Blazing Straddle

Way, way back in the barely-remembered days of the Presidential Primaries -- y’know, six or seven weeks ago—John Kerry was taunting GW Bush to Bring It On.

Well, my friends, IT is here. And instead of standing firm and firing back, Kerry’s being steadily plinked like some flop-over duck in a shooting gallery.

While the Bush administration contemplates a possible showdown in the Sunni Triangle, Kerry will apparently spend this week deciding if he’s for or against the war, for or against the Patriot Act, and for or against corporate tax cuts. No hurry, John. You still have months of time left to try out different positions.

If you’re one of those Democrats who spent the first part of the year testifying to Kerry’s electability, you better avoid the current posting by Mickey Kaus who continues to earn his ranking as Most Relentless Kerryphobe by parsing the flip-flops of the last week.

Looks like tonight ABC News will also be batting Kerry around. At least until he decides just exactly whose medals those were he tossed away in 1971.

Now… please don’t write me to complain that the Nasty Republicans and the Big Bad Media are ganging up on JFK II. It sure wasn’t moi who said he was so electable!

Sure it’s unfair to exploit Kerry’s inconsistencies (I’ll make sure to pass your complaint on to the RNC).

But, damn, it’s so easy.

Comments

[Craig]

So you're going to join the White House in bashing Kerry? We're going to eat our own?

[Michael J. Totten]

The medals flap is particularly silly. Americans are far more forgiving than John Kerry realizes. I don't care if he was a communist back in the 70s as long as he's not one now. Why can't he just be a man (and a human) and own up to mistakes?

Marc, who do you think was the most electable of the Democratic candidates? I thought it was Edwards, and I would have happily voted for him. He's also the only one I liked, so maybe I'm just projecting.

[Mike Turmon]

We could plink away Kerry, you, or me all day long. But is there a point to the plinking? He's been in the Senate for years, of course he's a compromiser. Why elaborate this to the exclusion of all other aspects of the developing presidential race? Especially when we have kf already? ;-)

Just to repeat the point another way: in your recent posts on the unfolding chaos in Iraq I noticed a lack of clarity on what we should be doing...indeed, no clear statement of whether you're "for or against the war" (although I know you were against starting it). E.g. ...

"still looking for a way to go forward (or reverse course)"
"what do we do except watch the body bags pile up?"
"Get out of Iraq by following through?"
"Am I suggesting damned if we do and damned if we don't?"

That's a lot of question marks. Since you can't crisply characterize yourself into the for or against camp, you should not expect more from JFK II.

(I'm not suggesting you eliminate the "Dissonance" by plopping in to for or against, of course.)

I almost refrained from posting a criticism -- in honor of an excellent hed.

[Roger L. Simon]

The question of today--how many phone calls does John Edwards have on hold? My guess--a lot.

[Steve Smith]

I thought "Medalgate" might be serious, until I discovered that the videotape was made (and probably edited) by the Nixon White House, and "scooped" by Chris Vlato. Vlato will probably be breaking the Kerry Rape Scandal next.

[Marc Cooper]

Great comments so far. Much more fun to read this than say the LATimes. First to Totten and Simon: Yup..I liked Edwards frankly. I thought he was much more "electable" and at the same time a Better Democrat whatever that means. He had a clarity of character missing from...um.. Kerry. To Mike Turmon.. glad u did post, it's very thoughtful and challenging. Yes, I freely admit that I am full of ambiguity and ambivalence over the war in Iraq. That's the major reason I'm not running for President (apart from the fact that I, like Roger Simon, have a "past" that would scare the bejezzus out of most my nieghbors).
I opposed the war per se because I thought that on balance it would be counter-productive (but not immoral). I'm afraid that is being borne out by the current fix we are in. I also opposed the "peace movement" by the way as I found most of their arguments feckless. I still oppose any sort of immediate withdrawal as I guess Im sympathetic to the Pottery Barn argument. This administration now "owns" Iraq and cannot abandon it. I don't pretend to know how to proceed, though I'm going to be posting some provocative ideas later tonight or tomorrow. MARC

I opposed the war per se because I thought that on balance it would be counter-productive (but not immoral).

--that's bizarre, bombing away and invading a country that is as weak militarily as can be is somehow now seen as morally acceptable. oh i know...911 like changed everything man.
hey today they were looking for wmds again in iraq...kimmit said there might be some grenades or smoke bombs from that bldg. that was blown up today...phew...it's a good thing these guys know what's up in Iraq now that they occupy the country...

it'll be only more interesting to see what level the resistance (oops, i mean terrorism) will be after the fallujah and najaf battles to come...as necessary as they are for our security of course after 911...

[miklos rosza]

In Holland the govt is seeking to close a mosque from which a book has been distributed advocating the killing of gays and the beating of wives (journalists were beat up when they tried to get a copy).

In France three imams are being expelled for favoring jihad in Europe and bombs were found on two high-speed rail lines while some hitherto unknown Muslim group said they will make that country overflow with blood.

