If you don’t think John Kerry won Thursday’s presidential debate, you’re either deaf or as stubborn as George W.
Bush refused to admit that the situation in Iraq isn’t going well. He does not believe that changes are necessary to solve the growing problems in the liberated country. Apparently, he does not see the rising death toll in Iraq as a problem.
As Kerry put it, “More Americans died in May than April, more in June than in May, more in July than in June, more in August than in July and more in September than in August.”
Bush said, “We will succeed in Iraq, and we’ve got a plan to do so.” The only problem is that he has never told us exactly what that plan is. He also misunderstood Kerry’s idea to switch strategies in the war-torn nation as a desire to pull out completely.
Kerry said, “I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning.” He highlighted many aspects of his plan for success in Iraq. He said, “I believe our troops need other allies helping.” Ninety percent of the troops in Iraq are American, and the United States is shouldering 90 percent of the cost as well.
Next, he plans on adding two active duty divisions to the U.S. military to help the struggling, overworked soldiers already involved.
Kerry said, “Nine out of 10 divisions are either in Iraq, going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq or training in preparation to go to Iraq.” Many soldiers due to get out of the service have been forced to stay active indefinitely. Our military is strapped, to say the least.
Bush believes that by “speaking clearly and sending consistent messages that we will do what we say, we can win in Iraq.” That’s great, but there comes a time when a prudent person admits that there is a problem and then fixes it. Bush seems unwilling to do either.
We’re in Iraq. Nothing can change that. Bush said, “When our generals on the ground tell me that Iraq is prepared to protect themselves from terrorists, then we’ll pull our troops out.” He stammered: “It’s hard work. Everybody knows it’s hard work. But we’re getting the job done.” How many American soldiers and Iraqi citizens will be killed while we’re trying to get the job done Bush’s way?
Bush accused Kerry of operating under a “pre-Sept. 11 mentality.” He said that we “better have a president who chases these terrorists down and brings them to justice before they hurt us again.” Although we have brought several terrorists to justice, his administration has yet to capture Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for Sept. 11. Even worse is that Bush diverted troops from Afghanistan to Iraq when bin Laden was believed to be trapped.
Bush has continually stipulated that the world is a safer place because of the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. But while he continues to alienate foreign leaders, North Korea now has nuclear bombs. It’s only a matter of time before these bombs become available to the highest bidder.
Kerry argued that “at the president’s current rate, it will take Bush 13 years to get all the unsecured nuclear materials around the world.” Meanwhile, Bush has cut off bilateral talks with North Korea, and they are continuing to develop their nuclear capabilities.
Bush also tried to position himself as a leader in the effort to stop nuclear proliferation. He said, “My administration has tripled the amount of money spent on homeland security.” I would ask, “After Sept. 11, who wouldn’t have?”
Speaking of our wayward allies, Bush said five times, “Our alliances are strong.” Then why aren’t they helping out more in Iraq? And why do polls of every European country show that they would overwhelmingly choose John Kerry as our next president?
No foreign leaders have come out explicitly in favor of Kerry, but who could expect them to? What if Bush wins? With his global reputation as a free-wielding, shoot-’em-up cowboy, they wouldn’t want to get on his bad side. He may forego U.N. protocol and invade, just like he did with Iraq. Conversely, the new Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Alawi recalls that the United States had a more favorable relationship with Middle Eastern countries when a Democrat was president.
Kerry believes “we need a president with the credibility to bring the allies back to the table.” Who has the knowledge of Washington and world affairs to do so, Kerry with his nearly 20 years in the Senate, or Bush with less than four years in the White House?
Nick Thompson is a senior communication major. He can be reached at [email protected].