October 29, 2004
-
EDITORIAL
Kerry for President
Far from perfect, he still offers a better choice
There was a time when President Bush could be forgiven. On the face of things, he wanted to do something good for this country, preaching in the 2000 campaign the virtues of modesty in world affairs and compassionate conservatism at home. He wanted to let people save more of their money and not let the government waste it, as it so often does. Even in his science policy, his decision on restricting stem cell research seemed the product of moral introspection, even if it was politically calculated and flawed. And when he stood atop Ground Zero and later before Congress, his anger at the terrorists and forces of this world that would allow an atrocity like Sept. 11, 2001, was evident. A world unknown had been thrust upon his administration, and mistakes were certain to be made.
Bush has made the war on terrorism the centerpiece of his campaign, but he has failed to make terrorism his first priority. Shortly after Sept. 11, Bush stopped focusing on the real enemy — al Qaida — and fixated on Saddam Hussein. The administration is right to say the world was divided about Saddam's ability to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction. Sen. John Kerry believed Saddam was capable. But in the aftermath of the war, Bush refuses to acknowledge that his administration made strategic mistakes. The costs of this inflexibility are remote to most Princetonians, but Iraqi civilians and American soldiers — many of them our age — are dying every day because of it.
The yardstick we must measure the president by in this election year is not, at the very least, the quantity of his errors. It is the Iraq example, however, which shows why the president ought not to be forgiven, and what sets Kerry above Bush. The president is either unable or opposed to conceding error, changing his mind in public or speaking beyond prepared words. The yardstick we must measure the president by in a world with so many unknowns is an ability to adapt to changing circumstances, new truths — discussed as transparently as possible so to be informed by as many people as possible. In this regard Bush has failed plainly. His refusal to change failed policies has left America worse off, more vulnerable. The time for forgiveness has lapsed; the time for change is here.
Kerry is far from perfect, but the time has come for a man who seems willing to retrace history and adapt — a man as least as flexible and open minded as Bush seemed four years ago. A Kerry presidency could restore the transparency and openness — in thinking, discussion, communication and accountability — necessary to ensure that all options are scrutinized before executive decisions are made, and that mistakes are dealt with openly.
Imagining the value of a fresh president open to fresh ideas only rekindles Bush's own failings. In 2003, Bush announced a new multi-billion dollar plan to aid Africa's HIV/AIDS-ravaged population. But now we have changed our foreign aid policies to deny birth control capabilities to these countries. In his 2000 campaign, Bush promised tax cuts, an enviable goal in enviable economic times. But his economic policy has put the welfare of the richest Americans before that of most Americans. It has made us a less just and equal society, even as we preach justice to the world. In the face of rising costs of the war in Iraq, some Americans save hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes as our troops go without basic equipment. Bush refuses to reconsider the virtue of the tax cuts, an inflexibility we have seen throughout the executive branch. In indefinite detentions and some anti-terror policies, the president undermines some of the basic civil liberties that distinguish our country from the ones we criticize.
Kerry has not presented a compelling vision for the country. Bush has had four years to implement his vision for America, and that vision has resulted in a country divided and fearful. If Kerry flip-flopping means reevaluating the past four years of decisions, he offers a stark contrast to the president and a far more attractive choice.
Editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Princetonian's student editorial board and not the opinions of either Princeton University or The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc.
(Respond to this story)
(Email this story to a friend)
(Printer-friendly version)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
October 30, 2004
Post-Election Sticker Shock
t's not too soon to talk about the problems the winner of Tuesday's election will face. One of the biggest is the hemorrhaging cost of the war in Iraq.
The Bush administration, which got an early $25 billion down payment for the new fiscal year with the certainty of asking for more, has left the 2005 war budget's bottom line conveniently blank until after the voters have spoken. But the estimates already circulating say that the president will have to ask for as much as $70 billion more and that the next Congress will have to approve the request in February if the military burdens of Iraq, and to a smaller extent Afghanistan, are to be faced realistically.
If a one-year price tag of $95 billion materializes from the Pentagon budget estimates that are now being prepared, it will drive the war costs to $225 billion and counting since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Capitol Hill lawmakers, already locked into a decade of deficit spending, are in denial about the skyrocketing costs. Republicans eagerly pointed out this week that the final numbers were not yet in.
That's true, but there is little doubt about the general size of the next budget request. Whatever the final number is, it will reflect the hard fact that Iraq is draining far more in blood and treasure than was ever anticipated before the administration's dream of a tidy war turned to ashes. The White House confidently estimated last February that the war's annual cost was unlikely to exceed $50 billion. But that estimate was based on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's odd notion that the United States could conquer, hold and rebuild Iraq with just a few divisions - and Mr. Rumsfeld believed that most of them would have been home by now. The White House also failed to account for the possibility that the Iraqis might resist the occupation, much less for the fierce insurgency that took hold.
Costs rose as the Pentagon was forced to maintain tens of thousands more troops in Iraq than it had planned, straining the Army to the point where some 90 percent of its men at arms are either in Iraq, headed to Iraq or rotating out of Iraq for much-needed rest. Now there are demands for even more soldiers to try to secure enough of Iraq to attempt face-saving elections in January. The Pentagon, scrambling to cover costs, can no longer defer maintenance and other vital needs, but its ability to repair and service battlefield equipment is stretched to the limit. The generals have had to shoot down as unrealistic the election-timed leaks from the administration about grand plans to shorten soldiers' 12-month tours.
Both
John Kerry and President Bush have vowed to stay in Iraq until it is stabilized. If so, they'll have to come to grips with a staggering bill.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Recent Comments