從Edwards VS Cheney到Rumsfeld

上周末的布殊對克里的辯論會僅過了數天,數小時之後便是唯一一場副總統候選人的辯論會。雖然以往的副總統辯論會只是一個Sideshow,但由於克里數天前表現實在太好,一口氣將布殊的優勢搶回來--根據《今日美國報》、CNN及蓋洛普在周一公布的民調,兩人的支持率已打成四十九對四十九的平手局面,而布殊在辯論前領先八個百分點--所以愛德華茲對切尼的辯論,將具有十分重要的地位。對民主黨而言,而愛德華茲在辯論中擊倒對手,不但可以鞏固及擴大民主黨現時建立的Momentum,也將會為在美國時間周五晚舉行克里對布殊第二回合辯論中,為克里塑造先聲奪人的優勢;對共和黨而言,此仗已是不可再失,若然切尼敗於愛德華茲手上,恐怕滾雪球效應將愈來愈大。

辯論前雙方陣營都承認,伊拉克仍將是此次辯論會的主題。而共和黨陣營早已表明,切尼將重點攻擊對手經濟甚淺,在現時反恐為圭臬的情況下,擔任副總統一職就是玩命兒;而愛德華茲的攻擊重心,則放在切尼與哈利伯頓糾纏不清的關係中。其實相比於克里,愛德華茲擁有的先天優勢比較明顯,除了他是律師出身,口才了得,對著切尼應有一定程度的「著數」外,也因為認同愛德華茲的選民,比認同克里的多出許多,而哥倫比亞廣播公司早前與《紐約時報》進行的調查也顯示,認同切尼的人,僅得百分之二十一而已,比起布殊來,他要爭取選民歡心而須下的力道,只有更大而不會更少。

選民不認同切尼的原因,除了他與商界實在有太多千絲萬縷的關係外,也與是個不折不扣的鷹派成員有關。眾人均知,他與華府的鷹派是伊拉克戰爭的吹號手外,他在一個月前的共和黨大會中「口出狂言」,表示如果美國選錯人,讓克里當總統的話,美國將再一次面臨恐怖襲擊,結果民主黨嘩然之外,共和黨也感到難堪,只有到處為切尼「解畫」。亦曾有人建議布殊以健康為由,在選前換馬換走切尼,由立場不那麼右的共和黨人當他的副總統競選拍檔,如聲望極高的前紐約市長朱利安尼,不過說呀說,就沒有下文了。

說起切尼是個鷹派人物,就不能不想到他在華府的好拍檔,國防部長拉姆斯菲爾德。(有時不能不問,究竟治國的是他倆還是布殊?)布殊在上周的辯論中一直堅持一點,就是出兵伊拉克正確,沒有了薩達姆.侯賽因的世界,「也變得更美好」。不過想不到拉姆斯菲爾德在周一「抽布殊後腿」,在紐約對著一班外交事務專家表示,他「沒有發現伊拉克與阿蓋德組織相互勾結的強而有證據」,還稱戰前有關伊拉克大殺傷力武器的情報「有缺陷」--這些言論,正好與布殊過去年多來所堅持的恰好是一百八十度的相反。觀乎拉氏近日的言論,也須布殊政府所指出的多有出入。會不會是拉姆斯菲爾德的言論,代表著白宮對伊拉克問題的立場已有分裂?還是他只是布殊「轉向」的先聲?但是政府高層言論如此不一,只會為民主黨提供攻擊的口實。

但對布殊更要命的,是前駐伊拉克最高長官布雷默的言論。《華盛頓郵報》說,布雷默在周一一個論壇說,美國在伊拉克戰爭初期尢了兩大錯誤,一是沒派遣足夠的軍隊,二時沒有阻止猖獗的搶劫行為。此言論一來是衝著美國政府而來,二是針對作為國防部長的拉姆斯菲爾德所提倡,是高科技但人數較少的軍隊,來進行軍事任務的理論。無論怎樣也好,對於靠伊拉克戰爭「吃飯」的布殊而言,在現時形勢不妙的情況下,還要遭下屬唱對台戲,真是有點顧此失彼呢。不過局勢現在還說不定,至少,也要看看數小時後的辯論才好說!

不知美國的Carl兄及一眾Bloggers有何見解?

1 Response to “從Edwards VS Cheney到Rumsfeld”


  • I should preface my statement by saying that the VP debates are more explicit and blunt, which is a good thing. Cheney was at least a better debator. Edwards, despite of his lack of political resume, held his own and was composed, clear and charismatic in his speech.

    Here are the problems with Iraq:

    1. It’s a pretty well-acknowledged fact that there was no WMD to begin with prior to the U S invasion of Iraq, which means…
    2. U.S. invaded Iraq for all the wrong reasons, alienated their allies, lost more than 1,000 soldiers, and apparently have no clear plan of action. If there is, the American public can’t tell you what it is.
    3. There is no proven link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which led people to believe Bush diverted resources from capturing Osama to fight a “personal” war. There are many countries ruled by Saddam-like dictators today, why are we not attacking those countries?

    For someone who belongs to the middle class – it’s impossible for me to support Bush and his policy that cater to the upper class, the big businesses (as personified by Dick Cheney), not to mention that Bush is a moron and his personal vendetta and cockiness is costing America billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

    He is leaving a big mess for Kerry to clean up.

    I think most Americans should think whether their country is doing better than it did four years ago. My answer: absolutely not.

    And finally, don’t forget that Bush was elected by the Supreme Court in 2000, not by the American public.

Comments are currently closed.



%d bloggers like this: