http://slate.com/id/2106109/ Imperial President Opposing Bush becomes unpatriotic. By William Saletan Updated Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 1:16 AM PT The 2004 election is becoming a referendum on your right to hold the president accountable. That's the upshot of tonight's speeches by Vice President Dick Cheney and Zell Miller, the Republican National Convention's keynote speaker. The case against President Bush is simple. He sold us his tax cuts as a boon for the economy, but more than three years later, he has driven the economy into the ground. He sold us a war in Iraq as a necessity to protect the United States against weapons of mass destruction, but after spending $200 billion and nearly 1,000 American lives, and after searching the country for more than a year, we've found no such weapons. Tonight the Republicans had a chance to explain why they shouldn't be fired for these apparent screw-ups. Here's what Cheney said about the economic situation: "People are returning to work. Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high. The Bush tax cuts are working." But mortgage rates were low before Bush took office. Home ownership was already at an all-time high. And more than a million more people had jobs than have them today. "In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat," Cheney said. What about the urgent, nukes-any-day threat to the United States that supposedly warranted our expense of so much blood and treasure? Cheney was silent. "A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation," said Cheney. "But a president always casts the deciding vote." What America needs in this time of peril, he argued, is "a president we can count on to get it right." You can't make the case against Bush more plainly than that. If the convention speeches are any guide, Republicans have run out of excuses for blowing the economy, blowing the surplus, and blowing our military resources and moral capital in the wrong country. So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents. Here's what the convention keynoter, Miller, said tonight about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war: "While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief. "Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. "In [Democratic leaders'] warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself. "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Every one of these charges is demonstrably false. When Bush addressed Congress after 9/11, Democrats embraced and applauded him. In the Afghan war, they gave him everything he asked for. Most Democratic senators, including John Kerry and John Edwards, voted to give him the authority to use force in Iraq. During and after the war, they praised Iraq's liberation. Kerry has never said that any other country should decide when the United States is entitled to defend itself. But the important thing isn't the falsity of the charges, which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy. In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election. Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics. Are you prepared to become one of those countries? When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window. You're not allowed to point out that Bush shifted the rationale for the Iraq war further and further from U.S. national security—from complicity in 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction to building democracy to relieving Iraqis of their dictator—without explaining why American troops and taxpayers should bear the burden. You're not allowed to point out that the longer a liberator stays, the more he looks like an occupier. You're not allowed to propose that the enormous postwar expenses Bush failed to budget for be covered by repealing his tax cuts for the wealthy instead of further indebting every American child. If you dare to say these things, you're accused—as Kerry now stands accused by Cheney and Miller—of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat." You're contrasted to a president who "is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America." You're derided, in Cheney's words, for trying to show al-Qaida "our softer side." Your Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts are no match for the vice president's five draft deferments. In his remarks, Miller praised Wendell Wilkie, the 1940 Republican presidential nominee, who "made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue." But there are three ways to make national security a campaign issue. One is to argue the facts of a particular question, as Kerry has done in Iraq. The second is to sweep aside all factual questions, as Cheney and Miller did tonight, with a categorical charge that the other party is indifferent or hostile to the country's safety. The third is to create a handy political fight, as Republicans did two years ago on the question of labor rights in the Department of Homeland Security, and frame it falsely as a national security issue in order to win an election. So now you have two reasons to show up at the polls in November. One is to stop Bush from screwing up economic and foreign policy more than he already has. The other is to remind him and his propagandists that even after 9/11, you still have that right.
the reasoning behind the article is the exact reason that has me leaning away from bush in this election. the EXACT reason. i could never have written it as well as Will did, but these are my thoughts as well.
The convention blogs have made Will my favorite political reporter this year. I highly recommend going to slate.com and reading them all. It's instructive that both Max and Will are on record supporting Bush earlier in his term. I'd love to hear responses to this article from guys who are still with him.
Coming from a different political point of view, I was thinking the same thing as I read it. Outstanding piece, Will. I hope Kerry reads it.
This stuff does kind of scare me, and when you add in the Bush "God complex", it gets truly frightening.
It is why I am voting for Kerry, because I think GWB has done a poor job. I don't like Kerry either but I feel our country is stronger if it swings back and forth and not in one direction for too long. DD
Yet another great argument about why Bush needs to go. Now if only the Dems could do a better job of getting this message accross.
This article articulates so well a lot of my own feelings. It's why I understand when people have such passionate feelings about this administration. They love the U.S. as a democracy and they see that been changed or challenged by the current administration. When an administration does that or at least people see that as what's happening passions will surface.
And that is why Will gets paid to write on a high profile website while we spend our time writing nonsense on a rockets bbs (although I would much rather read the clutchcity bbs than slate).
