SEPTEMBER 12, 2006:
WHY BOB CASEY WILL LOSE TO RICK SANTORUM: A DEMOCRAT'S LAMENT
The September 3 Casey-Santorum debate put into stark focus the reasons that Casey will lose to Santorum, despite currently leading by double-digits in the polls. (See my line-by-line analysis of the debate for details.) Casey did not present Santorum as a candidate with a history of poor decision-making and disastrous results, nor did he distinguish himself as a candidate with sound, strong judgment. Running against an incumbent, Casey CAN and MUST attack Santorum's record with specific examples of Santorum's poor judgment, incorrect predictions, and unsuccessful outcomes. Casey seems afraid to "go negative", but there is no way to defeat an incumbent other than to give concrete reasons, based on his past performance, why the voters should throw him out. Polite debates about our future course, when the future is so uncertain, and the available paths to take are not drastically different, are parlor chats that cannot unseat an incumbent. Nor has Casey presented the election as a critical opportunity to restore the checks and balances sorely lacking to restrain our current one-party government from wreaking destructive havoc on our own citizenry and the world. To win, Casey needs to point out that, to serve the best interests of all of the American people, Republicans and Democrats alike, we need to restore these checks and balances that our Constitution wisely provided, by electing more people who will challenge the Administration's tenuous claims before launching into chaotic adventures such as the Iraq War or the elimination of Social Security, as supported by Santorum.
(For that is what the conversion of Social Security to "personal accounts" is: the elimination of the social safety net for seniors in poverty. Social Security is not a retirement program! It is not a set of self-centered individual retirement accounts for those of us who are wealthy enough to build a retirement nest egg. It's a safety net for our society to allow poor people to age in respect, rather than struggling and begging on the streets.)
The election will likely hinge on Iraq as the number one issue, just as the September 3 debate did. What else is there for Casey? Abortion and guns are non-issues because both candidates have essentially the same positions- though Santorum's more extreme positions will win the true pro-lifer and NRA believers. Gay marriage is an issue that neither side will want to dwell on this time, and would likely work more against Casey. Health care issues are always too complicated to sway an election. Taxes could be important, but Casey is too muddled on it to present Santorum's positions clearly as having been a tax shift to the middle class rather than a tax cut for everyone. That leaves homeland security and Iraq as the big clear winning issues for Casey, if he tackles them right.
By failing to make these points clearly and unequivocally, and instead allowing himself only to get drawn into meaningless chatting about rearranging the deck chairs on Iraq's Titanic, Casey has assured himself of a loss in November. And with a Santorum win, it is fairly likely that he will become Majority leader in the senate, and could be on the Republican presidential or vice-presidential ticket in 2008 or 2012. I hope I'm wrong, and there is still time for Casey to turn this around. See my detailed analysis of the Meet the Press debate for more details.
An Analysis of Santorum-Casey Debate on Meet the Press , 9/3/06
From on-line Debate Transcript with Comments by Matthew Gordon in Bold Italics
MR. RUSSERT: Let's go right to it: the war in Iraq. Mr. Casey, you're the challenger, you told The Philadelphia Inquirer August 2005 the following:
“Casey said he would have voted for the war considering the evidence at the time, and supported the spending bills that funded the effort.” Knowing what you know today, would you still have voted for the war?
MR. CASEY: Tim, before I begin my answer I just want to make a note of a loss in Pennsylvania. Mayor Bob O'Connor, in the city of Pittsburgh, passed away. We want to express—I think we share that here today—we want to express our condolences to his family.
Analysis: Casey failed immediately to offer a direct answer to the question, instead making an immediate and transparent appeal to show thoughtfulness and compassion. If he feels it important to note a Mayor's death, he should just call O'Connor's family directly, not waste the debate time talking about it. He needs to appear eager and ready to debate the issues, and instead he appears to be just another politician avoiding the issues, getting off on the wrong foot. Do we really need another posturing politician in Washington or do we need someone who will fight for truth, justice and the American Way?
Tim, on the war in Iraq, if, if, if a lot of Americans knew now—if they knew then what they know now, they would, they would have thought that this war was the war that shouldn't have been fought based upon the misleading of this administration.
Analysis: Casey seems to be deflecting the question about his own position from himself to "the American people". We need to know what HE himself would do. He needs to show that he is a man of better judgment, not one who will just look to polls of what "the American people" would do. Answer the darn question! It was handed to Casey on a silver platter- "If you knew then what you do now, would you vote for the war?" Casey's answer should have obviously been an unequivocal: "NO, and let me tell you why. We were misled, and this man sitting next to me here allowed us to be misled, even though he was in a position to prevent it. Rick Santorum never questioned the President, and instead Rick Santorum led the charge to railroad the American people into an ill-prepared war, that was sold on the basis of knowingly trumped-up and false intelligence, that has been ill-conceived and poorly executed, and that has resulted in worldwide damage to the USA's credibility."
Here's what I think has to happen in Iraq today.
Analysis: Casey should not even begin to offer what he would do today until well after he has attacked the history of the incumbent's bad judgment on Iraq. Whether we reduce or increase troops at this point is irrelevant to Casey's campaign to win this election. What is relevant is that we need a man with better judgment in that position, who will not be a rubber-stamp giving free rein to a President with a track record of bad decisions: from ignoring al Qaeda at the beginning of his term, to falsely linking Saddam to al Qaeda, to presenting false evidence on Saddam's nuclear and chemical weapons, to ignoring evidence to the contrary, to failing to consolidate the international community behind deposing Saddam because of his lack of credibility from all the misleadership… (and keep going until Russert interrupts).
MR. RUSSERT: So you would not vote for it today.
MR. CASEY: Based upon the information that we have now, I think that, that a lot of Americans would have serious doubts. I'm not sure there would have even been a vote on Iraq that early in the...
Analysis: Again, Casey is dodging this question, and coming off as another spineless politician who will not represent us with honesty and fortitude. Weak and cowardly.
MR. RUSSERT: But in ‘05 you said you'd vote for it. Would you today in ‘06 vote for it?
MR. CASEY: Based upon the evidence that was presented then, yes, which I think has been—was misleading, and I think it was faulty. The intelligence was faulty.
Analysis: Still, the third try, and no answer from Casey! And instead of pointing out that intelligence was cherry-picked and fixed and twisted and ignored and slanted to the Administration's war-mongering purposes, Casey adopts Bush's excuse that "the intelligence was faulty". The intelligence was not faulty! It was mostly good- but it was ignored and trumped up by Bush, and by Rick Santorum who was in a position to have critically reviewed it.
MR. RUSSERT: But today, today is no. Today you would vote no.
MR. CASEY: Today—if we knew then what we know now, sure. I think there wouldn't have been a vote and I think people would have changed.
Analysis: Ok….now I THINK Casey finally might have answered on the fourth try, but it's still kind of unclear. He still seems to be deferring to some kind of nationwide poll rather than his own commitment to security, international law, diplomacy or whatever. And the procedural issue of "there wouldn't have been a vote" is irrelevant to the question, and implies that his approach would have been to "go with the herd" in any case. And what does "I think people would have changed" mean, anyway? What does that have to do with Casey's position? Very vague.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me also ask about the funding. Earlier in the week I had said that Democrats had not sought to cut off the funding. In fact, Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and 17 other Democrats have called for the End the War in Iraq Act of 2005 to cut off funding for the war. Would you vote to cut off funding?
MR. CASEY: I don't think we can, Tim. I'm not ready to abandon this mission; I think a lot of Americans are not, either.
Analysis: OK, explain why. What is the mission in Iraq, and how do we fit into it? Are we there for nation-building [schools, hospitals, etc.]? (If so, can't we just provide money?) A war on terror to eliminate terrorists? (If so, shouldn't the nation-building wait until we have eliminated them, which makes such a mess? Does our presence help establish democracy, or does it consolidate and motivate the insurgency?) Prevention of civil war? (How? Are we in any position to prevent civil war while we hide behind the Green Line?) Establishment of a US-friendly puppet government? (If so, doesn't this contradict our rhetoric about democracy?) Training of Iraqi forces? (Can't we bring them to train in a friendlier country?) Assistance in developing a democratic state (even if it is Shiite dominated)? (Why do they need us to do that?) All of the above? (Can we afford it? Is this the best use of our national budget?) Why can't we do better at detecting, avoiding, or disarming the IEDs? Where have we been successful? Can we build on the areas of success and correct what's going wrong with a new approach? How would Bob Casey approach it, would he call the President to the carpet to explain and adjust the mission?
What has to happen in Iraq is what you've, you've not seen. We need new leadership. We don't need a deadline—a timeline; we need new leadership. And part of that leadership, I think, involves a couple of things. Let me just go through four of five of them.
One of them is a question of accountability. Our troops have been accountable with their lives, and yet a lot of politicians in Washington haven't been held accountable. You know the, the work of Thomas Ricks, who wrote a book recently based upon his, his work at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. In that book he lays the blame squarely on the Congress failing to hold the Bush administration accountable. Accountability, I think, means replacing Donald Rumsfeld—Rick and I disagree on that—it means finding out how and whether we were lied to with regard to intelligence.
Analysis: Why isn't Casey pointing his finger directly at Santorum, or the Republican majority, instead of at "Congress"? There's not much time here- he's not exactly running against "Congress", he is running against Santorum.
The second thing we need, I think, in Iraq, in terms of a new direction is to make sure that we have clear and measurable benchmarks. Not just from the president, but from the Iraqis as well. What is the plan that the president can tell us about with regard to disarming the militias? What is the plan to bring oil production above the pre-war levels? All of that kind of accountability and clear benchmarks.
Analysis: Bush can provide these benchmarks or not- it isn't all that meaningful to the voter, nor is it a clear reason to oust Santorum or elect Casey. Again, it sounds like weak pandering, dabbling around the edges rather than a clear opposition to Santorum. Instead, Casey should frame this directly against Santorum: Santorum has been a rubber-stamp for Bush who has not demanded a plan from Bush with clear benchmarks for success. We are suffering from an ill-defined mission and Santorum has been perfectly content to watch our soldiers die without demanding a plan from Bush with clear benchmarks for success. Bush has said we will stand down when Iraqis stand up. Well, how will we know when Iraqis have stood up? Bush hasn't provided any objective measures of that. We've trained lots of Iraq police and soldiers, but the violence is worse today than it was a year ago! Bush doesn't seem to know what he is doing, and neither does Rick Santorum.
