So at NYU this morning Kerry -- finally -- began to attempt to undo the damage caused by his infamous remark, "I voted for the war before I voted against it."
Okay, Mr. Peabody, let's set the Waybac Machine for Fall 2002. Bush was practically foaming at the mouth that Iraq was seemingly in violation of U.N. Resolution #1441. (A brief comparison: number of U.N. resolutions used to justify invasion of Iraq: 3 (Nos. 678, 687 and 1441). Number of U.N. resolutions passed against Israel between 1947 and 1989: 97.) Initially he used the alleged violation to argue for renewed weapons inspections in Iraq, which he got. Later, Bush would defend the invasion by saying, "We gave [Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power." Yeah, except that's not what happened, George. He did let the inspectors in, and you criticized their ineptitude because they couldn't find the weapons that you insisted were there (even though, for reasons of "national security," you refused to share what intelligence you had with the U.N. inspectors to aid their search), and they stayed in Iraq until you told them to leave right before you let fly with the bombs. And now of course it turns out that Iraq didn't have any banned weapons...or any programs...so gee...I guess they weren't in violation of Resolution #1441 after all, were they? Boy is that inconvenient. And, why hasn't Kerry mentioned that?
So getting back to Kerry "hitting Bush" at NYU today, finally he managed to articulate that, given the assumption that Iraq was in "material breach" of Res. 1441, he voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq basically as the next step in the diplomatic process, a way of saying, "Okay Saddam, we're serious, if you don't come clean on these weapons programs, the Congress of the United States has given their permission for military action against you."
Kerry expects us to believe that there is a significant difference between ratcheting up the threat of war as a diplomatic strategy and actually going to war. Of course there is a difference, but this may exceed the US electorate's capacity for nuance. It didn't help that last month Kerry said that if he'd known then (Fall of 2002) what he knew now (August 2004), he'd still have voted for the war. Can anyone explain to me what the man was thinking at that moment?
Throwing some red meat up in the air that landed right at Karl Rove's feet, Kerry offered this statement today: "Is [Bush] really saying to Americans that if we had known there were no imminent threats, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is resoundingly no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."
This would have been wonderful if only his answer hadn't been a resounding yes a month ago.
However, we're stuck with this bozo (thank you, Iowa) so I guess I should focus on what Kerry is finally doing right -- at least today -- and forget about the mistakes of the past. So, moving on, Kerry also said Bush's mistakes "were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president." And, "This president was in denial," Kerry said. "He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences."
You know, this is the kind of thing Kerry should have been saying January. But I guess later is better than never.
Questioning Bush's repeated assertions that Iraq is a great success, he offered this picture of life on the ground in Baghdad: "Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees," Mr. Kerry said. "Children wade through garbage on their way to school. Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys." I love that line about the hubcaps and sewage...it's almost poetic.
"Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq," Mr. Kerry said. " It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers." Now this is good stuff...more please.
Also, John Edwards apparently returned from whatever exile Bob Shrum sent him off to. I'm guessing Shrum ordered Edwards to keep a low profile when his charming, boyish good looks that everyone keeps writing about failed to effect a big bounce in the polls and that also there was a risk that Edwards' charm, sincerity and eloquence might not look good overshadowing Kerry's globe-trotting caveats and curlicues, as Slate Magazine puts it. I voted for Edwards in the New York primary this spring; I know that might come as a surprise, since he was basically the most conservative candidate and I'm such a lib'ral, but I was really attracted to his energy and sincerity, and was delighted when Kerry picked him as a running mate. What sense did it make to keep him under wraps? It's not like Karl Rove is worried that Darth Cheney, who can at least speak in complete (if mendacious) sentences, will overshadow the infamously verbally clumsy Bush, who is given to lying about the timeline of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq at the whim of a hat.
"Let me just say this in the simplest possible terms," Mr. Edwards said. "When John Kerry is president of the United States, we will find Al Qaeda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people." That's a tough promise to deliver on, but certainly this kind of rhetoric is more on-target. He also took a much needed swipe against crackpot Denny Hastert, who recently made news for suggesting that Kerry's campaign is being funded by foreign drug rings via billionaire George Soros. Hastert's latest departure from the unpleasant world of reality has him agreeing that "al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if John Kerry were elected." I can't really see how that's so, since Kerry is likely to re-forge broken alliances and re-focus our attention on actual terrorists instead of impotent dictators.
