Of words and deeds: Bush as candidate versus Bush as President

In August of 2000, President Bush -- then Governor and presidential candidate Bush -- gave his acceptance speech at the Republic National Convention. Six years later, it is interesting to compare some of what he promised with what he has delivered. While no one would argue that the September 11 terrorist attacks would not have altered the plans of any president in 2001, Bush did make some statements that he is not adhering to today.


On when to use force

"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming." 

During the 2000 election, Bush spoke out against nation building. But by 2003, the US had toppled the Iraqgovernment and was trying to rebuild a shattered nation. While Bush talks about his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," it is hard to view that the Iraqi venture meets the criteria he laid out in the summer of 2000.

Just, clear goal, and overwhelming victory? The original goal was to stop Saddam from producing and using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Now, the goal is Iraqi liberty and democracy -- and the other reason given is that we can't run now that we are there. Perhaps the current justifications would still be "just" to Bush, but to most in Congress and the country, if we knew during the fall of 2002 why we would be in Iraq in 2006, the authorization for use of force would have certainly failed or been passed with severe limitations.

Certainly the initial stage of the fighting was an overwhelming military success; however, three years later, with (as of today) 2,544 troops killed and almost 19,000 wounded, the ultimate victory we are still hoping to achieve is anything but overwhelming.


On American power

"We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence."

While there is little doubt that the American military, even stretched as it is with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, remains by far the most powerful armed force in the world, American political influence is not very strong and not consistently applied. The Iraq conflict continues to be a sore spot with American allies, and the situations in Iran and North Korea demonstrate that America 1) can no longer act alone -- particularly with so many military assets committed to Iraq, and 2) does not consistently react to security threats.

While Republicans and the Administration would fight this charge, most observers would say that American influence has diminished over the last three years.


On cutting taxes and war fighting

"The last time taxes were this high as a percentage of our economy, there was a good reason; we were fighting World War II." 

The most interesting aspect of this quote is that Bush equates having high taxes as being OK during World War II. And given that Bush likes to recall the imagery and sacrifice of Americans in that war and equate it with the current fight against terrorism, it would seem to make sense that he would think it was therefore OK to have higher taxes to offset the massive increase in defense spending as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).

Of course, this comparison apparently no longer makes sense to Bush, though many Americans would undoubtedly understand and agree if he argued we needed to temporarily raise taxes to pay for the current operations.


On following the law

"So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."

This quote is interesting in light of the debate over the Administration's prolific use of signing statements that supposedly allow the President and his team to interpret the law as they see fit, and the Administration's various once-secret surveillance programs. While we will see more legal opinions and rulings in the future on both these subjects, the Administration has certainly made many opponents question its belief in upholding laws it does not like or want to follow.


Bush does ignore polls, at least initially

"I believe great decisions are made with care, made with conviction, not made with polls." 

With unfavorable polls on both his leadership and the Iraq conflict, it appears the one thing you can say about the President is that he is willing to stick with what he thinks is the current correct course of action, despite negative public opinion.

This "ignore the polls" philosophy is actually more talk than action, though. Many times, Bush has been willing to give in to mounting public pressure, though he would deny it (supporting the 9/11 Commission, following the Geneva Conventions on military bases, letting the courts review the legality of NSA warrantless wire tapping, etc.). So even in this case, it's hard to say that in the end he has delivered on what he promised to do six years ago.

Why no liberty for North Koreans?

On the 4th of July -- no doubt as a deliberate slap at the US government -- North Korea conducted a series of missile tests. In total, seven missiles were launched, including one intercontinental missile -- a potential future threat to reach the the United States if its range and accuracy is improved -- called the Taepo Dong 2 (which exploded shortly after launch). According to an article from Jane's Defence Weekly, "While the Taepo Dong 2 failed shortly after lift-off, it is likely to still have provided the North Koreans with valuable experience and some limited data collection."

The issue of a nuclear-capable North Korea with intercontinental ballistic missiles is a major security issue for the United States, and the PR reaction was swift from the White House.


