QandO

June 19, 2004

Jumping into the George W. Bush/Andrew Sullivan Pond
Posted by Dale Franks

I guess it's official now. Everyone's atitter about Andrew Sullivan's announcement that he won't be supporting George W. Bush's re-election. Jon has also announced publicly here that his support for W could most charitably be described as soft.

So, just so you know that we aren't a monolithically rigid punditry palace here at QandO, let me make my position clear, too. Not only do I support the re-election of George W. Bush, I've already done work for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign, and I expect to do more, including as much ghost-writing and surrogate speaking as I can fit into my schedule.

Does this mean I'm on board with the whole Bush agenda? Of course not. There's a lot of daylight between W and me on a lot of issues.

I think abortion should be legal, at least in the first trimester. I think gays should be allowed to marry. I support stem-cell research. I support the legalization of drugs. I oppose guest-worker and amnesty programs for illegal aliens. I oppose tariffs on steel, textiles, and softwoods.

Not only that, but I think the intelligence on WMDs prior to the war in Iraq was a travesty. And the pre-911 intelligence operation doesn't appear to have been using the sharpest knives in the drawer, either. In fact, it now appears that the CIA couldn't find it's own ass in the dark without both hands, a flashlight, a GPS locator, side-scan sonar, and a dedicated ATC control center.

Now, I have to say, that I never really cared whether Saddam had WMDs or not. Indeed, in 1991, when I was employed by the US Government in the business of killing people and breaking things, I thought that we should have headed the Humvees to Baghdad then, instead of stopping in the desert. I was perfectly happy when Bill Clinton launched Desert Fox, and I supported invading Iraq and whacking Saddam on general principles.

Still, the CIA should have been a bit more on the ball than the freakin French. I mean, we expect them to be wrong about everything, but when we can't do any better than they can, well, it's just embarrassing, man. And W should've kicked butt and taken names at the CIA and the FBI right after 911.

And I'm upset that things in Iraq haven't gone swimmingly either. It was obvious that we were gonna need at least as much iron fist as velvet glove in keeping a lid on trouble over there during the occupation. I think the administration has been too lax in bringing security to the country, and too afraid of criticism to send the troops in to kill anyone who even looked at our boys cross-eyed. Probably, that's because my military experience wasn't in the rarefied levels of policy, but ten years at the trigger-pulling, bullet-stopping level. So, my perspective is probably more inclined to direct action, rather than the catching-flies-with-honey strategy it appears we are using there. For instance, if I was running the show, Shi'ite militia guys would be meeting on Saturdays over coffee, reminiscing about what a great guy that Moqtada al-Sadr used to be, before the unfortunate Daisy-Cutter Incident.

So, yeah, there are plenty of reasons to be disappointed in the Bush Administration's performance.

So what? It's not like I have a wide range of choices for president, now, is it? It's not like W's main opponent is freakin' Pericles.

The opposition roster is as follows:

John Kerry has never met a defense or intelligence budget cut he hasn't liked. And why should he? After all, he thinks the more money you can keep out of the hands of the assassins, rapists, and baby killers of the US national security establishment, the better we'll all be. John Kerry, thinks that Jacques Chirac has some pretty darn important things to say. While we're on the subject, Kerry also thinks we should probably be listening to Gerhard Schröder, too, because the Germans have a lot of experience in foreign affairs, and what the Germans don't know about invading and occupying other countries isn't really worth knowing. Ralph Nader evidently didn't get Micky Gorbachev's communism's-not-working-so-we're-shutting-down-the-USSR memo, so he's keen to try to have go at setting it up over here. Then, of course, there's whatever crank is running on the Libertarian Party ticket this year, who believes that...well, who cares what he believes. The sun will set in a blazing red sky to the east of Casablanca before he ever becomes President.

Yeah, I'm looking at the sample ballot, and I don't see George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, or Abe Lincoln anywhere on it. So, all things considered, I'm sticking with W.

In another time, under other circumstances, I'd be perfectly happy to dump W, too. After all, I voted to get rid of his dad in '92, so I'm not a guaranteed Republican voter. But at this point in history, a president who is willing to unapologetically prosecute the War on Terror is the only option for me. And as far as I can see, W is the only candidate who's committed to that path of action.

Having said all that, though, if you aren't sticking with W, like Andrew Sullivan, then go right ahead. That's the great thing about our system. We get to overthrow the government every 4 years. The right to do that is the very kind of thing we're fighting for right now. You may see things differently than I do. I may disagree with you.

But maybe I'm wrong.

TrackBack