August 01, 2003
How to Challenge Bush's Foreign Policy
Bill Greider has been thinking about what can be done by the Democratic candidates that voted for the Iraq resolution, but are now needing to address the chaos that resulted from Bush's foreign policy.
The so-called "established" Democratic candidates -- Senators Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards and Representative Gephardt -- all face the same suspenseful predicament. They wrong-footed historic events (and stiffed their party's energized base) by choosing to support Bush's misguided conquest of Iraq. These four men need to get right on the war -- the most fundamental matter before the American people -- the sooner the better for themselves but especially for the country's future. At present, the pro-war candidates are trying to shift ground by escalating nuances -- stronger words and phrases to convey their alarm at Bush's mistakes and deceptions. But basically they are merely repeating what people can see for themselves. Expressions of concern won't cut it.
The next big move in the Democratic contest, I suggest, comes when one of these four finds the skill and courage to make the crossover on this profound question. That is, he delivers a well-reasoned, comprehensive speech that declares his opposition to the president's aggression. He explains, on reflection, why the strategy of "preemptive war" has not really advanced the "war against terrorism" and why Bush's ill-considered imperialist ambitions do not belong in America's foreign policy. This move will be risky, of course, but so is sticking with their mugwump posture. In principle, they support the open-ended war-making against suspect nations that Bush has enunciated as U.S. policy. Only they don't like the way this war is going. Unless they are willing to address the larger questions of policy and purpose, they will rightly be associated with a mess of vast and growing proportions.
Greider is correct that unless the Democratic candidate can refute the bad Bush policy (preventative war based only on the administration's whim), the danger from this policy will hang like an anvil over the head of any of these candidates.
He's got some good suggestions and asks us to participate in the discussion.
Posted by Mary at August 1, 2003 02:42 AM | TrackBackHow about getting them to ask these questions? Tough.
As I was perusing over at Billmon, I couldn't help meditating on this George W. Bush quote.
"I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program."
What is the basis of this confidence? Is it based on facts at all? If he was so confident before the war, what were the facts then that formed and sustained it? Hasn't it shaken his confidence at all that he is in a mad scramble to find such evidence now? After the fact? So much so that they are putting a tight lid on any information until such time a solid case can actually be made?
In other words, there never was a case. A solid one. As we've been saying all along, many of us here in the blogosphere, the case was a fraud. A bait and switch. The mainstream media has finally latched on to this, even though all the evidence was there to figure this out before the war. It's nice to have the mainstream media actually noticing the obvious again, but what took them so long? What was the nature of the mass denial and repression that took place before the war? The trauma of 9/11? Anthrax? The continuing scares related to the constant and highly publicized color-code terrorist watch system?
I still want to know what the basis of President Bush's faith, and confidence, was and is. Before the war and now. It doesn't make sense. Is this a religious kind of faith, which needs no facts and only revelation? How can President Bush possibly be so assured? So confident? The guy was the first to tell you a few years back he was no foreign policy guru, and in fact was quite ignorant about the in's and out's of the world, and now he's got crystal vision on events and conspiracies for which he has no evidence?
He's lying. Or he's a self-deceiver. Neither is honest, or prudent in a president and leader of a chaotic and dynamic nation and world. It's time the administration comes clean, and at least acknowledges some doubts. Self-doubts. Because there is no reason for absolute confidence. None. No certainty whatsoever. Otherwise, there would be no mad scramble now to find the evidence. And no effort to keep everything under wraps, in order to temper criticism, in the meantime.
The critical moments are ahead of us. Will our leadership come clean, and admit the obvious? Or will this farce continue, steadily eroding our good name and real faith in the defense of deception?
Changing their opinion on the war will do them more harm than good. George Romney tried that in 1968, claiming he had been "brainwashed" about Vietnam and he was never taken seriously again. The "mainstream" candidates are stuck with their positions on the war.
Unfortunately, all the candidates, left, moderate, and all of the above, are stuck with our occupation in Iraq and it matters not one whit what they thought of the aggression. The question they must now answer to the American people is whether they agree with the Bush administration's contention that a continued strong American presence in Iraq will guarantee peace and stability in the Middle East and act as a preventative against future terrorism. Our troops are there and likely to be there still in January 2005. If they are still getting shot at, the Democratic candidate better have a serious plan to stop that from happening, whether it is a "strategic withdrawal" or to nuke Baghdad.
I keep saying this and I will say it again: the neocons have what they wanted, a power base in Iraq. The question for the Democratic candidate is whether he will turn that into a worldwide function, one managed and staffed by the UN, whether he will unilaterally pull it out, or accept the status quo?
sgc