With the deaths of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's sons on Tuesday in Iraq, a bad political month for President George W. Bush got palpably better.
Suddenly the big summer story was no longer whether Bush had misled the nation in his State of the Union address. The prospect that American troops in Iraq might face prolonged guerrilla warfare seemed diminished. The Democratic presidential field had to temper and qualify its increasingly aggressive attacks on the White House's postwar foreign and military policies.
Speaking in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning, Bush devoted only a few sentences to the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, saying that "more than ever, all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back."
But privately, advisers to the White House said the development marked an important turn of fortune that will help Bush frame the political debate for the rest of the summer and into the fall on terms more favorable to him.
"He's not going to do a victory death dance -- that's not appropriate for the president," said one Republican who works closely on strategy with the White House.
"But the death of the Hussein brothers has a tactical political meaning because it changes the subject from the 16 words in the State of the Union," he said, referring to Bush's use of what the White House later acknowledged was unreliable evidence suggesting that Iraq had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons.
Democrats said Bush would not easily wipe away the questions about his credibility or escape doubts among some voters about whether his economic and foreign policy was succeeding.
And there is lingering concern within the president's party. Only a few days ago, Republican strategists, including some with close ties to the administration, were acknowledging that Bush was going through his worst stretch in political terms since the early months of his presidency.
The rise in the unemployment rate and the surge in the federal budget deficit undermined his assurances that his tax cuts would nurse the economy back to robust health.
The steady if relatively small loss of American life in Iraq and the acknowledgment by the American commander in the region that US forces there faced a classic guerrilla campaign conjured up all kinds of unwelcome associations.
And the White House's fumbling efforts to explain how possibly flawed intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program got into the State of the Union speech had shown Bush's top aides to be uncharacteristically willing to indulge in finger pointing.
"This is one of the worst weeks Bush has had because everyone is challenging, Republicans and Democrats, the credibility and integrity of the White House," one prominent Republican said late last week.
But the mood among Republicans changed once the military officials confirmed that they had found and killed Saddam's sons.
Republicans said they would be happy to debate Democrats on the handling of Iraq and the war on terrorism and readied a push to claim credit for what they expect to be a gradual economic improvement.
In a sign that the White House is still on the political offensive, Bush will travel on Thursday to Pennsylvania and Michigan, two states that he lost to Al Gore in 2000. In Pennsylvania, Bush will visit the government printing plant sending tax rebate checks of up to US$400 per child to 25 million middle-income families.
The president faces plenty of issues on the economy. Democrats are geared up to attack him on Thursday for not doing more to force his party to extend the US$400 credit to 6.5 million low-income families left out of the original legislation.
Moreover, it is not clear whether the questions about Bush's credibility raised by the problems with the State of the Union address will continue to dog the White House. But Bush's case on that score got a boost on Tuesday night from former president Bill Clinton. Clinton told Larry King Live on CNN that "everybody makes mistakes when they are president" and that it was "incontestable that on the day I left office there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons" in Iraq.
Clinton may have been signaling to his party's presidential candidates that fighting Bush on his handling of the war is a losing proposition.
But, sensing that Bush might be vulnerable on his handling of the postwar situation in Iraq and on related issues like his willingness to pay for beefed up security at home, Democratic strategists said the presidential candidates were likely to keep up their attacks on the president's foreign policy. The reasoning, they said, is that if they can neutralize or diminish Bush's current advantage on national security issues, they can move the election to the economy and the White House's record of presiding over millions of job losses.
"The political threat to the White House ...is that if the president fumbles away his national security trump card, he has a very weak hand."
Republicans said their polling showed that Bush's approval ratings for his handling of the war remained extremely strong and that he had suffered little damage to his reputation as a straight shooter from the State of the Union address.
"I want the Democrats to stay on the tack they're on, which is attacking Bush's honesty," one Republican adviser said. "It's like attacking Clinton's knowledge of policy. It plays right to our strengths. If they actually attacked us on policy we might have a harder time."
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs