PENNSYLVANIA IN THE BALANCE

David Broder provides some useful details on a critical swing state.

THAT SIMPLE QUESTION: Thanks for all your emails about why the Bush war-plan did not even try to secure many of the Saddam weapons sites that might have contained WMDs and actually did contain ammunition that was subsequently looted. I’m sorry to say no one has a persuasive answer. One option is that the military was so intent on decapitating the regime that they ignored these real potential threats, regarding them as less of a priority. But wasn’t the entire point of the invasion to prevent loose nukes, chems and bios from getting to terrorists? Another option is that there were simply too few troops to do all that needed to be done. But that ignores the fact that these weapons sites were left unguarded for weeks, while the borders were essentially open. Some of you, of course, think that the reason is more obvious and devious than that:

It’s unsettling to consider, but it is apparent that the invasion proceeded with no concern for the possibility of WMD used against our troops, no concern for the possibility that Saddam could pass WMD on to terrorists as an option of last resort, and no concern for the possibility that terrorists could stumble upon WMD in the chaos of regime change. This suggests to me that the war planners didn’t believe there were any WMD to fear.

So why were soldiers given chemical suits? Here’s another thought:

I was asking myself questions similar to the ones you raise in response to Bremer’s admission, but they were stimulated by the Duelfer report instead of the Bremer gaffe. My understanding is that while it debunks the claims that Iraq had an active weapons program, it leaves open the question of whether or not stockpiles of weapons were removed from Iraq prior to the invasion. Please tell me I’m wrong about this. Imagine if weapons were spirited out of Iraq before we had even had the opportunity to implement a good plan to secure the borders. The fact is that we’ve traded a relatively mild uncertainty about Iraq’s WMD for a horrifying uncertainty about them. The only thing that is certain is that they are not where we can do anything about them. Nothing would make me happier than to be corrected on this point.

Me too. I refuse to believe that the administration lied. Which leaves the incompetence explanation intact.

EMAIL OF THE DAY

“Kerry’s conduct in this debate adds to the impression that he would make a competent President and able commander in Chief. Kerry’s task is no longer to convince people that Bush is a poor President, despite his supposed charm and whatever sentimental memory of his strength from the fall of 2001. People are seeing all of Bush’s shortcomings. Kerry needs to “close the sale”, and his debate performance tonight helps. People are still accumulating their impression of the man — he seems steady, smart, less political and more substantive, less doctrinaire than they have been led to believe. For many people, this is the fourth hour that they have spent with him, and I think that he is wearing well.
It doesn’t help that Bush’s credibility is now invested in Kerry as being an awful liberal and flip-flopper. I suspect many people are saying that Kerry doesn’t seem to be who Bush says he is, and what does that say about Bush?”

BUSH’S TIMBER COMPANY

Kerry was right. Money quote:

President Bush himself would have qualified as a “small business owner” under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush’s total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a “small business owner” in-2000 based on $314 of-“business income,” but not in-2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as “royalties” on a different tax schedule.)

On this point, and many others, Bush simply didn’t seem as well-informed as Kerry. That doesn’t matter a huge amount generally, but when you have Bush’s current credibility gap, it doesn’t help. —

A DRAW

That’s my basic take, although the debate was more interesting than that makes it seem. On style, the president was clearly far better than in the first debate. I think he’s woken up and realizes he can lose this thing. He was aggressive, clear most of the time, had a good rapport with the audience and, as the debate went on, became more relaxed. There were moments early on, however, when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness. Early cut-away shots weren’t helpful either. He tended to look up at Kerry blinking fast, twitching a little, and occasionally smirking and even winking to friends in the audience. Not presidential. He was strongest on stem cell research, where most of his work was done by the questioner. But his clear formulation – “to destroy life in order to save life is one of the most difficult moral concundrums we face today” – was eloquent and correct. I’m with him on this one. I also found his response to the abortion question better than Kerry’s. How you can respect human life and be in favor of partial birth abortion is simply beyind me. Bush is also clearly right that the war on terror cannot be restrained merely to police work against al Qaeda. On all these things, his performance was immeasurably better than last week.

BUSH’S BLATHER: But he was also evidently flailing at times. Throwing around the old “liberal” label was hackneyed and seemed a substitute for argument. His distortion of Kerry’s healthcare plan didn’t flirt with being mendacious; it was an outright lie. His answer on the environment sounded okay but isn’t going to convince anyone. That he has to concede the complete absence of WMDs in Iraq is inevitably brutal on him and his argument about the war. The facts are simply against him, and it shows. He had absolutely no answer on his spending spree. None. If you’re a one-issue voter on fiscal responsiblity, Kerry is obviously your man; and this debate rammed that point home. And then there were some simply bizarre moments. Does anyone in America ever use the term “internets”? Plural? I’ve never heard anyone in my life use this formulation. The mandatory malapropism: Bush promised at one point that he’d be more “facile” in future. That’s going to be a hard promise to keep. After four years of defending the homeland, the president should also not be giving soundbites like “I’m worried. I’m worried about our country.” Hey, Mr president. Join the gang. And then ythere was the hilarious answer on the judicial appointments. Bush won’t appoint anyone who still believes in the Dredd Scott decision. That’s a relief. But, to be honest, it’s the kind of question a high-school president might give, not the president of the United States. Bush’s biggest failure was to detail Kerry’s record, rather than just describing it as “liberal”. “Show, not tell” is a good rule of thumb for effective criticism. And then there was the inevitable “mistakes” question. Bush didn’t answer it – except to say he wish he hadn’t hired Paul O’Neill. You’d think by now he’d have some kind of answer. But he seems to think he is incapable of error. That, in fact, is an obvious part of the problem.

KERRY THE DEMAGOGUE: Kerry was as strong and as presidential as he was in the first debate, and effective, I think, in countering the flip-flop charge. His strongest debate points were citing Republicans to criticize the president’s war management, giving far more concrete proposals on healthcare than the president, burnishing his fiscal conservatism, and demagoguing the reimportation of prescription drugs. Yes, it was horrible pandering on the latter but it did the job and Bush didn’t counter him. It’s so depressing that neither candidate gave the honest answer to the reimportation problem: it will decimate the pharmaceutical companies’ profits and wreck long-term research and development. But one thing you can tell from this debate: no one promised any new limits on government. Bush has killed that brand of conservatism dead. Kerry’s big new weakness is that he really does seem to have reverted to the notion that Saddam should have been left in power. The Duelfer report definitely gives him ammunition on this, but the president is right to argue that such a position makes it difficult for Kerry to have credibility with our current allies in fighting the current war. The line Kerry is trying to walk between appealing to his anti-war base while reassuring pro-war independents got a little shakier tonight.

AN EDGE TO KERRY: Stylistically, Kerry seemed, well, calmer. When the camera cut to him during Bush’s walkarounds, he was generally serene and respectful. His parries were cleaner than Bush’s; his mind seemed more complicated – but not to the point of complete paralysis. Far from it. The contrast between a man who can make an argument and one who can simply assert what he believes to be a truth was striking. If we have learned anything these past three years, it is that conviction is not enough. Skepticism, openness to other arguments, thinking outside the box or against a bubble mentality: all these are useful in a war leader and Bush has none of them. In some ways, Kerry seemed more experienced than Bush, which, of course, he is. All in all, I’d say that Kerry had a minuscule edge in both the substantive and stylistic contest. But the fact that Bush seemed alive and kicking as a candidate will help him regain some initiative as well.