And thirdly, I think what's happening in Iraq should tell us that we need to transform the mission on the ground. There's no reason why American soldiers have to continually lead, lead on the ground, and, and go ahead of the Iraqis. The Iraqis need to take over and take on some of these street patrols, patrols in Baghdad and so many other places.
Analysis: Well of course, everyone agrees with this. But Casey needs to present this as a differentiator between himself and Santorum. It's just not happening.
And I think also, Tim, I'll conclude with this: We need to rebuild the American military. We need to have more Special Forces. I've called for a doubling in the number of Special Forces. Senator Santorum apparently doesn't agree with that. It's the right thing to do.
And I would just ask Senator Santorum: Donald Rumsfeld, I've called for him to be replaced, Rick. Where do you stand on that?
Analysis: OK, now Casey is starting to say something, but he is still mostly playing on THEIR ballfield. What he says we should do now is not a program, it's the goal of everyone- transfer to the Iraqis. If Casey says we need more troops or less troops, a timeline, no timeline- either way, it's a minefield. Casey doesn't need to answer until the point is hammered home that Santorum has bad judgment and has made bad decisions which have led to the chaos and destruction we see in Iraq. Casey is mentioning it, but he is not shouting it from the rooftop. As far as Rumsfeld, Casey didn't explicitly lay out the reason for Rumsfeld to resign, assuming everyone knows. He has to say it out loud and outright. He's not just talking to political insiders in political shorthand here- he's talking to voters. He needs to remind voters that things have gone from bad to worse under Rumsfeld; that Rumsfeld's predictions and forecasts have been wrong, with dire consequences; and that Rumsfeld has failed to take actions to rethink correct our course, demonstrating too much stubbornness and arrogance. Say it! Otherwise, it is just a meaningless partisan political gesture.
SEN. SANTORUM: I'll be happy to start there. I think Secretary Rumsfeld has done a fine job as the defense secretary, and the problems that we are confronting are problems of an enemy that's a very potent enemy—much more potent than I think anybody ever anticipated. You know, we have a great game plan. We go it just like a football team. You go in there, you do your best, but the enemy has a vote, the enemy can react and change its tactics, and they have, and they've been very, very effective. We need to go out there and continue to fight this war on Islamic fascism. Not just, as my opponent likes to focus on, just the war in Iraq. That's a front of a multi-front war in which we're fighting against an enemy that's a very dangerous enemy.
As you know, Tim, I've been giving speeches not just in Pennsylvania, but here in Washington, talking about the importance of focusing the American public on the terrific potency of the enemy that we face. This is an enemy that uses a tactic that is a very effective tactic against us, called terror, because they don't care about life, and we do. And so when you have—when you match up those forces, people who don't put on uniforms, people who are willing to die for their cause, and want to die for their cause, makes it a very difficult enemy to fight, one that we have not successfully fought in the past—or I shouldn't say successfully, one that we haven't fought in the past.
So we have a very difficult enemy. We have an enemy that now is trying to get nuclear weapons in, in, in the form of Iran, and one that—you know, we can ask all these questions about process and procedure, most of which I would argue have been answered already. The real tough questions is how do you win this war? How do you go out and, and, and prosecute a war that—successfully? And I've laid out a very clear vision on that, and my opponent has not.
Analysis: Santorum has wisely kept the discussion to what we will do from here, and has not touched at all on his own record. He also has monopolized the time for his own framing of the issues and his vision for the future. He doesn't want questions of accountability for bad decisions, he only correctly points out that he has a clear vision and Casey has not. Casey should respond that Santorum's vision has been clear but wrong. Santorum clearly, and wrongly, supported abandoning the last round of inspections which were finally showing significant success, gaining access to previously secret sites, and which were supporting the intelligence that showed that Saddam's WMD programs had ended in the 1990s and that he had no stockpiles of WMD. Santorum has clearly, and wrongly, supported the President on a host of issues, including support of Don Rumsfeld who is accountable for the chaos of the Iraqi occupation, and for the death of our soldiers, including hundreds of soldiers from Pennsylvania, who counted on the leadership to take their lives seriously, and not to use them as mere pawns and puppets in a political campaign or in a blundering adventure. Rumsfeld has poorly executed the occupation, and we need someone in there with better judgment. This is an opportunity for Casey to point out that all the problems that Santorum has been pointing out- Iran, and the potency of the enemy- have been fumbled and bumbled by Santorum and Bush. Instead of promoting peace in the region, the bumbling of the Iraq mission has unified the Arab world against us as we have appeared to be focused more on war profiteering rather than freedom. Since Iraq, we now have a hostile Iranian government, and a hostile Palestinian government, both of which were democratically elected, largely in opposition to our actions in Iraq. Clearly the "clear vision" of Santorum and Bush (Casey needs to link them constantly) is failing catastrophically, and this administration refuses to adjust its course, and Santorum refuses to challenge the administration on this, going along as a cheerleading puppet senator for Bush. Casey's vision should include rebuilding our credibility by carefully avoiding and eliminating the appearance of war profiteering, closer contacts with Arab and European countries to gain their explicit support and involvement in the mission, and a lower profile for American forces to end our role as a unifying target for the recruitment of terrorists who, under the circumstances created by Bush and his lapdog Santorum, wrongly appear to much of the Muslim Arab world as freedom fighters.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about a Pentagon report on Friday. Our ambassador to Iraq has said the principal problem is not foreign terrorists, it's sectarian violence, Sunni vs. Shiite. The Pentagon report on Friday said this: “Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said. ... ‘Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife.' ... ‘The last quarter, as you know has been rough,' [Asst. Secretary of Defense Peter] Rodman said. ‘The levels of violence are up and the sectarian quality of the violence is particularly acute and disturbing.'”
