The Other Candidate Bounce - WP reporter find Pres choice difficult

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50944-2004Aug8.html

The Other Candidate Bounce

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, August 9, 2004; Page A15

<snip>Now I'll flop the other way. Bush's clear foreign policy principles are matched by clear foreign policy incompetence. After routing the Taliban, Bush's Pentagon insisted, against all experience and good sense, that the country could be rebuilt with a peacekeeping force of only 5,000 troops confined to the capital. At one point a senior State Department official mooted a fivefold expansion in that force, and just about every outside expert on nation-building agreed. But these voices were ignored. As a result, Afghanistan is descending into the hands of drug-dealing warlords.

Then came the Iraq mess. Bush and his officials over-interpreted the evidence on weapons of mass destruction, treating suppositions as hard facts. They failed to plan for the postwar operation, and they acted surprised when the power vacuum caused by the regime's implosion triggered looting and mayhem. They needlessly alienated allies with taunts about "old Europe." And they permitted the Abu Ghraib abuses, which have damaged America's reputation and influence for years to come.

By going into Iraq, Bush showed a welcome willingness to take risks and preempt threats; he showed that the United States could project force aggressively. But by going into Iraq, Bush showed an inability to calibrate risk and preempt possible setbacks; he has damaged America's ability to project force aggressively. <snip>

On the other hand you have domestic economic policy. Bush's tax cuts are regressive, even though technology and globalization are already increasing inequality. Bush's tax cuts are enormous, even though we face a baby bust and terrifying long-term trends in health care inflation. And Bush has presided over an explosion of government spending. He has never once wielded his veto to block pork-barrel waste, and his efforts on entitlements consist of ignoring the recommendations of his own Social Security commission, plus creating a brand new entitlement to prescription drugs for retirees.

So which should I prefer? A candidate whose foreign policy instincts are wrong? Or one whose implementation discredits his good policy? A candidate who lacks the guts to be for trade, or a candidate with an anorexic compulsion to starve the government of money? There are ways to balance these factors, and I'll do that another time. But if people see this as an easy choice, they see something I'm missing.

[e-mail]

[iamjoy]

1. Many Others May Be In The Same Boat (n/t)