September 06, 2004
An Exercise of Unmitigated Gall
I have this suspicion, that those regular readers of my weblog (maybe WatchBlog, too), worry I have an unhealthy obsession with Fox News Channel. Yes, I am well versed in their vast catalog of documented partisan machinations, and yes, I purchased the Outfoxed DVD documentary, and have subsequently shared it with my circle of politically engaged friends. However, the incidents of outrage that I’ve personally viewed, investigated and then wrote about are actually the result of nominal periods spent watching TV - a length dependent on my threshold for Fox’s brazen partisan manipulation of the news.
Days before the Republican Convention began, I expressed to American Pundit (WB Blue Column Editor) my intention and dogged determination to post as many relevant and closely scrutinized commentaries, assuming I would equal the stretch I spent watching the Dems in Boston. However, upon this very moment, consider me humbled – for I failed miserably.
Oh, it started off well on Sunday, considering that person a genius that suggested none other than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to make the Dem’s case, on the Sunday chat show rounds. And, DNC’s Terry McCauliffe had already managed to put the opposition to shame, announcing an impressive and disparate group of party leaders, to articulate and rebut as members of the ‘rapid response team’ deployed to New York, dubbed - America Can Do Better! However, by opening day Monday, the litany of lies by the Republican Lyin’ Liars had already been launched in earnest.
The shadowy figure known as the Wizard of RoveVision, decided to brave the harsh daylight and sit for a rare interview with Tom Brokaw on MSNBC. The NBC anchorman actually managed to confront King Karl with the previously ignored and downward trending issues polling data, conspicuously absent from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s teleprompter. The 39% to 50% percent ‘Right Track/Wrong Track’ figure (unlike the 3% Bush lead in the L.A. Times poll) goes into the Republican’s questionable polling method File of Plausible Denial. However, just as Chief Strategist Matthew Dowd has claimed previously (unchallenged by Fox’s Brit Hume), Rove had a prepared (yet, unsubstantiated) comeback – although I could only find information to the contrary.
If you’re the Bush/Cheney campaign, and you are expecting questions from a MSNBC host about the Vice-President’s recent remarks on the gay lifestyle, then the Gay Marriage issue, and of course, Halliburton – which of the Cheney daughters would express the most effective and ideal viewpoint of the Second Family? Duh, silly me! Did I mention Mary Cheney presently resides at an undisclosed location, and therefore, unavailable for press interviews? (Also, in my role as WB spokesman for the gay/lesbian community, Mary Cheney’s conspicuous absence from the gathering of the Bush/Cheney families on stage, at the Convention’s close, was more injurious than anything the social Conservatives had written into the Party’s platform).
Now having documented proof of Fox New Channel’s Republican Convention bias, the fact that my primary source for coverage was The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, makes it the WatchBlog Blue Column recommended media outlet for ‘fair and biased’. Judging from the week’s incredulous level of biting satire unleashed against the Republicans, such hypocrisy and deceit on display at Madison Square Garden is no longer a laughing matter for Stewart & Co. For example, a segment called George Bush: Words Speak Louder than Action, makes Hardball’s Chris Matthews’ dress down of John O’Neill seem like a Reader's Digest interview. Ironically, Matthews is the newest member of the Right’s Liberal Bias Black List, having also sent Michelle Milkin bawling to Rush Limbaugh. Which makes the fact that the Daily Show segment I just linked to, was followed on air by an interview with White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, all the more surreal.
I have so far, seen only snippets of Zell Miller’s Keynote Address on Wednesday, yet have read the transcript in its entirety. I have seen the entire broadcasts of his subsequent interviews with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, and then the bizarre confrontation with Chris Matthews in images and words. After gauging the harshness of Miller’s attacks, my very first impression was how clever the bait n’ switch cooked up by the boys at RoveVision! As scripted, an unexpectedly ‘kinder and gentler’ Dick Cheney garners extra copy, while leaving the hate and bile to the pliable and oblivious Dem turncoat, implanted with a ‘disassociation chip’, just for good measure.
Obviously buoyed by the self-diluted notion of momentum and the L.A. Times Poll thru the Conservative echo chamber buzz, the Bush camp and the RNC knew damn well the contents of Miller’s speech – and, pulled the trigger on another ‘slam dunk’, anyway. As for the fallout to Zell’s Rebel Yell, Digby at Hullabaloo accurately deconstructs what obviously was the contingency plan, in the event Miller’s diatribe backfired.