This is Shiite vs. Sunni, Iraqi vs. Iraqi.
SEN. SANTORUM: Yeah. This is...
MR. RUSSERT: What do you do about that, stay the course?
SEN. SANTORUM: That makes, that makes it more complex. The fact that not only do the Sunnis and the Shia, the, the radical Sunni terrorist groups, as well as nation-states, Shia nation-states like Iran, want to defeat the United States—and we've seen that very clearly, articulated just yesterday about submitting to, to their rule. And this was...
MR. RUSSERT: But, but stay on Iraq, Senator.
SEN. SANTORUM: I'm coming back to it. But we can't—you can't ignore the fact that we are, we are fighting this war on multi-fronts, and Iraq is simply a front. And Iran, which is, which is the principal stoker of this, this Shia/Sunni sectarian violence, would love nothing more to see than the Iraqi democracy fail because of that. This is a tactic of Iran to disrupt the—our, our efforts in Iraq by, in fact, trying to defeat the Sunnis. So there's, there's no question, this is a very complex war.
But understand, at the, at the heart of this war is Iran. Iran is the, is, is the problem here. Iran is the one that's causing most of the problems in, in Iraq. It is causing most of the problems, obviously, with Israel today. It is, it is the one funding these organizations. And is the, is the country that we need to focus on in this war against Islamic fascism.
MR. RUSSERT: So Iran now has more influence in Iraq than they did before Saddam Hussein?
SEN. SANTORUM: Just understand.
MR. RUSSERT: Is that true?
SEN. SANTORUM: I would say that they have influence in, in, in a free country where you have an opportunity to express yourself, if you will. Yes. You can probably do more...
MR. CASEY: All right let, let...
SEN. SANTORUM: ...in that country than they would within a dic—a totalitarian regime.
Analysis: On the surface, Santorum survived that exchange just fine, even though he never came back to Iraq, as he promised. He kept it lofty as a knowledgeable cocktail party conversation about the situation, once again failing to account for his own bad decisions, while using up the clock. But he never explained how our troops are helping to prevent civil war- they are not- other than to hint that the way to stop civil war in Iraq is to get rid of the Iranian influence. So is he saying, "declare war on Iran"? Then, at the end, he blames Iraqi Democracy for the increasing Iranian influence. But- he supports democracy in Iraq! So is he saying that the Iranian influence is just a fact of life and acknowledging that, in the end, we will wind up with an Iranian-allied Shiite government? If so, how was Bush and Santorum's Middle East vision a good vision for the United States? This is a muddled analysis that Casey should have seized upon.
MR. CASEY: ...let me respond to that. Can I have a few minutes to respond?
Analysis: Casey sounds pathetic, weak and desperate, begging for time. The sound of a man getting outclassed on the court.
MR. RUSSERT: Please.
MR. CASEY: Couple of things. First of all, what you just heard was Senator Santorum's long answer, which basically says, “Stay the course in Iraq.” It's a completely different point of view. I think we've go got to change the course and, and have new leadership. Part of that is that, that accountability I've talked about.
Analysis: "It's a completely different point of view" from what? From Casey's view? The "American people's" view? Then say it for God's sake. Present your own views as if they are your own views. Also, Casey has missed an opportunity to question Santorum's dodging of the answer about Iraqi chaos. Does Casey believe that Iran is behind the chaos? How? If so, what is he doing about securing the border? Shouldn't that be where our efforts are focused if that's where the problem is? And in fact, Santorum's previous answer didn't say "stay the course", it said that Iran was the problem and just left it all hanging.
MR. RUSSERT: But stop there—stop there Mr. Casey.
MR. CASEY: OK.
Analysis: Casey the mouse. Why say "OK"? Santorum just had 5 minutes and you let Russert stop you after 15 seconds? Casey should tell Russert, "No, I have something to say, and you just let Rick go on and on, and I expect the same time and courtesy to make my point, Tim." Smack rude Russert down! And then Casey should go on and take his time to make his points on the field of play that he wants this to be on- Santorum's record as a rubber-stamp for bad, disastrous decisions. I get the impression that Casey doesn't even know where he wants the discussion to be.
MR. RUSSERT: I think there's an evolution in your thinking. Let me go back to April of ‘05, the Philadelphia Daily News said, “The key thing now is to finish the job.” That's Bob Casey, quote/unquote. October, “Some people think that pulling out is a good idea and a timeline is a good idea - I don't agree with that. We've got more work to do to make sure that we get it right.” Then in June of ‘06, Bob Casey said, “He doesn't believe U.S. troops should be removed from Iraq immediately but should be by the end of the year. He said the country has a new government and that it's time for the Iraqis to take a greater role in defending themselves.” Should we finished the job? Or should we remove the troops by the end of the year?
