|
The Mailman
What better way to avoid talking about the nations dead of a war that started 17 month ago, than to talk about the survivors of a war that ended 375 month ago. The mailman may help Kerry for now, but the next round of ads will work on Kerry´s anti-Vietnam actions and will continue to lower his ratings.
Associated Press reports:
Former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, left, and former Green Beret Lt. Jim Rassmann, center, approach a Secret Service Agent, right, on station at the check point to the entrance of President Bush ‘s ranch Wednesday Aug. 25, 2004 in Crawford, Texas. Cleland tried to deliver a letter protesting ads challenging John Kerry’s Vietnam service to President Bush at his Texas ranch Wednesday, but the Secret Service stopped Cleland short of his goal.
The Cleland letter (PDF)
Bush Edges Ahead of Kerry for the 1st Time
For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat. In a Times poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2-percentage-point advantage over Bush.
That small shift from July was within the poll’s margin of error. But it fit with other findings in the Times poll showing the electorate edging toward Bush over the past month on a broad range of measures, from support for his handling of Iraq to confidence in his leadership and honesty.
May 3, 2003. Kerry : “I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity. But I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam].”
The Iraq invasion was delayed from September (at least..) to March principally through other countries’ obstruction, but also by Iraq’s compliance (e.g. permitting return of inspectors which, in theory, should have kept Iraq safe for 60 days for assessment and 6 months for the inspections.) Everyone worked together to put it off, again, and again. Turkey was the last to poke spokes into the wheels, delaying the invasion yet once more by what? -a week or more, I no longer remember. Even Blair tried to delay. The aim was to try and get into the summer, in which case, it was hoped, the US military would not move (heat) and the whole affair would be put off until the next October or so.
Kerry could not have overcome those obstructions. France, China, Russia (and Germany) stood very firm. Iraq, too, would not have behaved differently. It was clear that the US (with the UK playing a shifting role) was up against the rest of the world (leaving out Micronesia, Australia..). The US could back down; or invade unilaterally, pre-emptively and illegally. Plans had been formed a long time ago; intentions had been stated publicly, many times.
Why would Kerry have given more time to ‘diplomatic processes’? To what end, with what result? The rest of the world (…) was opposed to an invasion and nothing would have changed that. In fact, opposition stiffened as time went on (e.g. public pressure; e.g. Chile appalled at spying, etc.) Does Kerry mean that the inspections would have just gone on and on? And that, finally, it would have been determined that Iraq was no threat, and that thus there was no reason to invade?
It would be nice to think so. (Despite the fact that he has said he approves of the invasion.) However — All of Kerry’s discourse is based on his stated or implicit belief in the existence of Iraq WMD prior to some very recent time. Nowhere is it ever suggested that he had doubts about aluminum tubes, yellow cake from Niger (etc.) (afaik. ?.) Many reports (and intelligence) in the 5 years prior to the invasion showed that Iraq had no WMD. What more proof could have been forthcoming? Kerry is stuck with his past adherence to the whole process of the build-up to war (sham WMD, ‘threats’ to make Saddam ‘capitulate,’ etc.) and then somehow disaproving of the result. His objections are tinny, hollow, as they hark back to the build-up / planning process itself (international alliances, plan for ‘the peace’, more diplomacy, faulty intelligence, etc.) and not the result! (And lastly, Kerry knew the WMD were sham, as did everyone except perhaps Bush.. )
I think that Kerry truthfully is very critical of Bush’s handling of this matter. What he is angry about is the fact that it was delayed so long, that the enterprise faltered, was slow, uncertain and therefore beset with difficulties and snarls; that not enough troops were sent to secure ‘the peace’; that the occupation is somewhat messy; and that the rest of the world is not participating. As he has said. However, he cannot now state his judgment of the fundamental error made, but has in the past:
From his Oct. 9, 2002 speech:
“A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.”
(…)
“The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration’s decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.”
Kerry would have smashed into Iraq right after 9/11 with more force than Bush, and with a large coalition. If one understands this, everything he has said recently is coherent, and flip-flopping there is none, only omission.
Kerry quotes from
Slate Bushblog IndiesforKerry
Posted by: Blackie | Aug 27 2004 16:33 utc | 57
|
