Paul Krugman was in rare form today, writing in just over 700 words exactly why John Kerry enjoys the high ground over Bush on national security
U.S. news organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq. In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, “It’s worse than you think.” Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective; no-go zones, which the military prefers to call “insurgent enclaves,” are spreading – even in Baghdad. We’re losing ground.
And the losses aren’t only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq, intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite: nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea’s ongoing nuclear program, “he opened his palms and shrugged.”
Yet many voters still believe that Mr. Bush is doing a good job protecting America.
It doesn’t make any sense, does it? Through a series of deceptions and attacks, Bush has positioned himself as a competent leader against our foreign enemies. If Bush is successful on Election Day, this con will have to be considered one of the greatest campaign frauds in modern political history.
How, exactly, does a man abandon a war against a real enemy, launch an invasion under false pretenses and with inadequate planning and resources, ignore more pressing threats around the globe, “miscalculate” his way into the most dire foreign policy debacle in generations, and then turn around and run as a man who is trustworthy on national security?
Krugman adds some useful advice for Kerry.
Can Mr. Kerry, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, criticize it? Yes, by pointing out that he voted only to give Mr. Bush a big stick. Once that stick had forced Saddam to let W.M.D. inspectors back in, there was no need to invade. And Mr. Kerry should keep pounding Mr. Cheney, who is trying to cover for the absence of W.M.D. by lying, yet again, about Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda.
Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq – a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what – aside from pretending that things are going fine – Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it’s bad politics to admit a mistake.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard pundits complain that they don’t know what Kerry would do about Iraq if elected. On the merits, I disagree and think Kerry has laid out a responsible approach. But just as importantly, does anyone have a sense of Bush’s plan? I hear a lot about “staying the course” and “completing the mission,” but these are meaningless platitudes. Bush has no plan to bring stability to Iraq and while he struggles to think of one, the country is falling apart at the seams.
If you think the calamity in Iraq is going well, vote for Bush; if you don’t, vote for Kerry.