MR. CASEY: Tim, I've never favored a deadline in, in, in this whole campaign. Because we have to do everything we can to, to hold the administration accountable. And when you're—when it's not going well, you, you see the, the Pentagon report this past—just in the last couple of days, this thing is headed toward civil war. We don't know if it's there yet. We hope it's not. But when you have it heading in the wrong direction, you've got to have a new course. And, and...
Analysis: Russert is presenting a strong impression of Casey as a flip-flopper, and even if the specifics don't really fit, he's got Casey on the defensive, and that's where Casey stays. Casey needs to quickly turn this to an offensive against Santorum, with some explanation that if he was in Santorum's position he would make better decisions and judgments, and he would challenge this administration that has been given a blank check by a submissive Senator Rick Santorum, who has ignored the true interests of the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: So, so when John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, introduced legislation which says, “All troops out by July of 2007,” Bob Casey votes no.
MR. CASEY: Absolutely.
Analysis: Having painted Casey as "Kerry-style flip-flopper", Russert successfully slams the ball home by explicitly associating and invoking the ghost of John Kerry, while at the same time successfully defusing Casey permanently as an opponent of the Iraq war. Is Russert just a cagey Republican stooge? Sure looks like it from these Roveian games.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Santorum, leading up to the war. In October of 2002, this is what Rick Santorum said, “Saddam Hussein's regime, is a serious and grave danger to the safety of the American people.” “Given the threat posed to he world by his weapons of mass destruction programs...” Would you now acknowledge that that was not correct?
SEN. SANTORUM: What I would say is that we have found weapons of mass destruction, they were older weapons, but we have found chemical weapons. The report was just released not too long ago that, that said that there were over 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, the president has accepted the report of his two task force and said, “That the chief weapons inspector has issued his report. Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there.”
SEN. SANTORUM: Well, there were all sorts of weapons that our intelligence believed were there. They thought that they were new weapons. So far we, we did not—we have not found any new weapons. But we have found old weapons, weapons from the Iran/Iraq conflict, and we found over 500 and the report says that there were more.
MR. RUSSERT: Was...
SEN. SANTORUM: That's the—that's a fact.
Analysis: Where's Casey? He should be pointing out that this was not the reason given for going to war. We always knew that Saddam had WMD in the 90s; the question was whether he still had stockpiles of useable WMD and whether he was developing more.
MR. RUSSERT: Was Saddam a serious and grave danger to America?
SEN. SANTORUM: I believe that Iraq was a serious and grave danger to America. I believe...
MR. RUSSERT: Based on what?
SEN. SANTORUM: Well, based on the fact that they were working—and we have certainly lots of information about the fact that they were working with other terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, and that they were, in fact—had camps that they were—while they were training Baathists, they were also training terrorists to be used. The...
MR. RUSSERT: President Bush said that Iraq had “nothing to do with September 11th.” Do you agree with that?
SEN. SANTORUM: As far as we know, that's, that's the case. But that doesn't mean that they didn't have a working relationship with a variety of different terrorist organizations. In fact, the Saddam Hussein government was giving bounties for killing Israelis, giving terrorists bounties for killing Israelis.
Analysis: Santorum's muddled and befuddled explanation has left himself wide open for Casey to laugh and ridicule Santorum for spinning faster than a centrifuge. This is an opening for Casey to challenge Santorum's presentation of himself as knowledgeable and decisive. Santorum says they found WMD but they were old and unusable, and admits that there were orders of magnitude less than Bush and he claimed there were before the war. Then Santorum claims that Iraq was working with al Qaeda, in training camps, all lies debunked by the 9/11 Commission. But then he quickly changes the subject to Saddam's support for the Palestinian terrorists, which was not floated as the reason to go to war, as Santorum and Bush knew that the American public would not have wanted to fight Israel's war. Not to mention that numerous "friendly" Arab countries also supported, and continue to support, Hamas and Hezbollah, without saber-rattling demands of a regime change war from the US. Casey should laugh at Santorum and say- "Look carefully, ladies and gentleman, watch how fast this man plays this shell game- it's 3-card Monte before your very eyes. Do we really need this kind of deception in our government to continue?"
MR. RUSSERT: But knowing what you know now about the weapons of mass destruction, the primary rationale for the war, would you believe that the Iraq war was a war of choice or a war of necessity?
SEN. SANTORUM: I believe that it was a war of necessity because it—they are a—they were a threat. It is important that we are in the, the Middle East right now and, and confronting this broad war that we are involved in against Islamic fascism.
The bottom line is that we are now five years, almost, from September 11th. No one gives anybody credit for the fact that we have not had a serious—any kind of terrorist attack in this country. The reason we haven't is because we've taken it to them where they are. We've taken it to them. We've disrupted their networks, not just in Afghanistan, but we have—remember, the president's speech on the, on the night several weeks after 9/11 talked about we were going to go after terrorist organizations and sponsors, state sponsors of terrorists. There is no question Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, and we went after them. We had legitimate reason. The United Nations said that they weren't complying. We thought at the time that they had weapons programs. We had bad intelligence. But you know what? I'm not—I don't play Monday morning quarterback. That's not, that's not what you do here in Washington, D.C. You take all the information you have, you make the best decision you possibly can. And based on the information we had, there is no question that Iraq should, that the Iraq war should've commenced.
