Advice for Kerry from Gore and. . .
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: How to Debate George Bush
Well, I don't really have advice - but I know what I'd like to hear Kerry say. But first, here's what I think is Al Gore's strongest point in this NYT op ed piece.
The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."
Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.
And me. I jotted downt hes enotes the other day:
What I wish Kerry would say Thursday night
Mr. President, you obviously favor plain talk without any nuances. Ok. Let me tput it plainly.You are acollasal failure.
You failed us before 9/11, you failed us immediately afterwards in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and you are failing us now in Iraq, squandering American lives, American dollars, and American honor.
True, these are not your failures alone. A nuanced answer would look at the shortcomings of those you have appointed and depended upon. A nuanced answer would look at other administrations and at some government officials you didn’t appoint.
But in plain talk, the buck stops at your desk – these thing happened under your watch, and you have to take responsibility for them.
You have to take responsibility for vacationing in Texas while knowledgeable people in your adminstration were trying strenuously to warn you that a significant terror attack was imminent. You did not respond and 9/11 was the result. Face it, Mr. President, you just weren't taking terrorists seriously despite the warnings form your own people, fromt he Clinton administration, and from a bi-partisan Congressional Report.
You have to take responsibility for targeting Osama bin Laden, “dead or alive,” and then when we should have had him trapped, you blinked. You relied on unreliable war lords – men who had been fighting against us just a few weeks before – to seal the escape routes and this strategy obviously failed. Your solution. You now declare that Osama bin Laden isn’t important. He was once the ultimate enemy, but when you failed to catch him he became unimportant. That is a classic example of how you delude yourself into thinking you have solved a problem - just pretend.
And you have to take responsibility for the deaths of more than 1,000 servicemen in Iraq, most of which occurred after you declared “mission accomplished.” In fact, most of them occurred after your incredibly arrogant "bring 'em on" remarks. What were you thinking? Playing macho games with other people's lives is not presidential. Your failure to enlist the support of the world as your father had wisely done, your failure to provide enough troops on the ground, as your generals had warned you they needed, and your failure to have any plan to win the peace have cost us dearly and created a deepening quagmire that gobbles up human and dollar resources and ultimately makes America less safe rather than more safe.
When you look at the record, Mr. President, it’s really hard to believe one man could make so many bad decisions and do so much harm in such a short time, but you have. And this says nothing about the incredible nuclear proliferation promoted by your ally Pakistan right under your nose, nor your ignoring of the far worse nuclear threat from a dictator very bit as despicably and more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. The simple fact is, Mr. President, under your leadership our friends distrust and dislike us and our enemies grow stronger. Sticking your head in the sand will not solve these problems.
Oh, and there's so much more I would like to say to these silly little hypocrit who has thge audacity to masquerade as a leader. But then, I'll start foaming at the mouth and lose the debate.
I don't envy Kerry. He is the better man with th ebetter plan - but that doesn't count with people who favor style over substance. And he has to be very careful to continue to behimself. He will fall flat on his face if he tries to adopt another persona.
But he can win. I will watch in hope.
