ElectionAnalysis.com
Archive: 03/20/2004

The effect this will have on the 2004 election will be huge. Against all odds, President Bush has made good on yet another promise. While John Kerry and the ever-shrill Democrats in congress have sat on the sidelines whining and uttering shallow, apocalyptic prophecies of imminent gloom and doom, the President has accomplished the nearly impossible. He removed the bloody dictator Saddam Hussein, liberated 30 million people, began reconstruction of a shattered infrastructure and a ruined economy, and now has moved Iraq to the brink of true independence and democracy for the first time in it's history.

In the sad light of the passing away of the beloved former president Ronald Reagan, another figure who accomplished the nearly impossible, one cannot help but see ironic parallels. While facing the same kind of nay-saying and harsh opposition from the radical left, President Reagan was also the architect of world-shaping accomplishments, including the demise of the Soviet Union, the birth of democracy in Russia, and the crumbling of the Berlin wall.

It is another piece of tremendous, historical irony that both these events- the passing of President Reagan, and the formation of a newly democratic state in the middle east, occur exactly when America, Europe and the world have gathered in Normandy, France to honor the brave men who gave their lives freeing France from the grip of another murderous dictator- Adolph Hitler. The cry-baby liberal-socialists in the Democratic party seem to have forgotten the meaning of the word sacrifice, or the fact that great accomplishments require great effort and are only accomplished by great men with courage, vision and fortitude like George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Lefty liberal Democrats have their own recent icon of a slightly different type- a former president who's legacy is summed up by the immortal words, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky!" and the stirring "It depends on what the meaning of is is!" So it's no wonder that they wish somehow that President George Bush was just as flawed and crass as their great icon Bill Clinton.

But the truth is, he is not. And a new democratic nation stands now, embryonic though it may be, and struggling though it is to stand, after years of abuse by the Butcher of Baghdad, but stand it will! And just like President Reagan before him, George Bush has built a legacy that will be honored and revered in history, not only for guiding America through the national nightmare of 911, but for bringing democracy to an Arab country for the first time in the history of the world!

Bravo Mr. President, Bravo! ……and may God continue to light your pathway.

Anyone can make history. Only a great man can write it..
- Oscar Wilde

While this makes Bush look like he can follow through on his promises the true effect it will have on his bid for re-election is how effective the government can become between now and November. If the new Iraqi interim government manages to gain the confidence of its people then Bush will probably be re-elected. If the government falls into the same or worse turmoil than the US appointed governing council did then Bush’s chances look much worse.

The Iraqi war issue is one of great importance in this election. Democratic candidate John Kerry has a mixed record of voting and still appears to be somewhat unclear on just exactly where he stands on the Iraq war. President Bush got us into the mess in the first place but has continued upon a pretty much straight line according to what he has said and done throughout the campaign, with one glaring exception, we never found any weapons of mass destruction. Probably the success or failure of the Iraqi Interim government will overshadow the mire of not finding weapons of mass destruction after stating so emphatically said weapons as a reason creating the absolute necessity of invasion in Iraq.

John Kerry also alleges that the Bush administration has left US forces ill prepared for the war on terror. He goes on to advocate changes, many of which are being implemented by the same administration he is so quick to criticize. Kerry speaks of modernizing the military, which seems to have become a political buzzword for the continuing advancements the military is making regardless of what administration is in power. The administration does have some effect mostly in determining the focus of new or renewing avenues of research. Both candidates talk a lot about adapting our forces to fight the war on terror. Neither speaks of fighting the underlying causes that lead to terrorism in the first place.

As both candidates have proposed we do stand at a historic crossroads. Today we must decide whether we will do our utmost to eliminate both the sources of terror and terrorists themselves or only fight an un-winnable, ever increasingly costly war against the terrorists themselves. Beginning in Iraq we should strive to change the political, socio-economic conditions which create breeding grounds for hate-filled religious zealots and terrorists. We must commit ourselves to helping especially the most at risk countries raise the standard of living through economic progress stemming from educational and cultural changes. The best way to move towards a long term solution of terrorism is to channel the same enormous energies required for sustaining terrorist activities into efforts that are beneficial to society instead of detrimental to everyone and everything. Neither candidate has this goal in mind. Mostly they seem to be focused only on winning the election, not on winning a better future for all mankind.

Mostly, the Prime Minister of Iraq said things the President of the United States would like. It was, after all, the Governing Council chosen by the U.S. that, in turn, chose the roime minister the U.S. liked best. Wouldn’t want to bite that feeding hand....

Let’s examine this rationally. People in the United States are losing faith in the Iraq cause — polls show President Bush down significantly in popular support for the war. While this shouldn’t deter the president if his course is the right one, it does tend to start political wheels turning. One can only imagine a political analyst in the trust of the present administration who starts pulling out his (or her) hair because the president is losing vital ground in the “national security” and “strength” questions because of the Iraq situation, areas where he had Reagan-like numbers only a year ago.

Could it be.... the recently hairless pollster comes to the president (or his subordinates) with great despair and says, “Why are we losing in these categories — we can’t afford to lose these areas. Do something!” So the president (or his subordinates) comes up with this scheme to revitalize the Iraq turnover. People want the country handed over: “Let’s do that,” he (or they) thinks. “Let’s give them their country and let’s do it early — that will get people thinking I (we) really want to do the right thing, do it fast, and solves my (our) weak areas and gets me (us) back on the right track. Yes. Good plan,” the president (or his subordinates) thinks. And that’s good. There’s no harm in having multiple motivations for doing a good thing. It’s probably even better than just having one reason.

Senator John Kerry is quiet about the early appointment and turnover because there really isn’t much to say about it. When there’s no ground to be gained it’s best to stay silent. It’s also a “wait-and-see” kind of ordeal. The new prime minister hasn’t done anything yet, and Kerry knows that. And Kerry’s smart enough to allow President Bush some space on new Iraq decisions until he can find an angle to exploit to his advantage. Or maybe even just wait until Bush hangs himself on the tether that runs between Iraq and the U.S. It’s an election year. That’s Kerry’s job.

As for the new prime minister: that needs some time for examination. He may be good for the U.S. and bad for Iraq, or vice versa. Or good for all. Or bad for all. Only time can tell.