Gep: * lacks Nat'l Sec understanding - desplays cowboy mentality

[papau]

President Bush "lacks an understanding of the complexities of national security policy and has displayed a cowboy mentality toward the rest of the world"

Gephardt defends vote backing war in Iraq By DAN BALZ
Washington Post



WASHINGTON - Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said Wednesday that President Bush lacks an understanding of the complexities of national security policy and has displayed a cowboy mentality toward the rest of the world that threatens to leave the country less secure against terrorist and other threats.<snip>

.. while acknowledging he has embraced some of the broad goals of Bush's policy since then, Gephardt said that, based on his meetings with Bush, he does not trust the president to conduct foreign policy. "He's not dumb," he said, "but he is not informed and he's not experienced and he hasn't surrounded himself with the right people to give him the information and the experience that he doesn't have. And he worries me."<snip>

Gephardt also said he would be a better challenger to Bush because he can draw a sharper contrast with the president than Dean on issues ranging from health care and Medicare to trade and gun control, and because he can run more effectively in the Midwestern battlegrounds that could decide the outcome next November. "I really believe I can make a connection with those voters better than anybody in this race and can win this race," he said.<snip>

His support for going to war with Iraq, he said, was fueled by concerns that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he recalled a one-on-one briefing with CIA director George Tenet, who he said "answered emphatically yes" when asked whether Iraq possessed such weapons. And while he said the administration may have exaggerated the nature of the threat, he added, "I don't feel deceived." Still, Gephardt was harsh in his assessment of the president. While saying the United States has the right to take pre-emptive action to prevent acts of terrorism, Gephardt said Bush's decision to make it a stated policy "is not a sensible thing to do." Bush's failure to enlist greater international support, he said, is part of what has led him to describe the president as "a miserable failure."<snip>

Gephardt said his national security policy would be broader than simply defending against terrorism and would include "getting at the root causes" of terrorism. To accomplish that, Gephardt said he would be far tougher with Saudi Arabia than Bush has been.<snip>

Gephardt offered mild criticism of former president Clinton, saying Clinton should have worked harder to get enforceable labor and other standards into the North American Free Trade Agreement.<snip>

[stopbush]

1. And here's the problem with Gep.

He calls bush "a miserable failure." That's a pretty damning assessment. But instead of keeping the level of rhetoric up à la Dean, Gep feels he needs to pull his punches with statements like this: Gephardt said Bush's decision to make it (pre-emption) a stated policy "is not a sensible thing to do."

Not sensible? How about "suicidal?"

Here's more fire and brimstone from Gep: And while he said the administration may have exaggerated the nature of the (Iraq wmd) threat, he added, "I don't feel deceived." Say wha? Thousands are dead, we lied to the world, we're stuck in a quagmire and an unending circle of death, but you don't feel deceived? How about this, Gep: your wife comes home and tells you she's been lying and cheating on you for the past 20 years. Would you feel deceived then?

Let's face it, Gep is in the unique position to make bush's lies an issue because he - unlike Dean - was told these lies to his face. So why can't he come out and call the lies what they were - lies? It's one of three things - 1) he's blowing smoke, he wasn't lied to, ergo he can't make a case; 2) he feels compromised by his vote on IWR and feels he must stand by his vote to not appear wishy-washy; 3) he simply doesn't have the spine to play his strongest suit against bush.

Any one of those three reasons basically disqualifies him from serious consideration as the Dem nominee.

[HFishbine]

2. I don't get the "I wasn't deceived" defense

I've heard Edwards say it to (Hardball, December). What are the implications of this. Gephardt and Edwards didn't believe the intellegence, but voted for war anyway? Logically, this means supported a war of pre-emption because of something other than an immenent threat to the U.S. More reason to question their wisdom, in my opinion.

[Cocoa]

3. I see it differently

I feel the way you do about the war, but I don't want political leaders to just echo what I already think, I want them to express their own views.

When I listen to a political speech, I want to learn something. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them, there are a lot of choices out there.

i.e. I don't want Gep to pretend to be Kucinich. If I decide I want to vote based on the war, I want the candidates to honestly represent themselves, make the choice clear.