The New York Times published a lengthy piece today which is basically smearing Bush's character based on difficult-to-substantiate allegations from thirty-odd years ago. There's not much new in there at all, if you've been following the scoops by the Boston Globe that have been written about by David Corn, Molly Ivins and Michael Moore (and others, no doubt) with regard to Bush's Guard "service." Frankly, I think all this is a little bit irrelevant since there are plenty of things from the last four years to attack Bush on that don't require circumstantial evidence or investigative guesswork, but a friend of mine urges me to recognize the legitimacy that the Times piece will confer on the details of this period of Bush's life, which have, to a large extent, been ignored by the mainstream press. Hopefully he is correct.
Check out this pic, however, of George Bush, Sr. playing tennis with Winston M. Blount, the guy whose campaign Dubya left the Texas Guard to work on. (Courtesy of Winston Blount III.) Does it not look like a still from some really bad conceptual ballet? Please God, let them photoshop this one on Fark. Anyway, if you're not familiar with the sordid details of Jr's guard days, check out the article for an enlightening read. Otherwise, the main highlight for me was this: "After the election, Mr. Bush returned to Houston, moving out of his small rented bungalow in Montgomery. He left the place a mess, with a broken light fixture and piles of debris, according to Mary Smith, whose husband was the bungalow's caretaker. Ms. Smith said her husband, who has since died, sent Mr. Bush a bill for professional cleaning but never heard back."
Speaking of Bush's guard service...from the boobs at CBS who brought us Janet Jackson's breast in all its split-second, nipple-ornament-obscured glory, an admission today that they "cannot prove that the documents are authentic." Oops. Come on, people. My own blog is researched better than your "60 Minutes" story. What's going on here? First, I think the National Guard business is old news and a non-story anyway. Why are we beating a horse that's so dead we're not sure the carcass is actually a horse, when out there behind the White House there's a whole stable full of derby winners? And, in a moment of non-partisan-ness, anyone who would dare to impugn the character of a sitting President by means of forged documents ought to spend some time in jail.
The Times Editorial Page was very interesting today. The prize for best editorial with a patronizing tone goes to "Official Business." I can rarely read William Safire anymore, which is sad because he has a razor-sharp wit and an inspiring way with words. But frequently he seems to live in an alternate reality, especially regarding the situation in Iraq, he likes to promote already discredited conspiracy theories like the Atta in Prague story, the transcripts of his interviews with Richard Nixon from beyond the grave are just weird, folks. However, today he goes through a power-point like strategy for Kerry in the remaining six weeks. He probably meant it as satire, though I think it's dead on, and frankly, it makes you wonder which side he's really on. Ironically, Bob Herbert's piece is so critical of Kerry, or at least his strategy thus far, that if you weren't a regular reader, you might assume Safire was the liberal counterpoint to Herbert.
From a letter to the editor, a writer provides some handy numbers that Kerry might want to work into his next speech on Bush's Iraq policy:
To the Editor:
Bob Herbert ("This Is Bush's Vietnam,'' column, Sept. 17) wonders who will be the last person to die for President Bush's "colossal mistake'' in Iraq. Put that together with your Sept. 16 front-page article about the pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on what lies in store for Iraq, and with President Bush's inability to say how long American troops will have to remain there.
Five years? The last person to die for President Bush's mistake may now be 13 years old.
Ten years? The last person to die for President Bush's mistake may now be 8.
Fifteen years? The last person to die for President Bush's mistake may now be 3.
This is what John Kerry needs to tell parents all across America.
David M. Perlmutter
San Diego, Sept. 17, 2004
On a final political note today, the Associated Press reports that 245 votes were "lost" thanks to electronic voting machines during the recent primary in Florida. Officials assure us that this little snafu did not affect the outcome of any races, however in a different district an incumbent was unseated by a margin of 130 votes. You may also recall that Bush "won" Florida by about 540 votes.
Okay, enough of that! Fans of the magnificent film Y Tu Mama Tambien rejoice, because hottie Gael Garcia Bernal has two new films coming out. The Times' profile of the actor has some interesting information, but is mostly notable for the way the interviewer apparently had the hots for young GG. Check out some of this prose:
"Unloading a big floppy satchel and laying his crutches on the floor, he shrugs, pulls off his jacket and takes a seat. Then, he makes eye contact. Gael García Bernal, it turns out, is a divine sight even in a post-operative state."
"Beyond Mr. García's smoldering good looks, there's a smart, well-read, cultured human being who rejects the superstar syndrome and has something to say."
"Mr. García's greenish-brownish-bluish eyes change with the light as he retraces his journey from Mexican soap operas to big, bold art films."
I know there's a joke in there about "unloading his big, floppy satchel" but I'm not going to go there.
No comments:
Post a Comment