How does this play back into Presidential politics? Well Paul Krugman writes another great article at the New York Times today about the mythology of President Bush's war.
What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.One thing I've noted is that when you talk to the actual substance of that "leadership," President Bush often comes up short. He's gotten tough with the terrorists? He supports the military? He upholds American honor? He has a firm resolve?
He's gotten tough with the terrorists saying that he doesn't really care if we capture Bin Ladin or not and admitting that the War on Terror may not be winnable. And of course his surrogates often remind us that we will be hit again (which, to be fair, is perfectly accurate).
Well, he supports the military by favoring a lot of cuts in military benefits and veterans benefits. He castigates Senator Kerry for voting against weapon systems that his Vice President also voted against.
Upholding American honor means, in this case, ignoring the objects of much of the rest of the world and invading Iraq anyway. An invasion that, to put it kindly, probably hasn't gone the way President Bush would have liked.
His firm resolve is, frankly, looking more and more like simple stubbornness and unwillingness to change. I remember how he answered the question of whether he had made any mistakes.
I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.At any rate, the rest of Krugman's article is thought provoking, and well worth checking out.
No comments:
Post a Comment