The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Why I’m not trying to rationalize a vote for Bush

This is somewhat in response to Tim’s post here, and somewhat in response to his long-ago call for a defense of a Kerry vote, one of which I’ll be casting. (Don’t even think of trying to talk me out of it.) . . .

Tim, you too, like Sullivan, are a self-professed one-issue candidate. Obviously — put down that finger — it’s a much more pressing issue. Yet, as we all acknowledge, this here War On Terrible Stuff/Iraq Occupation is going to be with us for many years to come. I hope you’re looking forward to being a one-issue voter for at least three, maybe four more presidential elections.

Personally, I can’t do that. And honestly, even on that issue, I don’t see the strength of the arguments for staying with Bush. You folks consider him strong on terrorism, despite the fact that he underfought our most important campaign and went into the optional one with too few troops and no plan.

Although semi-successful in Afghanistan (there is no more Taliban, sort of), he went in with one hand tied behind his back, apparently feeling that the full force of American military power should not be used on the organizations that brought about 9/11. No. Better save something to shock and awe Saddam Hussein. As a result, Osama may well have slipped away from a not-so-tight noose at Tora Bora.

Okay, so we went to Iraq. Say whatever you will about whether it’s a good idea; Bush has handled it abysmally from day one. It has been arrogantly and foolishly underplanned, underallocated, and riddled with scandal.

Yet there we are, and we are there to stay. Kerry would not change that. On the ground, in Iraq, any difference between how Bush is running things and how Kerry might run things would be slight, if measurable. Kerry might even improve the situation — at least Iraqis don’t (yet) associate him with prison torture. Going a step further, any appreciable effect of our great Iraq experiment in the Middle East as a whole, and on terrorism in particular, will be very slow to come. Let me step back and see if I have it right:

1. Iraq becomes beacon of democracy
2. Middle East despots pressured to reform
3. Reform germinates and spreads among despotic regimes
4. Middle East emerges from dark ages
5. Islamist terrorism dwindles and dies

It’s a long chain of dominoes, folks. Something that can only come about on the order of decades — just look at step one. Do you honestly believe, when it’s all said and done, that the choice of who is president from 2005-2009 will have made any discernible difference?

Presidents inherit projects like this and carry them on. But these kinds of undertakings have their own momentum; who you have in the driver’s seat is not going to really matter in the long run. In 1961, JFK said we oughtta go to the moon. Eight years later, with the man long dead, we finally did. In 1968, Nixon said he’d get us out of Vietnam. Seven years later, and a year after he had resigned from his second term, we finally did.

Kerry isn’t saying a word about leaving Iraq, and he won’t. So seriously, don’t throw your vote away because you believe it will make a difference on this one issue. Or are you voting for Bush because he wants us to go to Mars?

  1. Timothy says:

    Quite possibly.

  2. Danimal says:

    Sounds good to me, though I would probably reverse the “no respect” v. “too little” lineup. But we’d just be splitting hairs. Then again, that might be what this election is about.

  3. Timothy says:

    Dan: I can hypothesize on what Bush’s plan is, but you’re right that he’s weak on it because it hasn’t been specifically enumerated. But, they’ve had regional elections already, an interrim constitution, a semi-functioning interrim government. I’m sure there IS a plan. I’m sure Kerry has a plan. Now, I don’t want Kerry to win so I’m okay with him running a weak campaign, but he should be putting this stuff out there.

    Do I think cutting hazard pay and benefits shows any respect? No. Do I think undermanning the occupation shows respect? No. But I count those equal to Kerry voting down defense packages, to voting against military innovation during the cold war. Then there’s the matter of voting for the Iraq thing and then voting against funding it. That shows disrespect, plus the slander/libel. Meaning that the level of respect Kerry has for the troops, in my opinion, is “none” whereas Bush falls at “less than is desirable.”

    It’s no secret that I’m a big fucking wuss. There is not an incentive package in the world that could get me to join up to be shot at. Sure, I’d have a decent shot at a desk-job far behind the scenes, but there’s still that get shot at possibility. Not to mention that I have a massive problem with authority. What the men and women out there are doing is tough, and dangerous, and important and I think they deserve much in the way of support. Don’t cut hazard pay, don’t run a war on the cheap…but don’t vote for a war then vote not to give it any money, don’t try to curb military innovation, and don’t slander the men and women of the US armed forces by calling them rapists and murderers en masse.

    In short: Kerry: No respect for the troops. Bush: Far too little respect for the troops. I can see we’re going to go back and forth on this for a long time, I think we might want to call the game due to darkness.

  4. Danimal says:

    I just hope you don’t try to repudiate it in the morning.

    I knew going in that the AWOL thing was not the strongest point, and I am certainly willing to drop it.

    The rest of your position boils down to: Kerry has said bad things about fellow veterans, and Bush has not belittled his troops. Fine, Bush has not openly insulted the men and women serving him, nor slandered them. But I don’t think he, as commander in chief, is treating them with a whole lot of respect. He’ll say all the right things about our brave men and women, sure, he turned up in Baghdad for Thanksgiving. But I noticed you had no rebuttal for Bush’s cuts in hazard pay and benefits for troops; I continue to think that the leanness of the Iraq occupation is unnecessarily endangering troops; and Bush’s statements and behavior have indicated little respect for the grunts on the ground. Bring it on. Mission accomplished. Had he not been humbled a bit by the reality of the situation, say around Abu Ghraib, I’m sure we’d have seen a lot more of this arrogant swagger. It is tough talk, but it is not respectful to his troops.