The title of this entry, is a direct quote from Daily Show correspondent Steven Colbert, aptly describing what we just witnessed in New York by the Republicans. It is now late Saturday evening, and two current polls reflect a sizable bounce for George W. Bush, post-convention. Like Kerry’s previous national polling bounce, I expect Bush’s lead to dissipate also, and by the first debate we’ll be back within the margin of error. So, as the strident Democrat that I’m known for in these parts, I confess, I am not scared, only saddened and disappointed. And, no doubt, I expect derisive responses from my following personal declaration.
Like me, I’ve read other like-minded bloggers considering serious life altering options, if George W. Bush is re-elected.
Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair has a 73% percent disapproval rating, an absolute assurance his term will end upon his eventual call for national elections. Afghanistan is no more a burgeoning democracy, than the lie that the new Iraqis government and Coalition forces have complete and total control of Iraq. National polls show that Americans have finally awoken to the incompetence of this administration on ‘bread and butter’ issues like jobs and economy. And, they have finally realized that nearly 1000 dead soldiers and 16,000+ injured are the end result of being duped. They clung to the many ‘Revisionist Rationalizations’ massaged and offered up by this White House, while still being dogged by the growing dread of complicity, in that their still fresh entitlement to revenge was also not deterred by ‘questionable or bad intelligence’.
George W. Bush has picked the tune, it’s called ‘Security’, and so far a growing number of American voters are joining John Kerry on the dance floor, as hoped. ‘Keep America Safe’, is another buzz phrase, when the NASCAR voters speak ignorantly in praise of this President. The other member of the Republican Convention’s list of the ‘Conspicuously Absent’ was Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge. His bungling and burgeoning bureaucracy has become the laughing stock of Washington, and thus an embarrassment to the White House. When a growing number of Americans think terrorist warnings are politically motivated (34%), knowing that an equal number or higher consider the color-coded Terrorist Warning system a joke, is of no comfort.
How can Bush promise to keep this country safe, with porous borders, unchecked imported shipping containers, non-secured chemical and nuclear plant sites and needed funding being diverted to Iraq? Why wasn’t Tom Ridge assuring us of the administration’s progress on these matters, as the more obvious choice for the Convention’s Keynote Address?
If George W. Bush is re-elected in November, my plan is to leave this country, in ten years time, if not sooner.
There is one bit of information I learned a few years ago that is a constant when I think about this country, it’s politics and it’s future. I learned that only 7% percent of all Americans actually own a valid U.S. passport (me included). And, on average in any given year, only 10% percent of that group actually uses it to travel abroad.
To me, this explains how a possible majority prefers a swaggering, cowboy arrogance, dismissive of the ramifications of world isolation and severed ties to key allies, while ignoring pragmatic and proven diplomatic alternatives from those who have seen actual military conflict, in turn, denounced as weak and unpatriotic.
It also explains how a possible majority that is so isolated, segregated, intolerant and increasingly uneducated, can be so removed from, indifferent to, and arrogantly uninformed about issues they claim are so very important. Thus, they succumb to a deceitful campaign by those that have obviously failed them, who deploy effective slander of their opponent, while playing on the very real fears their failed policies have helped create.
So, as an educated, well informed, engaged, concerned citizen, of what I believe has, can be and should be a model of a representative democracy thru accountability, George Bush’s America is unacceptable.
Bert-
I’m just curious, where do you invision yourself moving to if George Bush does win re-election?
Posted by: George at September 6, 2004 08:43 PMGeorge, if the left ever followed through with their constant threats to move abroad every time a Republican wins an election, we’d have a solid Republican majority by now! Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand have said they’d move to France so many times now that I can’t keep track (wish those two would just go ahead and do it).
For my part, if Bush loses, I’m not going to take all my marbles and go home. In fact, I think being a good citizen means you stay your ground and keep fighting for what you believe in. I wouldn’t wish Kerry on on America, but if he does become president, I plan to join with those who make his life a living hell and relish every minute of it.
It’s a lot easier being the ones out of power—you can snipe, complain and allege all sorts of non-existent conspiracies and logically incompatible scenarios when you don’t have the real world responsibility of actually solving problems.
