WASHINGTON, 17 February 2004 — The Bush administration may find it easier to install three presidents in Baghdad than re-elect one in Washington.
On Feb. 8, with his lead in the polls and credibility with voters disappearing faster than Iraqi WMD, President Bush faced millions of Americans in a rare television interview. There were no surprises, new initiatives or unexpected revelations. The president’s goal was simple: Win over undecided voters and build momentum for victory in November. Just 30 days ago, he did not need to do either.
Just 37 days ago, even David Kay’s testimony on Iraqi intelligence seemed to have little impact on President Bush’s polling numbers. The FBI investigation into the White House leak of a covert CIA operative’s name was the subject of dinner conversations in Washington, D.C.; not Springfield, Missouri.
Democratic Party stalwarts tried, unsuccessfully, to drag skeletons from the Bush-Cheney political closet, raising Bush’s uneven military service record and Cheney’s close ties to Halliburton, a major American contractor in Iraq that is accused of inflating invoices for oil purchases. The Democratic contenders for the White House, laughingly referred to as the “nine dwarves”, bickered endlessly amongst themselves while the general public tuned in to more exciting reality programs. Looking back, if the nine contenders were stranded on a desert island, would you have picked Sen. John Kerry as the survivor?
Kerry’s startling lead early in the primaries could not have come at a worse time for the White House. Before Sept. 11, the electoral litmus test was how voters responded to this question, “Do you feel better off today than you did four years ago?” 2.2 million Americans who lost their jobs during the Bush administration would answer, “no.” Millions more have failed to find satisfactory employment, settling for lower-paying jobs or joining the ranks of the long-term unemployed. The economy still sputters, though Bush is quick to point out that his tax-cut remedy might need more time. Meanwhile, the budget deficit is at record highs.
Though most Americans are blissfully unaware of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, this important agency recently issued a report that states, “current fiscal policy is unsustainable.” In order to balance the budget in 2040, taxes have to double or total federal spending must be cut in half. Good news for Kerry, bad news for Bush. The impact of 9/11 has added another crucial electoral calculation: Whether or not Americans feel safe. After the capture of Saddam Hussein in December, Gov. Howard Dean gave his answer: No. Though his Democratic rivals and the White House attacked him afterwards, many voters agreed.
Recently, three congressional buildings were closed when ricin, a deadly poison derived from castor beans, was found in Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s office; commercial flights are frequently cancelled for fear of a terrorist attack; Al-Qaeda off-shoots now flourish inside postwar Iraq; in Afghanistan, warlords and Taleban forces stand to benefit from last year’s record poppy production; despite a massive wall and absent Saddam’s massive payouts, Palestinian suicide bombers continue to kill and maim Israeli civilians; and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism return American body bags and casualties to working class communities across the country.
In cities and towns across America, young people struggling to make a living often turn to the military reserves or even full-time military service to support themselves and their families. The benefits — from health care to education — are generally more comprehensive and generous than those offered by other employers in the area. Over the course of the next year, almost half a million Americans will have rotated through Iraq alone. Their stories, injuries and losses will be etched into the fabric of the nation, much as President Bush believes “freedom is etched in everybody’s heart.”
Last year, President Bush justified the war in Iraq saying, “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.” America was unsafe as long as Saddam went free. Despite a lack of credible intelligence to substantiate the claim, Vice President Dick Cheney linked Saddam and Osama bin Laden. By March 2003, most Americans believed that Saddam played a role in 9/11.
Looking through a lens colored by the horror of 9/11 was a recurrent theme in President Bush’s interview. When veteran journalist and expert interviewer Tim Russert asked the president, “How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?” Bush replied, “I made a decision based upon intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Very threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to American had to be judged in the context of this war on terror.”
What is clear from the president’s interview is his unwavering commitment to the war in Iraq and, even more significant, to the outcome of that war: Change in the Middle East. Americans may not stick around for that sequel.
As the rationale for war unravels and the cost, both in human and financial terms, mounts, voters will come to question whether or not waging a war for democracy is as worthy a cause as waging a war for national security. President Bush said on Feb. 8, “A free Iraq will make it easier for other children in our own country to grow up in a safer world because in the Middle East is where you find the hatred and violence that enables the enemy to recruit its killers.” The president is right, the Middle East is a tough neighborhood, but I feel safer there than in the southeastern part of Washington, DC.
— Maggie Mitchell Salem is a public affairs and media relations consultant in Washington, D.C.
