By finally adopting the reactionary “Dean Line” (well, not finally, there’s no such thing with him) on Iraq, Kerry has placed himself in the position of having to root against the forces of democracy in that country, at least until the November election. He must hope for continued slaughter, beheadings and the like from the rag-tag collection of homicidal sociopaths and paleo-misogynists - Baathist and Islamist - that constitute the “insurgents” in order to defeat Bush, so is acting accordingly. Barely was Allawi’s speech out of the interim PM’s mouth when Kerry informed us, in the opinion of one of the two major presidential candidates in the most powerful country on Earth, there would be no January election in Iraq. (From your lips to Zarqawi’s burning ears, Senator.)
Leaving aside whatever moral evaluation we could make of those remarks - that is, after all, a personal matter - what if Kerry wins using this rhetoric? What will he do when confronted with decisions to make on Iraq? Will he help them hold an election? If not, will he withdraw our troops? Will he defend the majority of Iraqis who favor democracy? He hasn’t told the public - ours or theirs. I doubt he knows himself. But it could be worse, far worse, than what happened in Vietnam after we left.
No, I take it back. I will make a moral evaluation. It’s inescapable. One word: shameful.
PJM Home
76 Comments
1. Charlie (Colorado):I could think of a better word, but the FCC would plotz.
Sep 23, 2004 - 2:47 pm 2. andrei:Dr Allawi said in his speech
“When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourage more violence.”
John Kerry should open his ears and LISTEN!
Sep 23, 2004 - 2:49 pm 3. Solomon:Every time John Kerry opens his mouth, I keep feeling more and more sure that he has less and less of a chance to win this election. At least I keep telling myself that.
Sep 23, 2004 - 3:03 pm 4. TmjUtah:Roger -
I have mentioned the “conflict = failure” meme before.
As time has gone by it seems that Kerry has abandoned even vague hints at what his policies might actually be in favor of C=F.
I agree with you - just what position would he be in if he were to arrive in the oval office? Or maybe consistency isn’t expected of him by his supporters?
Nah, media would be ALL over him if he tried something like that. Right? Wouldn’t they?
Sep 23, 2004 - 3:14 pm 5. pdq332:I was confused today when I read that Kerry accused Allawi of flip-flopping, misreprresenting the situation in Iraq, and being the tool of more powerful interests. I mean, I thought Kerry was running against Bush!
Sep 23, 2004 - 3:24 pm 6. PeterUK:There was a time when political leaders understood that it was perfidious to undermine their nations interests in time of peril.What mean spirited vanity brings such a man to the forefront of history now,best Monsieur Kerry’s wife buys him a banana state to play with.
Sep 23, 2004 - 3:35 pm 7. Homer:Is John Kerry plain stupid or flat out evil? I can’t decide.
Sep 23, 2004 - 3:50 pm 8. Warthog:Kerry - Kennedy - Carter - Annan - Chirac. A better world through a weaker USA.
Sep 23, 2004 - 3:54 pm 9. Rick Ballard:PeterUK,
I believe that the US is fortunate indeed to have such a clear example of the depths of depravity to which Kerry will descend in order to pursue his overweening lust for power. He and his advisors have come finally to the point where they can be clearly seen by all.
Iraqi and American deaths are simply a part of their calculus for victory through defeat. In their minds, the more Americans that die, the better John Kerry does, the more bombs destroying innocent Iraqis, the better Kerry does, the more videotaped beheadings of innocents the better Kerry does.
One must wonder what level of success the terrorist attack that they are surely hoping for must have in order for their calculus to show a clear Kerry advantage. Are they hoping for triple the deaths of 9/11 or does their calculus demand an order of magnitude greater in order for him to win?
The logic of this calculus needs to be broadcast far and wide. The MSM, being witting allies, will not do it. It is left to the internet and perhaps talk radio.
Sep 23, 2004 - 4:00 pm 10. Terrye:I could be wrong of course, but i think most Americans will vote for the guy with a vested interest in success vs. the guy with a vested interest in failure.
If Americans looked at life that way, there would be no such country as the United States of America.
But Kerry, the moron with the political instincts of Marie Antoinette insults our real allies like the Brits and the Aussies and the Poles and of course Allawi so that he can pander to suck up to the likes of Kofi Annan and Chirac. It seems the only foreign leaders Kerry respects are the ones who don’t respect us.
Not a good platform. The debates are coming up and I wonder how Kerry will come off next to Bush, a man we can at least understand.
Sep 23, 2004 - 4:21 pm 11. MikeD:Disgusting is becoming the only word that describes John Kerry. Everytime he opens his mouth these days produces a distortion, a lie, or some insight into his vile personna.
Sep 23, 2004 - 4:41 pm 12. Terrye:I did not think we would see an ABK movement, but with today’s performance I believe we are there.
Anybody but Kerry.
Sep 23, 2004 - 4:55 pm 13. superhawk:Recent polls show the American people think that the war isn’t worth it (52%-43%)that 46% believe that things are going either badly or very badly, and that by a slight plurality (47%) believe we’re safer now that Saddam is gone.
Why isn’t Kerry trouncing Bush?
Because the American people are prepared to grit their teeth and wade through the blood to achieve what must be achieved in Iraq. And they don’t think John Kerry is the man to lead that fight.
Sep 23, 2004 - 4:58 pm 14. idi_amin:and this is the guy with the slogan “Stronger at home, respected in the world”? Good plan, Senator: insult and discourage our allies, tell our enemies that we’re just about to give up, and beg France Germany and the UN to really really like us please. if i can paraphrase Orwell: Kerry’s pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.
Sep 23, 2004 - 5:01 pm 15. Barbara Skolaut:Homer asks:
Why can’t he be both?
Sep 23, 2004 - 5:16 pm 16. pst314:new Kerry slogan: Victory is not an option!
Sep 23, 2004 - 5:27 pm 17. Lapsed Randian:Listening to Kerry’s shamefully calculating remarks almost makes me wish he would go back to talking about Vietnam again.
I really want to think the best of the guy, but really, how did we reach the point where a major candidate for President can get away with talking like this? You would think he could be gracious for one day as a tactical move, if nothing else.
Sep 23, 2004 - 5:29 pm 18. Rhod:Kerry is a particularly lurid example of the Northeast liberal, maybe of the left in general. Kerry and the rest of them have no beliefs, they have only disbeliefs, a reflex to anti-reality.
Not nihilism, something even more sinister. Everything is sucked into the vortex and what is left is the fumes of cynicism and complaint. Kerry’s reaction to Allawi wasn’t calculated, it was simply necessary.
Sep 23, 2004 - 5:42 pm 19. clarice:I think the internal polls reveal he is doing very badly, that he has decided to go for the loony base , in the hope that external events may give him a shot to climb back out.
But I could be wrong.
Everyone in D.C. knows he’s stupid.
Maybe he’s also crazy.
Sep 23, 2004 - 5:58 pm 20. Cecil Turner:Not sure why anyone would be surprised to see it, though. His entire political career is based on defeatism . . . And for him to be successful, the nation has to lose.
“How do you ask a man to be last man to die for a mistake?”
Sep 23, 2004 - 6:03 pm 21. Rhod:Everyone in the Northeast knows he’s stupid too.
Sep 23, 2004 - 6:08 pm 22. jedrury:These comments are so apt that I add one element to the debate; this is the history of the political career of the War Hero.
He came home from Vietnam to criticize the armed forces of the United States and appeal to the anti war fringe. His latest political strategy
is a variation on his earlier theme; to be anti Iraq war at the same time mouthing the comforting words that he supports the troops.
He is in a logical and political conundrum.
He banks on more casualties, more atrocities and more beheadings; each time saying he told you so. His comments will never be so blatant but the underlying theme is the same; the mismanagement and incompetency of the administration.
He fails to politically appreciate the inner optimism and strength of the American people after 9/11. He is in a time warp, i.e., this
is 1973-4 and there are 53,000 American dead
and there was no 9/11.
It is unfortunate that his party allows him to advance this defeatist argument as it re-enforces the leftist views of the party after the years
of Clinton. If he loses, as I think he will, he has done his party a complete disservice.
But, of course, this, for the present, is
the Ted Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party controlling the message. And when has that man ever thought beyond Bob Shrum’s wholly selfish words that “his dream endures.”
Sep 23, 2004 - 6:31 pm 23. Tom Grey:C’mon, it was only 33 years ago when Kerry was trying to lead the USA to peace!
Get out now, peace now.
And the US got out. Kerry was one of the real important leaders of the Peace Now anti-war folk. He LED. And we Got Peace.
Peace and genocide.
Kerry thought it was better than fighting evil.
AND he thought it was morally superior.
Immoral is the right word. Then. And now.
Sep 23, 2004 - 6:32 pm 24. Terrye:superhawk:
I saw a poll today that put the public’s support of the war opposite of what you cited, the numbers were switched with over half the population supporting it. I believe it was a Fox Opinion Dynamics Poll.
That does not mean you are wrong, it means the public changes daily on that support. I think Kerry is trying to take advantage of that volatility.
Sep 23, 2004 - 6:33 pm 25. WichitaBoy:Rhod,
I don’t quite agree with you. I think there are some beliefs there, among them are:
–The United States is the source of evil in the world
–Capitalism is evil
–Communists are good but you’re not allowed to say it out loud
–Corporations are always evil
–Business in general is evil and anyone who tries to earn a living through business is tainted
–NGOs are very good
–Government is always good and the more of it you have and the more obtrusive the ever-growing body of laws into everyone’s lives, the better
–Except when it is run by Republicans, in which case it is evil too
–The UN is superlative
–Money is evil
–Dividend checks from the family trust are good
–Oil is evil, as is the oil industry
–SUVs are evil
–The family’s SUVs are good
–The military is evil
–Anything having to do with the military, such as guns, tanks, etc. is evil and should be expunged from the federal budget
–Anyone having to do with the military is evil and should probably be locked up
–All hunters are evil
–Skiers are good
–Anyone who does not live in the Northeast or on the Left Coast is evil and backward and in need of serious reeducation
–All problems can be solved by talking if you’re willing to just talk enough
–Europe is good, in fact, it is our parent so its opinion is very important
–Non-Europeans are good in an appealing childlike sort of way
–Except for Israelis, who are evil
–Saudi Arabia is evil
–Saddam Hussein gives everybody a queasy feeling because he is evil and simultaneously good by virtue of being opposed by the evil empire
Sep 23, 2004 - 6:45 pm 26. James Finkelstein:PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE QUESTIONS FOR DUMMIES
The Presidential debates are not going to be compelling television. Everybody knows that President Bush can’t handle simple questions at a press conference, so getting a coherent answer out of him in a debate will be well nigh impossible. Which is why I have come up with an improvement on our system of panelists asking open ended questions and candidates misunderestimating (joke!) them, ignoring them or sidestepping them. Here is my new, improved, debate format for Presidents who are dummies: multiple choice questions. I have 10 sample questions for the debate panelists to ask President Bush during the upcoming debates. Answers to the questions are at the end. (Hint: you won’t go wrong with the second letter of the alphabet.)
1. Mr. President, on June 7, 1981, Israel sent a strike force of eight F-16’s which destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor in Osirik just before it came online and started enriching the plutonium necessary for Iraq to manufacture nuclear bombs. I’m not going to ask you to say the word “nuclear,” so you can relax. When President Ronald Reagan, whom you recently declared is one of the greatest presidents in history, learned of Israel’s pre-emptive strike on a country which was determined to wipe Israel off the map, he:
(a) Praised Israel’s courage and initiative in removing an imminent nuclear threat from the arsenal of a genocidal madman who would assuredly have instigated a nuclear war in the Middle East.
(b) Angrily condemned the Israeli raid and cut off American arms sales to Israel because it had used American built jet fighters on the raid.
2. Mr. President, on December 20, 1983, Ronald Reagan sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld, who is now your Secretary of Defense, to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. When Mr. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, he:
(a) Informed him of the United States’ displeasure with Iraq’s starting a war against Iran to seize its oil fields and then condemned Saddam’s horrible human rights record, including Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers in violation of international law.
(b) Shook hands with Saddam, renewed U.S. ties with Iraq, and asked Saddam what assistance in addition to military satellite intelligence and other support the United States could secretly provide to Iraq.
3. Mr. President, in 1990, four days before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, after Saddam had gassed tens of thousands of Iranians and Kurds, your father, President George H. W. Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, had our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, tell Saddam:
(a) “Kuwait is a sovereign nation and our country will not allow Iraq to wage aggressive war to invade Kuwait’s territory or seize its oil wells.”
(b) “I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country…. We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”
4. Mr. President, during the 2000 campaign you said that you wanted to return a large part of the surplus in tax cuts targeted towards the wealthiest taxpayers because it was their money. If most of the surplus belonged to the rich, then your Administration’s policies indicate that you think the biggest part of the $500 billion annual deficit and the $7 trillion national debt belongs to and should be repaid by:
(a) The wealthiest Americans.
(b) Our children and grandchildren.
5. Mr. President, your position on government funded national catastrophic health insurance that would cover little children who need to raise tens of thousands of dollars for life saving operations is:
(a) We need to provide catastrophic health insurance for the children who are uninsured, because if we can afford to spend $100 billion a year rebuilding Iraq, including its hospitals and health care system, then we certainly can afford to take care of helpless children who need money for lifesaving operations.
(b) They are on their own, and their family and friends can try to raise the money for a life saving operation by putting out penny jars in local stores.
6. Mr. President, your economic policies and tax cuts for the wealthy have resulted in:
(a) A booming economy which has lifted all boats and brought unparalleled good times to the American people.
(b) A net loss of jobs for the first time since Herbert Hoover’s administration, the largest trade deficits in history, the highest gasoline and oil prices in American history, the largest annual deficits in history, a large increase in the numbers of Americans without health insurance, and the collapse of huge corporations such as Enron and Worldcom.
7. Mr. President, in your last State of the Union speech you proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would:
(a) Eliminate the electoral college and allow the direct election of the President by the popular vote so that the candidate with the most votes will be elected.
(b) Prohibit States from determining which of their citizens may legally enter into marriage contracts.
8. Mr. President, on August 6, 2001, you were given a presidential daily brief with the title “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States.” Upon receiving this news that the world’s most wanted terrorist, who had orchestrated attacks on our embassies in Africa in 1998 and on the U.S. Cole near Yemen in 2000, intended to attack inside the United States you:
(a) Convened a meeting of the National Security Council, discussed plans for protecting Americans from terrorist attacks within our borders, then ordered the FBI and CIA to take every measure to coordinate their efforts and step up intelligence gathering operations.
(b) Left on August 7, 2001, for a month long vacation at your ranch in Crawford, Texas and took no action to protect the American people from the attacks which occurred on September 11th.
9. Mr. President, three years ago, on September 17, 2001, you said that you would get Osama bin Laden, “dead or alive.” After making that promise you:
(a) Kept American forces focused on catching Osama bin Laden and brought him to America to stand trial for murder.
(b) Removed American Special Forces and their air support from the hunt for Osama in Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq to try to find an elusive Saddam Hussein.
10. Mr. President, the morning of September 11, 2001, after your chief of staff, Andrew Card, informed you that the nation was under attack, and during the time that two large buildings in New York were struck by airliners and were burning, the Pentagon was about to be hit by a third hijacked airliner, and a fourth plane was flying over Pennsylvania heading towards Washington, your reaction was to:
(a) Immediately get as much information on the situation as you could, find out what targets had been hit, how many more planes were reported hijacked or missing, what their potential targets were, and make the hard decision to have Air Force fighters divert or shoot down hijacked planes attacking American cities.
(b) sit on a stool in a 1st grade classroom for seven minutes and listen to a student read My Pet Goat.
ANSWERS: The answers to 1 through 10 are all (b)
Sep 23, 2004 - 7:09 pm 27. Lola:Terrye
Speaking of which, anyone know where I could get a sticker with ABK for my car? Don’t want to get it keyed in the neighborhood . . .
Sep 23, 2004 - 7:20 pm 28. chuck:James Finkelstein
Ah, the bitterness and recriminations begin. Glad to see that you share the majority view here that Kerry is toast. You do seem to suffer from a time warp, however. Have you been sleeping? In case you just woke up and are wondering where you are, it’s 23 Sept 2004. I invite you to join the Bush victory thread come 3 Nov, it will cheer you up no end.
Sep 23, 2004 - 7:26 pm 29. Fredrik Nyman:Roger,
Come now. You know just as well as everyone else that Kerry will just blame his speechwriters, the Secret Service or NASA for whatever happens as a consequence of his spectacularly bad judgment.
I just don’t understand how anyone can claim Kerry is smart; everything he does to undermine Bush now will come back to haunt him if he is elected.
Sep 23, 2004 - 7:31 pm 30. Terrye:James:
That was stupid and a waste of bandwith.
In case you did not know: children do not die from lack of health care in this country, the government does not abandon the young. For years Democrats have been making the promise of free health care and for years they have failed to deliver. It is right uip there with scaring the old people for pure demagoguery.
Hoover was president in the Great Depression when unemployment was around seven times what it is now, to make this compaarison is stupid. My grandparents were Okies back then, worked the migrant camps and I know just how ridiculous your comment really is.
Jacques Chirac sold that nuclear reactor to Saddam Hussein and called him a personal friend. All of Europe as well as the US dealt with Saddam because the Iranians were threatening everyone. These events followed the taking of our embassy when Carter sat with his thumb up his ass and allowed those crazy bastards to take Iran over in the first damn place. If you are going to make these silly comments learn some historical perspective. It seems that Kerry fans either a] bitch because a president deals with a tyrant or b] bitch because a president refuses to.
On September 11, 2001 Kerry sat for fourty minutes staring into space after the attacks, unable to think. But that is nothing compared to the eight years Clinton did not react.
Sep 23, 2004 - 7:55 pm 31. Terrye:Lola:
I don’t know about that bumper sticker, but I would like the one that says:
Terrorists agree, anbody but Bush
Sep 23, 2004 - 7:57 pm 32. richard mcenroe:Iraq Vet speaks to Kerry in the secret language of the Neocons…
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:08 pm 33. Sandy P:James, if you’re going to soak up Roger’s bandwith, at least pay for it.
Oh, wait, with that posting my guess is you’d rather have someone else pay for it.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:15 pm 34. J_Crater:“My friends, today we are better off, you are better off and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Your decision to go to war in Iraq was not an easy one but it was the right one.” - Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi addressed a joint meeting of Congress.
“The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story,” Kerry said.
It’s amazing that one man’s lifetime in a human meat grinder like Iraq, not to mention an assassination attempt, doesn’t seem to trump one dweeb from Massachusetts who had 4 1/2 months running a Swift boat up and down the Mekong River into the South China Sea.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:21 pm 35. Doug:Roger,
You were around in the sixties so you know what it was like. Right or wrong as the war was, it was not a good time for this country, our retreat and the dissolution of South Vietnam was a time of shame for this nation and many of us, even who opposed the Vietnam War recognize that now. To a somewhat large minority of Americans that was a time of joy and triumph when the people spoke “truth to power” and changed the world. Kerry is one of those people. These people will argue that the Battle of Iraq is a failure and we should admit defeat and give up. They do not understand that the majority of Americans WANT to support the govenrment WANT the war to succeed and WANT to see the country as doing the right thing. It will take A LOT for a clear consensus to vote for a candidate pledged to cut and run. This is a losing strategy and I don’t even think they realize it. Even Americans who tell a pollster the war was not worth it or they are sorry it happened do not want to cut and run. Kerry is going down. I am quite certain. The question is by how much and what Bush will do. Will the vicious constant second guessing halt at least temporarily? We will see.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:24 pm 36. megsi:Totally disingenuous.
It’s no more shameful for Senator Kerry to say that Iraq is not ready for elections than it is for Secretaries Ridge and Ashcroft to raise the terror alert level and warn us that there may be attacks. It’s no more defeatist than it was for President Bush to say in 2000 that the US was in a recession. Kerry’s merely stating the painful truth, and as the challenger, that’s his job.
Would you say Bush felt bound to make the economy worse after he once said there was a recession? Of course not - Bush was bound to do his tax cut thing to try to stimulate the economy. Likewise, in a part of the article you ignore:
Kerry said he has laid out “steps to win the war, not to change, not to retreat, steps to win.”
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:24 pm 37. Roberts:It is almost amusing that Finkelstein will post here such a list of misleading and long-debunked nonsense.
That’s OK, James, if it makes you feel better about the slaughter that your outmoded fantasies are undergoing.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:26 pm 38. richard mcenroe:Lola ó Try http://www.cafepress.com I think they do custom runs.
Lola, Terrye ó I don’t know if there’s an Anybody But Kerry vote, but based on what I hear every week at the rally, there’s definitely a BIG “Anybody But Them vote out there, usually expressed with a scornful thumb jerked at the crown across the street huddled around their UN flag and peace symbols… and it’s going to take Kerry down with them…
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:27 pm 39. Roberts:Megsi, Kerry has done no such thing.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:28 pm 40. richard mcenroe:Megsi ó Yes, but where has he laid out those steps? Point to a link please, to one material, achievable proposal.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:29 pm 41. exguru:Dear Roger,
If you really don’t know how Kerry would react to different situations as POTUS, I commend to you a small book entitled “Unfit for Command,” by John O’Neil.
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:37 pm 42. James Finkelstein:QUOTES FROM BUSH ADMINISTRATION 2001-2004
îHe [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.î
Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to Cairo, Egypt, February 24, 2001
“The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years…. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. … It has been contained.”
Colin Powell testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 15, 2001
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Vice President Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
President George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly, September 12, 2002
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 19, 2002
“The Iraqi regime … possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” –
George W. Bush on the campaign trail, Oct. 7, 2002.
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ënuclear mujahideen’ — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.”–
George W. Bush, campaigning for Republicans in Congress, Oct. 7, 2002
“We know for a fact there are weapons there.” –
George W. Bush’s Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, White House, Jan. 9, 2003
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –
George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003
“My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq’s involvement in terrorism…”
“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.” –
Colin Powell, Speech to United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003
“This is about imminent threat.”
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, February 10, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” –
George W. Bush, White House televised speech to America, March 17, 2003, two days before America launches missile attack on Baghdad and Gulf War II commences.
“Absolutely.” Answer to question whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, May 7, 2003
“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003
“It was a surprise to me then ó it remains a surprise to me now ó that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.”
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Press Interview, May 30, 2003
“What was it? One hundred tons, 500 tons or zero tons? Was it so many liters of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?”
Secretary of State Colin Powell, TBLISI, Georgia,, January 24, 2004
“I don’t think they existed…”
David Kay, leader of the U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction, who resigned on January 23, 2004
Sep 23, 2004 - 8:38 pm 43. Terrye:James:
persistant aren’t you? I read the first one and skipped the rest, this is the same old crap that has been out there forever.
How about the Iraqi Liberation Act? If you are going to cherry pick a bunch of quotes out of context why not include the famous line in which Clinton not only says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, he guarantees he will use them.
Or how about the quote from December 2001 in which Kerry says it is time to go after Iraq. Or how about 2002 Al Gore saying that the next time we dealt with Saddam it would be on our terms….
The list of prominent Democrats stating that Saddam had weapons is miles long. The list of Democrats like CIA director Tenet stating connections with AlQaida are very well documented and go back far before Bush ever came to Washington. They even included many of those connections in the 1998 indictment of terrorists in the Embassy bombings.
I know it is comforting to the oh so loony left to pretend that the 90’s were some kind of fairy tale, but that is not the case. The no fly zones, the bombing of Baghdad in 1998, the attacks on Americans all over the world, the bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan, the list goes on and on and it is only in retrospect that Democrats deny the undeniable.
Sep 23, 2004 - 9:03 pm 44. Morgan:Wow, James. Kerry’s daily implosion really stung today, didn’t it.
Your post amounts to a selective restatement of changing intelligence estimates regarding Iraq’s capabilities. So, um, nice timeline?
I advise you to write your list on cardboard and attach it to a long stick. Then put on your bushitler helmet, find a bunch of like-minded members of the ABB crowd, and shout “Bush Lied” until you go hoarse. If you need a ride, call your local ANSWER chapter.
Have fun speaking truth to power!
Sep 23, 2004 - 9:10 pm 45. chriss:James, please tell us the name of any intelligence agency in the world that did not believe that Saddam had WMDs. Richard Clark, no doubt a hero of yours, said after our invasion of Afghanistan that top al Qaeda brass would likely ‘boogie to Baghdad.
Yes, I agree with you. I think Kerry’s stated strategy of waiting ’til we get attacked again and then responding is a good one. Sheer luck and thousands of acts of heroism and bravery prevented the 9/11 from becoming a 50,000 casualty day. How many casualties does there need to be before Kerry acts proactively? A million?
We haven’t found the WMDs the world knows were in Iraq. But we sure as hell have found the ones no one knew about in Libya, and they won’t be in al Qaeda hands anytime soon.
Yes, I also think that focusing the full force of the US military on searching for one man so that he can ’stand trial in the US for murder’ is worthwhile, because there are no other crazed terrorist groups and no other state sponsors of terrorism equally willing to attack us as well.
Please tell us: do you want to win, or do you want the US to lose? The enemy is fighting for your heart and mind. You decide. Kerry finally has decided.
Please tell us also: what child in this country is denied health care for lack of funds?
That was an impressive list of disproven and debunked memes you upchucked.
Bush will thrash Kerry in the debates. Because he stays on message. Because he HAS a message. Because he always beats guys who are so much “smarter” than him.
Sep 23, 2004 - 9:19 pm 46. richard mcenroe:Terrye ó There was no history before George W. Bush… everyone knows that… just a happy fairyland of multilateral consensus and puppies…
Sep 23, 2004 - 9:21 pm 47. Pat Curley:Kerry will do the same thing he helped in no small part do to the South Vietnamese: abandon them to their fate.
And since Glenn doesn’t have comments at his site, let me just say that there is no chance that Kerry is abandoning the race in a noble effort to save the guys down ticket. That’s just a misreading of his character. John Kerry would throw overboard every Democrat in Congress if it would get him to the White House.
Sep 23, 2004 - 9:32 pm 48. Terrye:Pat:
I agree with you. The bastard sure as hell isn’t doing the party any favors.
And before I hit the sack I would like to say that until and unless Terry McAuliffe gets fired I will never vote Democrat again.
These idiots have just about ruined the party.
Sep 23, 2004 - 9:39 pm 49. megsi:I’m sure you can find Kerry’s Iraq statements on his website. I merely point out that he voices an understanding that we cannot retreat from Iraq and a commitment to winning.
Sep 23, 2004 - 10:02 pm 50. Terrye:megsi:
Actually he voices a lot of things, most of them contradictory. But there was no need for him to be snarky with Allawi.
Sep 23, 2004 - 10:07 pm 51. James Finkelstein:George Bush is a wimp on foreign policy. He picked a fight he knew he could win with a country that was devastated by 10 years of sanctions, surrounded by our military (in Kuwait and Turkey), dominated by our Air Force and no-fly zones, and demoralized by two lost wars with Iran in the 1980’s and a real coalition in 1991.
Meanwhile, Bush is letting nukes in the former Soviet Union go missing while former Senator Sam Nunn is tearing what’s left of his hair out trying to convince the Administration that we need to go after and gather up nuclear weapons, materials, scientists, and technicians from the former Soviet Union. He is ignoring N. Korea- the latest is to remove American soldiers from the DMZ, which must hearten the Communists in the North. He has allowed N. Korea to learn that the surest way to achieve stature in the world is to build nuclear bombs which they can then sell to the highest bidder.
Is Kerry the best we could do in response? Nope. But he’s unlikely to allow polluters to keep putting mercury and arsenic in our water. He probably wouldn’t invade the wrong country, then have no exit plan whatsoever. And I doubt he will sit around and divert funds from securing lose nuclear weapons and materials around the world that real terrorists want to get their hands on.
Bush has done nothing to derail Iran’s nuclear program- apparently they they weren’t impressed by our invasion of Iraq, or else they are smart enough to figure out that if Saddam had been able to built atomic bombs in the 1980’s and hadn’t been derailed by Israel’s strike at Osirik in June of 1981, he’d still be in power and probably still own Kuwait.
Bush is simply a recipe for disaster for Americans at home and abroad. If he wins re-election, the chances of Islamic terrorists acquiring and smuggling a nuclear bomb into the U.S. are greater- because he has diverted essential resources into the black hole of rebuilding and stabilizing a country we destroyed and destablized (Iraq) while cutting funds back home for container inspection in our ports, for border security, and for on the ground policing and first responders. The chances of ordinary Muslims becoming radical enough to want to commit suicide killing Americans are much greater with him in office than they were before.
And Bush has a total disconnect to reality. If Iraq is safer and more stable now, then he should tell American civilians it’s safe to travel around the country without military escorts. Maybe he should send his daughters and Dick Cheney’s daughters on a goodwill tour of Iraq to prove how safe and stable it is. Imagine the stunned look of the deer in headlights we would get from him if someone is smart enough to ask him at the debates if Iraq is now stable enough to send Laura and the twins on a tour of the country.
Meanwhile, he has shredded our military and savaged its morale. American soldiers are pissed that they are stop lossed and can’t get out when their enlistment contracts have ended. National Guard and reservists are now full time soldiers serving in Iraq- they were supposed to be available for emergencies. Just what emergency exists right now in Iraq? Saddam? Nope, he’s in custody. WMD’s? We aren’t even looking for them anymore. Destablized country a magnet for foreign religious terrorists? Gee, how did that happen?
As for reality, just imagine for one moment that a Democrat managed to accomplish everything that George Bush has in the last 3 years and 8 months: highest deficits in history, highest trade imbalance in history, net loss of jobs, the only new jobs coming in government, not the private sector, wasting our military on a mission which could have been accomplished without firing a shot just so he could satisfy the dreams of Middle East hegemony of chickenhawks like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Libby, and Perle, rousing hatred among a group of people willing- no, eager- to die to kill us, and destroying all of the international goodwill that existed on September 12, 2001. Just what would the right wing zealots be saying if it was a Democrat who had accomplished all that and Democrats were somehow trying to defend that record? Not to mention sitting on a stool in a first grade class while buildings were coming down in New York. And if Kerry was stunned when it happened- so what- he was a Senator, not a General or a commander with authority to made a decision to shoot down or divert planes. If Kerry had been commander in chief and sat doing nothing, then he would have deserved every bit of criticism Bush got. You can’t watch that video footage of Bush without having a sick feeling in your stomach that there is nothing there- no thoughts whatsoever going on in that head. If this is what you want as the President and leader of America, then it is your democratic right to vote for him. Just don’t pretend he is anything other than what he is- a worse than useless tool in the hands of the people like Ken Lay, Grover Nordquist, and Karl Rove.
Sep 23, 2004 - 10:09 pm 52. Datou:Lawd, lawd, lawd,
Even my dear old Mum is finally seeing the light about Jean Francois… We were raised NY blueblood Dems in the Kennedy tradition, during what she always referred to as “the Camelot Years”.
Now back in NY after 15 years out west, she is utterly amazed at how kooky the tinhat moonbats are (namely most of my Sisters). In the twilight of her years, she’s an internet junkie and is finally reading from a list of blogs I sent her, this one being the top of the list. Go get’em Ma!
Sep 23, 2004 - 10:29 pm 53. Mark Poling:Mr. Finkelstein, just googled your name: wow. I don’t know what bee got into your bonnet, but I really hope the Secret Service is keeping an eye on you.
And I feel for a very lonely bee, lost in the dark…
By the way, you forgot that they’re still putting flouride in our water, those bastards.
You make a lot of accusations, but links would be nice. Just visit the web page you want to reference, copy the address, and paste it on a blank line in your (very long) posts.
DennisThePeasant, we need you on this one.
Sep 23, 2004 - 10:34 pm 54. Datou:Speaking of tinhatted moonbats, Mr. Finkelstein is in the house. I wish I had the time to Fisk your rant James, but I don’t and you burned up enough of Roger’s bandwidth anyway.
Sep 23, 2004 - 10:40 pm 55. richard mcenroe:OK ó Who posted the Michael Moore outtake?
Sep 23, 2004 - 11:03 pm 56. Jamie Irons:“James Finkelstein” is a notorious memebot. I suggest we
GAZE
Jamie Irons
Sep 23, 2004 - 11:16 pm 57. Fresh Air:Fink(elstein)–
You and the rest of the immature fools trolling over here have nothing to add to the discourse. You know, I’m really sorry the Democrats have been hijacked by people like you.
But let’s face it, your candidate objectively sucks, and you have nobody to blame but yourselves. It’s you far lefties who controlled the nominating process. So you’ve decided to come here to Roger’s place for a good rant and waste of his bandwidth to make yourself feel better.
You toss out a handful of crumbs of economic data and we’re supposed to be impressed? I don’t suppose you bothered to look up the unemployment rate, or the data on housing starts, consumer confidence, interest rates, durable goods orders, manufacturing activity, the record formation of LLCs, or the stock prices of UPS and Fedex. No, because this data wouldn’t be convenient to your argument (assuming you have an argument, which may be arguable in itself). As Terrye pointed out earlier, if the economy is in such a Hooverian state, where are all the breadlines? You know, Fink, if you think the sky’s falling, maybe you could share John Kerry’s umbrella with him.
You really need to check in with the Mother Ship more often to get some new memes. Even Hillary has stopped talking about Herbert Hoover.
I admit I’m not tuned to your bandwidth. But I guess even by scrolling through your posts at warp speed I can get the meta-drift: America is a disaster now that a Republican is president. In three years and eight months the whole world has gone to pot because of George Bush, and things would return to sweetness and light if only John Kerry had the reins.
Well, these are turbulent times, Fink. The last Democrat we had in the White House during a national crisis was Jimmy Carter. Those of us who remember how humiliated this country was back then don’t ever want to revisit it.
On, and one other thing, Mr. James Carville/Moore/Franken/Finkelstein: Shoot down or divert planes? What effing planet are you on? Do you have any idea what the SOP for a hijacking was on September 11?
Do you have any ideas at all, for that matter? What are you, 24 years old? Let me guess…a political science major? Just got home from stacking books at the Borders?
Fink, one of the key indicia of a serious poster on this board is the ability to make a point related to the thread and stay on topic. You obviously cannot. That’s not my problem, and it damn sure isn’t going to be Roger’s. You are a troll. Go play with the other children at Ollie’s place.
Sep 23, 2004 - 11:34 pm 58. Fresh Air:Oh, Roger—
Got a bandwidth termite in the house. Chewing through pixels like French Quarter cedar.
Time to get out that extra-strength Typekey Troll Spray. Kills varmints dead!
Jamie–
Sorry. I didn’t get the GAZE memo in time. Besides, the man’s posts are too long to ignore.
Sep 23, 2004 - 11:37 pm 59. Jamie Irons:Fresh Air
No problem!
Got a bandwidth termite in the house. Chewing through pixels like French Quarter cedar.
I love it!
Jamie Irons
Sep 23, 2004 - 11:52 pm 60. Mark Poling:In a previous thread I said “Don’t Feed the Trolls”, but I also exempted interesting trolls. This one’s pretty interesting.
Google at will. Fascinating.
Sep 23, 2004 - 11:53 pm 61. Charlie (Colorado):Y’know, folks, back in the H*llyw**d days, it was suggested to me that he/she/whatever was not just a common troll but a paid shill.
I didn’t believe it at the time.
I’m beginning to be suspicious, though. The way that JF and “Megsi” and the other two — whose names I’ve mercifully forgotten at the moment — suddenly appeared, flacking the same well-aged offal, makes me wonder. Do you think there may actually be a co-ordinated troll corps?
Sep 24, 2004 - 2:51 am 62. holdfast:“George Bush is a wimp on foreign policy.”
Holy 1989 Batman! - I’m having a Panamanian flashback! Does anyone remember that Doonesbury comic where Honey tells Duke that Operation Just Cause was “our fault” for calling Bush a wimp?
No Dem who supports Kerry and his merry Clintonista band of foreign policy wonks/wankers has ANY standing whatsoever to talk about the NoKo problem. These are the guys who got us into that mess - they let Jimmah drive the process and the NoKos got nukes, and now we’re stuck. It’s a done deal, and you can thank Carter for one last betrayal of America - like Iran and the Canal weren’t enough. Actually, in a way Carter caused the invasion of Panama….
So what’s Bush doing on Iran and NoKo? - he’s trying to muddle through - playing the (shitty) hand that’s been dealt him. What are the other options - bomb them silly or come up with some great Chamberlain-esque surrender like Edwards was floating the other week? I’ll take muddling (at least until it’s time to start the bombing.
“Do you think there may actually be a co-ordinated troll corps?” If so Soros is SO not getting his money’s worth out of them.
Sep 24, 2004 - 4:48 am 63. ambisinistral:Charlie (C),
From looking at Finkelstien’s website he looks like the kind of nut who rattles around politics at the local level losing elections until he runs out of money.
If there aren’t astroturfers out there now (and I think there are), with the press the blogsphere has gotten recently there is going to be an abundance of them during the next election.
Sep 24, 2004 - 4:50 am 64. Rhod:James Finkelstein’s long and tedious question and answer game is the same version of one he’s been peddling all over the blogosphere. He actually thinks it is clever and instructive, which is about all you need to know.
He was thoroughly destroyed elsewhere, and at the time this blog was mentioned. He’s decided to come here. Expect more of the same from Jim.
We spent almost three weeks dealing with this man’s density; he never once responded to anything we said, continually lapsing into a pose of martyrdom and questioned patriotism when his ludicrous opinions were exposed.
Stay tuned.
Sep 24, 2004 - 4:56 am 65. jerry:Kerry is a species of American like the William James and Henry Adams, Americans who have contempt for America and its people and identify with a European nation. At least Adams and James were Anglophiles, our parent culture and older cousins. Kerry on the other hand is a Francophile, raised in Europe with the tastes of the French bureaucratic elite. Kerry is more interested in being French then being an American. Americans are not nuanced, not very intelligent and need the guidance of a French sophisticate. Kerry’s obsession with all things French is the source of his Bush the unilateralist narrative. To Kerry, France is the essential nation, not the United States. Therefore, without France no coalition or alliance could be legitimate. A President Kerry would not lead the French as much as take his policy line from Chirac. We know from Kerry’s own lips that he is not decisive and not a leader in a sudden crisis. We can only expect that the first thing he would do in a crisis is consult with Chirac before taking any action. This explains his attitude toward Allawi more then any Vietnam experience. It is a pure case of French colonialist noblese oblige shown toward an inferior.
We saw the same thing from Teresa las spring when she was overheard on the way to an event in Chicago saying with some surprise ìthat she could live hereî. She obviously did not understand that by any measure, economic power, social standing, wealth, industry or culture Boston ranks well below Chicago. Chicago is just part of flyover country as far as she was concerned.
I also found it amusing that Kerry has taken to quoting CIA estimates. The same CIA that did not catch 9-11 or get the WMD story right. Why the sudden credibility. Its still the same CIA as it was before 9-11 and Iraq.
Sep 24, 2004 - 5:58 am 66. jerry:Roger:
There you go again… The Dean line embodies Progressivism. It is not reactionary. Novak and Buchanan are the purveyors of the reactionary line. Reactionaries believe that Saddam may be a bad guy but those people need someone like that to keep them in line. The Dean line is that Saddam is the good guy because he is a socialist/anti-imperialist who keeps the Unites States and its puppet Israel in line.
Sep 24, 2004 - 6:02 am 67. Matt Evans:I hate to admit I upped his hit count on his website but I was literally dumbstruck by this gem on Fink’s website in re: Iraq.
“In consideration of the fact that Iraq has viciously attacked two of its neighbors- Iran and Kuwait- in the last 25 years, we should absolutely prohibit the new government of Iraq from having an army or any military force other than the police necessary for keeping order.”
Mother of god, are you insane ? Seriously? Iraq borders fugging Iran and Syria, two hostile and extremely agressive regimes- do you think either country would think twice about invading Iraq, who under your plan (and I”m using that term extremely charitably) would have no standing army ???? And your reasoning for no standing army is because Iraq “viciously attacked two of its neigbors..” ? Are you high ? You do understand that the attacks on Iraqs neighbors were carried out under the orders of a sociopathetic power hungry dictator, right ? My 9 year old niece knows that much. And yet you blame the Iraqi people for these aggressive acts and advocate punishing them for Hussein’s mad acts by giving them no standing army ?
Seriously, I am frightened that anyone this mentally challenged is running for office anywhere, let alone Georgia, where my parents live. By the way, how did those primaries work out for you ??
Sep 24, 2004 - 6:19 am 68. Rhod:Matt Evans:
I did blog battle with this fool over on John Moore’s blogsite for over three weeks. To say the man is credulous is to avoid the necessary conclusion that me might be off his rocker. Let’s say he’s credulous.
To make matters worse, he will ask you to refute his arguments, and when you do, and expect a continuation of the issue, he’s reflexively off on another concern in his next post.
It became clear to me that the blogosphere is a continuation of Finkelstein’s failed campaign to win a Senate seat, or to project himself on the public screen. It’s a very troubling pathology, and I, for one, don’t think it has much to do with ideology.
Sep 24, 2004 - 8:46 am 69. rhodeymark:Wow - Matt, I too wasted the time to peruse his site and CTL-C’d the exact same quote. This guy isn’t fit for a Neighborhood Watch commitee. Rhod - hello from Newport.
Sep 24, 2004 - 9:50 am 70. Rhod:Rhodeymark:
I’m a recovering Finkelstein combatant myself, with a few small wounds to show for it. You really need to do battle with him directly to get an unscripted remark - he lapses sometimes from the meme, and goes off on “old white men”, “warrior wannabes”, which he called us (VN vets) and “dummies”; he also mocks with working class idioms to insult you, and much more.
I directly suggested he visit Roger’s blog, where I told him he “wouldn’t last five minutes”. He took the charge, I guess.
I was in Newport three weeks ago. God, it’s changed. Greetings from the precious and overly gentrified Connecticut River of Connecticut.
Sep 24, 2004 - 10:38 am 71. jerry:Rhod:
Who is the Finkelstein guy? Another self-hating Jewish Chomskyite radical?
Sep 24, 2004 - 10:47 am 72. Rhod:Jerry:
I’m not altogether sure about your post; whether it might be either sarcasm or a dead-on description of Jim Finkelstein.
On Moore’s blog, yes, I mentioned to Jim that he sounded like Chomsky and pretended to be Adam Smith, which on more than one occasion, he did. He claimed that any identification of himself with Leftism is foolish, and that he hopes his “hard left” cadres (irony, no?) don’t find out that he owns spec real estate and is an investor. This after a lot of leftist boilerplate.
I replied that all hard left cadres are drawn from that very class rather than the proletariat, that his views are an upper class conceit, the pacifism of the comfortable. He didn’t reply, but earlier he established his creds as “Ivy League”, as an insipid demonstration of conservative ideas, but also bizarre. It got very confusing, like my post here.
I never mentioned Jewishness, although Gannymede opined that Finkelstein was probably a Red Diaper Baby, so that might be the same thing.
He’s a failed contestant for the Dem nomination in the Georgia Senate Primary, a sometimes local TV commentator and something like an ego without a corporeal container. His posts were interminable, consisting of pages and pages of quoted material with a few fragments of commentary.
His ideas, if they qualify for that, are derivative and shallow. I challenge him here to answer this post. He’ll hate to see my name again.
Sep 24, 2004 - 12:30 pm 73. jerry:Rhod:
I did not have a clue about who or what this guy is. I just thought he was another troll that’s all.
So I guese I must be the next Sigmund Freud….
Well I am an Intel officer anyway.
Sep 24, 2004 - 12:55 pm 74. Rhod:Jerry:
No offense, please. I wasn’t sure. I thought you might have implied that I wrote Finkelstein off (in another blog), with your description of him. Which, in terms of brevity, is perfect, although Jimbo would disagree.
Sep 24, 2004 - 1:28 pm 75. chuck:Charlie(C):
Do you think there may actually be a co-ordinated troll corps?
That thought has passed through my mind several times. It is the way these folks seem to show up in pairs. I suppose it could be because Roger gets a link on Instapundit or some other site these people visit, but I like to think of an underground cave, lit in red, where the commander watches the detector screen and sends out his minions to conduct harrassing raids.
Sep 24, 2004 - 1:36 pm 76. chuck:Morgan,
“The Daily Implosion” sounds like a great name for a Kerry paper.
Sep 24, 2004 - 1:59 pm