Where did you want them to bring it, John?

I sincerely hope that all of you enjoyed Senator John Kerry's pleasant idyll through Election 2004, because it's officially over:

Senator Kerry's voting record on national security raises some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed.

Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as President Bill Clinton considered military action against Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The Senator from Massachusetts said, quote, "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some future conflict would have " greater consequence." In 1998, Senator Kerry indicated his support for regime change, with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when Congress voted in October of 2002, Senator Kerry voted to authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with U.N. demands.

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry's record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, "one of the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to, quote, "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force.

Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait. (Laughter.)

Yup, Cheney's speech. Damn feisty one, and from the accounts that I've heard so far from my fellow VRWCers, well presented, too. Now, I'm sure that a lot of you are prepared to spin, explain, redefine and (probably, in a couple of cases at least) correct Cheney's comments... but I would seriously recommend against thinking that this was not bad mojo for Kerry, skillfully applied. I'm betting that this one is going to have an impact past the base (who will spread it far and wide; we've been chomping at the bit lately*), so watch out.

Of course, if you feel confident enough, you can ignore my advice completely. I have it on excellent authority that my side is all made up of dunderheaded poltroons.

Moe

*Heh. Ya think... naah, the Bush administration are all unilateralist simplisme cowboys (or so I keep getting told). No way are they subtle enough to make us a little hungry first.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

Excuse while I go look up dunderheaded and poltroons.
====
Ok back from dictionary.com, and I agree with "dunderheaded poltroons".
....
Nobody is listening to any of this stuff but we political junkies, and a Cheney speech definitively proving Kerry was from Arcturus wouldn't move the polls 3%. Wait til September.

[Moe Lane]

"Nobody is listening to any of this stuff but we political junkies,"

You'd be surprised. There's a hole in the wall Chinese place near my job where I'm always hearing one political conversation or another - not the same people, either.

Hey! It's anecdotal evidence twice over! :)

[fabius]

I wouldn't want to dispute Mr. Chaeney, who has a well known reputation for honestly and always telling the truth. Further, he has never changed his mind about anything. Never had to. His inate sense has allowed him to be right about every decision he ever made. Of course, evil liberals will try to "spin", but what's the use, the truth will out.

BTW, the serious mojo you refer to is the $300 million dollars Republicans will spend on this election plus the lies coming faster than Kerry's ability to respond. Republicans define this as "free speech" and the process as "democracy".

[fabius]

Having reread your post I will now apologize for the tone (but not the substance, as there wasn't any) of my comment. My new take on your post is that Cheney has introduced a meme that will be very difficult for Democrats to respond to. We knew coming into this election season that this would happen. It doesn't matter if the case against Kerry is true or false, the ability of the Rebulican Party to flood the TV talk shows, radio talk shows, newspaper editorials and advertising of every sort will be a serious detriment to Kerry's election chances. Don't worry, Moe, if this meme doesn't stick, they will find another one that will. It's going to come down to voter turnout, just like in Spain.

[Jesurgislac]

I have it on excellent authority that my side is all made up of dunderheaded poltroons.

Oh, no. The side which you are unfortunately supporting is made up of (a) dunderheaded poltroons (b) hypocrites who know better (c) fatcats out for whatever benefits themselves, who cares about the rest of the US?

Bush & Cheney plainly fall under (c): I believe they're bright enough to see that their policies amply benefit themselves. Having a high opinion of your intelligence, I believe you to fall into (b), but if you tell me you earn enough to count as (c), I'll believe you.

[who's afraid of dick cheney?]

This Cheney riff strikes me as protesting too much. If Kerry is such a dubious pretender to the role of commander in chief, why are they flailing at him with such abandon? If the merits of the current administrationare are so unassailable they ought to be able to happy talk their way into a second term while stepping over the corpse of the poor Brahmin hack who had to go negative just to get on TV.

Bushco is in trouble and they know it.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"It doesn't matter if the case against Kerry is true or false, the ability of the Rebulican Party to flood the TV talk shows, radio talk shows, newspaper editorials and advertising of every sort will be a serious detriment to Kerry's election chances."

And the fact that it is true and not false only makes it worse. :)

[rilkefan]

Saletan analyzes the Bush campaign: If you're against Bush, you're against America.

[Moe Lane]

"Having a high opinion of your intelligence, I believe you to fall into (b),"

There is a short list of people who are permitted to insult me to my face, and you are not on it. This is your one warning to follow the Posting Rules.

[Don Quijote]

The fine people at Tacitus have this fine thread entitlled Devotion, Iraqi mother and child at a pediatric cancer ward.

Since I have been banned from that particular site and that I find that thread to be so self congratulatory & offensive , I would appreciate it if someone would post the comments on my blogs on Tacitus.org.

http://irepeatmyself.blogspot.com/

[rilkefan]

DQ, I think that titled picture at best exploits human misery to make a political point, but if I'm going to comment on the thread it will be in my own words.