Analysis: This is, or should be, the central issue of this campaign- Santorum's dismal record, his poor judgment, his disastrous decision-making, and the lack of seriousness of his pre-war quest for information, on Iraq. His lack of interest and patience in enlisting other countries, including Arab countries into the war against Saddam in order to secure post-invasion success. Santorum calls it "Monday-morning quarterbacking"- but Casey should go for the jugular, and point out that Santorum is the incumbent and his record is absolute fair, and necessary, game. Instead, Casey is cowed, afraid of the "Monday-morning quarterback" label. Casey needn't even be a Monday-morning quarterback. He merely needs to point out that Sunday's quarterback threw 8 passes for 7 interceptions, got sacked 10 times, and has made net negative yardage. It's time to change quarterbacks. And as far as going 5 years without an al Qaeda attack in this country.....well, Clinton went 8 years without an al Qaeda attack in this country after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And that was despite Republicans' program of unrelenting focus on four pathetic blow jobs rather than Osama bin Laden.
MR. RUSSERT: In ‘04, after the war, you said, “the Bush administration deserves a lot of credit for getting it right in Iraq.” Do you believe the Bush administration is still “getting it right” in Iraq?
SEN. SANTORUM: As you know, I have given speeches repeatedly talking about how I think we need to change the focus of our policy. I gave one at the National Press Club and I gave one just earlier this week...
MR. RUSSERT: Specifically, what would you change in Iraq? In Iraq, what would you do differently?
SEN. SANTORUM: Look, the plans that my opponent has laid out in some of his speeches and I've laid out in mine are basically the same thing the administration is trying to do. You're trying to get the Iraqis take—to take control of their—of the security situation, which we are trying to do. We are trying to get international cooperation to get money in there. We're trying to improve their quality of life. We're trying to stabilize their democracy and make sure their constitution is defended.
I mean, all of those things are things that I think everyone would agree that we are to do. The question is, is you have some, you have, you have sectarian violence you talked about, fomented by Iran, that we are not addressing. So the question is, how do we, how do we cure Iraq, focus on Iran? We need to do something about stopping the Iranians from being the central destabilizer of the Middle East.
Analysis: Santorum again is monopolizing a friendly conversation about the future of Iraq, without accounting for his bad decisions and unquestioning support of Bush. He is also successfully taking Casey out of the campaign, saying they basically have the same approach at this point in Iraq. That's why Casey should not even be falling into the trap of how to get us out of this mess. It doesn't even matter what he says about the future strategy in Iraq. When talking about the future he should emphatically drive home that we don't need the same decision-makers in future crises that failed us so dramatically in the past. He should convince viewers that he has proper judgment to act decisively when necessary and challenge the evidence to assure proper decisions when necessary.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you put more troops in Iraq?
SEN. SANTORUM: I don't know if it's a question of more troops or less troops. You get—I, I think the focus should not be Iraq, should be Iran.
MR. CASEY: Tim, you're hearing, you're hearing a long speech here about, about other speeches he's given. What we need and what the president needs to tell us about, and what this senator won't hold the president accountable for is a plan. One of the things that we could be doing, not just when it comes to Iraq, but when it comes to the, the global war on terror, is to have more Special Forces out there. Doubling the number of Special Forces, having counterproliferation units run by the Special Forces that intercept nuclear, biological, chemical, potential weapons around the world—finding them before the terrorists get them. That's the kind of on-the-ground thing. We don't need more speeches.
And I think what you've unearthed here, Tim...
Analysis: Oh I almost forgot Casey was even at this debate. But here, he seems to like his idea about Special Forces. A side issue, and Casey doesn't notice that it doesn't matter to anyone, especially the voters, whether Santorum agrees on this or not. And once again Casey ignores Santorum's focus on Iran. Casey should sieze on this and point out that Santorum seems ready to go against the democratically-elected hostile Iranian government. Why should we trust Santorum to handle Iran correctly when he is largely responsible for the election of such a hostile government there? Why should we trust Santorum to handle Iran correctly after he dug us deep into the quagmire of Iraq? We can't. We need new leadership, and Casey should say that he is prepared to provide it by demanding a new approach. If we follow the same course we will get the same result: chaos, destruction, loss of innocent lives, death of American soldiers, debt and destruction of our economy, and the choice of immersion in a foreign quagmire rather than using those resources here at home where they are sorely needed- for American education, economy, environment, and homeland security.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we need more troops?
Analysis: Casey again allows himself to get smacked down and interrupted by Russert before he makes a cogent point.
MR. CASEY: We need—what we need in Iraq right now is some accountability for this administration. And part of that is making sure that, as we, as we have our troops on the ground, that they can pull back at what the Pentagon calls “level two” readiness, they can still be there, but the Iraqis can take the lead and get the Americans out of the front line already. Keep the American...(unintelligible).
Analysis: "Unintelligible" is right. "Accountability for this administration" is on the right track- now point out specifics where Santorum has NOT held this administration accountable. Stress the need for checks and balances in this government, which are important to fair and honest government reflective of the interests of the American people, not just the oil companies and the top 2%.
