Democrats & Liberals Archives

Keep Their Eyes Off the Ball

By mistake the other day (while fixing some electronics and simultaneously performing a minor operation) I accidently hooked up an old radar scanner directly to my own 7th para-cervical nerve root. I was surprised to receive the following transmission….

FROM: The Red King's Supreme Puppetmaster and Grand Vizier
TO: His Blogminions
SUBJECT: Strategic review and update

Loyal Republitroids:

I first wish to thank all of you for the wonderful job you've done in keeping the nation's eyes from our main weakness. As a result of your diligent misdirection, most voters have still not noticed that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right. However, with the election in sight, we must not relax! we must continue to pursue our rhetorical strategy vigorously, so that as few people as possible notice that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right.

To review the situation, we entered this campaign with a handicap. The most important decision taken by Bush the last four years was the invasion of Iraq, which was based on the fear that Iraq would provide Al Qaeda with WMD. It has since become clear that Iraq had no WMD, no immediate means of producing them, and no close relationship with Al Qaeda anyway. In retrospect, Bush's decision was wrong, and looks like blind, unreasoning panic.

Kerry, in contrast, wanted a different approach. When he cast his vote to give Bush the authority for war, he said: "The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint conference with our allies. ... I expect [Bush] to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days to work with the United Nations Security Council ... and to 'act with our allies at our side' if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force." And since then he has consistently stuck with the position that the right choices in Iraq involved sanctions, inspections, allies, and that we (the Red Team) were doing things the wrong way. In retrospect, Kerry was correct: there was no emergency; there was time for international process. So on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right.

So where does that leave us? who would risk his own family's security by re-electing someone that was so wrong, on such a major issue? especially someone who has so obviously underestimated the cost of the subsequent invasion in lives, money, and international support? and especially when his opponent had it right? How can we win the election if on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right?

The answer is clear: to re-elect Bush, we must keep America from noticing that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right, by any means we can. The arguments I suggest are these.

(1) The "doctrine" argument. Bush wanted pre-emptive war, Kerry didn't. It doesn't really matter that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right because we won't talk about Iraq. Instead, take this specific decision--pre-empt in Iraq or not?--and turn it into a doctrine that will be followed blindly in every conceivable later situation. Don't say that Kerry didn't support pre-emption for Iraq, because that may remind people that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right. Say that Kerry will never pre-emptively strike ever, that he will require permission slips from everyplace from Andorra to Zimbabwe before untying his shoes, say anything you like. The Blue team will argue, of course, but it will be our argument - about doctrine. They won't be reminding people that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right.

(2) The "loyalty argument". If anyone ever mentions that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right, say that calling Bush 'wrong' will discourage the troops, that it's disloyal in time of war to not support the commander-in-chief. Remind them about Vietnam and Abbie Hoffman and Jane Fonda. Say that arguments for "anybody but Bush" are unconvincing. The Blue team will debate you, of course, but it will debate about free speech and nonsense like that. They won't be reminding people that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right.

(3) The "flip-flop" argument. Say that Kerry isn't consistent. Drag out any sort of discrepancy you can think of from his 20+ years in public office. Say he isn't consistent on Iraq! I know, this has been debunked over and over, and Factcheck has even called our ads on this "egregious", but don't worry---we don't need facts on our side to win! Be bold! Be brazen! and if the Blue team starts slamming Bush for his flip-flops, be happy! Remember, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose the argument, as long as it's our argument, as long as nobody notices that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right!

So blog-minions, take heart. The end is in sight, and as long as we can keep their eyes "off the ball" a little longer, we have a chance of hoodwinking the country once again! Yes, in another few weeks we can celebrate, and even relax - for after November 3rd, it won't matter who knows that on Iraq, Bush was wrong and Kerry was right! Posted by William Cohen at October 9, 2004 9:03 PM