The White House keeps the rhetoric down, foregoes images of mushroom clouds

When the Administration was describing the threat of Saddam, they talked about mushroom clouds over US cities. However, the first post-launch official statement from the White House on the 4th was relatively low key:

"The United States strongly condemns these missile launches and North Korea's unwillingness to heed calls for restraint from the international community."

The statement was followed up by a Tony Snow press briefing today:

"The end state is pretty clear: What you want is a North Korea that renounces nuclear development, that returns to the table, that no longer engages in this kind of activity, this kind of provocative activity."

"There are attempts to try to describe this almost in breathless World War III terms. This is not such a situation. This is a situation in which people are working with a regime in North Korea, trying to reason with a dictator, to step back from provocative activities. "

At a press conference for President Saakashvili of Georgia today, Bush stated:

"The North Korean government can join the community of nations and improve its lot by acting in concert with those who -- with those of us who believe that she shouldn't possess nuclear weapons ..."

"One thing we have learned is that the [Taepo Dong 2] didn't stay up very long and tumbled into the sea, which doesn't, frankly, diminish my desire to solve this problem."

"I view this as an opportunity to remind the international community that we must work together to continue to work hard to convince the North Korean leader to give up any weapons programs."

Why is the North Korea nuclear "problem" not a bigger issue than democracy in Iraq?

While the Administration continues on with its ill-defined mission to bring democracy to Iraq, the North Korea "problem" becomes more of an issue. Unfortunately for the President, the test missile launches came on the same day as his 4th of July speech that outlined why American is fighting in Iraq. Bush stated:

"Our strategy is clear, our goals are easy to understand: We will help Iraq's new leaders, we will help the people of Iraq build a country that can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself as a free nation. Our troops will help the Iraqi people succeed because it's in our national interests. A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make America and the world more secure." 

"Our strategy to protect America is based on a clear premise: The security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations."

"On September the 11th, 2001, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. And we learned an important lesson: Decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make it safe."

In addition, in the 2004 Republican Party Platform, party leadership made it clear that:

"We will not allow the world’s most dangerous regimes to possess the world’s most dangerous weapons." 

So, the question of course becomes, why are we not attacking North Korea instead of policing Iraq? The North Korean threat is certainly much more apparent -- the evidence is real. North Korea has a WMD program and t is working on a delivery vehicle which eventually may allow its weapons to reach the US. So, using Bush's own 4th of July comments:

• Why don't the North Koreans deserve liberty? There is obviously no liberty for the 23 million people living in Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) today. Is there something special about the Middle East -- Iraq in particular -- that makes its people more deserving of freedom than North Koreans?
  
  
• Isn't Kim Jong Il and his government one of those "failed and oppressive" regimes that makes the world unsafe? Unlike with Saddaam and Iraq, North Korea and its leader have made it clear through words and deeds that they are seeking WMD capability, as well as the technology needed to deliver warheads across oceans. This isn't about hidden programs and disguised mobile bio labs. Read a CNN.com article here for a recent timeline of the public activities around North Korea and its quest for nuclear arms.
  
  
• Isn't over five decades enough evidence that North Korea should be high up on the Bush to do list? The US fought the forces of North Korea (and China) for three years until the Korean War Armistice Agreement was signed in 1953 (it is still just a cease-fire half a century later). And given the rhetoric that has emerged over the years from the North Korea government, it's safe to say that this country, together with its nuclear and intercontinental ambitions, is a major threat according to anyone's worldview.

So why is the North Korea issue on the backburner and Iraq getting all of our limited resources? This is not an attempt to bash the President, but a real question. Is it because:

• North Korea doesn't have a lot of oil?
  
  
• North Korea would be a tough fight, a fight which might kill tens of thousands of US troops and require a draft?
  
  
• Americans know and care less about North Korea than the Middle East?
  
  
• There's no terrorist/Al Qaeda connection with the DPRK?

Whatever the real reason, it's about time the President started explaining why Iraq is so critical to our security while North Korea is given second-class threat status.