I hope you’ll stay with us, Bert. Somehow I think you will. Even if Bush wins (and I still think that’s an “if” and that’s there’s is something outright sinister in the way that Newsweek and Time manipulated their polls to make Bush’s bounce appear at least twice its actual size) you’ll likely see a Democratic president again before that ten years is up. Don’t be like those Hollywood leftists who take their marbles and locate to socialist-run economies only to board their jets and come home when ever they need high quality medical treatement.
Bert, your complaints about Bush seem highly contradictory. In fact, they demonstrate exactly what I’m talking about—the luxury to criticize from both sides of the fence on the part of those out of power. To cite one example, you complain about “porous” borders at the same time you complain about Bush’s overemphasis on “Security.” So which is it? Not enough worry about securtity or too much? Somehow I suspect that if we built walls between ourselves, Canada and Mexico—and actually began cracking down on immigrants—you’d complain about Bush’s violations of civil liberties. You don’t like Bush—fine. He’s doing the best he can though, which has been pretty damned good. A lot better than Kerry would do, and I’m hoping enough of the hitherto undecideds will come to their senses and agree.
Posted by: Martin at September 6, 2004 09:37 PMAlso, Bert, just to sympathize with your frustration: I made the mistake of watching CBS’s nightly news tonight (I was on a friend’s boat, and you can’t get cable at sea!). They spent several minutes covering Kerry’s campaign in glowing terms —even saying “that he was reminding voters why they don’t like Bush” and roaring back with a revitalized staff and message. Then they spent all of of fifteen seconds on Bush’s campaign and message—which Dan Rather sees as trying to “reassure anxious voters” despite all kinds of “bad news.” Let’s not pretend that Fox is spinning while the rest of the media is just objectively presenting facts. Dan Rather might as well just put on a Kerry t-shirt and jump and down with pom-poms: “Kerry! Kerry! He’s our man! If he can’t do it, no one can!”
Martin,
Do me a favor, and watch the Daily Show video George Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Words, because it captures exactly what you erroneously describe as ‘contradictory’.
Citing Bush’s ‘overemphasis’ on Security would be acceptable, if he, or you, or Tom Ridge, could assure us something was being done about the most worrisome of problems I listed. Problems that would be the priority in a Kerry tenure.
However, seeing your party’s aversion to any immigrants with skin color darker than George Hamilton, it’s not surprising building a wall on our Mexican border, is a priority.
Lastly, is a conspiracy to inflate Bush’s bounce, the latest coming from the Right?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 6, 2004 10:10 PMBert, isn’t Bush the one who wanted to legalize all of the currently illegal aliens? If you are going to spout a bunch of rhetoric at least get it right!
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 6, 2004 10:30 PMStop with the leaving America stuff. Don’t be silly. Nobody really wants to leave America. People are dying to get in. The job opportunities for ex-Americans are not good. You know that by purchasing power comparisons (what they can buy, size of houses etc) about 40% of the people of Sweden would be called poor in the U.S. and that’s a really nice country compared to most others. Unemployment in Germany hovers around 10%. Do you think you will easily find work? You could do a lot worse than Germany for employment prospects.
Then there is lifestyle. I won’t bother saying that Americans have more stuff, but consider the intangibles. Besides a few places like Scandinavia and Canada, pollution is a much bigger problem. Try running in Istanbul, Athens or Moscow and you will soon know the meaning of shortness of breath. But the best thing about America is its variety. Most counties have one kind of environment. We have mountains, forests, deserts, and seacoasts, big cities and amazingly open spaces - everything you could want. Just move to Cambridge. That should satisfy your political needs and still leave you in the U.S.
I have lived outside the U.S. for seventeen of the last twenty years. I loved living in various countries, but I would not do it without the security blanket of American citizenship. It is a lot different living in a place than visiting as a tourist and VERY VERY different if you know you can’t go home to America.
Martin-
You conflate Bush’s idea of waging constant Neocon war against those pesky Islamofascists, and the real issue of reducing the likelihood of successful attack on the homeland.
Here’s where it’s nice to have law-enforcement searching out the cells, and our spies and analysts tracking them down outside our borders. I mean, I’m sure that the sleepers we know are here in America look at the War in Iraq and go “They destroyed that secular nation run by that apostate dictator. Oh well, I guess we better pack up and go home”.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2004 10:35 PMJack, 7.2 Million American citizens now live outside of United States borders. The number is growing. That is 7,200,000 Americans.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 6, 2004 10:43 PMGood questions, Bert. Firstly, I am definitely intrigued by why both Time and Newsweek have decided to grotosquely inflate Bush’s bounce—it’s utterly bizzare. This is coming from someboy who’d like to believe their numbers, but in my unvarying preference for facts instead of spin, I CAN’T overlook that they totally abandoned their previous methodology to arrive at this result (and that they did so at the SAME time and produced virtually the same numbers).
