It appears that the number one voting issue is in choosing a commander in chief owing to terrorism and the projected manner in which Iraq is handled in a new presidential term — apparently being presidential doesn’t matter. A sizable number of voters are comfortable with Bush in the area of militancy because there have been no threats carried out by Al Qaeda, and Iraq, in a sense, is “winding down” and confidently a matter of history. On the other hand, there are old school voters who zero in on accountability for presumably incompetent foreign policy.

Those who believe Bush a strong leader predicate that belief on right or wrong he is resolute. As Clinton said after the disastrous defeat of the Democrats in the 2002 election, “It is better to be wrong and strong than to be right and weak.” So what if a war was fought because White House laptop spell checker didn’t change the letter ‘q’ for ‘n’ [Iraq for Iran]? Besides, the ‘n’ also stood for nuclear and we weren’t prepared for that — better to limit body bags to 900 than 9,000. Nor did it matter why we invaded Iraq since the Ace in the hole was always Saddam’s atrocities and therefore who would be against humanitarian intervention? Democrats, after all, were in favor of such intervention in Kosovo. That we were already engaged in a war in Afghanistan shows that Bush can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time. Don’t forget FDR engaged in — even though technically Hitler declared war on us — Europe’s war, together with the theater of war in the Pacific. What did it matter that Bush was against a department of Homeland Security that would entail only more obscene union workers to buck his unilateral temperament, until the Republican congress assured him that it would effectively bust the union and expose the Democrats as unpatriotic in their insistence to honor federal employee contracts? Who really cares that during an eleven-hour flight of 9/11 wariness, the actual commander in chief was Cheney; it proved that Bush was a confident Reaganite who believed in delegating authority. Premature announcement of mission accomplished was only off by a year or two; only historians who argue over the actual length of the Hundred Year war would hold his miscalculation accountable. Why should we expect a strong leader to jawbone the Intelligence corps and insist on no bullshit? — Clinton didn’t — and besides Bush was resolute in making up his mind regardless and that takes balls. How can we hold Bush accountable for not heeding the memo headline “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US,” when he doesn’t read? And why be pestered by a 9/11 investigation prying into the administration’s inner sanctum until pressured by 9/11 survivors of victims?

As for the other side, and under pressure of the Deaniacs, both Kerry and Edwards cast their protest vote on the $87 billion for Iraq as long as their votes were not critical. However, they did hedge that they would vote for it if the proceeds were taken out of the pockets of the rich. Because of war and terror, Kerry prognosticated that the image of a commander in chief was crucial and therefore brought to the foreground his military record while defending his earlier position when Clinton was running as a candidate, whom he forgave for his draft-dodging expertise, because it was peacetime. How can a leader not perceive the UN, France, Germany and Russia as irrelevant? — when all they cared about was the steady flow of oil so as not to duplicate the crisis of the 70s. Kerry now is supposed to ignore $44 per barrel of oil. Though a much heralded environmentalist, he favors a new gas pipeline from the Arctic and urges oil exploration except in ANWR. Could it be that in a time of a budget-crunching war that the people are unwilling to pay for — and why should they when foreign countries are willing to finance it indirectly at some $2 billion a day? —Kerry is perceiving things realistically and complexly? What kind of commander in chief would disclose his exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan only to have his opponent abscond with it as own?

Since Kerry is displayed as public liberal enemy number one, why did he vote for NAFTA , welfare reform, and the communications decency act? Could it be that there is more to politics than arrant simplification? But does complexity cut it as a commander in chief? Or is there is a need for wisdom and action together?

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: August, 5, 2004.