In Spain... well, we all know what happened in Madrid, but most recently the dead policeman's body was dug up and set on fire (he had died while leading the raid on the terrorists who then blew themselves up).

In England a group in Luton say that they pray every day for another 9/11 and for Great Britain to become Muslim under sharia law and Tony Blair to be murdered and as many Brits to be killed as possible -- meanwhile a court has ruled that Muslim females do not have to show their faces unveiled on national ID cards because... well, that would be racist, wouldn't it?

(A similar case in Florida resulted in the woman (a convert) being told to unveil (for her driver's license) or not drive. But it was a close call.)

There are gang rapes or "honor rapes" in Norway, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France, Belgium, Canada, etc... and sometimes the rapist is set free (there was a notable case in Norway) because of "cultural differences" -- in other words the woman deserved it because she was wearing a short skirt or had bare arms (forbidden in the Koran).

In Vancouver BC Muslims can now choose to be judged by sharia law, and this has been judged legally binding, and of course you're not a good Muslim if you go to the infidel courts.

So "oops I mean terrorism" of course this is all bullshit, there's no pattern, there's nothing to worry about, actually they're third world victims and Bush and the Jews invented airplanes flying into the twin towers because that was such an easy and obvious way to get rich.

Though maybe Kofi Annan's son Kojo has had more money pass through his hands than Halliburton ever dreamed of.

Though maybe Kofi Annan's son Kojo has had more money pass through his hands than Halliburton ever dreamed of.

--since the main source of that allegation appears to be mr. chalabi...well...
boy, though, you don't regard any ethnic groups as the untermensch...eh? you're just a concerned american wanting to preserve all that is good about mom and apple pie...

[steve]

btw, you forgot to mention the part where you believe Sodom Hussein was involved in 911...
I mean if Chris Hitchens can believe it...how can i doubt it?

[steve]

hey...maybe it's time to assassinate that Barzani guy? go get him miklos...

[Robert Fiore]

So, now, of the two scenarios that can rescue the Democrats before the convention, do you pick (a) live man or (b) dead woman? I figure (a) because it would at least win sympathy from Andrew Sullivan, and anyway the necro vote is notoriously fickle. John Kerry is a candidate only political cartoonist could love.

The bright side to Bush getting re-elected is that it forces him to clean his own mess. The end result of a Bush victory in 2004 could be a realignment in 2006. I've always had a theory that ultimately the only cure for Reaganism is hair of the dog, though I was never really that eager to try it out.

My feeling on the war always was that it was a luxury, and the main question on any luxury is, can you afford it? While the Vietnam analogy overall is specious (if the casualties in Vietnam had been this low we'd still be there), there is one degree in which they are analogous: The cost of true victory would likely not be any more palatable than defeat. It's not that you couldn't impose the Enlightenment on the Arab world by force, but that it would take something on the scale of the British Empire.

If another 911 happens, no matter what the scale, Bush has a victory sealed. In this instance Americans will act exactly the opposite of the Spaniards. They will believe everything their leaders tell them, even when any of it is shown to be demonstrably an outright lie...And that will be the case despite the high likelihood that by Nov. 4th there will be over 1,000 GI's dead in Iraq and easily 10k seriously injured...

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve - "btw, you forgot to mention the part where you believe Sodom Hussein was involved in 911...I mean if Chris Hitchens can believe it...how can i doubt it?"

When did Hitchens say that? And please don't give me another third-hand "quote" where you say "I heard from someone that Hitchens said X."

I've read nearly everything Hitchens has written over the past ten years. I can't believe I missed an article where he said Saddam had something to do with 911.

Link please.

[Marc Cooper]

I see. If there is another terror attack the tragedy will be that Bush will be re-elected and civilians will die. In that order.

As to the more serious debate. I saw Hitchens yesterday debate the war at the LA Times Festival and he doesnt allege Iraqi involvement in 911. He does allege Iraqi convergence and some coordination with Islamic fundamentalists in a shared hatred of the US.,.. more precisely Saddam's Iraq as a "pole" of Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. That last part is certainly true. The rub is if in taking out Saddam and in bungling the occupation of Iraq if we are playing into the hands of those forces.

Hitch doesn't believe that? I'd be surprised to find that he never defended such whackery...after all this was the best he could do only recently to deal with the bizarre spector of Americans believing that Saddam had something to do with 911:

"Let me take the strongest objection to my interpretation, which is that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were exploited by conservatives to settle accounts with Saddam Hussein and that many Americans have been fooled into war by thinking that Iraq was behind the attacks. Leave aside the glaring and germane fact that Saddam was and is in partnership with the forces of jihad;"

--now, that's rubbish. at best saddam sent off money to suicide bombers in israel, not a terribly unique phenomenon in that part of the world, but as far as connections with jihad, that's just as whacky as the Zarqawi stories the pentagon and Hitch's INC buddies cooked up and continue to cook up. He then goes on in Oreilly like fashion to attribute an apparent uniform belief on the 'left' that Bush orchestrated 911, based on the as always hyperbolic writings of Gore Vidal....nice form...
------------------------
i'm sure i've heard him making arguments that saddam was in some way involved in 911, but damn me if i can't find it. Hitch did fall for the WMD ruse, although later he fell quickly into a new line, namely, the so-called WMDs were not important anyway...I'd be amazed if he didn't buy into the saddam-911 connection...

