Compared to whom?

[Sayhey]

I liked this op-ed piece in the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/10/mud_tossed_at_kerry_might_stick_to_bush/). I hope someone in the Kerry campaign is listening. Here is part of the column:


...This, after all, is a president who ran as a "uniter, not a divider," as a "compassionate conservative," and as a steward of budgetary prudence. The rest is history, and the history does not flatter the president.

Indeed, this is not an incumbent who should welcome close comparisons. Want to talk about Kerry's military record? Oops. Want to discuss No Child Left Behind, where Bush's failure to provide funding combined with impossible bureaucratic requirements has stoked a rebellion of Republican governors? Maybe you don't.

Want to make fun of Kerry as a preppy rich kid? A group of Bush supporters created an ad ridiculing Kerry's wealth, taunting him as an improbable advocate for the poor. But again, compared to whom?

In America, some rich kids grow up to be adults who genuinely care about the poor -- the names Roosevelt and Kennedy come to mind -- and others couldn't care less. As Kevin Phillips's best-selling book, "American Dynasty," recounts, Bush father and son both fall into the latter category.

Bush junior, by his own account, was a dissolute who didn't get serious about his life until he was 40, when he got religion and sobered up. His family connections then allowed him to fall upward. When Kerry, at age 25, was testifying before the Senate, Bush was partying. So maybe family affluence isn't such a great topic either.

Bush's kickoff commercial wrapped the president in the memory of 9/11. But this association is starting to feel like cheap grace. The families of many of the victims resent it, and it flies in the face of earlier Bush pledges not to play politics with terrorism. Instead of evoking Bush's leadership, the commercial reminds us of Bush's cynicism. After the messy outcome in Iraq and the bungling of nuclear nonproliferation policy, terrorism no longer automatically plays to Bush's advantage....

[zimv20]

he brings up some very good points. one exception -- polling has indicated otherwise for this:

After the messy outcome in Iraq and the bungling of nuclear nonproliferation policy, terrorism no longer automatically plays to Bush's advantage....

[Sayhey]

he brings up some very good points. one exception -- polling has indicated otherwise for this:

I think the key word there is "automatically." I think it is important to not cede the ground of the "war on terror" to an administration that has consistantly bungled it. Particularly if this report bears out:

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it.* By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.* “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/)

[mactastic]

So where are all the people who were condeming Clinton for his supposed chance to catch bin Laden (the one that never really existed but was trotted out as an indictment of the Clinton administration's efforts against terrorism by the right and repeated ad nauseum) now? It appears the Bushies have actually done what Clinton was only falsely accused of doing.