I suspect I don’t harbor the same ill will towards Sen. [tag]Joe Biden[/tag] (D-Del.) that some of my colleagues do — though, to be sure, the vote on the bankruptcy bill was unforgivable — but like Michael Crowley, I think his reaction to [tag]Zarqawi[/tag]’s death was not quite right.
The Senator from Delaware also said that he hopes [Zarqawi’s death] improves [tag]President[/tag] [tag]Bush[/tag]’s approval ratings. “We get one president at a time…. This election in November is not for President of the [tag]United States[/tag]…. I hope it does improve his standing and emboldens him to take bolder moves in terms of his policy in [tag]Iraq[/tag]…. His low ratings and his inability to rally support is a difficult position for the United States internationally.”
Perhaps some of this makes sense. No one should actively root against the president and hope that he fails, because his failures have too many negative consequences for too many people, in Iraq and elsewhere. To applaud the president’s tragic handling of Hurricane Katrina, for example, just because they drove his national support even lower, is to overlook those who suffered because of the administration’s incompetence.
But when it comes to the war, as Crowley noted, “[P]olitical weakness is likely the only thing that can convince Bush to abandon his stubborn principles and consider different strategies in Iraq.” I think that’s absolutely right. If Bush feels “emboldened,” he’ll have no reason to consider alternatives. He’ll conclude that “freedom is on the march,” he should “stay the course,” and everything will work itself out fine. In other words, we’ll continue to see more of the same.
Besides, if the president has some “bolder moves in terms of his [tag]policy[/tag] in Iraq” in mind, why should the world wait for Bush to get back to a 40% approval rating in order to see them? Wouldn’t he be more likely to go “bold” if he reached 20%?