March 14, 2004
THE EXCEPTION:
What's there to choose? (Ayaz Amir, 3/05/04, Dawn)
Three weeks ago I gleefully suggested that Bush might slip on the way to November. This was the price he'd have to pay for taking America into a war justified by outright lies and cheap propaganda.Behind that prediction was not love for the Democratic frontrunner, John Kerry, or the rest of the weasel pack in the Democratic race. It was subjectivity, pure and simple.
George Bush and the neo-con gang around him had concocted the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Since hubris should take a fall, he had no business being re-elected. And the American electorate would have to be dumber than usual to vote him into the White House again.
But as the presidential race gets into high gear, an uncomfortable truth is becoming clearer: that on the Iraq war there is really nothing to choose between Bush and Kerry.
Kerry supported the war all the way, voicing not the slightest doubts about its wisdom. Even now, about the only criticism of the war he allows himself is that Bush went ahead without taking America's allies along.
In the run-up to the war Kerry was a card-carrying member of the war party. "Iraq," he said, "has chemical and biological weapons" and even claimed it was "attempting to develop nuclear weapons."
On October 11 2002 he voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. When the war started he co-sponsored a Senate resolution stating that the invasion was "lawful and fully authorized by the Congress" and that he "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President...in the conflict with Iraq."
Any backtracking or apology for the stand he took then? Not the least bit. The Democrats are not touching the Iraq war or facing up to it. Nor is Kerry. There seems to be a bipartisan consensus to simply fudge the issue and get on with other things.
The only person who had fire in his belly was Howard Dean. And look how he was squeezed out of the race, his views too radical for what is dubbed as "the American mainstream". Strange country, the U.S.: if you oppose the thuggery visited on Iraq, as Dean did, you are a radical.
Yeah, if only America were just like the rest of the world, where support for brutal dictatorships is the norm and belief in freedom and democracy radical...
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 14, 2004 11:06 AM
You can always vote Nader. Or just write in Saddam.
Posted by: Melissa at March 14, 2004 11:21 AMThe US visited thuggery upon Iraq ? Yeah, compared to the benign rule of Saddam the Saint.
From which ring of Dante's hell did this twisted soul write his column ?
Posted by: Peter at March 14, 2004 11:28 AMAmir certainly has more faith in John Kerry's steafastness in the war on terror than I do (though I suppose if you really wanted Bush defeated, proping Kerry up by making him seem as tough on terrorism as Bush would be the right thing to do).
Posted by: John at March 14, 2004 11:47 AMJohn:
Given the Democrats track record, his need to prove he isn't a wimp, and the dynamics of the party, it seems most likely that he'd get us involved in a war in Saudi Arabia, which truly could be another Korea/Vietnam.
Posted by: oj at March 14, 2004 12:50 PMIt's Wonderland.
But it's how a lot of people out there think. People who take themselves very seriously.
The pathology is deep. And with pathology this profound, the problem is that only averarching, victory--complete, total and irrefutable--- over the enemy may prove convincing. May.
Of course that's the kind of victory many of them believe is required over the US....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 14, 2004 1:41 PMHe is a Paki. Of course he is a loon. Who cares what he says.
Mene
Mene
Tekel
Upharsin
Hindus
OJ
John says Kerry doesn't have the steadfastness. (I have trouble even seeing an inclination)
Yet you imply he is trapped or forced to continue the War on Terrorism. It would seem to me that after the election dust settles, and he were President he would have behind him a cobbled together constituency that would be overwhelmingly pacifist. Why am I wrong?
Posted by: h-man at March 14, 2004 2:40 PMh:
A variety of reasons:
(1) People with power use it.
(2) Vietnam vets tend to have a particular chip on their shoulder that other people "deserve" to fight in a war just like they did--it's especially noticable in McCain.
(3) He has an image problem as a wimp, which he'll be looking to dispel
(4) Al Qaeda will hit again somewhere, sometime and he'll have no choice
Posted by: oj at March 14, 2004 6:26 PMOrrin:
Your perscicuity always amazes me, which is why I come to your blog so often. I would only emend your reasons as follows:
(1) People with power and bad ideas will misuse it.
(2) I agree -- Vietnam Vets are in cognitive disonance.
(3) So, like Lydon Johnson, he will have a tendency to get us involved in the wrong war, or in the wrong way.
(4) True, but he will make the wrong choice.
JD
Thanks alot, that sure cheers me up????
Hopefully we won't have find out if OJ or JD or correct.
Posted by: h-man at March 15, 2004 7:16 AM"If only America were like the rest of the world...?"
Didn't most present-day Americans (or their ancestors) come to America to get AWAY from how things were done in "the rest of the world"?
Posted by: Ken at March 15, 2004 12:16 PM