MR. RUSSERT: And what if you, what if you left behind a haven for terrorists? Then what do you do?
MR. CASEY: Well, I don't—that's not the, that's not the, the objective here. The objective here is to make sure we're doing everything possible to give the American people the information they need and to protect our troops. And I think it's an abomination, Tim, when you have people like Rick Santorum, who have rubber-stamped this administration 98 percent of the time, did not call for or insist upon the best body armor when those troops needed it.
Analysis: Finally Casey is attacking. Words like "abomination" and "rubber-stamp" are good. But the body-armor issue sounds a little pandering. Nobody will believe that any senator wanted our troops to be ill-equipped. Explain that when the choice between a budget that provided body armnor for our troops or tax breaks and resource giveaways to the oil companies, Rick chose the oil companies.
And I think when you point to the 9/11 question on Saddam Hussein, and you point to this crazy theory that there's still weapons of mass destruction, Tim, I think you've unearthed something. You've unearthed the 2 percent of the time that Rick Santorum disagrees with President Bush, and I think that's new information for this campaign.
Analysis: Sounds like Casey is taking some charge of the matter with a joke, but it's not that funny.
Let me, let me just have a moment on, on Iran. Rick, you just talked about, and you've heard him a lot talking about Iran. You've heard him a lot talking about the terminology of, of the war on terror. He calls it Islamic fascism and, and he, and he talks about the terminology and changing the terms. What we need, Rick, is not a change in the terminology, we need to change the tactics. And we've got to make sure that even as you're debating whether or not we call Osama bin Laden a terrorist or a fascist, I don't think that really matters. We need a plan. You're in the Senate, you have votes, you should be leading that effort. And I, I think after it's over, after you get the terminology right, maybe you can have a seminar in Washington about whether bin Laden, whom we should be finding and killing, whether he's a dead terrorist or a dead fascist. And I think you should worry more about finding him and killing him.
Analysis: Better, but somehow Casey is still coming off as the guy focused on terminology. This should always end with Casey explaining that he has the measured but decisive judgment ability to make the right decisions, rather than the wrong decisions. Casey should emphasize that he believes our soldiers' lives were worth taking the time that Santorum failed to take to question this administration, and to demand stronger evidence for rushing to war than Santorum accepted.
SEN. SANTORUM: My, my opponent has, my opponent has, my opponent has no plan. The idea—all he's suggested is his plan is Special...
MR. CASEY: I just gave a plan. Where's yours?
SEN. SANTORUM: All you, all you suggested with your plan is more Special Forces.
Analysis: Santorum is right, and seems to be taking it on directly. Again, focusing on a debate about future plans, rather than Santorum's record of bad, rubber-stamping decisions.
MR. CASEY: No, it's not. That's not, that's not all it is.
SEN. SANTORUM: Do you, do you support, do you support more intelligence gathering because your party has been out there...
MR. CASEY: Absolutely.
SEN. SANTORUM: ...trying to, trying to undermine our surveillance programs. You're the one who's gone out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs. What do you think has kept our people safe? What do you think stopped the British, the British attack? You folks have been the party, as you have been the party, of making sure that we don't have the intelligence gathering capabilities that we need, and, and, and have, have joined in making sure...
Analysis: Wow, those are fighting words! And they need to be struck down quickly on behalf of the party that Casey represents. Casey should quickly point out that the Democratic party fully supports surveillance within the law and within the Constitution. For the Executive branch to ignore and disobey the existing law, which only requires notification of judges and allows it even after the fact of the surveillance- is an abuse of power, and the Senator has violated his sworn oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by his willingness to allow this abuse, which could be used by an executive to spy on his political enemies, and fundamentally threatens freedom and liberty under the Constitution. Not to mention that Bush's warrantless wiretaps had absolutely nothing to do with foiling the British attack.
MR. CASEY: Rick, Rick, you're not debating the party, you're debating me right here.
Analysis: Casey hasn't taken up the gauntlet. Apparently he doesn't want to share his opinion of the wiretapping. Casey is bailing out on the issue, and implying that he disagrees with the Democratic position on this issue.
SEN. SANTORUM: I'm debating you.
MR. CASEY: Yeah.
SEN. SANTORUM: And I—and I've looked at your comments saying that you have serious concerns about our, our, our surveillance programs. I don't. I think they're surveillance programs that would...
MR. CASEY: No, we should, we should, we should keep the programs and keep the wiretaps...
SEN. SANTORUM: I, I let you speak. I let you speak. If you'd allow me...
MR. CASEY: Senator Specter, you know this, can get it right.
SEN. SANTORUM: Well, my point is that we need to have strong surveillance programs. You mentioned Special Forces. We have lots of Special Forces out there, but they need intelligence if they're going to be able to do their jobs. And as far as that being a plan to solve this problem, I think you just fundamentally misunderstand the problem. You're saying that somehow or another the language and terminology doesn't matter. You believe that we're going to win or lose this war on the battlefield in Iraq and the battlefield in Afghanistan. I don't. I think we'll win or lose this war right here in America. I think we'll win or lose this war because the American people...
MR. RUSSERT: Let's, let's have...
