A Perspective From The Coast Of Maine...
To Democratic presidential candidates
letters@TimesRecord.Com
08/01/2003
By Arthur Cannon, Times Record Contributor
Dear Candidates:
The next presidential election is truly critical. Conservatives are already talking openly about turning our country into a one-party government for a very long time, and if the Republicans win the presidency and Congress next year they could well be right.
But Bush is eminently beatable next year, provided you are smart and say, and do, what it will take. Some of you have already begun to do just that, a few of you from the beginning, a few because of recent events. Some of you have yet to wake up.
Whether you were for or against the war with Iraq in the beginning is immaterial; there is nothing wrong in giving our president the benefit of the doubt in such a grave matter. But you must disabuse yourselves of the notion of conceding the national security issue to him and attacking on what seems to be his most vulnerable point: his miserable record on the economy, environment, education, public health and other domestic issues. The truth — a truth you must recognize and make clear to the electorate — is that Bush is even more vulnerable on national security than on domestic issues; his presumed invincibility on this issue, the product of a massive con job.
You must show how his relentless exploitation of 9-11 for his own political gain has made us far more — not less — vulnerable to terrorist attack since that fateful day, a vulnerability that has grown and continues to grow. A few examples:
He has damaged the economies of our state and local governments, to the extent that they have been forced to let go 80,000 police, firefighters, paramedics and other first responders to emergencies, at a time when they should have been hiring many more.
He has reneged on his promises of federal funding for training and equipment for first responders, promises made immediately after 9-11.
He has reduced seaport security by sending Coast Guard ships, such as Portland's USCG Wrangell, and other assets to the Persian Gulf in support of the Iraq war, even though all experts emphasize that our seaports are among the most tempting targets for terrorists.
He has started a war that was at best unnecessary at this time, and in doing so has squandered finite national defense assets, assets that might be needed to meet homeland emergencies or true emergencies elsewhere — such as Korea. (Although the Bush camp dismissed concerns about our military being overextended during the buildup to the war, saying we had sufficient forces to wage war in Iraq and elsewhere, they are now being forced to relieve 12,000 soldiers of the Third Infantry Division in Iraq by calling up National Guard combat units.)
He failed utterly to plan for the aftermath of that war, not only endangering our troops and the peace process, but revealing fatal weaknesses in our superpower status. Other adversaries are likely to exploit those weaknesses while we are bogged down in Iraq.
You must educate the public as to the absurdity of those Bush tax cuts: purportedly to stimulate a sputtering economy and create jobs, but resulting in 2.5 million jobs lost and the economy in a deep slide since the first tax cut in 2001 — while predicting that the latest round will create one million new jobs, at a cost (if successful) of $70,000 per job.
More importantly, you must stress the connection between our ever ballooning deficits and reduced national security: Our very survival as a debtor nation depends on the willingness of foreigners to keep investing trillions of dollars in our government and private entities, dollars that will be pulled the moment default appears imminent. Without them we lose the wherewithal to continue our status as the world's greatest military and economic superpower ever.
Finally, some of you are arguing for the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and others of you are silent on the issue. That might win the nomination, but it would guarantee defeat in the election.
Most of the public realizes that, like it or not, we are stuck to Bush's Iraq tar baby also. We may have toppled the Saddam regime, but that obligated us to replace it with a stable representative government, a task that is proving much more difficult than Bush imagined. And if we abrogate that responsibility, horrific consequences will follow with certainty, consequences even worse than the Saddam regime. The various Iraq factions would fight to fill the power vacuum, and not with words; the end result could be a Saddam regime clone, a fundamentalist Muslim state on the order of Iran or Saudi Arabia, a nation torn apart by civil wars into several smaller states, or even — very unlikely — a reasonably tolerant government. But whatever the outcome, it would occur only after much bloodletting as old scores are settled. The havoc would likely spread to the rest of the region, the blowback quickly reaching this country.
Each of you has a great chance of beating Bush next year. And you'll have two things going for you that he doesn't even know exist: the truth and common sense. Don't blow it.
___________________________________
Arthur Cannon is a retired construction specifications writer who now lives and works in Bath, and considers himself an equal opportunity cynic. His e-mail address is acannon2@verizon.net.
__________________
timesrecord.com |
