August 23, 2004

• Well, leaving aside the fact that that article seems to be written for sympathetic Lebanese readers, the basic complaint seems to be that Kerry didn't discuss the details of his Iraq policy in his acceptance speech at the convention. That is hardly the place for it! It is established tradition that policy is hashed out during the presidential debates and elsewhere. Note: I say this as an ex-republican (now independent). Kerry and I disagree on pretty much everything except perhaps a boiling rage at the current Bush administration. Like many, I am nauseated at this present focus on Kerry's Vietnam service to the exclusion of any useful material, but I find that the Bush campaign makes more noise about it than the Kerry campaign.
• Fact of the matter is, we all know Kerry wouldn't've instigated a unilateral war based on shaky intelligence. Approval of something in motion is a very different stance, and although I disagreed with the war. But the Republicans -- and I don't mean independent conservatives, I mean Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Neidermayer, Marmalard -- will attempt to muddy the waters with this suggestion at every opportunity, in order to shake up op-ed doubt about Kerry's war views from the democratic base, and force Kerry to make a statement against the war that scares swing voters. It's sort of like in The Hunt For Red October, when the Soviets use obvious, active sonar to chase Sean Connery's sub toward the Americans. They're being as loud as possible to hope Kerry will panic and scare us into making the wrong move. Don't buy it.
• Hell, I'm convinced. Sign me up for the Bush train right away!
• Um, that should've read, "and although I disagreed with the war, I can understand his reluctance to make too harsh a statement now, given his record.
• Regardless of what Kerry would have done or not done in Bush's place, the decision to give Bush authority to go to war with Iraq was plainly unconstitutional. Since Kerry was complicit in that vote, if he is president will he expect to have similar (unconstitutional) authority? More importantly, will he restore the proper balance of power, and hold the past administration accountable? I think plenty of us -- the author of this article included -- are thirsty for the precise steps Kerry intends to take concerning the Iraq war and its executors. Instead we hear a hundred conflicting stories about events thirty years in the past, in a bizarre drama that is more fitting in an Akutagawa Ryuunosuke story than reality. The Iraq war is a cannonball tied to the Bush administration's feet, no doubt, but Kerry (and Edwards) are not blameless. As far as this particular issue is concerned, a vote for Kerry is a vote for a lesser evil.
• Instead we hear a hundred conflicting stories about events thirty years in the past, in a bizarre drama that is more fitting in an Akutagawa Ryuunosuke story than reality. Of course, you could just go right to the source. Of course, there isn't a precise plan in place. Then again, you don't see anyone else coming up with a precise plan either.
• Fact of the matter is, we all know Kerry wouldn't've instigated a unilateral war based on shaky intelligence. This is where it's getting confusing, in so far as getting the message out to the common chap goes. More clarity, less triple negatives needed. Film at 16:04.
• Thanks, shawnj. The Kerry campaign's issues pages are actually pretty well organized, I must admit, remarkably low on cringeworthiness compared to Bush's laughable nonsense. Still, his Iraq policy pages seem stale given recent events. Where is any mention about what he plans to do about the so-called insurgency? Does he appreciate the fact that at this point pretty much the only thing that will completely halt the insurgency is a full withdrawl of US troops? It's good that he wants to open up reconstruction plans to the world, but does he include Iraqi firms in these plans? (A more dreamlandish question -- will he ever admit that he and plenty of Democratic leaders were in the wrong about their support of the Iraq war?) Actually, after reading some of the Kerry campaign pages, I am really looking forward to the debates.
• All good questions, and which I am as anxious to hear as the rest of the world.
• to hear the answers to them, that is.
• Matt Welch was also pretty damned hawkish after 9-11, and certainly steered right, and has bashed Nader time and again. He seems to have lightened up since Iraq, but for a while there he symbolized to me all that was annoying and predictable about warbloggers.
• Brief note, hope to back up with links shortly. I have read that with things as they are in Iraq, pulling out is not an option. The US military has concluded that there is no safe way of pulling their troops out, without leaving the last few thousands dangerously exposed to the insurgents.
• I'd just like to tell the President that I have three "thank yous".
• My thoughts as well, cosmicray. Matt Welch was an important voice in the warblogging echo-chamber especially in the period just after S11. No wonder he's not happy that the War on Terror** didn't get the billing he thinks it deserves. ** as opposed to a more tightly defined and internationalised police operation against the Al-Qaeda network.
• Thinking back to that period, I'm also happy to see that stupid coinage "islamo-fascism" has gone the same way as Bush's popularity. Despite being totally vacuousness, Welch did more than most in trying and popularise it.
• de Carabas, did you even check who the author of that piece is. It's blogger Matt Welch. Who passes himself off as a journalist writing for the Charles Koch (big Texas oil man) funded Reason. No one reads Reason. The only (pun here) reason it is still published is because Koch and others throws money at it. That rag couldn't make money on his own. Albright brought the normally raucous crowd of 20,000 to an almost stunned silence when she said: "But have no doubt, John Kerry will do whatever it takes to defend America whether others approve or not." Ditto for vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, who, when finally bringing up foreign policy for the first time two-thirds of the way into his own speech, drew no applause for saying: "John and I have one clear unmistakable message for Al-Qaeda and the terrorists. You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you." I seem to remember applause. It wasn't raise the roof applause, but there were applauds
• Matt Welch was also pretty damned hawkish after 9-11, and certainly steered right, and has bashed Nader time and again. He seems to have lightened up since Iraq, but for a while there he symbolized to me all that was annoying and predictable about warbloggers. Welch voted for Nader in 2000. And yes he bashed Nader hard. The point is that I don't think Welch believes any of the stuff he writes. I read some people talk about how Welch's politics can't be pinned down. Matt's politics is taking a popular view and bashing an easy target. He would be perfect in Washington. Move East Matt!
• Fact of the matter is, we all know Kerry wouldn't've instigated a unilateral war based on shaky intelligence. Actually, Kerry recently said that if he knew that Iraq had no WMDs and links to Osama bin Laden he still would have voted yes. Bush threw Kerry a curveball through the press and Kerry fell for it. Clinton would have batted that one out of the park. Kerry is politically tone deaf and stupid. People don't want another Iraq war. Kerry told them he would give them one.
• Yeah that was really dense.
• Actually, Kerry recently said that if he knew that Iraq had no WMDs and links to Osama bin Laden he still would have voted yes. Bush threw Kerry a curveball through the press and Kerry fell for it. Clinton would have batted that one out of the park. Kerry is politically tone deaf and stupid. People don't want another Iraq war. Kerry told them he would give them one. True on all counts, including Bubba. I would love to have a beer with that man. As for Welch, I don't think there's a problem because people can't pin down his politics. That's actually why I like him. He seems to have no tolerance for BS, and the refreshing thing is it doesn't matter where the BS is coming from, he'll still call it. He was among the "war bloggers" during the war in Afghanistan, true, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reasonable person who wasn't in support of attacking the Taliban and al Qaeda in that country after Sept. 11. And a quick look around Welch's site reveals plenty of material that doesn't look favorably on Bush. I'm not quite sure why I'm making these points, though. I have a feeling some monkeys could call the editors of The Nation war hawks if they put their minds to it. Speaking of, we haven't had any posts linking to archconservative Paul Krugman in a while. Anyone want to get on that?
• Opens October 1st.