John Fogerty was on 'FUV yesterday pitching his elegaic new song and album "Deja Vu All Over Again." It's a nice song, although in terms of its lasting relevance, it's closer to The End of the Innocence than "Fortunate Son," or "Who'll Stop the Rain." There's a conscious effort on the part of the DNC and Kerry campaign to equate iRaq with vietNam, under the theory that war=bush, so bad war must equate w/ bad for bush, good for kerry. there's a danger in this strategy that democrats be seen hoping for bad news at a time when american troops are in harm's way. If not unpatriotic, it certainly gives aid and comfort to the enemy. is this really a wise long-term strategy for the democratic party? do they not risk alienating many independent voters who might be sympathetic to the arguement that bush has been incompetent, but stll want to win the war? In Slate, Christopher Hitchens has an excellent piece on Kerry's flirtation with disaster. -- fighting words Flirting With Disaster The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan. By Christopher Hitchens There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable": "I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day. As well as being "quotable" (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in "-able." Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable. … The plain implication is that the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries. I am not one of those who likes to tease Mrs. Kerry for her "loose cannon" style. This is only the second time I have ever mentioned her in print. But I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid." I first heard this "October surprise" theory mentioned seriously, by a prominent foreign-policy Democrat, at an open dinner table in Washington about six months ago. Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place. It got even worse when the Democratic establishment decided on an arm's-length or closer relationship with Michael Moore and his supposedly vote-getting piece of mendacity and paranoia, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The DNC's boss, Terence McAuliffe, asked outside the Uptown cinema on Connecticut Avenue whether he honestly believed that the administration had invaded Afghanistan for the sake of an oil or perhaps gas pipeline, breezily responded, "I do now.") What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame. Ever since The New Yorker published a near-obituary piece for the Kerry campaign, in the form of an autopsy for the Robert Shrum style, there has been a salad of articles prematurely analyzing "what went wrong." This must be nasty for Democratic activists to read, and I say "nasty" because I hear the way they respond to it. A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications. If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer. The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart? I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery. One might argue about that: I could even maintain that it's important to oppose and defeat both gentlemen and their supporters. But unless he conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His new collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is forthcoming in October.
Christopher Hitchens has no credibility. His writing is inflamatory, for the sake of being inflamatory. The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean come on.
it is a vile spectacle. are you saying that democrats don't wish for bad news there, if it meant defeating bush? if not, then why spend so much time dissing allawi while he was here?
The truth hurts, doesn't it? I've been keenly aware of the liberals thirst for bad war news for a while. Heaven forbid they might actually have to rely on their candidate for good news instead.
Is this any different than Republicans wishing for news, be it good or bad, that helps their candidancy? IMO, Democrats don't need bad news to win this time. GWB's record is all that is needed. You know that GWB in the next week or so will be out on the campaign trail pimping his tax cuts, like the economy has never been better, like the negative net job growth is no FBD, etc.
there's a huge difference between wishing for good news, job reports, the capture of osama, etc. and wishing for bad news such as setbacks in iraq, with the consequent loss of life it entails. if you can't see that, you're further gone than i expected.
How about pimping an over-sold war during the height of 2002 election cycle? GWB should have the good sense to back off of his war stance after the 2002 elections, but alas he was probably picturing our troups being greeting with flowers and hugs, our troups only staying 3-4 months, and the Iraqi oil paying for it all. Back to the article, I posted it to contrast "consumer confidence" wrt the economy versus what GWB will be pimping.
In virtually every thread and even a couple of polls discussing this, the VAST majority of the anti-Bush crowd voted that they would rather see Iraq stable and Bush reelected. The vile spectacle is the lies and distortions coming from the mouths of the RNC and the Bush campaign. There is a difference between actually desiring bad things to happen and reporting accurately on those bad things when they do happen. The administration seems to want to gloss over everything like it is peachy-keen and coming up roses, but the facts clearly show otherwise. (What do the facts have against Bush?)
I would tell you exactly what I think of your post, but I will continue the attempt to... Keep D&D Civil!!