For the first time, both oversampled Republicans by a wide margin (which Time in particular had consistently undersampled in previous weeks and months), and actually changed their computational formulae. What do you think?
You could either make a case for this as a right-wing ploy or a left-wing one. Personally, I’m watching for them to change their methods yet again so they can say that Kerry is roaring back and closing the gap.
Why do my all my friends on the left keep telling me that I need to watch John Stewart’s comedy show in order to understand this election? I’ve seen it a couple times—it’s funny. But it’s still just a comedy show, and one which skews entirely in one direction. I might as well as say that Democrats need to pay more attention to Dennis Miller and Jay Leno.
Also, I’m sorry that you’ve decided to play the race card. I won’t even start to delve into all the reasons why this is wrong in both my case and the Republican party in general. Yes, there are racist Republicans. And there are plenty of racist Democrats—let’s just not go there. I gets my blood up. It offends me to have this tossed off so casually considering my own ethics (which I act on consistently whenever the subject comes up—even in the face of fellow Republicans). And especially when I have to confront it from a political party which countenances Jew-baiters like Sharpton. And for that matter attacks “outsourcing” in barely disguised xenophobic terms which appeals to the whities-first preferences of certain (not all) segments of the Democrats’ labor base.
Posted by: Martin at September 6, 2004 10:46 PMlets do this: we will trade every leftist who wants to go to another country if Bush wins for a person in Somalia or the Sudan who would risk their life to come here. If that were the trade, I would finally have a reason to vote for Bush!
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at September 6, 2004 10:49 PMRhinegold, “illegal” aliens contribute a great deal to this country, both culturally and economically. Bush’s proposal sought to recognize that, but not to “legalize them” if what you mean by that is to naturalize them permanently instead of allow them to continue working in mutually beneficial arrangements with Americans (instead of making them into outlaws eternally and unfairly hounded by the INS). Democrats (as well as some Republicans) should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting a measure the likes of which immigrants as well as the Americans who interact with them have waited too long for.
Or, Stephen, the Islamofacists (I’m glad we finally agree about who the enemy is) might say “Damn, there goes that guy who paid us $25,000 every time we blew up a bus full of Jews.”
Posted by: Martin at September 6, 2004 11:04 PM“Do me a favor, and watch the Daily Show video George Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Words, because it captures exactly what you erroneously describe as ‘contradictory’.”
Bert: You and everyone here should watch, it is DEVASTATING (evil laugh)…
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv
Jeez, crazzzyguy, I thought those clips were supposed to have been sent back to Karl Rove’s vault for airing in late October! Shhhh… (the walls have ears) :). But seriously, that’s what going to happen—those things are being saved. Bush’s “bounce” is only half-real at this point (I’m sorry to to say it, but I’m afraid it’s true). Time and Newsweek are crazily off the mark.
In the immediate future we have the 3rd anniversary of 9-11 which it now seems will probably coincide with the 1,000 mark of fatalities in Iraq. Both are politically significant events. Then we have the debates, after which the home stretch begins and we’re going to see some absolutely nuclear ads from the political geniuses running Bush’s campaign.
Of course, for Rove, the task of demolishing a candidate like Kerry and bolstering a candidate like Bush is like asking Michelangelo for a finger-painting. Like they said at Bunker Hill, “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.”
Posted by: Martin at September 7, 2004 12:48 AMIf George W. Bush is re-elected in November, my plan is to leave this country
Bert, how about we do something a little more constructive. Like smuggle tens of thousands of Guatamalans into the country through Tijuana so Ahhhnold can get them all drivers licenses. Then they can all move to Ohio and vote Democrat. :)
But there’s no need to put your house on the market yet (unless you just want to cash out before rising interest rates cause the property bubble to burst), Bush and the Republicans have nothing but failed policy and 17,000 military casualties to show for the last four years, and a fake cowboy with a used car salesman pitch for a frontman.
crazzyguy & Martin, I’m not sure what’s devastating about that clip. Kerry repeatedly points out that Saddam was a threat. That’s something everyone agrees on.
