Wednesday, September 10, 2008

The change line from 2000 campaign

This morning on WOSU I watched a rehash of past presidential debates--Dole and Clinton, Gore and Bush, and I think there were references to others, but by then I was in the shower. It's interesting to listen to the Bush campaign promises of 2000--he was promising change, and was running as an outsider. Also he and Gore agreed on what to do if the U.S. were attacked--retaliate. So I looked at the transcript of the Oct. 11, 2000 debate, and see that Bush stayed with his vision for the Middle East, even if you don't think declaring war to preserve peace makes sense (it's a common theme through out history). Both men were equally firm about defending Israel and "friends." It was interesting how often they agreed on the Persian Gulf, Rwanda and Saddam. They could have easily been running together instead of on separate tickets.
    Bush: Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests. Having a hemisphere that is free for trade and peaceful is in our nation's interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interest. I've thought a lot about what it means to be the president. I also understand that an administration is not one person, but an administration is dedicated citizens who are called by the president to serve the country, to serve a cause greater than self, and so I've thought about an administration of people who represent all America, but people who understand my compassionate and conservative philosophy." Gore: "We need to insist that Arafat send out instructions to halt some of the provocative acts of violence that have been going on. I think that we also have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he is taking advantage of this situation to once again make threats, and he needs to understand that he's not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing -- he's dealing with us if he is making the kind of threats that he's talking about there." Bush: "I think it's important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship. And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president." MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference? GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges. BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there? GORE: " . . . I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, . . ."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I guess Gore was wrong on quite a few of those counts. In fact, I was so underwhelmed that I voted third party. I'm glad my hands are clean.

However, had I voted for Gore, it would not have been because of his foreign policy stances, but because of his domestic policies.

And, I see a difference between supporting indigenous opposition (I'm guessing the Kurds) and actually invading with American troops.

Norma said...

You mean civil war?

Anonymous said...

No.. I'm not sure of exactly what I mean. Except perhaps in supporting the Kurds with no fly zones, etc.., giving them the means to defend themselves against Saddam.

However, I see that as significantly different than sending in American troops and overthrowing Saddam. Even more so when there is no plan in place on how what we're going to do once we've won. Saddam did not attack us.

I'm curious about the "going to war to preserve peace" comment. Since it's somewhat of an oxymoron. Once you go to war, there is no longer any peace to preserve. And I'm trying to figure out when we've gone to war to preserve the peace, and if we have, how well has that worked for us? It seems to me that many of our small wars have resulted in long term consequences that probably haven't always worked out well for us... Nicaragua and Vietnam both come to mind.

Anonymous said...

LOL.. I wish I had read that more carefully before I hit "Enter".

Anonymous said...

The "change" mantra is bipartisan--both parties candidates say it every four years, unless they are being re-elected. Who would ever get elected saying I'm going to keep the status quo and send everyone home to save you guys some money?