No matter how much you hate Bush you shouldn't wish for a worse economy or a worsening situation in Iraq. I pray he is not elected, but I also pray we succeed in forming a successful democratic government there, and that no more of our soldiers or innocent civilians are killed there. To wish for more deaths for any reason is wrong. Funny, towards the end, the author mentions Al-Zarqawi as more dangerous than Bin Laden. We have our president and his administration to thank for giving him such a massive new theater of operations. Thanks, guys. Let's ignore that Bush's reasons for going to war (WMD and Al-Queda links) have been debunked. Let's ignore the significant evidence pointing to Bush lying and misleading the nation regarding those now debunked reasons in order to gain support for it. This thing was poorly planned- many people are dying for these mistakes and they are responsible. No accountability.
zarqawi moved to iRaq after he was displaced by the ouster of the Taliban. is it your contention that we should've left the taliban alone if it meant zarqawi moving to iRaq?
Glad we went into Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban. I think it was the right thing to do after 9/11. Make it real clear that if a govt. openly harbors terrorists, you're toast. To bad we can't do a quicker, better cleanup job in there but our financial and military resources are concentrated elsewhere, in a country that did NOT harbor terrorists. That is, until now. My contention, as I've already stated, is that Al-Zarqawi has a massive new theater of operations because W and his administration waged a poorly planned war in Iraq. Way too few troops to prevent looting and chaos in the power vacuum after the regime's fall. They should have at least waited until they could have gotten permission to use Turkish airspace and launch a double-front invasion. Our boys did a great job and the war was short, but it would have been incredibly short if we were invading on two fronts- we could have reached Tikrit and the future base of the insurgency with amazing speed. But any of the several generals who disagreed with Rummy's plan were just ignored. Had we used Powell's doctrine of overwhelming force the current mess would have been averted. I could go on about how the reasons for going to war have been debunked and that they were likely lies in the first place, but that's not germane to the topic. Your question challenging my assertion is odd, basso. Your question seems to state that Al-Zarqui had no choice but to be in Iraq, that he was forced there. Al-Queda is an international organization with cells in many many countries. (God willing we will continue to find and destroy each one before they can harm anyone, which would be easier to do by concentrating our resources on CIA and international special ops instead of sinking our budget into a poorly planned war that has nothing to do with the war on terror.) Al-Zarqawi could have fled to any number of places. Hell, he could have chosen to stay in Afghanistan, god knows he'd be safer there. He has to be target numero uno in Iraq, and how successful have our boys been in finding him up to now? (I do hope he is found immediately.) Al-Zarqawi is in Iraq because that is where the action is. That is where he can hurt the USA most, and he is. May he soon be captured. The insurgency is growing. That means new recruits are being found. It's too early to say that the ranks of Al-Queda are swelling, but it would be foolish to ignore that the angered peoples of Iraq are joining a militant uprising to the US presence there. This is how a terrorist cause begins, dude. This is very, very, very bad. And it's Bush's fault. It is the fault of the administration for flinging themselves, poorly planned and under-manned into a war that had nothing to do with the "war on terror" and which ironically only adds to the conditions which ferment new terrorists. I do hope and pray that the insurgency ends, successful elections are held and the Iraqi people see peace and prosperity. But it's Bush's fault that it's a mess right now, and he's a p*ssy for not owing up to it. No accountability.
The more I look at this, the weirder it seems. It's out of order chronologically. Why would we have left the Taliban alone back then? Who had ever hear of Al-Zarqui? Why would he choose to go to Iraq at that time? He's there now because he has a cause there now. You seem to be grasping at straws to form a rebuttal.
no. upon the ouster of the taliban from afghanistan, zarqawi moved to iRaq. his presence was cited by powell in his presentation to the UN in february 2003, a month before the ivasion. why did he go to iRaq if the US had no presence there at the time?
Nolen, Don't you feel like your living in an alternative universe and wonder why others can't see what you see. Here's the difference- Some of us look at the world and try to come to some rational conclusions about why things are the way they are, based on the best possible evidence. Others try to make reality fit into a tight little box with The World According To Bush stamped on the lid. Only it doesn't fit and they wonder what all that icky red stuff is that keeps spilling over the top.
You are claiming that Powell said something in that UN speech that was not make believe? IIRC the only accusation was that Zarqawi had a short stay in a Iraqi hospital, from wounds received in Afghanistan.
