Editorial: Bush’s Defining Moment
Every two-term American president faces the challenge
of a public worn out with the incumbent as the second
half of the second term begins. The media spotlight
on the most important public office in the world has
its advantages for getting one's ideas out; it also annoys
after awhile.
The two-term limit on the presidents may be one of the most enlightened concepts in American politics. For it not only encapsules the logic that no one individual is indispensible; it also comports with our own limits of patience with even the best of presidents.
George W. Bush now faces not only America's natural ennui with two-term presidents but also the mistakes he's made in his obsession with transforming Iraq. Had things gone well with Iraq, in short, even in a good year, then he may have been able to get most of what he wants for his mission in the sands.
But things haven't gone well with Iraq. Following the fall of Baghdad, there has been a long, trench warfare-like stalemate with the insurgents there. Americans weren't expecting this. True, the President warned us a time or two that the war on terror was going to be long and difficult -- but who knew that this one theater of the worldwide war would be so thorny?
And there we have the crux of the matter: if President Bush and all his subordinates could have managed to persuade even 35 percent of Americans that the battle for Iraq was somehow central and crucial to the overall war on terror, then Americans might be willing to send thousands more troops to fend off total defeat in Iraq. But no one has been able to do that effectively, at least beyond Bush's innermost circle of supporters.
Americans don't like to lose wars, regardless of their political persuasion. But they don't like to be dragged into wars without a clear explanation first, either. The fact that George W. Bush now has to get to first base with the American public this week with his latest speech on Iraq is telling. Either the subject matter is a loser or Bush is the worst salesman in the history of the Republic.
As Bush tries -- once again -- to explain why Iraq's destiny is tied up with ours, we look forward to hearing for the first time a convincing reason why we're there, why this battle is important, and why we should stay.
But the odds are against Bush, given the national mood as reflected in the recent elections. No longer does he have a Republican Congress which reluctantly goes along with their party leader, even if they have had reservations. Now the President is looking up a very steep cliff at some skeptical Democratic House and Senate leaders who remember him best for Florida in 2000.
The Democrats are in the catbird seat. And they know it. To be honest, what remains to be seen is whether they blow it somehow. Bush already has.