EYES WIDE SHUT
by David Corn
published by DavidCorn.com
I want this election to be done, for I am sick of griping about George W. Bush and his lying--or, if you prefer, his excessively simplistic ways. Speaking at the UN yesterday, he proclaimed that the Iraqi people "are on the path to democracy and freedom." Perhaps. We hope so. But it is far from assured that the national elections scheduled for January--which would be a true milepost on the "path to democracy"--are going to happen. Can't Bush stop being a cheerleader-in-chief? Why not say, "We've removed the tyrant of Iraq and now are doing what we can to bring democracy to Iraq"? Is that sort of nuanced, based-in-reality rhetoric beyond Bush's grasp? His plan in Iraq, as outlined in his UN speech, apparently is "to prevail." He cannot face facts--so he mugs the truth. The CIA produced an alarming National Intelligence Estimate outlining three scenarios in Iraq over the next 18 months: "tenuous stability," a stretch of "further fragmentation and extremism," or a period "trending to civil war." How did Bush respond? In remarks to reporters, he dismissed this document, saying the CIA was "just guessing as to what the conditions might be like." Does he consider intelligence analysis merely guesswork? If so, why did he insist before the invasion and afterward that he had based his decision on "good, solid intelligence" about Iraq and WMDs. Perhaps the CIA was just guessing. Then there are those attacks on John Kerry. After Kerry whacked Bush hard on Iraq on Monday, Bush retorted: "Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power and not in prison. He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy." The next day, Bush claimed that Kerry has "said that the world was better off with Saddam in power." This is nonsense. Kerry has not stated he favors stable dictatorship over hopeful democracy. (And, by the way, there is no democracy in Iraq which to favor or not favor.) Kerry has said repeatedly that Bush handled the task of booting Hussein wrong, that Bush went in the wrong way at the wrong time with the wrong amount of preparation (that is, little to none preparation). "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure," Kerry said on Monday. But by voting in 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq (a vote that I believe was misguided), Kerry handed Bush a large club to use against Hussein. There's your evidence that Kerry was willing to see pressure and perhaps force applied against Hussein and was not satisfied to embrace the "stability of dictatorship." But as Bush does so often, he was saying that if you don't support the way he does things that means you're for the bad guys. To see the full silliness of Bush's position, apply his remarks to other spots of the world. Since Bush has not called for overthrowing the Chinese government, does that mean he fancies the stability of repressive government over democracy and freedom there? Ditto for Saudi Arabia--and Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere. Don't forget Russia. When Vladimir Putin recently proposed new rules that would cripple independent politics in Russia, Bush--who has called Putin a "courageous" leader--could not issue a whimper of criticism. Opposing Bush's folly in Iraq is not the equivalent of supporting dictatorship. Only a simpleton could actually believe that. (On a lighter--or sadder--note, the Bush campaign released an ad today that poked fun at Kerry for supposedly changing his position on Iraq by showing the senator windsurfing back and forth. Is this the type of discourse the Leader of the Free World wants to see in the most important nation in the world regarding the most important challenge facing that nation? It must be, for at the start of the spot, Bush says, "I'm George Bush, and I approve this message." The commercial apparently cuts out Bush's next line: "Man, we're kicking his butt. Wish I could have a brewski.") It certainly is fair for Bush to argue that his policy is better than Kerry's, that invading a nation that possessed no WMD stockpiles and had no significant ties to al Qaeda was the right move for safeguarding the United States from a still-at-large Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. But this does not have to entail mischaracterizing Kerry's position and placing put him on the side of dictators and tyrants. (Are the Swift Vets adopting the White House style or vice versa? In its most recent ad, the GOP-financed band of anti-Kerry vets blast Kerry for having "secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris" when Kerry was an antiwar leader in the early 1970s. One problem: when Kerry testified publicly in the Senate he talked openly about his not-so-secret meeting with Viet Cong representatives, who were holding peace talks with South Vietnamese government officials.) The Bush campaign's blog recently noted, "So long as George W. Bush is our President, this nation will not close its eyes to threats, even when things get tough." Bush should open his eyes, and his mind, to what has happened and is happening in Iraq and at least stop pretending all is black and white--or black hats and white hats.
by David Corn
published by DavidCorn.com
I want this election to be done, for I am sick of griping about George W. Bush and his lying--or, if you prefer, his excessively simplistic ways. Speaking at the UN yesterday, he proclaimed that the Iraqi people "are on the path to democracy and freedom." Perhaps. We hope so. But it is far from assured that the national elections scheduled for January--which would be a true milepost on the "path to democracy"--are going to happen. Can't Bush stop being a cheerleader-in-chief? Why not say, "We've removed the tyrant of Iraq and now are doing what we can to bring democracy to Iraq"? Is that sort of nuanced, based-in-reality rhetoric beyond Bush's grasp? His plan in Iraq, as outlined in his UN speech, apparently is "to prevail." He cannot face facts--so he mugs the truth. The CIA produced an alarming National Intelligence Estimate outlining three scenarios in Iraq over the next 18 months: "tenuous stability," a stretch of "further fragmentation and extremism," or a period "trending to civil war." How did Bush respond? In remarks to reporters, he dismissed this document, saying the CIA was "just guessing as to what the conditions might be like." Does he consider intelligence analysis merely guesswork? If so, why did he insist before the invasion and afterward that he had based his decision on "good, solid intelligence" about Iraq and WMDs. Perhaps the CIA was just guessing. Then there are those attacks on John Kerry. After Kerry whacked Bush hard on Iraq on Monday, Bush retorted: "Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power and not in prison. He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy." The next day, Bush claimed that Kerry has "said that the world was better off with Saddam in power." This is nonsense. Kerry has not stated he favors stable dictatorship over hopeful democracy. (And, by the way, there is no democracy in Iraq which to favor or not favor.) Kerry has said repeatedly that Bush handled the task of booting Hussein wrong, that Bush went in the wrong way at the wrong time with the wrong amount of preparation (that is, little to none preparation). "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure," Kerry said on Monday. But by voting in 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq (a vote that I believe was misguided), Kerry handed Bush a large club to use against Hussein. There's your evidence that Kerry was willing to see pressure and perhaps force applied against Hussein and was not satisfied to embrace the "stability of dictatorship." But as Bush does so often, he was saying that if you don't support the way he does things that means you're for the bad guys. To see the full silliness of Bush's position, apply his remarks to other spots of the world. Since Bush has not called for overthrowing the Chinese government, does that mean he fancies the stability of repressive government over democracy and freedom there? Ditto for Saudi Arabia--and Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere. Don't forget Russia. When Vladimir Putin recently proposed new rules that would cripple independent politics in Russia, Bush--who has called Putin a "courageous" leader--could not issue a whimper of criticism. Opposing Bush's folly in Iraq is not the equivalent of supporting dictatorship. Only a simpleton could actually believe that. (On a lighter--or sadder--note, the Bush campaign released an ad today that poked fun at Kerry for supposedly changing his position on Iraq by showing the senator windsurfing back and forth. Is this the type of discourse the Leader of the Free World wants to see in the most important nation in the world regarding the most important challenge facing that nation? It must be, for at the start of the spot, Bush says, "I'm George Bush, and I approve this message." The commercial apparently cuts out Bush's next line: "Man, we're kicking his butt. Wish I could have a brewski.") It certainly is fair for Bush to argue that his policy is better than Kerry's, that invading a nation that possessed no WMD stockpiles and had no significant ties to al Qaeda was the right move for safeguarding the United States from a still-at-large Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. But this does not have to entail mischaracterizing Kerry's position and placing put him on the side of dictators and tyrants. (Are the Swift Vets adopting the White House style or vice versa? In its most recent ad, the GOP-financed band of anti-Kerry vets blast Kerry for having "secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris" when Kerry was an antiwar leader in the early 1970s. One problem: when Kerry testified publicly in the Senate he talked openly about his not-so-secret meeting with Viet Cong representatives, who were holding peace talks with South Vietnamese government officials.) The Bush campaign's blog recently noted, "So long as George W. Bush is our President, this nation will not close its eyes to threats, even when things get tough." Bush should open his eyes, and his mind, to what has happened and is happening in Iraq and at least stop pretending all is black and white--or black hats and white hats.
posted by BLONDIE at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home