    As for Kerry, yes, I don’t dispute that everything he has ever done has been done in the name of political expediency. But I expect this of politicians, particularly those in Congress. It’s why Senators are so much more vulnerable than governors of Texas — they have a longer record, easier to pick apart, in which they’ve blown with the wind to get and stay in office.

    As for whether Kerry served with a band of brothers or a pack of rapists, I’d believe it’s a little of column A, a little of column B. War is hell. Vietnam is not bowling. Kerry may have shamelessly exploited the negative side of the war for political gain as a young man, and now he’s shamelessly exploiting the positive side, but at least he knows what war IS.

    Finally:

    {Kerry} *should* be trying to layout a clear plan for post-Saddam Iraq.

    Right, so we can compare it to Bush’s. Now, quickly: what is Bush’s clear plan? You “highly doubt” that it doesn’t exist, but what is it?

  5. Timothy says:

    On a completely different note, I’m going to try to rationalize drinking an entire six pack later.

  6. Timothy says:

    Also, I highly doubt there is no plan for Iraq.

  7. Timothy says:

    Drop the AWOL thing. Just quit now. In exchange, I won’t bring up Kerry’s medals or Cambodia. My stance on the whole National Guard thing goes like this: Bush served in it, was honorably discharged, let it go. I feel the same way about Kerry’s actual service in Viet Nam: served, was honorably discharged, let it go.

    Kerry, however, was a real shit when he got back. Yeah, he’d been in the shit, so had plent of other young men (6.9% of the elligible population) and most of them didn’t come back to call every member of the US military a war criminal. Have you read the 1971 testimony? Yeah, that was 33 years ago, but years in the senate haven’t changed his voting record. Further, if Kerry is intent on using his service as the centerpiece of his campaign, I think it’s perfectly fair to ask him why he’s so proud now when he spent most of his career trying to repudiate such things.

    RE Bush: Iraq is being slightly mismanaged and the troop levels aren’t high enough. Yup, the mission accomplished banner was a horrible idea. But, Bush has never said a negative thing about the men and women on the ground over there. He’s never belittled their service, never accused them en masse of being rapists and murderers. And he’s certainly not trying to now exploit a record of military service for political gain after years of denying all the good that can come from such service. Depending on which version you get Kerry to tell you, he was either with a “Band of Brothers” or a group of criminals. Which you get seems to depend on what’s most politically expedient.

    Don’t get me wrong, I question neither Kerry’s service nor his patriotism. But, the medal tossing, and the Vets Agasinst The War, and the Senate testimony, and the statements to the media about same over the years just don’t gel with trying to use his service as a corner stone of his campaign. What I really wish is that everyone would shut the hell up about the events of 35 years ago and talk about the future, but as long as Viet Nam is the only clear thing coming out of the Kerry campaign (along with calling any questions about anything “smears”) it’s going to remain on the table. He *should* be talking specifics on domestic policy, he *should* be trying to layout a clear plan for post-Saddam Iraq. Kerry has done neither, it’s totally vague. As some other, better blogger put it, “Kerry is a challenger running like an incumbant.”

  8. Danimal says:

    Well, okay, I suppose you’ve fleshed out your rationalization for voting for Bush a bit, compared to a couple months ago. Back then you discussed voting for Kerry because he wouldn’t be able to get anything through Congress anyway, but ultimately concluded that you had no choice but to be a one-issue Bush voter. My mistake. You’ve added some issues.

    I know this might open a whole ‘nother can of worms, but you said you don’t think Kerry “has any respect for the military what so ever.” What, and Bush does? Turning 1st AD flights out of the sandbox around mid-flight for another 90 days of deployment because Rummy wrongly thought we could do Iraq on the cheap? Cutting hazard pay and benefits? Inviting suicide bombers to bring it on? Declaring his mission accomplished while his military continued to die on the streets of Baghdad? Going AWOL from freaking National Guard duty to get loaded? What did Bush do to convince you he had any more respect for the military than Kerry?

    Kerry’s military service may have been marred by arrogant preening for honors, and dubious comments he made afterwards as a very young man who had been in the shit. But what is Bush to the military, other than a sheltered man who uses them as pawns in chess? Using troops as tools in war does not equal respecting them.

  9. Timothy says:

    Dan: See my response to Olly a couple of posts down.

    There’s a whole host of issues that I think Kerry has completely wrong. WoT is probably the biggest one, and given his post-Nam behavior and Senate record, I certainly don’t think he has any respect for the military what so ever. He served honorably and was honorably discharged, that I don’t question. What I do question is pretty much everything the man has done since he came back.

    And, I agree that it’s a long chain, but I think that who’s in charge toward the begining is more important than who’s in charge toward the end. The first few that fall are what get the rest going.

    I’m voting for Bush because I think he’s right on healthcare, defense, education (sort of), and the economy RE: regulation etc. I also like Kerry’s senate record very little.

    Besides, I live in TX now, not like this place isn’t going GWB this year. Now if, like certain other former editors, I was still an Oregon voter you and I would be cancelling each other out.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.