Noticeably absent from the montage was the Kerry quote:
“Did I expect George Bush to fuck it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”
Bert,
>You know that by purchasing power comparisons
>(what they can buy, size of houses etc) about
>40% of the people of Sweden would be called
> poor in the U.S. and that’s a really nice
> country compared to most others.
..
>Then there is lifestyle. I won’t bother saying >that Americans have more stuff, but consider
>
I’ve lived most of my adult life in Europe (Netherlands and UK) and the claim that US standard of living is higher, or quality of life is better strikes me a utter nonsense.
A case could be made for mean US income being higher than in Europe, but many more things are subsidised or free in most European countries including education and health care. Plus income is generally much more evenly distributed in Europe, so far fewer people live in severe poverty. The kind of povery that is relatively common in the US (nearly 20% of people living on equivalent of $18,000 a year for a family of four! ) is virtually unknown in northern european social democracies
according to this ….
http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm
in 2002,
Us poverty rate is 3 times that of Sweden, child poverty is nearly ten times as much, employment rate is almost identical, but far more Americans are working long hours or low paid jobs.
As for the non-economic indicators..
life expectancy is 2 years longer in Sweden than US, infant mortality in US is twice the Sedish rate, prison population per unit of population is 8 times as much in the US as in Sweden. 50% of Americans have low literacy rates as compared to 25% in Sweden. More Swedes have secondary education. Voter turnout in Sweden is 83%, it’s 49% in the US.
If you want to make the case that it is easier to become staggeringly rich in the US than in Sweden then go ahead. If that’s your most important criterion for a good society then fine too, but it is crazy to pretend that EVERYTHING is better here.
Bert—
Your closing paragraphs really hit home for me for that is exactly how I feel and think, but never have given voice to. I have spent a considerable amount of time living overseas in Europe and Asia, and my views on the world and America’s role in it are shaped in large part by those experiences. It continually amazes me how otherwise educated people can continually allow themselves to be led astray by a dullard, who champions his marginal status at Yale, as if it were a trophy, and a badge of honor. Are tax cut that important to those on the right that they would mortgage our Republic future for the price of a new SUV? Are they in the end that selfish and that ignorant of the founding principles pf our nation? I suppose the answer to both questions would have to be yes.
Martin-
What’s the big deal about the Daily Show Clip? The Joke of it is all the rationalization and self contradiction Bush has engaged in. If Kerry is a waffler, it says, Bush is an Eggo factory.
As for Saddam’s payment, I’m sure Al Quaeda misses the funds it never got. The suicide bombers were never affiliated with them, and continued their bloody work well after Saddam was out of office. If you want to go after the people paying people to blow themselves up, try Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
Besides, we already gave a bunch of military aid to the target. They seem to have found use for that. We didn’t have to invade to oppose Saddam’s policies.
Without the presence of Al Quaeda terrorists and Weapons of Mass Destruction, we had no pre-emptive cause to invade Iraq, no immediate threat that could come to our shores. Therefore, we lost our national security justifcation for our invasion.
If Bush had been more of a critical thinker, more skeptical of his own beliefs and those of his advisers, he could have seen that ahead of time, and if he could have seen it ahead of time, he might have avoided a costly, lethal war.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2004 07:13 AMHey Grimble. I’ve been living in Singapore for the last year, and I have to agree with you. The quality of life in the US isn’t really any better than here, either - though being only about 10x25 miles, I miss being able to really open up the throttle on the highway. It’s all city driving. :)
There’s a new book by Jeremy Rifkin, “The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream”, that’s on my reading list.
Stephen, isn’t it interesting that most Americans, Democrats and Republicans, agree that Saddam needed to be dealt with at some point? After having their WMD and terrorist connection rationalizations for war fall apart, the Bush administration made a pretty good case against Saddam on humanitarian and regional stability grounds.
It makes me wonder why Bush didn’t just make that case from the start. Even if Europe still refused to go along, Bush could have had his war and kept some credibility and integrity to boot.
I agree, AP. Bush’s main failure in my part is letting the ‘reasons for dealing with Iraq’ be defined mostly on WMD and not hammered away with the reasons as they should be been laid out from the start. If you look at the myriad of reasons why Iraq, above other countries, needed to be dealt with right then, the argument is very solid, but by focusing on WMD Bush left himself open to criticism if that single reason were not realized.
