Bush, Kerry to go at it
WASHINGTON – President Bush and John Kerry go head to head for the first time tonight in a debate that’s sure to include some charges and countercharges that don’t quite square with the facts.
Here’s a look at some of the likely lines of attack and at the reality behind them.
•Kerry is a waffler on Iraq.
Even Kerry’s supporters concede he’s done a poor job explaining his views on Iraq, but he’s been consistent on some key points: He’s never backed away from his vote authorizing war, and he’s said repeatedly that Bush should have sought more international help.
When he voted for the war resolution in October 2002, Kerry made it clear that he supported a “multilateral effort” to disarm Saddam Hussein if diplomatic options failed. He urged Bush to work with the United Nations. His remarks then are in keeping with his assertion now that Bush rushed to war with an unrealistic strategy.
Kerry also has remained consistent with remarks he made during the Democratic presidential primary campaign. Asked then if he was “one of the anti-war candidates,” he responded, “Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have.”
Kerry has never expressed regret that Saddam is out of power, despite Bush’s accusations to the contrary. In fact, Kerry has said Saddam “deserves a special place in hell.”
•Bush is misleading Americans about the situation in Iraq.
Sweeping generalizations about a country with 25 million residents in an area roughly the size of California are risky, but Bush is clearly downplaying the severity of the problems.
While a few parts of the country are calm, terrorist attacks and violence are growing more sophisticated and spreading to areas that previously had been low-risk spots for U.S. troops. Western correspondents who are being criticized for failing to report good news from Iraq live with the constant threat of kidnapping or death. Attacks on U.S. troops have risen dramatically in the months since the United States handed over responsibility for governing the country to an interim Iraqi government.
The insurgency is growing. Pentagon officials have upped their estimate of insurgent forces from 5,000 at the end of last year to 20,000. Others think there are at least 50,000 fighters, backed by a growing number of sympathizers.
Still, it’s not fair to say that Bush is blind to the difficulties in Iraq, even if he doesn’t like to discuss them.
In his “Mission Accomplished” speech, when he declared the end of major combat on May 1, 2003, Bush also said: “We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. … The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort.”
•Kerry failed to support the troops in Iraq.
After voting for the 2002 resolution authorizing war in Iraq, Kerry voted against a 2003 appropriations bill that provided $87 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry says he voted no to protest Bush’s handling of the war.
Some of his fellow Democrats agreed with Bush that the vote sent the wrong message. “If everyone had voted the way John Kerry did, the money would not have been there to support our troops,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said at a Democratic presidential primary debate.
But Bush is on shakier ground when he ridicules Kerry for saying that he “actually did vote for the $87 billion” before he voted against it. Kerry supported a version of the bill that would have paid for the war operations by scaling back tax cuts for Americans earning more than $300,000 a year.
When that version failed, Kerry voted against the Bush-backed bill, which added the cost of the war to the record federal deficit.
•Bush dropped the ball in the fight against al Qaeda.
Military and intelligence officials concede that the war in Iraq diverted time, attention and resources from the effort to eliminate al Qaeda terrorists. However, it’s impossible to know if al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would have been captured had the administration not turned its attention to Iraq.
Near the start of the Iraq war, as many as half of the special operations forces that had been looking for bin Laden were pulled off the hunt for Iraq duty.
Bush, who initially said he wanted bin Laden “dead or alive,” told reporters in March 2002 that the al Qaeda head had been “marginalized.”
“I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you,” Bush said at the time. U.S. officials have since acknowledged that bin Laden continues to influence and inspire al Qaeda attacks around the world.
Bush boasts that more than two-thirds of the senior al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured, but many of them have been replaced.
There’s also debate over whether the war in Iraq was important to the war on terrorism. U.S. intelligence officials have found no operational links between Saddam and al Qaeda, though Vice President Dick Cheney continues to suggest otherwise.
Additionally, many terrorism experts, including Richard Clarke, the former top counterterrorism adviser to Bush, believe the Iraq war has helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists and sympathizers.
•Kerry doesn’t have a clear plan to fix Iraq.
Kerry’s ideas for bringing stability to Iraq closely track what Bush says he’s already doing. Both candidates want more international help, a bigger role for Iraqi security forces, national elections for new Iraqi leaders in January and a more aggressive reconstruction program.
Although Kerry might deliver a fresh appeal to leaders who’ve soured on Bush, it’s not clear that he would have any greater success persuading them to help in Iraq. France, Germany and Spain have made it known that they have no interest in sending troops to Iraq, no matter who’s president.
“None of us intend to change position,” French President Jacques Chirac told reporters at a Sept. 13 meeting in Madrid with the leaders of Spain and Germany.
The coalition of more than 30 countries that Bush assembled for the Iraq war has been shrinking while the insurgency is growing. At least eight countries, including Spain, have recently pulled out.
•Bush has failed to protect the homeland.
Bush initially opposed the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the independent investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, but he later embraced both. He says he agrees with the Sept. 11 commission’s finding that America is “safer, but not safe” from terrorist attacks.
Kerry has called for the swift passage of all the Sept. 11 commission recommendations; Bush has differed with the commission on some key elements of the overhaul plan.