America Deserves Better
Last Friday, Senator Edward Kennedy blasted the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy as a “fraud cooked up in Texas.” That afternoon, on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” Judy Woodruff asked Kennedy this question:
WOODRUFF: But, Senator, it's a very, very harsh thing indeed to say that this president, in essence, has spent the lives of now hundreds of American young men and women for political reasons. Is that really what you're saying?
The transcript of Kennedy’s reply does not, unfortunately, convey the sentiment that was obvious to all who were watching his knowing shrug: “well, if the shoe fits…” Kennedy, like anyone else, is of course entitled to his opinion, and one would not expect him to reflect the views of the moderate wing of his party – especially since he has been branded an extremist regardless of what he says these days. But even as a harsh critic of this Administration’s Iraq policy, I have to say that Kennedy’s point was overstated and unnecessary, even if it might be true.
Right now, America does not want to hear that its leader is a fraud and a liar, much less a cold-blooded murderer, and it does not need to hear it in order to come to reasonable conclusions about the merits of the government policy. Clearly there are plenty of people in the Administration who are rather thrifty with the truth, but Bush himself – and, more to the point, the institution of the Presidency – deserves the benefit of the doubt. It may be satisfying to a certain portion of the public to hear Bush’s motives questioned, but in fact, all that is necessary for a responsible public debate is to question his actions.
Here’s the nut: if Bush had been right about the WMDs, right about the terrorist connections, and most of all, right in his assessment that we could quickly and cost-effectively replace a horrible tyranny with a free democratic society that would transform the Middle East, then it wouldn’t matter what other motivations were behind his decision and he would never have had to answer his critics. He was swinging for the fences instead of playing it safe, but if he’d hit a home run, even the skeptics would have cheered.
But he didn’t. He struck out, and, to extend the metaphor, left the go-ahead runs on base. Perhaps he honestly misjudged the threat of Saddam or perhaps he deliberately misstated it. Perhaps he concealed the true cost of the occupation and reconstruction, or perhaps he simply miscalculated it. Perhaps he believed his own good-and-evil rhetoric or perhaps he had sinister and unspoken motives (oil, politics, revenge).
Bush’s reasons for making the poor decisions that got us into Iraq may never be known, but the results are there for everyone to see. It would be nice to know all the answers, but at this point, as a practical matter, it doesn’t make any difference. America has not seen the benefits that Bush promised us and the world, but we are now saddled with open-ended costs and commitments at a time when there are other urgent priorities that need our scarce resources and attention. There are plenty of reasons to be mad at the Administration’s shocking incompetence and inability to deliver a safer, more prosperous, more respected America (much less Iraq!) without having to make it personal.
Someone with the stature and experience of Ted Kennedy should know that you don’t need to call the President a liar in order to call him a failure. Clinton’s enemies couldn’t stand his record of peace and prosperity, and so went after the weaknesses of his character. That’s a desperate and destructive political tactic, alienating potential supporters and tarring the accuser with the venom of hatred. It may be satisfying, but with Bush, it’s just not necessary. Maybe he’s a good man with our best interests at heart; maybe he’s the empty-headed pawn of greedy and short-sighted manipulators. But whatever his motives, Bush’s results speak for themselves. And America deserves better.
8:27:44 AM 
|
|
