A Deer In The Headlights
By Tom Barrett (10/12/04)
This has been a good week. On Tuesday we had the Vice-Presidential debate, in which Dick Cheney had John Edwards looking like a deer in the headlights for most of the evening. On Friday I enjoyed seeing Kerry on the defensive, trying vainly to explain away his many changes in position, policy, and tactics. Today we will concentrate on the Vice-Presidential debate.
But before we get into the details, I thought you might enjoy reading a couple of the thousands of emails I get each week. Both were in response to my article, "John Kerry's Desperation." The first is from a desperate Liberal. The second is from a discerning Conservative.
"You are an incredibly stupid man. Jesus would never let a Bush-supporter into heaven; a vote for Bush is a vote favoring the principles of murder and theft. Do your research. Shame on you." I hope he's wrong. I was really looking forward to going to heaven…
"Very good points. Good article. I am Canadian but cannot resist following your very long election process. Regarding Kerry's response to George Bush, I find it amazing that Kerry could reply to the Republican convention and Bush's talk within an hour when he said during an interview that he had not listened or looked at even one minute of the convention." Isn't that interesting? Kerry caught in one more lie.
Let's look at the Veep "debate." It really wasn't much of a debate. It was more of a debacle for poor John Edwards. I almost felt sorry for him.
>From the beginning Cheney had the young pup on the ropes. Edwards probably thought that with all his trial experience (running up medical costs with unconscionable malpractice awards) he could hold his own against the far more experienced Cheney. It was not to be.
Early in the debate, in response to a rambling statement by Edwards, Cheney responded, "Well, it's hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there. The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn't have what they have today if you guys had had your way. You talk about internationalizing the effort. They don't have a plan. Basically, it's an echo.
"You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us. It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process.
"You end up with a situation in which -- talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrongg time, and oh, by the way, send troops. Makes no sense at all. It's totally inconsistent. There isn't a plan there.
"Our most important ally in the war on terror, in Iraq specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the speaker of the House. And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold those elections in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility.
"That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude."
Edwards responded weakly: "The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion.
"And regardless of what the vice president says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration."
Cheney swung back: "Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as..."
EDWARDS: "Oh, I'm not..."
CHENEY: "... as beyond..."
EDWARDS: "I'm not demeaning..."
CHENEY: "It is indeed. You suggested..."
EDWARDS: "No, sir, I did not..."
CHENEY: "... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future."
Edwards didn't have a chance. What I took away from the evening is that Americans were looking at these two men and asking themselves, "If the President were to die, which of these two could step into the job of Commander-in-Chief and keep the country safe?" Any fair-minded observer of these two men would have to conclude that Edwards, who has not even completed his first term in office, would be incapable of filling that position. Cheney, with his wealth of experience, could step into the Presidency without missing a beat.
DEBATE TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
