![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saavedra77We keep hearing that this November’s presidential election will be the most important of our lifetimes, in terms of foreign, fiscal, & environmental policy, & of constitutional law. I don't think that I'll find much disagreement with this among my friends, here: For most of us, the consequences of four more years of unilateral foreign policy, borrow-&-spend economics, environmental neglect, & eroding civil rights are profoundly depressing to contemplate.
Unfortunately, John Kerry’s recent actions make me wonder whether he understands that there's more on the line here than his career. Today’s Washington Post analysis really encapsulates my current frustrations with the Kerry campaign: too defensive, too focused on the past, too convoluted--on Iraq in particular.
I wish I could say that I disagreed: Too often, when I hear Kerry speak, I can see exactly where he's stepping in it, exactly how the Republicans will skewer him. The most egregious example came when Kerry affirmed that he would have given the president authority to invade Iraq even if he knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Anyone with half an ounce of political sense could have told Kerry that he was walking into a trap. In essence, Kerry was providing Bush with cover for the administration’s biggest foreign policy embarrassment & bolstering Bush’s case that Iraq needed to be invaded ... well, just ‘cuz. Incredibly, though, Kerry didn’t seem to get it.
As John Stewart shouted out over the airwaves that night: “You’re trying to lose!”
I’ve volunteered to do door-to-door & phone bank work for the Kerry campaign, but I have to say that defeating Bush would be a lot easier if the guy at the top of the ticket would act like this is the most important presidential election of our lifetimes!
Unfortunately, John Kerry’s recent actions make me wonder whether he understands that there's more on the line here than his career. Today’s Washington Post analysis really encapsulates my current frustrations with the Kerry campaign: too defensive, too focused on the past, too convoluted--on Iraq in particular.
I wish I could say that I disagreed: Too often, when I hear Kerry speak, I can see exactly where he's stepping in it, exactly how the Republicans will skewer him. The most egregious example came when Kerry affirmed that he would have given the president authority to invade Iraq even if he knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Anyone with half an ounce of political sense could have told Kerry that he was walking into a trap. In essence, Kerry was providing Bush with cover for the administration’s biggest foreign policy embarrassment & bolstering Bush’s case that Iraq needed to be invaded ... well, just ‘cuz. Incredibly, though, Kerry didn’t seem to get it.
As John Stewart shouted out over the airwaves that night: “You’re trying to lose!”
I’ve volunteered to do door-to-door & phone bank work for the Kerry campaign, but I have to say that defeating Bush would be a lot easier if the guy at the top of the ticket would act like this is the most important presidential election of our lifetimes!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 02:15 pm (UTC)Incidentally, it's easy to argue that while Saddam wouldn't want to directly attack a superpower, it's easy to argue (even without evidence) that he would , could, or did indirectly arange or support an attack. I'm sure now he's wishing he did. Actually, for that matter, he did try and have GHWB killed, didn't he? Not something that would affect most Americans, but it could be seen as an attack on the US, even if he is just an oil shill these days.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 05:09 pm (UTC)Point taken: Although I'd argue that the risk of such an attack being traced back to Saddam was the same as if he'd carried it out on his own. He'd still be running a high risk of large-scale retaliation, & probably regime change. Nor does it seem credible that Saddam would ever have risked supplying WMD to an independent group (assuming for a moment that he still had WMD), as this would cede the surrogate the power to threaten him & his regime.
The problem here is that so much depends on how you think that Saddam's mind worked: Based on what I've read, I see him as a totally ruthless bastard whose one big goal in life consisted in enhancing his own personal power. On the other hand, once we introduce the word "madman" into the conversation--connoting loss of touch with reality, unpredictability, impulsivity, violence--people tend to become unreceptive to thoughts about Saddam's likely strategies for surviving & staying in power. Then we start thinking about the incomprehensible, about bin Laden, about Mohammed Atta. Hence the importance of the "madman" language in the president's pre- & postwar justications for toppling Saddam: if you convince people that he wasn't just a mericless bastard, but a psychopath, then it seems like toppling him was the only way to protect ourselves from unpredictable future violence.
& that ruthless bastard/psycho distinction is shall we say not well understood, out there ...