The first Presidential Debate of Campaign '04 revealed a lot about each candidate... but it wasn't what the media was saying. The media is casting the debate as a Kerry victory, chiefly because Kerry seemed verbally polished and used larger words. Sen. John Kerry did indeed use longer words, and he recounted a nice story about Kennedy during the Cuban Missile crisis. But though he seemed in control of his language, and perhaps spoke a little clearer, all it did was make the ideas he expressed in his words that much clearer. This is the worst thing Kerry could have done.
On the subject of Iraq, Bush made it clear Kerry waffled in the past, choosing both sides. But this is not new; Kerry has alternatively postured as a war hero, and as a "peace"-minded anti-war activist. Kerry says that this isn't a contradiction, claiming the same of his attitude towards Iraq. He says that he came back from the war to protest the war, does not make his actions there less heroic. Just like he claims his saying the Iraqi war is "wrong" and a "distraction" does not take away from his also saying that he now supports our troops.
Maybe this is true in Kerry's mind. But "heroism" isn't just doing something that is brave; heroism is doing the brave thing, with full knowledge of the meaning of what one is doing and how important it is. If a mentally disabled man runs into a burning building to save someone, without knowing how much of a risk he is taking, it is brave -- but not necessarily heroic. Even if Kerry's conduct during his four months in Vietnam was not questionable -- and that's a big if -- his post-service actions indicate he never understood the importance of his alleged "heroism" in Vietnam. Likewise, with his words on Iraq. In the September 30, 2004 debate, Kerry claimed that he will support our troops and will not let them down. However, he also alleges the war is a "mistake". And he conveniently forgets his own record, telling tear-jerkers about troops without body armor, whilst forgetting to tell the American people that he voted against the funds to support the war -- and during his twenty-odd years in the Senate voted against virtually every new military improvement or weapon system.
But the most telling thing about the debate was Kerry's persistant reliance on the traditional foreign policy dichotomy which led to appeasement of the enemy and September 11 -- and has crippled America's response to terror post 9-11.
According to this view, the terrorist groups are divorced from the hostile regimes that support them, financially, economically, and in terms of propaganda. According to this view, taking out one or two terrorist leaders will solve the problem of Islamicist terrorism which threatens to engulf much of the world -- and struck the continental U.S. in September of 2001.
Following this view, Kerry asserts that taking the war to Iraq was a "mistake" and a "distraction" from the "war on terror" -- which Kerry alleges if limited to Afghanistan or Bin Laden. Senator Kerry repeatedly talked of how we should be getting Bin Laden, instead of deploying troops to Iraq or other nations. This indicates a world-view that closely follows the tragic dichotomy of our times, viewing the terror from the Arab-Muslim world as a minor problem rather than a systemic effort often organized by the governments in said countries. All around the world you can see this dichotomy at work. The Palestinian Authority glorifies, advocates, and commits terrorism. Yet, its leader, Yassir Arafat, has been awarded a Nobel "peace" prize for negotiations he participated in whilst planning terrorism which was to follow. Our attitude towards the middle east terror crisis -- with bogus "peace" negotiations in which deals are struck with the terrorists who of course never follow through on them -- shows the same split view. Indeed, while traditional foreign policy regards Arab terrorism as distinct from the Arab terrorist governments, it also regards terrorism against Israel as somehow different from the terrorism directed at America. When terrorists blow up Israeli civilians, the American government often responds by urging Israel to show restraint. Can you imagine Israel urging America to show "restraint" after September 11? The war against islamic fundamentalist terror is a global war, and the enemy is a patchwork of multiple and overlapping threats, some private organizations like Al Qaeda which are harbored by hostile regimes, others government-run, such as the Palestinian "suicide bombers" funded by Saddam Hussein and organized by the Palestinian Authority, or the Hamas terror group funded by Iran. They all have a common goal; waging terrorist warfare against the West and America in particular. In such a world, taking out one enemy person -- Bin Laden, for example -- is not going to make the threat go away. Kerry's words to that effect, and his regard for Iraq as a "distraction", indicate he does not understand the nature of the threat we face. Moreover, Kerry persisted in misquoting the Sept. 11 Commission, claiming they found Iraq had no terrorist ties. The reality -- as has been common knowledge since the Commission issued its report -- is that the September 11 Commission concluded Iraqi agents met several times with Al Qaeda agents. This is cooperation with terrorists, and in particular, a terrorist group which has been linked to attacks on America, even before September 11. The mere fact that this cooperation was not fruitful for the terrorists does not mean it didn't happen, or that it is meaningless. If Iraq had not intended to cooperate with Al Qaeda, it would not have met more than once with its agents. Kerry is not stupid. he is capable of understanding the idea involved and the words he uses. Which is what makes his embracement of a historical dichotomy -- and policy error -- so alarming.
Bush is not stupid either. He may not be the world's most polished speech-giver, and he is certainly not the smartest tool in the shed, but Bush understands that the threat is bigger than one terrorist goon in a cave. He understands that changing one's mind to appeal to shifting popularity in the news is not only bad politics, but bad leadership, and sends messages of weaknesses to the enemy.
Kerry also had a more defensive attitude towards the war. His idea is to hunker down and focus on homeland security and the U.N.'s protection. But this is ineffectual at best; the Democrats' positions of coddling illegal aliens make it unlikely they could ever improve homeland security, and the U.N. has since the Iraq war, been exposed as not only feckless, but corrupt, both financially in terms of bribery, and philisophically in its ideology of appeasement. Arguably, the mere fact that America created a permanent "homeland security" department sends an alarming message that we are willing to coexist, at least for some time, with terrorists. This translates into a willingness to accept some risk of attack. what attacks are acceptible to Kerry? What loss is permitted under his views? Fifty deaths? a thousand?
Beyond the moral reprehensibility of such a coexistance, is the impactical nature of it. Defense doesn't win wars, and defensive postures do not win campaigns. Americans generally speaking, do not support leaders who tell them to "live with" the threat of being blown up. And they are right to refuse such ideas. We cannot defeat the enemy if all we are doing is trying to catch their agents one at a time if and when we notice them slipping into the U.S. or doing something suspicious at an airport security gate.
Bush was not the world's most eloquent speaker. But he made a good point about staying on the offensive, and about the war being bigger than Bin Laden.
Ultimately, this is the biggest message of the debate: Kerry does not realyl understand the threat. Bush has some understanding of it. For all the halting action and questionable talk of WMD the media howls about, Bush has still done more to respond posatively to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism than anyone else int he last half century of growing terror threats to the U.S.
The enemy is not one person, although it would be nice if it were so. If Kerry cannot or will not grasp this simple fact, all his "nuances" and clever anecdotes about Kennedy are meaningless. If Kerry cannot or will not understand the threat, he cannot be trusted to adequately deal with it.
Back...
