Awaiting candid answers from Bush and Kerry

by George S. Hishmeh

The expectations here are that more Americans than at any time in the past will watch the presidential debates between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, his Democratic rival, as they face off in the first of three debates. And since the two rivals are virtually neck and neck in the race for the White House (Bush actually has a slight lead), the debates have acquired more significance because of the likelihood that they may influence the fence-sitters from among the two parties or the noncommitted.

The first debate between the two leaders this Thursday will be held at the University of Miami, in the hurricane-devastated state of Florida, and will focus on foreign policy and homeland security. Two additional debates will be held on Oct. 8 and 13, the first at a town hall meeting with questions posed by an equal number of "soft" supporters of each candidate, the second slated to deal with economic and domestic policy.

There will also be a debate between the candidates for vice president, the incumbent Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards. It is common knowledge here that Bush is not a gifted debater or speaker; in fact his mumbled pronouncements are often the butt of jokes of comedians and pundits; which probably explains why his team preferred two debates rather than three.

The questions for the first and final debates are posed by prominent anchormen, Jim Lehrer of PBS, and Bob Schieffer of CBS respectively. But since I have not been asked to come up with any questions for the foreign policy debate, I thought I will submit my version of the questions in the hope that either moderator would read my column or, at best, there will be some mental telepathy among us.

Here are some of my questions for Bush and Kerry:

1. Are Americans in Iraq safer nowadays than they were four years ago when Bush took office?

It should be noted here that when Bush made his televised landing on an aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, which hoisted a banner that read "Mission Accomplished", the number of American deaths in Iraq were 150. Now the figure has reached over 1,000.

As a matter of fact, Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man of few words and actions in this administration, has publicly acknowledged that the Iraqi insurgency is "getting worse".

2. Are Americans safer at home after the horrendous events of Sept. 11?

Despite all the legislation, some of it harsh and offensive, especially those dealing with ethnic Americans and tourists, Newsweek reports that Homeland Security has targeted for possible detention as many as 2,000 foreigners who are believed to be in violation of their visas and about whom there is "soft intelligence" suggesting possible terror connections. On the other hand, a coalition of Muslim groups has reportedly invited both presidential campaigns to discuss civil rights at meetings in the key swing states that also have large numbers of Muslims, as in Michigan, Ohio and Florida. A recent telephone survey by Zogby International of Georgetown University showed that 76 per cent of Muslims support Kerry.

3. Are the Iraqis better off after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?

A correct count of Iraqi casualties has never been offered, either by the US-led Baghdad regime or the coalition authority there, an unhealthy sign of the attitudes towards the "locals". The unofficial figure ranges from 10,000 to 30,000, depending on one's news source.

"What we see as a tragic series of American missteps," writes Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Iraqis interpret, with reason when seen through their eyes, as evidence of evil intent." In her opinion, "The most difficult and most important step (for the US) will be to admit as fiction the idea that barely trained and outgunned Iraqi forces, far too few in number and often directed by foreigners to kill compatriots, can control Iraq's spiralling violence anytime soon."

This no doubt casts a heavy spell on the possibility of peaceful and credible national elections in Iraq next January.

4. What are the practical measures that should be taken to end the 37-year-old Israeli occupation and allow the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination?

Why does the American government not see the link between its broader Middle East policy and Palestine and Israel? These two questions were offered by two visiting members of the Palestinian Negotiations Affairs Department, Director General Maen R. Areikat and legal adviser Anwar Al Darkazally respectively, at a press briefing Monday at the American task force on Palestine who were here on a speaking tour to highlight the problems created by the Israeli "separation barrier".

5. Is the American-British intervention to blame for the continued high prices of oil and, if so, how would a new American administration hope to deal with this recurring crisis that is affecting the US economy, if not the world at large?

Oil prices have hit a new record high on world markets this week, over $50 for US crude, as a result of unrest in oil-producing countries, like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, among others, and continued feeling among Arabs that the US-led invasion of Iraq was intended to lay American control of Iraqi oil.

6. How would the US administration policy on nuclear armament in the Middle East differ from that of past administrations?

To date, the US policy has not been even handed, but shamefully one sided, contributing once again to the increasing unpopularity of the US in this volatile region. Iran's nuclear ambitions remain miniscule compared to what Israel has in its possession - reportedly some 200 nuclear bombs - yet no one raises the issue publicly. Adding insult to injury, the Bush administration has been reported willing to sell Israel nearly 5,000 smart bombs in one of the largest weapons deal between the two countries in years. Israel has used these bombs in Lebanon and in the Gaza Strip.

This article was printed in the Friday-Saturday, October 1-2, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.