Saturday, October 02, 2004
Grasping at straws
The Republicans are doing whatever they can to spin a victory for President Bush in the first debate, and they are pulling out all the stops in their efforts.
The biggest emphasis has been on the flip flopper description, trying to paint Kerry into taking inconsistent positions. The most obvious has been on Kerry's pronouncement that Iraq was a mistake, but still vowing to fight for it.
Yesterday, when President Bush did not have to defend himself against an opponent, he charged to a crowd of true believers:
Last night was very revealing. He continued his pattern of confusing contradictions. After voting for the war, after saying my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from was the right decision, he now said it was all a mistake.
This has been echoed by the RNC:
Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For “Mistake.” PBS’ JIM LEHRER: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?” KERRY: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put – that I’m offering.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War “Mistake.” “We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
“But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
And the President's minions? Here is David Brooks, writing in the Op/Ed section of today's "New York Times":
That's why he's been fuzzy about the big things over the entire course of his career. That's why he has changed his mind on big issues with such astonishing rapidity. That's why he gets twisted into pretzels, like vowing to continue fighting the Iraq war, which he says was a mistake to begin.
But Brooks, Bush, and the RNC (and the other disciples) have twisted Kerry's answer to fit their narrative of a vacillator.
Kerry said that he authorized the support for the war only after President Bush had exhausted all means and then only after Bush had put together a broad coalition of support (yes, I know that there are 31 other countries, but considering they contribute 27,000 troops while the US contributes 137,000 does not signal a broad coalition of support).
Kerry then argued that Bush rushed into war on faulty evidence--evidence that was put together to support an attack on Iraq. If the administration would have waited, then we could have determined that Iraq did not have WMD's and did not have a connection with terrorists. This would have allowed us to concentrate on where the nerve center of terrrorism really was--in Afghanistan. But the President did not wait, and thus the mistake.
Now that the troops are committed, the country is in anarchy and ripe for growing terrorist cells (think of Afghanistan after the Soviets left), Kerry argues that you have to stay and complete the job. Leaving Iraq now would cause the world more harm than our staying. But what you need to do is internationalize the effort so that America does not increasingly take on casualties and any political reform will be seen as more legitimate than the US seeking to install puppet dictators. So for the good of America, American soldiers (how do you justify over a 1,000 dead by leaving?), and for the good of Iraq, you have to stay. How is this a flip flop?
But that is not what you get from Republicans. It is intellectually dishonest for David Brooks, a smart guy, to use his forum in the "Times" to paint Kerry as a vacillator while Bush as "steadfast" but not practical.
|
The biggest emphasis has been on the flip flopper description, trying to paint Kerry into taking inconsistent positions. The most obvious has been on Kerry's pronouncement that Iraq was a mistake, but still vowing to fight for it.
Yesterday, when President Bush did not have to defend himself against an opponent, he charged to a crowd of true believers:
Last night was very revealing. He continued his pattern of confusing contradictions. After voting for the war, after saying my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from was the right decision, he now said it was all a mistake.
This has been echoed by the RNC:
Said Americans In Iraq Not Dying For “Mistake.” PBS’ JIM LEHRER: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?” KERRY: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that we put – that I’m offering.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
Earlier In Debate, Kerry Called Iraq War “Mistake.” “We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
“But The President Made A Mistake In Invading Iraq.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)
And the President's minions? Here is David Brooks, writing in the Op/Ed section of today's "New York Times":
That's why he's been fuzzy about the big things over the entire course of his career. That's why he has changed his mind on big issues with such astonishing rapidity. That's why he gets twisted into pretzels, like vowing to continue fighting the Iraq war, which he says was a mistake to begin.
But Brooks, Bush, and the RNC (and the other disciples) have twisted Kerry's answer to fit their narrative of a vacillator.
Kerry said that he authorized the support for the war only after President Bush had exhausted all means and then only after Bush had put together a broad coalition of support (yes, I know that there are 31 other countries, but considering they contribute 27,000 troops while the US contributes 137,000 does not signal a broad coalition of support).
Kerry then argued that Bush rushed into war on faulty evidence--evidence that was put together to support an attack on Iraq. If the administration would have waited, then we could have determined that Iraq did not have WMD's and did not have a connection with terrorists. This would have allowed us to concentrate on where the nerve center of terrrorism really was--in Afghanistan. But the President did not wait, and thus the mistake.
Now that the troops are committed, the country is in anarchy and ripe for growing terrorist cells (think of Afghanistan after the Soviets left), Kerry argues that you have to stay and complete the job. Leaving Iraq now would cause the world more harm than our staying. But what you need to do is internationalize the effort so that America does not increasingly take on casualties and any political reform will be seen as more legitimate than the US seeking to install puppet dictators. So for the good of America, American soldiers (how do you justify over a 1,000 dead by leaving?), and for the good of Iraq, you have to stay. How is this a flip flop?
But that is not what you get from Republicans. It is intellectually dishonest for David Brooks, a smart guy, to use his forum in the "Times" to paint Kerry as a vacillator while Bush as "steadfast" but not practical.