He listened to Tenet saying that it was a ‘slam dunk’ and believed in the CIA too much. I don’t think he’ll be making that mistake again, a lot of people were in the same boat as Bush on that area, including the person running against him now. But once partisans get it in their head that this was a war of WMD they refuse to let anything else enter their mind or accuse the administration of ‘making up reasons later’.
Of course, if he hadn’t of acted and there HAD been WMD, and his plans of attacking the US with terrorists that Putin warned Bush about had happened, well… I don’t think he’d be president now after the country had his head on a platter.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 7, 2004 10:42 AMAP:
The following excerpts are from Bush’s 2003 SOTU speech.
“International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies — and freedom.
We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers… Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.
Bush did focus too much on WMD’s in my opinion. But he did not do so exclusively, as the media suggests. And as you suggest.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 7, 2004 10:43 AMOf course, if he hadn’t of acted and there HAD been WMD…
Rhinehold, that wasn’t even a possibility. We had Saddam contained, he controlled only a third of the country, and UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors were crawling all over it.
joe, WMD is the argument Bush presented to the international community. The UN resolutions requiring Iraq to destroy all it’s WMD are the legal basis Bush used to unilaterally invade Iraq.
jbod, your quote does not make your argument and is selective. You are quite right to note that Bush himself made much of the WMD, and for good reason, the American people would not invade another soverign nation unless they felt threatened by that nation. Note the following from the same speech:
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror - the gravest danger facing America and the world - is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies who would use them without the least hesitation.This threat is new; America’s duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.
America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We are strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.
In all of these efforts, however, America’s purpose is more than to follow a process. It is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. And we are asking them to join us. And many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.
Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.
Also note his acknowledgement of Iran as pursuing WMD. One out of two ain’t bad. But, our troops are occupied dying and being maimed to bring our puppet type democratic government to Iraq instead of going after what Bush said he was going after, the ability to spread WMD to our enemies. Why aren’t our soldiers going after the Iranian threat of nuclear weapons development ability which Iran itself has practically admitted it has the capacity for, instead of Iraq which had none to threaten us with? You might say, well, we thought Iraq had them. So, why didn’t we leave Iraq for Iran once the bad information came to light? Because Bush was scared as hell that his mistake might cost him, so he insisted ‘the WMD are there, we just can’t find them yet.’
And what of Korea which makes the bulk of its revenue from arms proliferation? It is a serious question, because I don’t have a rational logical answer and have yet to hear one from Bush or Bush supporters. The NeoCon idea that installing a Democracy in Iraq will domino throughout the Middle East has already proven utterly flawed. All it has demonstrated is that where a democracy is established in a Middle Eastern Muslim nation, civil war will result, and acts of terrorism and the numbers who perpetrate them, will grow.
And then there is this:
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
David, we are not spreading Democracy to anywhere, we don’t even have it here, how can we force it upon anyone? What we are forcing upon Iraq is that they put in place a government where their citizens have a voice in how it operates and elect their representatives. That is the only requirement we are placing on them. That does not preclude the rule of law as we have here in our republic.
As for ‘proving that it won’t work’ I would like to actually give it a try first before making that assumption. I think that Germany is working pretty well now, I’m glad we didn’t pull out of there before they even had a government to rule themselves with.
Oh, and AP, as far as having Saddam contained, that didn’t stop him from shooting at our planes over 700 times a year, slaughtering, torturing and raping his citizens, harbouring terrorists and planning a terrorist attack against the US. As well as meeting wtih Al Qaeda during this ‘containment’ period.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 7, 2004 12:28 PMDavid:
Of course my quotes were selective. The intent was to show that while Bush focused on WMD too much, in my opinion, he also discussed the other issues, such as liberation and torture, that have now come to the forefront. The quotes show precisely what I intended them to show—-that being that while the media heard only ONE issue, there were multiple issues discussed. With more time, I could probably show quotes from other speeches which contain the same issues.
David, YOUR argument seems to be that we should invade Iran and Korea, when you say, ” So, why didn’t we leave Iraq for Iran once the bad information came to light?…And what of Korea which makes the bulk of its revenue from arms proliferation?”
