The Ambassador, James Pardew, is in Silistra for a couple of days and with him came one of the great headlines I've seen on a front page: "Pardew Brings Money." He has with him a contract for a grant that he'll sign in order to give money for the rennovation of Silistra's mosque, but he's more or less here sightseeing and meeting with luminaries and company owners and having breakfast with a couple of volunteers.
He and his wife invited me and the new sitemate to breakfast at Silistra's hotel in the center of town. The usual fare from that place, a nice, warm, continental buffet. It was a great conversation, bouncing around the life of a volunterr, life in Bulgaria, and things of not terribly great importance but not overly pleasant or formal ideas either. It was a good time, and I got to have a cup of coffee and a good breakfast before I ran off to school, which was a bit of gravy on top of the whole thing. He asked us if we'd seen the debate, and we all chuckled about that. That one question was pretty much the extent of the political conversation at the breakfast table.
None of us had seen the debate, what with it being on at 4 in the morning and my not willing to get up that early to hear the same old stuff out of the same old mouths. I would love to hear John Kerry say, just once, that he voted for the Iraq war in good faith but that Bush made the wrong decisions before, during, and after the war as far as planning went. Furthermore, I'd love to hear him give a point by point plan on how he would solve the problems there without going Spain and pulling the troops out right away. He could even publish a book about it, that would be pleasant and profitable. He would argue that he has done all this, but he really hasn't.
He can't say he's argued this because he insists that Bush gave the French and German governments the finger and that they would have loved to have kicked Saddam out if Bush had only gone along with the UN. Well, they never would have agreed to it. They were set on running their own coalition, one that just happened to go against the "empire" they resent.
I think mistakes, significant, tragic mistakes, have been made in Iraq, and by all parties concerned. I think France and Germany and even little Belgium should be there aiding the democratic ideal their governments are founded on. I think Bush should admit to making mistakes and provide a plan to prevent further mistakes along the same lines. I think we need to win in Iraq and win beyond all doubt. And I'd like to hear Kerry say that.
The thing is I think Kerry believes all that, saying it would just mean leaving the comfort zone of his base a little more than he'd like. I don't think Bush believes the things I'd like to hear him say, in a battle of greater or lesser evils (and this rivals Kang and Kodos. It really does) my mind was set on John "Kodos" Kerry before this debate. I just wish he'd do a little more that I agree with. Like every American, I suppose.
Posted by Rob at October 1, 2004 04:11 PMIt won't matter if Kerry makes his first 10 speeches about the horrors of outsourcing. It won't stop outsourcing and it won't change the economy for better or worse. The president can fiddle with taxes and budgets, but when it comes right down to it, economic policy doesn't much matter and his job is to make an economy-friendly atmosphere. This I think Kerry can do better than Bush.
History-making is only good for the defense industry and with terrorism the way it is, they're going to get their money no matter what happens. Take Clinton, although the CW was that he had nothing to do with the cozy 90s and the bubble, he did make the nation pretty cozy. He had the benefit of a confluence of events what with the end of the cold war, the heady days before 9/11, and the internet boom, but he kept a nation calm and level for 8 solid years. Lewinski and all, I'm pretty sure Clinton would still be in office with a 15 point lead in the polls if their weren't a term limit. The guy knew how to comfort women, employers, nations. He had his job down, driving with his knees with his arms around his girls' shoulders.
Bush, on the other hand, is a guy behind a wheel who wants to see what his car can do. When you're in the back seat it's fun for a little, then you get tired of it, then you begin to get a bit frightened that he's going to run it into a tree, so you ask him nicely to stop and ask that Kerry dude if he can give you a ride back into town.
I'm gambling with Kerry on Iraq, I know. But I'm guessing that he's confused because he truly believes one thing but knows he needs to tell his base another to win. France and Germany are going to avoid Iraq just as much with a francophone in office, and Kerry's not going to just drop it. He knows Iraq is our football. He's a sleazy politician, I agree, but he's smart. And in my capitalist book, sleazy politics is a small price for a little economic comfort. We'll get Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and Syria and Cuba when the world has calmed down, Iraq is better, and the heat's off. Until then, dull, useless summits sound pretty good to me.
Posted by: Rob at October 7, 2004 12:54 PMMake the economy better? This is the party of protectionists. Edwards made it a point to say during the debate how much he opposes outsourcing. Great, let's keep American businesses inefficient, and tie up resources that could go back into investment. What happened to Rob the capitalist?
Granted, speculating about what they may or may not have done is irrelevant. But can we not expect the person running for president to at least tell us what he, in particular, would have done?
Bush's comments on the debate:
He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat.
Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake but also called the liberation of Iraq a colossal error. He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there.
He said he wants to hold a summit meeting so he can invite other countries to join what he calls the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror.
Posted by: Owen at October 7, 2004 08:34 AMAgain, Kang and Kodos (Simpsons ref. from the '96 Halloween episode for those out of the loop. Of course, there's Nader hopping around, but "IT'S A TWO PARTY SYSTEM! MUWAHAHAHAHA!"). However, I see democracy as a flow, and I think the flow needs to go back left for the next four years, at least. For me, it's all about keeping things in the middle--a comfort zone--and Bush is tossing things a little too far to the right. Examples: His persistence in including the church in the state, his tax policy in a time of war, his stem cell policy, and more.
It's not as if Bulgaria, Poland, Latvia, et al will stop being allies to a Kerry-led government. In fact, with popular bases with few exceptions leaning towards Kerry, these countries may find themselves forced to be friendlier with a guy who's been forced to ignore them due to a hate-mongering liberal base back home. See, if Kerry starts praising the coalition, he alienates the people who for four years have been ignoring any good Bush does in order to better hate his bad side. Australia had even ceased to exist to liberals before Australians started winning races in the swimming pool. Political, I know, and it's tragic when sacrifice is ignored. But as it happens, it's necessary for him to win. Politics is tragedy when you're dealing with a tragic situation.
I've heard no long-term plans for Iraq or North Korea out of Bush better than those many plans that Kerry's come up with. Granted, I'd like to hear Kerry announce a solid long-term plan for success in Iraq, but Bush may be even more confused about that situation than Kerry right now. You've heard the pessimistic stuff Rummy, Cheney, and even Rice have been spouting recently. And although they talk about the situation getting worse, they never mention how the situation will improve. They look to January elections the way Bulgaria looks to joining the EU: Crawling towards a date that will miraculously make everything better. That's not the way to resolve things over there.
So, Kerry won't draw new allies, true, but neither would Bush. He probably won't throw oodles of money at stem cell research, but he won't relentlessly cancel all funding like Bush would. Kerry'll go to church on Easter and Christmas, but he won't rely on the Christian right for funding and decision-making. And, hopefully, Kerry'll make the kind of governamental decisions that'll make the economy a little better. I know presidents don't shift the economy or create jobs, but they can create an environment where the economy and jobs can flourish. Bush, as history-maker, isn't very good at making that kind of atmosphere. Kerry (again crossing the fingers) has a slightly better chance of getting back to a comfort zone.
You close your argument by looking at the past in Iraq. Talking about what democrats would have done after 9/11 is speculative to the point of being irrelevant. Maybe if Kerry had been president he would have hid under the sheets, maybe he would have opened the arsenal, I don't know. In the present, Iraq is invaded and the president hasn't told us where the country will be next month, let alone five years down the line. I think it's time for a change, and Kerry is the only change we've got.
Posted by: Rob at October 6, 2004 06:25 PMKerry!!! Rob, I'm so disappointed. The man is the incartion of a sleazy politician. He speaks to whatever audience is in front of him, and he'll change 180 degrees to match the next room of people. I fundamentally can't trust anything the man says. Sure, he said some things I agree with in the debate, but they go completely against what he's said in the past.
I would think that you, like me, would find extremely disrespectful his belittling of our coalition allies. As if only the US, UK, and Australia have taken casualties in this war. Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, El Salvador, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, and the Ukraine have all lost soldiers in Iraq. *
Here's the president of Poland's response to Kerry's debate remarks: "It is sad that a senator with 20 years of experience underestimates Polish sacrifice, this is sad. I do not think this was out of ignorance. ... It is immoral not to recognize the involvement we contributed based on our conviction that there should be unity in fighting terrorism, that there was a need to display international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous individual of this world."
There are so many things I can't stand about the Senator, but I'm just going to keep this to his disrespect for anyone international except France and Germany. His main difference in Iraq is "I'll get other countries." He's alienated Russia, France and Germany have already said that if Kerry was elected they still wouldn't go in, and he seems to think that all the sacrifices of our allies are worthless. Where exactly will he draw new allies???
No matter what hawkish language Kerry uses during the debate, his cabinet will be filled with people who's response to terrorism has been to bomb aspirin factories, and who's track record includes a decade of funding N. Korea's nuclear program. His party is full of isolationists who just want to get out of Iraq. How is it that you think he'll improve the situation over there? What decisions would he have made differently? Other than not going into to Iraq? Or maybe going with more troops, depending on his feeling of the moment.
Posted by: Owen at October 6, 2004 12:24 AM