handling of this whole War on a Noun thing?

So far, no one has given me an answers other than "Kerry would suck" of "he'd give up out sovereignty," which is nonsense.

But I think I know the real answer. I think people realize foreigner leaders think Bush is batshit crazy, that he controls too much physical force (and is too anxious to use it) to risk flipping him out.

Posted by Prometheus 6 on July 3, 2004 - 6:47am :: Politics
 
Prometheus 6's blog | latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

hi Prom,

Kerry vs. Bush on Iraq.

Recall that the permanent government bureaucracy that does 90 % of the decision-making & contingency planning would have been the same. Recall also that the serious Democrats - Berger, Albright, Clinton, Gore- saw Saddam as a major headache even before 9/11.

What would the difference be on Iraq ? I think Kerry would have handled the formal war less well and the occupation better than Bush. The reason would come down to temperment and decision-making style.

Kerry, regardless of his personal bravery in combat, is innately extremely cautious as a politician. He does not like risks and prefers to keep his options open as long as possible while making pronouncements on both sides of an issue. Given battle plan options by the DoD Kerry would be likely to have picked the most operationally conservative, traditional, slow-moving strategy available. You could easily double the warfighting time ( and probably the casualties as well- the longer you fight, the more friendly fire, accidents & battle deaths ). While we would win ultimately in either situation the long-drawn out approach taken by Kerry could have given other malefactors ( Kim Jong-Il, al Qaida, Iran)more time and incentive to act up.

On the other hand, Kerry's caution and impulse to cover all the bases is tailor made for an occupation in a complex nation like Iraq. The occupation would have been well supplied with boots, " soft " power USG agencies, the UN and NGO's.

Bush is a risk-taker bordering on reckless - he's not afraid of new ideas or trying new technologies. We probably could have toppled Saddam with even fewer troops than we used. The warfighting phase could hardly have gone better unless we had killed Saddam right off the bat.

Bush's boldness combined with incuriousity regarding worst-case scenarios however - along with a reluctance to choose between DoD and State on Iraq and put somebody in charge - is the major reason the occupation has been a disaster.

Posted by  mark safranski (not verified) on July 3, 2004 - 9:36am.

Given battle plan options by the DoD Kerry would be likely to have picked the most operationally conservative, traditional, slow-moving strategy available.

I disagree. As a risk-averse politician (before Bush I didn't think there was any other kind) he'd have dragged out the run-up, making sure all the i's were dotted. Frankly that would have been a good thing.

But this also assumes there would have been a war at all. Saddam was contained as hell and by now it's obvious the adminstration knew that. A risk-averse politician would not have gone to war unnecessarily. Removing Bush from office will not have as large an impact as his arrival had; the next administration has a job on its hands about as appealing as cleaning the Aegean Stables with a paper cup. You can't even make the comparision of "what would Kerry have done" because he'd have never been in the situation to begin with.

Having found oneself at war, though, what the least politically risky plan? Turn it over to the generals and get out of the way. Assuming one invades, don't you wish l'il Georgie's crew did that?

No, I was totally anti-Bush last election but you couldn't have convinced me in 2000 that Dubya would fuck up this bad.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on July 3, 2004 - 12:14pm.

P6 wrote:
"I disagree. As a risk-averse politician (before Bush I didn't think there was any other kind) he'd have dragged out the run-up, making sure all the i's were dotted. Frankly that would have been a good thing.

But this also assumes there would have been a war at all. Saddam was contained as hell and by now it's obvious the adminstration knew that. A risk-averse politician would not have gone to war unnecessarily."

You asked what the difference was so I gave it a shot on the premise that the war was going to happen.

I agree that with Kerry the run-up would have been a lot longer, perhaps so long that Saddam would have " won " in the sense of watching support for US intervention-and sanctions- melt away, leaving him again a free actor. That was a real-world risk as seen by Democratic realists like Ken Pollack, Berger, Albright - that's why the Clintonites had Desert Fox. They wanted to shore up a deteriorating containment and degrade Saddam's capabilities.

Perhaps Kerry would have brought some Arab states and France on board and most likely would have gotten some kind of resolution through the UNSC ( Putin would have charged a steep price, so would Chirac but both would have cut a deal)

As for battle plans per se, the JCS and 4 star flag officers are risk-averse/anti-" small wars" and only came up with " Shock & awe " after being pushed by Rumsfeld repeatedly to try something more innovative. Kerry would not have pushed for that and would have been given a more conservative/traditional set of options to pick from than Bush ultimately received.

Have a great holiday !

Posted by  mark safranski (not verified) on July 3, 2004 - 12:46pm.