Hugh Hewitt's latest post is unabashed Bush cheerleading:
Newsweek has the latest poll that shows (1) a drop in President Bush's approval ratings, and (2) a dead-heat in the Bush-Kerry poll. Proving what? That Americans wish progress was quicker in Iraq, but that even in the face of the worst 45 days of news since 9/11, the president is still understood as a war leader and Kerry is an implausible replacement. There's a stature gap when it comes to dealing with the enemy which John Kerry will never fill, which is why I remain very optimistic about the fall vote. The American people know that a vote for Kerry will be a vote to cut-and-run, and they also know that there is no way to withdraw from a war we didn't start and we cannot end, as the execution of Nick Berg reminded demonstrated again this week. ...
November's choice cannot now be understood as other than a referendum on how America is going to conduct itself over the next two decades. The Bush path is clear, and means aggressive confrontation of the enemy up to and including invasion if necessary, versus the Kerry approach of talk to the Security Council and get some subpoenas issued. The Bush approach is hard and costly, both in lives lost among the military and huge appropriations. The Kerry approach is suicidal.I have a lot of respect and admiration for Hugh, but all of this strikes me as far too glib. Contrast Hugh's unsquelched optimism about Bush with Jonathan Last's take in today's LA Times. Last is no lefty; he's an editor at the neocon Weekly Standard, but he sees Bush in a clear and harsh light:
The Republican theory of victory in November is that John Kerry will by then have become an unacceptable choice for voters because of his well-documented penchant for flip-flopping on issues. It's a smart theory with only one problem: George W. Bush would not be immune to the same charge.Last then cites a bunch of examples, of which a number go directly to Hugh's claim that the "Bush path is clear":
In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, Bush spoke as if the war on terrorism would be waged against all terrorist organizations, saying, "Anybody who houses a terrorist, encourages terrorism, will be held accountable." On another occasion he said, "We are planning a broad and sustained campaign to secure our country and eradicate the evil of terrorism." And later the president proclaimed, "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves."
By November 2001, however, Bush had modified his position: "Where terrorist groups exist of global reach, the United States and our friends and allies will seek it out, and we will destroy it." The important clause "of global reach" was added to justify ignoring regional terrorism in Ireland, Spain, Chechnya, the Philippines and Israel.
In March 2003, the president was asked if he would call for a vote on the proposed U.N. Security Council resolution backing the use of force in Iraq, which faced near-certain defeat. "No matter what the whip count is," Bush said, "we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." The vote was never taken.
The list goes on. After saying the U.N. would have only a perfunctory role in rebuilding Iraq, Bush went back to the world body seeking aid in September and more recently looked to U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to help form an interim government in Iraq. After announcing he would file an amicus brief opposing affirmative action at the University of Michigan, Bush instructed his solicitor general to file a last-minute brief that essentially punted on the issue.Personally, I have no doubt that I'll vote for Bush in November. But don't count on me for a ton of rah-rah cheerleading. The Iraq mess daily raises serious new questions about the competence of the Bush administration. As Fouad Ajami argues: "We have been doing Iraq by improvisation, we are now "dumping stock," just as our fortunes in that hard land may be taking a turn for the better." Ajami further raises the competence question by observing "the confusion--and panic--of our policies in the aftermath of a cruel April."
Conservatives do their cause no good by ignoring those questions; instead, we are going to have to make the case that Bush deserves reelection despite those legitimate questions. We also need to hold Bush 43's feet to the fire, so that the Bush 2.1 administration runs the war more competently than this one has.
