That was the weak that was

As bad a week as it arguably was for John Kerry's campaign, it was a worse week for the Bush administration. Kerry capped a week of less than nimble responses to the Bush attack machine with a line so bad that it went directly into a Bush ad. Then Kerry went off for a week's R&R, despite the unrelenting Bushwhacking. But it soon appeared this was a brilliant piece of strategy, as it left Bush all alone on the stage, self-destructing.

The Bush Medicare bill, which was supposed to be a brilliant political move to take away a campaign issue from the Democrats, has been a flop from the start, and now it's getting worse. Almost immediately after passage, the Bush administration admitted that it would actually cost a third more than they said it would. Now a veteran and respected non-political appointee says the Bush people threatened to fire him if he told members of Congress before the vote how much the bill would really cost. Now a Republican Member of Congress charges that the Bushies first tried to bribe him (with campaign support for his son's run to succeed him in Congress) and then they threatened him, in order to get his vote. All this (and more) will be investigated by various administrative and legislative officials, and could lead to criminal charges.

Politically, seniors never did buy that this was true prescription drug coverage or improved Medicare, and of course they're right. But these scandalous revelations are putting a lot of pressure on the major senior political organization, the AARP, which backed the bill. They must be feeling like the former Spanish government right about now.

There was no good economic news either. Gasoline prices continue to rise, but wages and employment don't. It turns out that the Bushies have even outsourced their campaign logo garb, to a country that Bush has forbidden the U.S. to trade with. Hmmmm. Kosovo is causing problems again, and thanks to the crisis precipitated by Bush policies, the first American soldier died in Haiti.

But the big theme for the week was the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, and the attempt to 1)link Iraq with the war on terror, 2) position Bush as the stalwart leader 3) position Kerry as weak on defense.

The problem with linking Iraq and the war on terror is that 1) some recalcitrant allies are linking them but not to Bush's advantage, and 2) at the moment neither is going very well.

The week started with the fall of the Spanish government that supported Bush, replaced by a government openly hostile and resentful of being implicated in Iraq. Following Spain's announcement that they plan to pull their troops out of Iraq, the prime minister of Poland (which is part of the Coalition of the Willing but Duped) complained his government had been misled about WMDs, and there was some noise from South Korea about pulling their troops. Another UN inspector, Hans Blix, says not only that there weren’t WMDs, but that terrorism is worse now because of the invasion of Iraq.

The only prospect for a war on terror success this week rests at the moment in the hands of Pakistani troops. After high profile arrests and charges, holding people for years without charges, and with other police and judicial power any dictator would envy, the Bush people have failed to convict terrorists, and quietly had to drop charges against a chaplain accused of espionage at Gitmo.

Things are not going to get any better very soon, as the 9-11 commission goes public, and several Clinton administration officials will testify that they warned the Bushies well before 9-11 that al Qeda was the number one threat to American security. Plus there's a new book coming out which should have some impact, The House of Saud, The House of Bush by Craig Unger, which details extensive relationships over the years, including more than a billion smackers flowing from Saud to Bush businesses, and the curious flights from America of suspicious Saudis immediately after 9-11, made possible (when no one else in the country was allowed to fly) by the Bushwhackers.

The week also saw several large explosions in Iraq, one of which was seen on split screen with VP Dick "Halliburton? Never Heard of Them" Cheney, talking up Bush success and trashing Kerry. Cheney's trashing was almost immediately countered by none other than Republican John McCain, who said that John Kerry is not weak on defense, don't be ridiculous. McCain carries a lot of weight with independents, so this attack at least appears to have been blunted.

George W. "Bunker Mentality" Bush ended the week with a speech recycled from pre-war, minus any embarrassing references to WMDs. Even TV reporters, to their credit, didn't let him get away with it completely.
Just listen to this rhetoric, though:

"There is no neutral ground - no neutral ground - in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery and life and death," Mr. Bush said.
"The war on terror is not a figure of speech," Mr. Bush said. "It is an inescapable calling of our generation. The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies - they are offended by our existence as free nations. No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands."

What can you say about it? It is absolutist, frightening, and insidiously brilliant. If you apply much of it narrowly to the most fanatical of the terrorists, it is even close to true. And that's why it is so pernicious, because Bush has shown by his deeds that it doesn't so apply. He means it much more broadly. In rhetoric and intent, it is fully as fanatical as anything a fundamentalist terrorist could say.

It's not the sentences that are important to Bush and his Hidden Persuaders, it's the words: concession, appease, accommodation. He's not wishy-washy, he's 100% for war. It's war, and nothing else. It isn't criminal behavior, that isn't really supported by communities or peoples or whole religions. It isn't criminal behavior and fanaticism in response to massive oppression, because if it were, something would have to be done about that oppression that we sponsor and cause. Or the physical conditions that we impose and allow. But no---that would be appeasement, concession, accommodation. Let us turn your country into a parking lot for Halliburton, or die. This is civilization. The rest is communism---sorry, I mean terrorism.

The Associated Press reported this week that "the United States has begun training and equipping armies in parts of Africa that U.S. officials see as an inviting refuge for terrorists as well as a long-term source of oil." Mali, Mauritania, and "Marines are preparing for missions in Niger and Chad."

That’s the agenda. It’s the oil stupid.

But remember that string of absolutes---part Jehovah, part Tarzan: me good, they evil. Since I, George W. "Crusader" Bush am good, anybody who opposes me is evil. Is an appeaser.

Is against civilization. Is against YOU. Might as well be a terrorist, cause there is no neutral ground--no neutral ground.

Plus, if you vote for me, George W. "Burning" Bush, it will make you part of the coalition of the Good. Me Good. Vote for Me. You Good. Vote for anybody else, you're Evil, you'll rot in hell, and when the Rapture comes, screw you. (Actually, we'll screw you a lot sooner than that.)

So the United States of Bush is Good. Everything about it is Good, everything they do is Good, right? Makes it all insultingly clear doesn't it?

Linking terrorism and Iraq is itself insidious, even apart from the failure to concentrate on protecting against terrorism that the Iraq adventure represents. The current rationalizations for war in Iraq (which come down to this: do you think we’re better off without Saddam or not?) debase what’s left of this country’s honor. America goes to war when it has to. America was told it had to go to war to defend itself against WMDs. Now we’re told that this didn’t really matter. That the fact that the U.S. didn’t allow the UN inspectors to finish looking for weapons and instead launched an invasion on either flimsy grounds or false pretenses, doesn’t matter. President Bush took this nation to war, and committed our grandchildren to paying for its consequences, without the informed consent of the American people and the U.S. Congress.

And they impeached Clinton for lying about oral sex.

I wonder when the press will get around to calling this a "scandal-riddled administration"?


The week ends with peace demonstrations in cities across North America and around the world. Not everyone believes that the test of leadership is making like the Old Testament Jehovah in the comfort of the Fortress White House, and sending young men and women from small towns and inner cities to go die, kill, maim and get maimed, some physically, and nearly all psychologically for life, so that Bush and his buddies can get even richer and more powerful.

This is not bravery. It is cowardice. This is not strength. It is the most shameful weakness.

The TV War

It's hard to know who is winning the TV war. It's hard to know even how to fight it.

But we can observe. Cheney talking about the Bush success in Iraq on split-screen with the fiery ruins of the latest bombing can only be described as cognitive dissonance.

Earlier, John Kerry spoke out against the Bush Iraq policy. Newspapers covered both speeches, and other talk of the day, with relative fairness and completeness. But not all television did.

CNN showed very little of the Kerry speech. It didn't show the presence of former Secretary of State Albright or the former Army Chief of Staff with him on the stage. Other cable TV reports continued the theme of how high the conflict is at this stage of the campaign, without dealing much with substance.

The issue that won't go away is the "foreign leaders" statement. Sec of State Powell and other Bushies tried it out on Sunday, cynically playing the card Kerry dealt them by pretending that by not naming names of leaders who are anxious for a regime change in the U.S., it must mean Kerry is lying. Even though they know he can't betray confidences, and most leaders aren't going to go public while they still have to deal with the Bushies.

They got traction on it, and took it a step farther, as Theron indicated. Cheney has since repeated the implication several times that not only is Kerry not being honest and forthcoming, but hinting darkly that he's promised things he shouldn't to foreigners he shouldn't be dealing with.

It didn't help that Howard Dean linked the failures in Iraq to the terrorist bombing in Spain. It's not Kerry's view, but it enabled Ed Gillespie, GOP National Committee chair, to piggyback Dean's comment on the ongoing smear to Kerry's honesty and patriotism, this time explicitly using the T word: "We cannot allow presidential candidates or their surrogates to become mouthpieces for terrorists. Blaming freedom-loving people for these attacks is not the way to defeat the scourge of global terror."

Kerry didn't help himself this week by getting quoted saying that he voted for the $89 billion appropriation for Iraq and the U.S. military before he voted against it. It just plays into the Bush theme of flip-flopping, however accurately it describes the legislative process of voting conditionally (if Bush cut back on tax cuts to the very wealthy to pay for this) before voting against final passage when conditions aren't met.

And someone should have told him not to make a speech on military policy wearing a pink tie.

It's hard enough being perfect on the campaign trail, and fighting an attack machine that has tons of money and absolutely no scruples, which takes the greatest delight in the successful lie. But the Kerry campaign also has to take into consideration the way these things are covered on TV. The emphasis on conflict, the corporate media bias, and the sheer idiocy.

Speaking of Rudi Bactiar, the CNN Headline News anchor who chirps and emotes incongruously throughout prime time: it's hard to believe that this person can help determine the fate of the planet. But there you are. I guess Kurt Vonnegut isn't surprised, and Joseph Heller wouldn't be.

Today Rudi demanded of a Washington Post reporter on the phone, doesn't Kerry have to name those names of foreign leaders who said they support him? The reporter repeated the retraction of the Boston Globe reporter who incorrectly quoted Kerry in the first place, and mentioned that Cheney upped the ante even more by saying that these leaders had "endorsed" Kerry, which clearly they haven't. But Rudi was not deterred by this kind of quibbling. Shouldn't these European leaders Kerry was talking about be named? she insisted.

So we've gone from a reporter's mistake, to "foreign leaders," to foreign leaders endorsing Kerry, to Rudi deciding they are European leaders. And from unsubstantiated charges to lying to being unpatriotic to being a mouthpiece for terrorists. And that's from Sunday to Wednesday.

It turns out that Kerry has been making those policy statements we suggested he should go ahead and make (including one today, Thursday). It's just that nobody is covering them as such. But Kerry has to talk about this foreign leaders flap. For one thing, it will definitely be covered. He has to lay out this whole scenario, from the cynicism--and why the Bushies know he can't name names---to the smears. It's exhibit A. If he tells it like this, it will help him. If he ignores it, it may stick in people's minds and hurt him, or it could even get worse. He has to call them out on it...And find another color tie.

A Spainyard in the Works
by international correspondent,
cousin Lemuel Dash

The probable result of the new government in Spain will be a "smart" anti-terrorist policy.

The general concern over the Iraq adventure included a significant European concern that this was a diversion from the real enemy. Saddam was evil but wasn't setting up cells inside your country and getting ready to blow up your citizens. Ex-patriate Muslim fanatics were and still are. Many European countries have significant Muslim populations. The vast majority are good citizens. They should be allies in avoiding being blown up. But you have to allow them to be allies, and give them a realistic stage to express themselves. Having a very public war on a sectarian regime (however brutal and despotic) but comprised of Muslims, was not the best step forward.

Look for a more holistic, legal, and finessed approach to terrorism. But not a retreat from defeating terror and advancing civil society.

A little instant history: The Popular Party treated Basque national aspirations with a contempt inherited from Franco. The political wing of ETA has been calling for negotiations not armed struggle for about ten years. The PP resisted any dialogue. The result was the targeted terror of ETA over the past years. The Socialists may not be so dogmatic. They have significant support in the North. So watch this space.... This could be a Historic Moment where Basque national aspirations are recruited into a pan-European effort to defend the continent. Or maybe not.

On a broader front: The wheel is finally in spin and the possibility of real New World Dynamic could be forthcoming. Maybe better than a New World Order. Maybe not. Stay tuned

Lemuel
P.S. Suggested Reading: here

the reign in Spain

It looks bad: terrorists attack, Spain votes their government out. But it's not that simple, and that's obvious even to experts like us who have never even been there.

Spain has been dealing with terrorists for 35 years. The U.S. is a neophyte by comparison, yet lectures everyone else on the subject. No Spanish government can relent in its efforts to protect its citizens from terrorists.

That Al Queda was said to possibly be involved in the latest attack may have just been the last straw for a populace that was overwhelmingly against their government's involvement in the Iraq war. They were put in the position of again swallowing its consequences, and they rebelled. They have enough to deal with. That's as plausible an explanation as any other.

The timing was unfortunate but the idea of "letting the terrorists dictate the election" works both ways. Should voters who want to make a statement against the Iraq war and get their country out of it, be prevented from doing so because it would look bad following a terrorist attack?

It's worth mentioning that a new poll shows a surprising 45% of Americans surveyed said that if another terrorist attack happens on U.S. soil, it would incline them to vote against Bush. That was about double the percentage of those who said it would incline them to vote for Bush.


In the meantime, the Bush attack machine which is outspending Kerry by something like 20 to 1, may be having an effect. Polls show Kerry is beginning to be defined as not having strong convictions. Perhaps people who believe TV advertising get the country they deserve, but that's no comfort for the rest of us who live here.

Kerry, who now has sufficient votes to be the nominee, can't depend on this cornucopia of Bush mistakes to continue. Somehow he has to keep from being defined by the Bushies and their collaborating media parrotheads, so that people will still be paying attention at convention time. That long heralded series of policy pronouncements might help, but they ought to get going on it.

the usual subtext

by Theron Dash

Sometimes I can't believe how naive my brothers can be. They think this flap the Bushies are keeping alive about Kerry not naming the "foreign leaders" he said were rooting for him to win, because he can't betray confidences, was just a clever little double-bind opportunity. Phineas for one knows better, he's the oldest, he can just about remember v.p. Richard Nixon's red letter red-baiting days.

First of all, it turns out that Kerry didn't even say "foreign leaders." The reporter who said so has since listened to his tape again and corrected it. Kerry said "more" leaders. Here's the story.

But the coordinated chorus of Bushies, not just Powell and the White House flacks but v.p. Dick "Undisclosed Location" Cheney, demanded to know who these leaders are, has the same old subtext. Why doesn't he name names? What's he afraid of revealing? Like maybe these leaders are...Osama bin Laden?

You think this is paranoia? Check out the Washington Times sometime, that print equivalent of Fox News, which covers the Kerry campaign with headlines like, Terrorists Favor Kerry, and a bit more subtly, Arab-Americans Favor Kerry.

It's subliminal red-baiting, since the above-ground stuff isn't working anymore. Delete "red" and insert "terrorist." Terrorists sympathizer, favored by enemies of America. You can almost see Nixon's dark scowl.

It's clear as a bell in this Cheney statement at a campaign event in Arizona:
"But it is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy."

They have to resort to suggestion at the moment, since they can call Kerry liberal all they want (the equivalent of radical in the 60s, Communist in the 50s and on) but they can't make him a Dukakis. They're looking for this year's Willie Horton, and if they can't find one they'll sow some doubt, some foreign phantoms to give voters the Willies. It's not just a double-bind, it's a subtextual smear.

Kerry has to call them on it. Ask them why they're so interested, and just what are they trying to imply? It's another thinly veiled attack on his patriotism. I apologize for my brothers. They don't always understand that these guys haven't had a new idea since 1950.

noted

An Annenberg survey shows that a majority of American voters (most Democrats plus many independents) disapprove of the Bush campaign using imagery from 9-11. This is a major blow for the Bush strategy.

Three more disasters for Bush last week and over the weekend: Kerry exposed the so-called "manufacturing czar" as an industrialist who had exported jobs to China (more or less) even before the appointment was made public, and it was then quickly withdrawn; more evidence that the Bushies cooked the books on Medicare; and the post-terrorist attack election in Spain which swept the pro-Bush government out of office and installed the socialist party, which will withdraw Spain from the Iraq occupation.

One Kerry problem developed: after he'd adroitly handled his Bushies are liars and crooks comment made privately but while still partly miked (he refused to apologize, and Bushies have to shy away from repeating liars and crooks when so many stories are appearing that cast them in exactly that light) an old assertion resurfaced, that some foreign leaders told him privately that they are hoping Bush is replaced. Bushies say tell us who they are (which obviously he can't, as these were private and presumably confidential conversations) and when he doesn't they are outright suggesting he's lying. It's a neat double-bind, and Kerry probably shouldn't have said it, but then the new leader of the Spanish government said in public that he hopes Kerry wins. That's not a trend the Bushies would like to see expand, so continuing to keep this issue alilve could be very risky.