Bush's newest poodle

President Bush is offended, deeply offended, that Senator Kerry has dared to voice the slightest criticism, even to point out logical inconsistencies in the rhetoric of our Iraqi puppet de jour, Ayad Allawi.

On the campaign trail, at the UN, in the rose garden standing cheek by jowl with Allawi reading and stumbling over the talking points he was given, Bush doesn't like it one bit. Actually, they both had talking points; they were interchangeable.

From the NYT:

RACINE, Wis., Sept. 24 - President Bush hit back hard at Senator John Kerry on Friday for what he
called Mr. Kerry's attacks on Prime Minister Ayad Allawi of Iraq, who stood by
the president's side this week as steadfastly as a member of the Bush
campaign.

"This great man came to our country to talk about how he's risking
his life for a free Iraq, which helps America, and Senator Kerry held a press
conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi's credibility,'' Mr. Bush said
at a speech in the southern Wisconsin town of Janesville. "You can't lead this
country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility. The
message ought to be to the Iraqi people: 'We support you.' The message ought to
be loud and clear: 'We'll stand with you if you do the hard work.' ''

How dare Kerry utter any criticism of our sterling ally who is, after all, the interim appointed and anointed prime minister, having done yeoman apprenticeship for the CIA. This is indeed the stuff of which infallibility is made. Of course, I suspect, Bush is not a little chagrined himself at Kerry having the temerity to question anything in the midst of war. And Kerry has been pretty obliging for a long time.

As has been pointed out elsewhere,but needs repeating often, this is the same tactic used by Bush post 9/11 . . . the same one that got us eyeball deep into the whole Iraq mess in the first place. Its taken several years for folks to find their legitimate questioning voices in the wake of that tragedy. The liberty that informs those voices is not one that bows to "shut up and get with the program". Its a disgrace that too many Americans were and continue to buy that version of democracy.

Having it both ways -- Bush on Iraq

It may seem like stating the obvious, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Iraq is going poorly, no, disasterously, by any measure I read. Bush has no apparent plan to wind down and get out. Kerry hasn't grabbed the momentum in a more positive plan. But its Bush's war, and he can't run from it.

So we get Bush, as I have opined earlier, wearing the rose colored glass for the most part and, like a 50's audience watching a 3-D movie, hoping to get the rest of the audience to put glasses on too. He brags about the achievements and the prospects. To his dismay, in my view, the bad news is getting out much faster than it did in Vietnam. Bush has 42 more days to hide it -- Kerry to expose it -- as he will inherit it anyway he might as well prepare the ground.

But Rove knows its Bush's war and its going badly, and the American people, not to mention the rest of the world, know this too. So in order to head off Kerry getting the benefit of those who feel like a change is needed, he must slur Kerry. Not directly in the worst terms, yet, but by proxy. So we have Cheney and Hastert both saying that not only is Kerry a wimp, but that Al-Quaeda wants him to be elected. Later they back off the rehtoric just enough to slide past the SCLM reports. But the impression is clear, and it is only the first impression that seems to matter with the public (withness the Rather/document mess).

I'm still working on a positive Kerry approach that gives him an advantage on the issue, but we all know how easily anything he says seems to get spun by Rove -- something which Kerry has not effectively countered to date. So I tend to feel that hammering Bush's negatives on Iraq needs to be the way to go. If only Kerry can find as effective a way to slime with a smile as junior.

Roses, roses . . .

Mr. Bush proclaims, in the face of massive evidence, that we are on the right track in Iraq. In the simplest terms, that things are going well. Against most of the evidence he says this. In the shadow of recent disclosure of a national intelligence estimate he says this. In the shadow of an increasing rate of American wounded in action and, God knows, and increasing number of Iraqi deaths as a result of insurgency he maintains this positive demeanor.

In the face of reality check by serious men like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, Bush continues to peddle optimism.

The national intelligence estimate, from the British Independent:

Bush failed to plan for after war, report says

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
17 September 2004

A deeply pessimistic US intelligence assessment of the situation in Iraq, warning of possible civil war, has cast further doubts over the Bush administration's attempt to rebuild the country, and gave the Democratic challenger John Kerry a new opportunity to move the Iraq crisis to the centre of the Presidential election battle.

. . ..

It sketches out three scenarios for Iraq. The grimmest is a descent into civil war; the second is understood to be a continuation of the current disorder. Even the most favourable of the three holds out no better prospect than a precarious stability, under constant threat.

The conclusions of the NIE, first reported by The New York Times yesterday, contrast sharply with the doggedly upbeat tone of Mr Bush on the campaign trail. At every turn, the President insists Iraq is firmly on the road to peace and democracy, deriding Mr Kerry for vacillation and "flip-flopping" on the issue.

Such intelligence studies have a chequered history - not least the previous NIE on Iraq in October 2002, when it grossly exaggerated the weapons threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But this new assessment reflects the view of most nonpartisan Iraq specialists here, that the insurgency is becoming ever more sophisticated and more dangerous. The view is widespread that the war in Iraq is politically, if not militarily, close to unwinnable for the US.

"Is there a threat of civil war? - Yes," Sean McCormick, the National Security Council spokesman admitted to reporters yesterday. But, he argued, many of the worst scenarios previously predicted for Iraq, including famine and civil war, had not come to pass.

. . .

Even Republicans on Capitol Hill are enraged at how less than $1bn of the promised $18bn has been spent. Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, described the delays as "exasperating". Nebraska's Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, was even blunter. "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it is now in the zone of dangerous," he said.

“Pitiful”, “Beyond embarrassing”.

What’s going on here”?

I can only conclude, and I do this as much for the record and a reality check on my own sanity, that Bush continues with more of the Rovian big lie, because he has no choice. He has staked his Presidency and his chances for re-election on continuing to attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. It is pathetic that an American president would feel he has no choice, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, than to lie and continue to lie.

Politics obviously trumps reality in Mr.Bush’s case, regardless of how liberal a definition one is willing to assign to either.

Mr. Bush will lie to the faithful, to the opposition, and perhaps most importantly that portion of the undecided middle who are susceptible to comforting message that things will be well. Only thus can Bush have a chance at re-election. He will lie up until the last polls close November 2 and then, heaven help us all. What is it about the sowing the wind? Whoever wins election, the reality behind the Bush lies will evaporate, more slowly or quickly, but inexorably so.

No comfort for those of us who have seen through the deception all along, much less the misery of all who have suffered directly from a morass without plan or truth.

The Vietnam-Iraq learning curve

A lot of folks who did not live through the Vietnam era, or those who did but slept through it, may be rightfully puzzled and tired of having that "war" brought up and injected so much just now. But there are parallels between Vietnam and Iraq that should be known if not obvious to everyone.

Vietnam and Iraq surely differ in their strategic justifications: a war to defeat the communists and prop up democracy (hmm, maybe that's not so different in rhetoric) versus a war to "topple a dictator" who "threatens the world" with his diabolical weaponry (even right wingers must be embarrassed to review the inflammatory rhetoric of the Bushies in inciting this war in light of the exposure of all the lies and deceptions of the administration).

But here is where the similarities come in, and why Vietnam is apposite. Lies. By an administration which has not leveled with the American people. An administration which has ignored dire forecasts by its own experts and published rosy predictions (certainly rosy in comparison to the emerging realities). An administration increasingly defensive and accusatory with regard to any and all who question the need, and the right, of the President to have have a free hand, a license to conduct foreign policy ex cathedra, indeed in a vacuum. Eschewing cooperation, both at home and abroad is the mode. Unpatriotic is the verdict for those who fail to fall in line.

So, you guess. What era, what war, what President am I describing? You could say either and you'd be right.

At the time, many said we must learn the lessons of Vietnam and never, never let this happen again. Never again let an administration lead the country into a disastrous enterprise, and continue to coverup the failure and compound the cost.

Well, its pretty obvious that we have short memories, inadequate checks and balances, an inattentive public, and deceitful leaders. Or all of the above.

As the country becomes more authoritarian

The tragedy of the Beslan school has provided an intersting insight into the hollowness of political policy making, east and west.

Nowhere is this situation more puzzling than in the response to Putins proposal to clamp down by centralizing seveal remote governments in Moscow, eliminating the electoral process for the formation of governments. What this has to do with fighting terrorism I don't know.

The White House sends mixed messages: "its and internal Russian matter" vs "we are a beacon of democracy around the world". Which is it?

One can envision a time when Bush will cite Beslan as evidence of common cause with Russian against the terrorists. For me, I don't have to put on too big a of a tinfoil hat to imagine Bush, under some emergency scenario, curtailing the rights of states and other political actors under the guise of necessity to fight terrorism

La Recherche du temps perdu . . . apologies to Proust

Many of us graybeards know in our gut that the talk of the importance of this election is not hyperbole. It feels like going off a cliff. You don't notice because lives are lived in a succession of forgettable and forgotten moments. Before you know it -- the abyss is there.

So I find myself wondering what is about this election,not to mention this period of time, which rouses a sense of qualitative difference from the general ennui which I have felt for decades about the American democracy. Paradoxically, it is not so much a concern for this country per se that affects my feelings, but a concern for the wider world of which, though many head-in-the-sand "patriots" choose to remain oblivious to the fact in all but the most formulary ways, The United States is part.

Strange, is it not, for a people that has perhaps more mobility and access to an international experience and world view,the quintessential American is one who remains firmly rooted on these shores, mentally and physically, eyes firmly glued (bad metaphor!) to Big Media/Big Brother's current offerings on the tube. And, as probably 99.9% of the public would agree, this composite citizen would argue without end -- and also without a comprehensive understanding of the facts -- that his/her life is superior and unmatched to that possible anywhere outside the US of A.

I certainly don't view Kerry as some wunderkind who will bitch slap the country into a greater awareness of our myopia (we probably couldn't take the shock). But I have a depressingly unpleasant feeling that a second Bush term would only reinforce the prevailing policies and attitudes that have made the country distrusted and disliked around the world. Really a shadow of our former stature in ways that count, and a mirror in behavior and perception of some of the base traits we have criticized in other governments with good reason.

Its gone beyond embarrassment for me. The fear feels real. The apprehension of something portentious. Reminds me of driving across northern New Mexico, aware that the Rio Grande was ahead somewhere, but in no way prepared for the suddeness of its appearance as a deep gash in the plateau. Only we seem to be driving pretty much without a map, and with a drunk driver at the wheel.

Why doesn't Kerry deal with Vietnam head on?

Some question why John Kerry doesn't directly address the political legacy of Vietnam, which he spoke out strongly against, directly. He's being attacked anyway? But what's the point of ripping open wounds ona subject that, except for those who lived through the era, is but a cliche for most and celebrates one's credentials as "anti-war"? That, for many Americans and, in our current wimpy-if not-slavish media environment, translates as "unpatriotic".


This is a question worth thinking about. I believe, in the best of times, anti-war positions (probably confused with pacifism by the average Joe) are not popular. Sure, in the time we were living it, the debasement of the political process that we know as the Vietnam era became abundently clear to an increasing number of people. Eventually even Robert McNamara, who had as much to do with prosecuting the war as anyone.

And I believe that, even today, clear logic explains and decimates the case for Vietnam. Almost a no brainer. But since when has clear logic ever been a good political tactic?

If Kerry started to defend/explain his post combat Vietnam stance -- now -- well I can't begin to think of what the attack dogs would do. Look, they even got old senile (like a fox?) Poppy to do a job on Jane Fonda during the convention interview. Is this anything but a warning and a surrogate for saying we are going to go slime all over your sorry ass if you even touch that debate. (not that the Bushies aren't itching to implant the "traitor" meme into the debate by proxy whenever the chance arises).

Now if the thugs ever do bring that cat out of the bag I think -- maybe I hope -- it will raise Kerry's juices from latency and I have no question that he can become passionate and eloquent, which is always a good thing if it doesn't slop over into self-pity. Kerry has clearly sublimated his Vietnam feelings, perhaps for good reason, I don't know. But I tend to think they were genuine and not based on calculation for a political career for the reasons I named above. If that dragon is ever roused, I really pity Bush

Why I'm gonna vote this year . . .

1964 was the first election in which I was eligible to vote. What a choice? Barry "YAF" Goldwater, and Lyndon "I"m not going to send American boys to fight an Asian war" Johnson. You know, I don't even remember whether I did make the choice to vote. But I do know for many years thereafter I did not vote in national election out of disgust for the farce we call the American politcal process.

At some point I started voting again, probably recognizing some sort of responsibility as a maturing individual. And, rightly I think, taking to heart some the notion that if you don't vote you really don't a have a right to complain. Tired and stretched as that notion is, it does have a certain simple appeal to common sense.

And so for years I found myself voting probably for the underdog, or the putative contrarian, something as an extension of my former disgust at the system And, so of course, in many of those elections, whether for a vote for POTUS or local county supervisor, my voter really didn't matter because either the results were not going to be that close or we were really faced with tweedle dum and tweedle dee. (old populist/segregatinist George Wallace had something with his "there's not a dimes worth of difference between the Rep and Dems").

Then we came through the 80's and the 90's and my "hold your nose" attitude toward voting continued to prevail. All right, all right, call me a snob, I can take it. I certainly held my nose for Gore in some ways, though my fear and loathing of Bush was cerainly in full flower, even then.

And, to be clear, I do believe the two parties, and the party mechanisms, beholden to special and monied interests, truly suck.

But, this year, its a little different. I feel like many folks are disgusted as I have been in the past, and are ready to sit on their hands, or vote for Bush because of dislike for Kerry, at least the media image. Well, they're not reading the same media I am; and they're not feeling the same fear of complacence or voter ennui that I am.

With half a century of voting and non-voting behavior behind me, but always being an interested, quite often pained and disgusted observer of the political landscape, I feel differently this year. Not just my head, but my gut tells me its important to vote. I hope I am part of critical mass feeling the same way. And, maybe it comes with age, but should I be so different afterall?

I made myself watch -- mini blow-by-blow

The Bush acceptance speech:

Delivery is flat. Crowd goes wild, or boos, on cue, for each bullet, no matter how arcane.

Bush trying hard not to stumble. Haven't gotten to red meat yet.

Mention of Kerry comes a few paragraphs down. Expect crowd to go wink/nod crazy.

He seems bored.

. . . now comes "my opponent is against. . . " but even this lacks much emotion by W

Now the red meat stuff, activist judges, man and woman marriage, unborn child. . . crowd gets juiced

Looks like the rest from here out is foreign policy, mostly terrorism stuff

. . . disruption in the hall; TV finally pans to demonstrator being escorted out. Bush a little shaken. Another demonstrator . . .

gotta say: delivery is still flat.

. . . a really bogus and deceptive line; accusing Kery of not respecting our allies in Iraq . . .

. . . a lot in audience do not look very enthusiastic

Bush gets close to teary talking about family loss -- possibly only genuine moment of apparent feeling

Its over. No great stumbles. No great moments. Overall, as a speech, no way a barnburner. Lack of good presentation hurt.