My take on Bob Novak's fairly dubious claim about President Bush's planning a post-election departure from Iraq. I say a grain of salt is in order here, but it does illustrate a scenario wherein Bush is the right candidate for those of us who want the War On Everything to end as soon as possible. It seems inevitable to me that Bush won't have as much interest in the War On Terrorism once it's no longer of any use to him. A Kerry win, however would leave us with a president who has inherited one actual war (in Iraq) and one meta-war (on terrorism), both of which have already been fully paid for by his predecessor. He's got no incentive to do anything other than milk them for all the dread and discipline they're worth. The precedents of Nixon's continuation of the Vietnam War or Ford et al's continuation of the War On Drugs are not promising. That doesn't mean Bush will definitely dial down the Fortress America business—only that Kerry definitely won't.
Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.
Reason is supported by: