Regarding Thursday's prez debate, the Bush campaign has done a good job of seeming to counter Kerry’s debate claims -- if you don’t realize that their arguments often don’t apply to what Kerry actually said, or are half-truths and misdirection.
One example of the type of logic they use is to hit you with impressive sounding statistics, as if that refutes Kerry’s claim.
For example, on Kerry’s claim that too few security personnel have been trained in Iraq, they argue that there are “164,000 Iraqi Police And Soldiers (Of Which About 100,000 Are Trained And Equipped) And An Additional 74,000 Facility Protection Forces"’ as well as other military, guard and police forces.
Wow. That’s big numbers alright. However, is that as many as could have or should have been trained by now? Is Kerry wrong about it being too few, given the bombings, insurgency, and no-go zones? And, of course, is it true?
Actually, no, no, and no. Here’s the facts.
Another example of playing with numbers is in refuting Kerry’s claim that Bush has failed to adequately support first responders and fire fighters. The Bush team claims massive increases in funding, but if you read the fine print their numbers are based, in large part, on a proposed 2005 (aka created during election year and not yet real or paid for) budget.
Okay, so in the future, Bush will maybe, supposedly increase support for firefighters. But what about the reality of the past four years? Well, again, the facts are vastly different than the Bush campaign spin. Not only has Bush cut or failed to provide funding, but firefighters are angry over Bush’s exploitation of them and 9-11 for political purposes.
Another example of Bush campaign strategy is to answer the question without, well, answering the question. What’s their argument against Kerry’s claim that Bush has alienated allies, and fueled anger at America? That Kerry has insulted and belittled the coalition.
Uh, okay. Apparently, if Kerry said something bad about the coalition, then “logically” Bush must not have angered or alienated our allies or other nations. 2 + 2 = 5. Gotcha.
They do quote Bush’s praise of the coalition, and statistics about recently promised troop contributions however. Doesn’t exactly change the realities of worldwide protests -- America carrying 90% of the costs in Iraq, or the many other rifts created by this administration though, does it?
Another example of this tactic was their response to Kerry’s claim that Bush handed the job of catching Osama bin Laden over to Afghan warlords. In response, they offer two quotes by Tommy Franks saying the troops in Afghanistan showed no hesitation in their duty, and that it was untrue that troops were pulled out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq.
Okay, good points. But does that mean our troops in Afghanistan were being used instead of Afghan warlords to hunt Osama bin Laden? No.
A third Bush campaign strategy is simply to mischaracterize Kerry’s position. For example, they refute Kerry’s claim that we “should” spend the $200 billion for Iraq in America -- yet Kerry’s stance never was that we should yank funding away from Iraq. Rather, it has always been that if Bush had done things right, more of the 200 billion would have been spent here.
The final Bush campaign tactic is, of course, say it often enough and it must be true. That is why every comment from the White House, every stump speech, every answer during debate somehow comes back to Kerry being indecisive and a flip-flopper.
But is he?
No. No more than any politician, including Bush, and less than many. How many times can the Bush team repeat that ridiculous “voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” quote? Don’t people know by now that it was two separate bills -- a fiscally responsible one Kerry supported and Bush threatened to veto, and a fiscally irresponsible one that Kerry voted no on as a protest, knowing the troops would still get their funding?
Now, to be fair, I'm sure Kerry was indeed selective in the facts and numbers he presented. Just as Bush was. Some truths were stretched by both sides. And Kerry does make conflicting statements on occasion, just as Bush does.
But intelligent people understand that, for example, Bush’s famous statement that he would not use US troops for nation building must be taken in context. Situations and stances change, especially in politics, and Kerry is actually more consistent and decisive than most.
So I am not so worried about that as I am about where and how each man would lead our nation. And based on the past four years, and that Bush’s plan for our nation is summed up as “Kerry is indecisive,” I am certain Kerry could do a better job than Bush.
Respond
Back to top