I see. If there is another terror attack the tragedy will be that Bush will be re-elected and civilians will die. In that order.

--ha ha...that's cute Marc, i like how you take people's words and reorder them. what a joke, a person makes a point about the political consequences of a future 911 and voila, there is the 'proof' that they wouldn't be sympathetic to the victims. is there any logic in that outside of mind reading on your part? i've read angry 911 victims who have said as much, i guess you're response to them is they're not sympathetic to the victims of 911...this takes terrorbaiting to a new level..."if you don't agree with me, you obviously must not sympathise with the victims of 911 or future 911s..." you guys pulled this nonsense last time around, even when groups like 911 Peaceful Tomorrows emerged...
-----------------------------
more precisely Saddam's Iraq as a "pole" of Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. That last part is certainly true.

--uhm yeah, some pole...a pole that had nothing to do with 911...and was militarily irrelevant. so irrelevant even Israel wasn't concerned about its threat potential.
-----------------------------
He does allege Iraqi convergence and some coordination with Islamic fundamentalists in a shared hatred of the US.,..

--and that's just bizarre, saddam spent way more time eliminating the potential of such elements to be powerful within Iraq...just go read any sober CIA, DIA, State Dept. reports from the past decade...That's some justification for an unnecessary war.

[Marc Cooper]

You dont listen (or read) very well, do you? Catch your breath and read closer. Im not justifying the war. Im reporting on what someone said. Do u have any available mode other than "rant?" Do your undoubtedly sympathetic views on Diversity extend to ideological diversity? I imagine not.

[steve]

You dont listen (or read) very well, do you? Catch your breath and read closer.

--first you assume, without any evidence, that a prediction implies a sentiment and now you can even hear my breathing patterns! wow, this is magical.
--------------------------------
Im not justifying the war.

--who said you were, in this instance, i was referring to hitch, the subject of the previous post, though you're reading carefully...
---------------------------
Do u have any available mode other than "rant?"

--oh come on marc, by 'rant', you mean anything that you disagree with. easier to call my arguments 'rants' than to actually engage them in any sense.
-----------------------------
Do your undoubtedly sympathetic views on Diversity extend to ideological diversity? I imagine not.

--sure, i have no problem with ideological diversity. in fact, i address your arguments generally, not your reading capacities, capacity to sympathise with victims, patriotism,...heck, i even just suggested one go read reports from the CIA, DIA,...to back up my point...and your best response to me is that i'm 'ranting'...sheesh...

[steve]

michael,
i'd restate my claim about hitch on 911-iraq to his belief that iraq
and al qaeda were getting closer after 911 and even before...
that i think i'm safe on...and that is a pretty lame claim as we now
know, much like most of what the INC was telling Cheney, Hitch, Judy
Miller and anyone else who was willing to buy it...

really, they are right to say this is not vietnam...the stuff chalabi
et al came up with makes the gulf of tonkin myth look like amateur
hour...

[John P]

He's a link URL to a Slate article where Hitchens "seconds" Epstien's assertions about Atta-Al Ani meeting in Prague:
http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2091354/

Good 'ol Hitch! Look it will turn out that there's a relationship between states and Al Qaida. Iraq my have had a closer one than others. I know you all comb the Weekly Standard for good nuggets to base you views on,;) but you may have missed this article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

I actually need to read an opposing view, a rigorous one; because I just don't see it around. Bergen wrote a pretty good thrashing of Laurie Myrole in the Washinton Monthly, although he seemed to omit the fact that WTC'93 conspiritor Yasin was livin large in Iraq until the war.

[steve]

I think Mcylroie and Safire are about the only ones left peddling the "Saddam did the 1993 bombing of the WTC" theory...
i have no idea if hitch buys into *that* story..

[yfb]

Here's a counter to Cooper's cowardly bloviating about Kerry's flip-flops:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042904.shtml

Marc complains that others don't have new ideas, yet
4 out 10 of his "recent posts" recycle items from
the Rove script book on Kerry. Apparently beyond
his ideational capacity is the fact that both Kerry
and Rumsfeld said virtually the same thing about
Iraqi deployments depending on "facts on the ground",
but only Kerry was painted as indecisive about it.
Nor is the point here that Kerry and Rumsfeld think
alike about Iraq. But to examine the way Kerry is portrayed
and measured according to a set of scripted talking points would
require Marc to examine his *own* behavior -- something
he has forever been loathe to do.

[Marc Cooper]

I am so ashamed of my treatment of the unfairly abused John Kerry I may not sleep tonite. Now...on the topic of being "cowardly"... why dont u come out from behind your anonymity, lower your voice, and debate whatever is on your mind instead of trying to impugn my already shady character. You'll feel better.