To do so would go against your stand against pre emption though. So what are you trying to say—-that we need to do a better job of picking which countries to invade? Thats a far different stance than you’ve taken thus far…an interesting shift in your viewpoint. Tell me what you really mean here?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 7, 2004 12:28 PMThe Iraq policy was coming apart by the time Bush took the oath of office. UN imposed sanctions was causing the same kind of reaction on the “Arab street” against the U.S. as we hear today. The “oil for food” corruption was allowing Saddam increasing freedom while letting him starve his people and blame the U.S. Containment in the form of no fly zones and U.S. troops stationed in the neighborhood was becoming untenable. Remember, Osama’s main compliant against the U.S. was that our infidel troops were in Saudi Arabia. They were in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam. Beyond that, everyone believed that Saddam possessed and was developing WMD. The UN documented WMD in 1998 and it still has not been accounted for. President Bush’s choice was not either to keep a status quo of Saddam in a box or escape pressure. Saddam was coming out of the box, absent strong U.S. reaction. President Bush tried to pressure Saddam via the UN and other Arab states to no avail. Saddam’s friends assured no strong resolutions could pass.
So we have not found WMD. We know he used these weapons and had them as late as 1998. Where they went, we still don’t know. (Let me emphasize – the UN documented his WMD in 1998. There is no record of what happened to them.) What he had before, he could reconstitute once freed from sanctions and he was nearly free of sanctions. President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was the right decision at the right time. The war turned out to be a lot easier; establishing peace turned out to be harder. Von Clausewitz called this the fog and friction of war. Even the best plans are subject to this.
Jack, 7.2 Million American citizens now live outside of United States borders. The number is growing. That is 7,200,000 Americans. Posted by David R. Remer at September 6, 2004 10:43 PM
David, I guess your implication is that the 7.2 million are mostly disaffected citizens.
Assuming the number is correct, then I wonder how many of them are military, or American civilians working for the military. How many are spouses and families of military members? How many are diplomats, their staffs and families? How many are American contractors or Americans working for their companies at overseas locations? How many are students studying abroad? How many are missionaries and their families?
I have known people in each of the above categories but never met anyone who lived overseas because they were fed up with our government. I know some probably exist, but how many of your 7.2 million do you really believe are in that category?
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 7, 2004 06:19 PMI think Bobby Fischer is one, isn’t he?
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 7, 2004 07:30 PMLeaving the country… I’ve pondered this before, but not for myself. My son is 19. I served as a volunteer in the Air Force, & like most military people, strongly believe it is the best way to go. However, we’re on a path in Iraq (never mind other unforeseen ‘pertubations’) that may make the draft unavoidable. It’s simply a matter of logistics for the army. I admit, a draft is unlikely, but it is a possibility, not just an abstract argument. Personally, if it ever came down to that, I’d advise him to go to Canada. Are you comfortable advising me to encourage him, if called, to serve in Iraq?
It occurs to me that Michael Moore buttonholes people with this kind of question. But I’m not talking about someone else’s kid.
I hardly ever watch Fox News, but whenever I do they always show an example of flagrant bias. The latest example I saw was Sean Hannity claiming that Kerry can’t complain about the Swiftvet ads because he didn’t denounce MoveOn for showing advertisements comparing Bush to Hitler. No s%^t! You can’t denounce something that didn’t happen. From what I have heard, Hannity has been saying this a lot. No wonder Fox viewers are misinformed.
Another example, and this one made me laugh out loud, was seeing Michael Barone broadcast from the floor of the Democratic convention. It was right after Kerry’s speech (which barely even mentioned Bush) and the balloons were coming down and people were dancing and cheering. Barone’s summary: “This convention was about HATE!”
Must be easy being a broadcaster for Fox News. No matter what happens, you just have to stick to your script…
Posted by: Woody Mena at September 7, 2004 10:10 PMFor the life of me, I can’t understand why you guys who loathe every second of what you see on FOX watch it so obsessively. Don’t you know you’re driving up their ratings and profits in doing so? There’s ONE major media outlet that doesn’t do what you think is the media’s responsibility—to reflect a left-wing bias—but you can’t seem to turn the channel. Why is this? It’s like you can’t be satisfied until you see a single view of world—yours—broadcast and reinforced from every single corner of the universe.
I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because of their bias. I didn’t want to line their pockets. So why don’t you just vote with your remote control?
Posted by: Martin at September 7, 2004 10:49 PMWoody. First, Hannity is hardly a journalist. Hannity and Colmes is in no way a ‘news show’. It’s the same as on other shows on other networks. Are you claiming there is no liberal bias by CNN? Be fair.