Jesurgislac, I read your comments for fun and profit, but find 11:02 AM out of line.

[rilkefan]

p.s. mail to Jesurgislac@livejournal.com bounces:
User unknown in local recipient table.
: unknown user: "jesurgislac"

[Jesurgislac]

Moe, I've been pointing out in multiple comments for some time (which you explicitly said you didn't object to) that the reasons you have given for supporting Bush are hypocritical. (The reason why I've been persistently pointing this out is because you as persistently refuse to explain why you claim you won't vote for Kerry, because (on the basis that he voted against Bush's $87B appropriation) you think he wants to rook the Iraqi people - yet you will endorse Bush, though Bush & Co are more directly guilty of rooking the Iraqi people by their actions than Kerry is by that single vote. Since I assume you're aware of this, your reason for supporting Bush over Kerry is hypocritical.)

However, I concede that it's rather different to point out that your ostensible reasons for planning to do something are hypocritical, and actually to call you a hypocrite. It's a fine line, but it's there, and yes, I stepped over it. So I apologize.

Rilkefan, if the mail bounced back it must be because my subscription to livejournal has run out. The e-mail address attached to this post is definitely still valid if you want to re-send your e-mail.

[Jesurgislac]

Moe, I've been pointing out in multiple comments for some time (which you explicitly said you didn't object to) that the reasons you have given for supporting Bush are hypocritical. (The reason why I've been persistently pointing this out is because you as persistently refuse to explain why you claim you won't vote for Kerry, because (on the basis that he voted against Bush's $87B appropriation) you think he wants to rook the Iraqi people - yet you will endorse Bush, though Bush & Co are more directly guilty of rooking the Iraqi people by their actions than Kerry is by that single vote. Since I assume you're aware of this, your reason for supporting Bush over Kerry is hypocritical.)

However, I concede that it's rather different to point out that your ostensible reasons for planning to do something are hypocritical, and actually to call you a hypocrite. It's a fine line, but it's there, and yes, I stepped over it. So I apologize.

Rilkefan, if the mail bounced back it must be because my subscription to livejournal has run out. The e-mail address attached to this post is definitely still valid if you want to re-send your e-mail.

[Jesurgislac]

And, Sebastian? Cheney is lying, in the confidence that the Bush loyalists will believe him, and that the media will spread his lies as truth. Why not? It's a technique that's worked again, and again, and again...

[fabius]

(The reason why I've been persistently pointing this out is because you as persistently refuse to explain why you claim you won't vote for Kerry, because (on the basis that he voted against Bush's $87B appropriation) you think he wants to rook the Iraqi people - yet you will endorse Bush,

Dwight Meredith at Wampum points out that Kerry was supporting the $87 billion if it were paid for by a roll back in $87 billion dollars worth of tax cuts. This is the kind of horse tading common throughout the history of our great Republic. Remember, the cost of Iraq isn't even included in calculations of our record deficits. This seems like another case of Kerry being responsible and Bush, not so.

[Don Quijote]

rilkefan,

I think it's a case of deliberatly shooting someone in the chest with a 357 at point blank range, putting a bandaid on the wound, and then congratulating youself for being a good samaritan.

It's fucking despicable, but that just my opinion.

[Gary Farber]

"...spin, explain, redefine and (probably, in a couple of cases at least) correct Cheney's comments...."

"...with ground troops if necessary."

I just wonder what the other sort of troops are.

[Gary Farber]

I should have said that my observational query is not related to Richard Cheney, but to cliches.

[fabius]

"...with ground troops if necessary."

"I just wonder what the other sort of troops are."

Hover troops?

[Moe Lane]

"It's f*cking despicable,,,"

And there's another Posting Rules violation. This is not filling me with confidence for my upcoming vacation.

[rilkefan]

Moe, is there a big difference between f*... and fc... on the one hand and fu... on the other? If you care, why not put in a filter which turns ___ into _(*&^_?

[Moe Lane]

"Moe, is there a big difference between f*... and fc... on the one hand and fu... on the other?"

Yes; the former does not register on my job's webblocking software. I already can't comment on my own site during the day; I don't want to particularly lose access to it (and the rest of TypePad), either.

And I haven't a clue on how to put in a filter.

[Catsy]

Actually, rilkefan brings up a good point--are we allowed to mask profanity for the purposes of rhetorical effect (as opposed to the use of profanity for insult or offense)? I say this as someone given to throwing it in on occasion for precisely the former purpose.

e.g.: The sh*t has hit the fan, ladies and gentlemen.

If the answer is no, I'll gladly keep it on my own blog. Just wondering.

[Catsy]

...you know, I really should learn to check the age of a thread before posting to it after following a link. :>