Anybody catch the Daily Show montage last night where they showed GWB's evolution of language..."We will capture or Kill Osama" to "It's not about Osama" and "the Iraqis have 10,000 containers of sarin gas" to "programs to develop weapons of mass destruction" and of course "mission accomplished" It was great but it's not posted on the website yet.
Thanks for posting Batman. Thanks to Will as well; the thing about this administration distracting from their own D-Minus first term by framing the debate in terms of John Kerry's patriotism, and the Democrats general Frenchiness was nice to read. I have to say I am getting a little bit used to it. It alomst sings: Q: How does your administration account for inheriting a surplus and turning it into an unprecedented deficit? A: Clinton invented the recession. Kerry is a flip flopper and a p*****. 9/11 9/11 9/11. Not to go off on a tangent, but the fact that the Bush campaign can only sink their teeth into the"flip-flopper" thing is fascinating to me. I think that when you take the critique to its logical conclusion -- the assertion that Kerry "doesn't stand for anything" and that Bush "knows what he wants to do and does it"-- it absolutely reflects that administration's most damning character flaw. To them, "principles" and "single-minded agenda" are interchangable. Yes, when their treats are at stake, they fight like dogs. Halleljuah. But the administration's ability to reason and prepare for the future is not much better than, well, a dog. They know what they know, they are not interested in more 'knowledge' or 'facts.' They want theirs. Their mind is made up. They don't budge. It's not about reason. Ita about bark. Grrrrr. This White House has an agenda - not principles -- that it will ram down the country's throat no matter what, conomic/military/security/environmental/medical consequences be damned. Legit conservative principles like economic sensibility, nation building, personal liberty and big government have been put on the ignore list in favor of the line items of their agenda -- the same one they had before coming into office. Tax Cuts. Iraq. Election. Repeat. Frankly, a more reasonable, strong and dare-I-say principled person would appear cautious, balanced, maybe a little slower, and could, conceivably, be labelled a 'flip-flopper' by someone who just growls, attacks, learns very little, and is not really interested in what may be out of their line of vision. People interested in consequences tend to have opinons that mature and change based on the subtleties and realities of the outside world. It's not being unprincipled. Its called "not-being-a-dumbass." I dont love Kerry, but the flip-flopper thing is limp. For instance, voting to implement No Child Left Behind, then criticquing the execution of NCLB is not flip flopping. Its "not being a dumbass." The fact that they can spin "smart" into "weak" and "dense" into "strong" is a testament to their political skill. ---------------- Anyone ever see "Mars Attacks," when all these Martians come down, say they are friendly, and then shoot everyone in the stomach with laser beams? Then they say "sorry, it was a misunderstanding," and then we trust them, then they shoot us again. Over and over. At then end of the movie, the martians are running around with tape recorders repeating "we - are - your - friends" as they blast everyone with lasers. I always found that funny and profound. Anyway, the republican convention reminds me of that. Cheney especially, because of his martian-ish monotone. "We - are - your - friends. We - are - your - friends."
Politics aside, I must say I find it disgusting that the Republicans would actually dare to say that a war veteran doesn't deserve his medals. Can you imagine if a Democrat claimed someone like Colin Powell didn't deserve his medals? He'd probably be lynched. The fact that they brazenly make these claims when their own candidates blatantly avoided the war themselves out of fear is indefensibly ludicrous. All I know is that if anyone questioned my grandfather's medals as a WWII bomber pilot, there would be a fistfight. Denigrating the service of a wartime veteran is unconscionable.
Which makes it all the more amazing that Bush was able to pull the dirty tricks that he did on sacred cow John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 with respect to his service.
I know that Will reads this stuff, but I'm sorry, I have to declare that his third paragraph is simply pathetic journalism. Absolutely junior high level quality. I quit reading then and there. Pathetic. Frankly, I expected more out of someone who has access to so much political information. 1. Look at our economy's growth rate over the past few quarters. It's outstanding. The liberals try their best to frame economic discussions in terms of a single indicator -- jobs. No economist worth their salt would buy that amateurish explanation. 2. His Iraq WMD logic was a bad argument a year ago. It is simply worse today. We have debated this ad nauseum, and only the most extreme base their judgment on the War on Terror on the location of Saddam's WMDs. Saddam was a threat to the stability of the region and was unwilling to account for previously-accounted for (and used) WMD. Believing his story was unacceptable then and is unacceptable now. You don't protect a country by believing uncooperative tyrants that hate you.
oh Trader whenever I'm having a bad day you usually deliver. What ever will that darned Trader do next?
Why are we wasting our time with all of this political talks? It has been written and the deed has been done in the spiritual realm. The winner of this election is not the question anymore. The question now is how JFK will respond to the civil war that will break out soon after innauguration in a country far far away with USA implications.
