|
Truth - a casualty of war?
18/09/2004 22:31 - (SA)
Ron Fournier
Washington - Truth may be the ultimate casualty in the Iraq war, with US President George W Bush and senator John Kerry standing accused of distortion and evasion in their debate over the bloody takeover of a nation.
The Democratic challenger says Bush oversold the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and is now underplaying the dangers left lurking in Iraq.
The Republican incumbent says Kerry has shifted positions with the political winds and has no alternative to the administration's strategy.
They're both right - and wrong, with war-weary American voters left to wonder: Can either guy fix Iraq?
Polls show most voters favor Bush over Kerry on that question, perhaps in part because their commander in chief has told them that the fight in Iraq is part of the greater effort to combat terrorism.
But Bush's re-election bid is threatened by escalating violence in Iraq, where more than 1 000 US soldiers have already been killed and more than 7 200 wounded.
The administration's main rationale for war - finding weapons of mass destruction - has been undermined by their absence.
Reconstruction is spotty. Election plans are in doubt. Troops are stretched thin, with citizen-soldiers - members of the National Guard and Reserve - comprising 40% of US forces in Iraq.
Bush plans a vigorous election-season defense of his strategy, trumpeting what he says is immense progress on the ground. "Freedom is on the march," he tells voters at every campaign stop.
The president's schedule next week includes a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and a trip to the United Nations, where his war plans were met with cold shoulders two years ago.
Ignoring that reality, Bush previewed his UN visit with barely a mention of Iraq in his weekly radio address. "America and many nations are... building a better world by standing with the liberation of peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan," he said on Saturday.
Kerry will be in New York ahead of the president to spell out his plans for Iraq.
Democrats acknowledge this may be the nominee's last chance to explain his evolution on Iraq while offering a succinct, persuasive alternative to Bush's policies.
Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator who voted against the 1991 Gulf War, has consistently favored using diplomatic pressure against Saddam - with military action a last resort.
But his statements and actions in support of that doctrine have been confusing, nuanced and, according to his own advisers, at times tailored to the political climate.
He has tried to satisfy the anti-war sentiments of Democratic activists while projecting an aura of strong leadership for a general-election audience.
Kerry voted in favor of the 2002 resolution giving Bush authority to wage war.
With the president riding high in polls, Kerry pushed for assurances, but did not insist on a guarantee, that the White House would pursue every avenue of diplomacy before turning to the military. Since then:
Kerry said in August he would have voted to authorise war, even if he knew then that there were no weapons of mass destruction. But he also said he believed Bush has misused the authority granted by Congress by rushing into war based on faulty intelligence, without adequate planning for post-Saddam Iraq and without the diplomatic work needed to rally allies.
Asked last week whether there were any circumstances under which the United States should have gone to war, Kerry replied, "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction."
Last year, when the rise of anti-war candidate Howard Dean threatened his bid for the Democratic nomination, Kerry voted against an $87bn spending package for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He went on to defeat Dean and several other Democratic hopefuls.
With Democrats eager to defeat the wartime president, Kerry's combat record in Vietnam seemed politically potent.
Bush now calls Kerry an anti-war candidate who voted against funding the military.
He never mentions that he threatened to veto a version of the $87bn bill because he - like Kerry - didn't like some elements of it. He does not explain that Kerry never said he's opposed to war, only the one waged by Bush.
Kerry wants to remind voters that Bush:
Nurtured the mistaken impression that Saddam was linked to the September 11 attacks. In major addresses, Bush deftly followed a sentence about the horrors of those strikes with another about Iraq.
Overstated al-Qaeda's ties to Iraq. In one major address, Bush said Saddam "would like to use al-Qaeda as a forward army."
Understated the cost of war to the United States. Bush said it would be $1.7bn, but the price tag could be 10 times that.
And, while the president told voters that freedom was on the march, he kept secret an intelligence report last summer that painted a grim picture for Iraq. It included a worst-case scenario with "trend lines that would point to a civil war."
"That is the truth," Kerry said, "as hard as it is to bear."
Ron Fournier has covered national politics since 1993.
- SAPA
|
News