As for Moveon.org not ‘showing’ the ad, you’re right. They didn’t air it on any TV show. They did have it on their website as an entry into a contest for ads that would later be shown. I saw it. Are you saying it wasn’t made and displayed on their web site?
Do you think that they were right to even have it there? Of course, ignoring THAT ad, Moveon.org has aired ads intimating that Bush was a deserter… I suppose that’s ok but the Swiftboat ads are not?
Again, you’re showing your bias. Either they are both right or they are both wrong, you can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 7, 2004 10:52 PMDon
I understand your dilema. My son is considering joining the U.S. Marine Corps` I am supporting him. I hope he does not have to fight in Iraq and if he does I hope he comes home safely, but there are possibilities we have to consider. I have thought about the Michael Moore question, however, and concluded that his premise is wrong.
Moore asks if you would sacrifice your son. Of course, any parent would answer no. I would save my child at almost any cost. That is an emotional decision, but not one I can defend ethically. Most parents would save their own kids even at the expense of others. We can’t have that. Besides, his question postulates certain death (sacrifice) Serving in Iraq carries a probability of danger, just like everything else in life. Moore could just as easily ask if you would sacrifice your child to drive a car, since each time you get behind the wheel there is a probability you will die. (We kill almost as many Americans on our roads each year as died in Vietnam) Life is statistical, not determined. That makes Michael Moore’s question invalid.
The second problem with the question is free will. Our children become adults they make adult choices. We cannot sacrifice them. They choose. We can only worry about them.
Third, we are faced with the free rider problem. Somebody has to defend the U.S. If not us, who? Volunteering to fight in Vietnam is one of the things I admire about John Kerry. He didn’t run off, even though he disagreed with the policy. Even if you disagree with Iraq, it is clear that there are times when we have to defend ourselves. Soldiers don’t have the option of choosing their wars. That is a job we reserve to our political leaders. If we made each deployment optional, we could never deploy. That kind of logic gives the world to the most ruthless actor. I am unwilling to allow that, so I have to be willing for my family to defend the U.S. That means (as horrible as it is) we even have to defend our fellow citizen Michael Moore.
I would prefer to have no wars, but we don’t have that option. The best option for preventing big wars is to be prepared to fight them and deal with little nasties like Saddam before they become big nasties. And we should all be consequent in our beliefs.
Thanks to all who ‘got it’ (especially V. Edward), those trying to talk me off the airplane and those who actually bothered to check the Daily Show video link, to get the ‘gist’ of what I was raving about.
To those who inquired of my ultimate destination, it will be Amsterdam! I visited during the 1998 Gay Games, and found a metropolis more attractive than just it’s tolerant identity.
I found a melting pot of cultures, ethnicity, languages, class and ideology, with no discernible demarcations rendered thusly. They had fewer TV channels than our basic cable, more art galleries, museums and book stores in Central Amsterdam than all of Chicago. A sea of rickety bicycles and few streets wide enough for a Hummer.
The intellect of the average citizentry is off putting and most speak at least 2-3 languages.
I was planning to retire there, and spend my latter days playing Blues venues across Europe.
In barely half of the American citizentry, does such a community or environment exist. And, I prefer not to be complicit or an increasingly likely target of terrorism, due to the ignorance of a possibly larger majority’s death wish.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 7, 2004 11:28 PMRhinehold,
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. It wasn’t an ad; it was a losing entry in a contest (out of hundreds), and it was shown far more times on the RNC website than on MoveOn.org. There is a difference between opinion and revisionist history.
Posted by: Woody Mena at September 8, 2004 12:18 AMYes, exactly as I said. What about what I said was innacurate?
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 8, 2004 12:56 AMJack,
Yes, I’m aware of the false premise behind Moore’s question. It’s suprising most people aren’t quick enough on their feet to see through it. Nevertheless, the risk of going to Iraq is very real, & the upside difficult to see in real, concrete terms. Afghanistan, on the other hand, made total sense. Yes, a soldier serves, and obeys (lawful) orders. I just have a difficult time with the idea of my own flesh & blood getting involved in Iraq at this point. Well, it’s late, perhaps return to this another time.
Oh, and AP, as far as having Saddam contained, that didn’t stop him from shooting at our planes over 700 times a year, slaughtering, torturing and raping his citizens,
Those are all way better cases to make for war than the ones Bush made. Maybe you should be President.
…harbouring terrorists and planning a terrorist attack against the US.
Ouch! Venturing into delusional territory. I withdraw my nomination.