SEN. SANTORUM: Please let me finish—because the American people are not going to stand—are, are, are losing their resolve because of the tactics the terrorists are using. Understand, terrorists understand. What they, what they want to accomplish is every single day to kill people, and every single day make it hard for Americans to open up their papers, or turn on their television and find more death and more destruction. And it's undermining our ability to prosecute this war.
We need to lay out for the American public what this war is, the fact that we are up against, I think, the greatest challenge of this, of this country's history.
Analysis: Notice that Santorum didn't allow Casey or Russert to interrupt him, and again monopolized the clock on his playing field. He basically ignored and poo-pooed Casey's Special Forces program as the insignificant detail that it is, and didn't allow Casey to explain the opposition to unfettered warrantless wiretaps by the President.
MR. RUSSERT: But, senator, the American people have turned against the war in Iraq.
SEN. SANTORUM: Yes, they have.
MR. RUSSERT: Why? Because of misjudgments made by the Bush administration?
SEN. SANTORUM: I think because the Bush administration hasn't laid out the complexity of dealing with this war and, and how it fits into a broader picture.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me pursue...
SEN. SANTORUM: And that's what I'm trying to do.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me pursue that, because when President Clinton took troops into Kosovo, this is what you said. “President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill defined objective and no exit strategy. He is yet to tell Congress how much this operation will cost. And, he has not informed our nation's Armed Forces about how long they will be away from home.”
Do you believe you should have the same standard for President Bush? He should give a defined objective, he should give an exit strategy, he should give a cost, and he should give a timeline for Iraq, just as you were demanding President Clinton give for Kosovo?
SEN. SANTORUM: No. Because, because Kosovo and, and Slobodan Milosevic were never a security threat to the United State of America. No way. There—I mean, it wasn't even close.
Analysis: Here's a fundamental difference that Casey should seize on. Santorum doesn't believe that we should have bothered stopping the genocide in Kosovo, because Serbia and Kosovo didn't threaten the US. But, firstly neither did Iraq represent a threat- which we could and should have known prior to going to war- and secondly, Santorum and Bush have presented this war as saving the Iraqi people from the oppression and brutality of Saddam. What makes Santorum so hypocritically sympathetic to the Iraqis and so uncaring about Kosovars?
MR. RUSSERT: But these are men and women at war.
SEN. SANTORUM: We had, we had—excuse me—we had no business, in my opinion—and I felt this today—we had no business going in—into that area. We had no national security interest. We are up against an enemy that every single day in the streets of Iran they're out talking about how they want to destroy the United States, how they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. We can sit back and say they're not a real threat, we can sit back and play games and, and, and pick apart the administration's strategy, or we can focus...
MR. CASEY: We never said that, right? You know we've never said that.
Analysis: "We"? Is there a mouse in Casey's pocket? And what is Santorum saying we should do in Iran? Again, Casey should attack Santorum by pointing out that the threat from Iran was largely created by the actions of Santorum and Bush- creating hostility to the US among the Iranian people by the appearance of a program of imperial domination, and leaving an opening for Iran in Iraq by our clumsy blundering into an ill-prepared occupation.
SEN. SANTORUM: ...we can focus...
MR. CASEY: Never said that.
SEN. SANTORUM: ...on what the real problem is. The real problem is we are up against a serious enemy that wants to destroy us. Ask the two Fox News reporters who just came back. “Submit or die!” That's what they believe. And we can step back and say, “Ah, well, they're crazy. Ah, we're not—they're not serious.”
MR. RUSSERT: But...
SEN. SANTORUM: “Oh, we all just need to play around, and play politics with tactics.”
MR. RUSSERT: ...but what is wrong with asking—what is wrong with asking for a defined objective, an exit strategy, a cost estimate and a timeline?
SEN. SANTORUM: We have—we have...
MR. CASEY: Tim...
SEN. SANTORUM: ...we have—the administration has, has testified, as I have laid out in my campaign, lots of things that we need to, we need to accomplish on a tactical level. The bottom line is, are we going to get the focus right as to who the enemy is and how we, how we have to go after them?
MR. CASEY: Tim...
SEN. SANTORUM: And again, I go back to Iran. What—a big problem I have with this administration is it hasn't been tough enough on Iran. It should not have let Khatemi come into this country and be at Harvard today. It should not have negotiated with the Iranians on their nuclear program. They're stringing us along and they're going to continue to string us along. We need to pass the Iran Freedom of Support Act, my bill that I introduced two years ago. I offered that on the floor of the United States Senate.
Analysis: I won't bother analyzing the rest of the debate, because the viewers have already decided what Casey is about and have flipped the channel. Besides, this was the Iraq segment of the debate, and that is really the only issue of this campaign. Casey flubbed it entirely. To this point, Santorum has monopolized over 65% of the speaking time to Casey's 35%, on what is the biggest issue of this campaign for Casey- Iraq- and kept 90% of that conversation on a field that Casey can't win- the future plans for Iraq. Casey can't win that field because regardless of the approach he takes (more or less US forces) he only loses voters, and provides ammunition to his opponents. "Special Forces" is just an obvious "easy out" for Casey. Casey completely failed to direct the conversation towards holding Senator Santorum personally responsible for his bad decisions and bad judgment, and failed to present himself as an intelligent alternative with better judgment.
Campaign Staff Login:
