QandO
Questions and Observations| « I suspect the Democrats feel it's mutual | Main | Terrorists and children » |
|
September 03, 2004 Snippets from the Yapping Class An review of some interesting snippets in various articles and columns about Bush, Kerry and the election. Paragraphs or sentences that caught my eye: John Kerry tells us we have to wage a more sensitive war where we acquiesce more to "allies." O.K., let's talk allies. Which is the single most crucial ally in the war on terrorism? France? Germany? Russia? No. Pakistan. Pakistan made possible the destruction of the Taliban, and has been turning over to us the most important al-Qaeda figures ever captured. How did Bush turn the world's foremost supporter of the Taliban into our most critical ally against them? Sensitivity? Two days after 9/11, Bush had his Secretary of State deliver an ultimatum to the Pakistanis: Join us or else. They joined. That is leadership. Actually that's an excellent point. Without Pakistan on our side we're in a huge strategic hole, since Pakistan was being used in some cases, for staging into Afghanistan by al-Queda. No Pakistan, horrible alternatives concerning going after the Taliban and al-Queda. When Pakistan, who'd not even been luke-warm in her relationship with the US, signed on it was a major coup in the prosecution of the war against terror in general and al-Queda in particular. Its not something which has gotten the credit it deserves. In a speech that was at once eloquent and substantive, sensitive and dynamic, profound and familiar, Bush has risen to a level few presidents have ever reached. Obviously Morris was impressed. I did a quick read through the blogs last night, and noticed the most critical of the speech tended to be blogs which are generally on Bush's side. I have to say I thought it was a good speech (which is not to say I agree with everything that he said or proposed). I thought he did what he had to do. Listening to the chattering classes after the speech, most shared the opinion that it was a good speech well delivered. I'd also add something else which in my opinion was as important as the speech or its delivery. He had to look "presidential" .... and I think he accomplished that. David Corn in The Nation wrote: The obvious question: will the Protector-as-Missionary bit sell? Will voters hear the term "liberty century" and be moved? Or will they ask, is that the name of a new car? It's one thing to turn a lemon (a messy war now considered a mistake by a majority of Americans) into lemonade. But can Bush turn that lemon into blessed wine? This, of course, is the left's version of a 'fear' campaign ... erecting a "Bush as a messianic missionary and crusader" facade, and then tearing it down. If the red herring isn't obvious, they'll do their best to invent it. Nothing worries the left more than the possibility that a leader may actually do more than pay lip-service to his or her faith. Corn attempts to make the case against Bush with this tired old theme as its basis.
After a bit about the "bad economy" (which saw a drop to 5.4% in unemployment with the creation of 144,000 new jobs this month) which was reminiscent of Wm. Saletan's anemic attack in Slate made previously, Oliphant says all Bush has left to focus on Iraq and the war on terror. He assumes, obviously, that Bush can't talk about the economy. But in reality Bush can ... and will. Bush did so last night and when put in a context that the left unceasingly and purposely leave out, its actually a good story for Bush. This administration inherited a recession, endured the incredible economic impact of 9/11, and is in the middle of fighting a war and as of today has an unemployment rate lower than when Clinton ran in 1996. Other than the Democrats and their flacks no one can resonably call this a bad economy. In John Kerry's remarks last night he compared Bush to Hoover without acknowledging the recession, 9/11 and the war. His context free condemnation of Bush is simply a talking point the Dems plan on pushing regardless of its truth because, politically speaking, they know its their only chance. William Saletan in Slate says Bush wants to go "Back to the Future": This was a speech all about what Bush will do, and what will happen, if he becomes president. At least Saletan acknowledges the recession although he disengenuously tries to tie it to the Bush administration. Again note the two things Saletan leaves out. 9/11 and a war. Beginning to see a pattern folks? It is inconvenient to their argument about a weak economy. If they include those events, suddenly the economic progress becomes remarkable. In fact, it is becoming increasingly obvious that most of the chattering class, who's goal it is to help defeat Bush, would prefer if we forgot all about 9/11. Its better if they can allude to mismanagement rather than events beyond anyone's control. That's why the "corporate fraud" nonsense was tossed into the mix. Another point which Saletan must ignore in order to push his argument is that all presidents ask for another 4 years to finish what they've started. As Bush noted, he got the tax cuts he wanted but now he wants to make them permanent. etc., etc. The same sort of appeal was made by Clinton in 1996. Saletan attempts to make such an appeal proof that he's done nothing but get us into a mess during his first term. Again to do that he's got to be stuck in a "back to the past" date of 9/10. Not to be outdone, at the conlusion of a 4 day Republican convention which stressed 9/11, John Kerry immediately tried to take the discussion back to his service in Vietnam. Someone needs to let Mr. Kerry and his "its all about me" campaign know that "two tours" would mean 24 months in country. Not 4 months once and 5 weeks floating around Yankee Station another time. |
Good O'l Dickie Morris........
Who knew he would be the one to get it!!
What strange times these are.....
Ed Koch, Ron Silver, Dick Morris, Who would have thought?
Somebody better go out and buy a bigger tent, it's getting packed in here!!!! lol
Posted by: Bill from NYC at September 3, 2004 09:19 AM
Watching Kerry's brilliant Self-Destruct-O-Thon last night, my wife (before walking out of the room in disgust) was looking at Kerry and saying, "But 9/11 happened..." when he tried to pound the President on the economy. She couldn't believe that he could simply treat it as if it didn't occur, and therein lies Kerry's problem:
EVERYONE remembers 9/11 and EVERYONE knows it was essentially the TKO punch to an economy that was already in recession. If Kerry acknowledges the fact that the economy is back in a good place, he loses. If Kerry brings up 9/11, he loses. The problem for Kerry and the Democrats is that the American people are not idiots with no memory of recent history.
Net result? he loses anyway.
Posted by: Alex Nunez at September 3, 2004 09:32 AM
It is amazing that pundits or journalists on the left can continue to repeat known falsehoods in order to support their premise. It is a fact that the corporate scandals occured prior to the Bush administration and have been prosecuted during the Bush administration. It is a fact that the economic downturn started prior to the Bush administration. It is a fact that there were Al Queda and Iraq connections that have been confirmed through a number of sources including the 9-11 commission report. A person of character and commitment to his position should not have to use lies and half truths to support his position. It is possible that a person may unintentionally repeat a falsehood, but once they become aware there is no excuse to continue the lie. This goes for both conservatives and liberals.
Posted by: Dman at September 3, 2004 09:35 AM
In addition to my previous comment, I need to add that Kerry, in bringing up his Vietnam service and attacking Cheney for his lack thereof, shows that it's still amateur hour at his campaign headquarters.
His timing couldn't be worse. For all the attention the Swiftees garnered over the last 30 days or so, the buzz has died down a bit, thanks in large part to a mainstream media all too eager to use the RNC as a handy change in subjects.
This is not to say that SBVT won't charge back into the news with a new ad, just that the TV and print wonks were too busy spinning this week's speeches to hammer the Swift Vets.
By "Going Vietnam" again, Kerry has once again made the Swift Vets relevant, and has essentially begged them to renew their media charge against him. I'm sure they'll comply.
President Bush finds himself in a very good position as a result. He has repeated over and over that Kerry's service is to be admired, putting himself above the fray. In his speech last night, he effectively moved the debate on to bigger and more pressing matters. Voters will have a very bad case of Kerry Vietnam Fatigue in short order if Kerry doesn't pick up on this simple fact.
Kerry's renewed squawking about Vietnam shows the public a candidate who is simply not adept enough to realize that we're on to new topics.
Posted by: Alex Nunez at September 3, 2004 09:58 AM
Good points, Alex.
Its kind of like the second slug in a football fight. Its the one that usually draws the foul.
This guy can't figure out when to leave something alone. When he should have fought back he didn't. And now that a subject which was hurting him had essentially died down, he resurrects it.
Not ready for prime time.
Posted by: McQ at September 3, 2004 10:02 AM
"This administration inherited a recession, endured the incredible economic impact of 9/11, and is in the middle of fighting a war and as of today has an unemployment rate lower than when Clinton ran in 1996. Other than the Democrats and their flacks no one can resonably call this a bad economy."
My sentiments too. I am sick to death of these incidents being ignored. Doesn't anyone understand what impact these two incidents had on our economy? It wouldn't have matter WHO was President, it would have still damaged our economy. What would have matter with who was in office is how they countered both incidents to resolve the matters. I think Bush did a good job to stem the blood flow so our economy didn't slink further into the hole any further. No credit has been given to Bush to help bring our economy back from these events and to help keep it going through TWO wars. What President do you know of in our history could have done just as well?
The other thing I am tired of is the myth that Presidents create and lose jobs. Unless the Federal Government is the one in charge of all the hiring and firing, Presidents DON'T directly impact the loss/gain of jobs. The private sector does. Yes, the policies they put into place can help or hinder to some extent, but it is also due to normal business cycles and external events.
Posted by: Sandi at September 3, 2004 10:10 AM
Did Tom Oliphant mention in his column that his daughter's a Kerry volunteer? No? Go figure!
Posted by: Jack Tanner at September 3, 2004 11:03 AM
9/11 - it's all the fault of 9/11.
You ALL forget that in 2002 - that's right 2002 - after 9/11 - Bush said his economic policies would create 6 million jobs - well, we're about 7 million short of that number.
No, Saletan did not forget about 9/11. It's all the Orwellian types on this blog who want to forget about the promises Bush made AFTER 9/11.
Ridiculous.
Posted by: mkultra at September 3, 2004 11:59 AM
Pakistan? Our ally? Krauthammer is an idiot.
Does he forget AQ Khan? The Pakistani government pardoned him for his role in spreading nuke technology to countries like Iran.
And if Pakistan is our ally, why won't they allow our troops to enter the country to go after Al Qaeda? And remember several months ago when they supposedly had several high-ranking Al Qaeda members hemmed in and then let them go? Remember that? Only an idiot would believe Pakistan is our ally. They are simply playing us - kind of like Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: mkultra at September 3, 2004 12:02 PM
One more time MK ... DECAF!!
Oh, and to your point ... yes, it was because of 9/11. Why haven't you nuanced guys on the left figured that out? Old dumb George has.
You act like it never happened. And like Saletan and Oliphant, you ignore it when whining about the economy (which btw, now has lower unemployment numbers than when your hero Bill Clinton was running in '96).
Posted by: McQ at September 3, 2004 12:04 PM
And if Pakistan is our ally, why won't they allow our troops to enter the country to go after Al Qaeda?
Uh gee, I dunno ... maybe because we can do it from inside Afghanistan?
MK, you need to get a grip. You're beginning to sound a little shrill.
Posted by: McQ at September 3, 2004 12:07 PM
MK: look, I know the whole nuance thing is supposed to be the Sole Property of John Kerry(tm), but try and understand that a nation can be our ally, while not being as good an ally as we'd like.
Fact is, our alliance with Pakistan is tenuous, because their government is split between the moderates who are willing to help us, and the hard(er)-liners, who resist. So, they help us to some degree.
And, rather than cutting off the only leaders who are willing to help us, we accept that, and don't endanger their popular support, by insisting on treating them as an enemy. If we did, we'd lose ANY support we had from them.
Posted by: Jon Henke at September 3, 2004 12:11 PM
Nice SUBSTANTIVE reply McQ - that Decaf line is getting a little old though.
And nice dodge. I will ask again, if you have the brass to answer: Bush predicted the creation of 6 million jobs IN THE YEAR 2002. (Just in case you missed it, I will say it again: IN THE YEAR 2002 - 2002, 2002 - there, now do you get it?) Not 9/10/01. That prediction has failed to materialize.
See even Bush knew about 9/11 in 2002.
Posted by: mkultra at September 3, 2004 12:14 PM
Ok, but then don't call Pakistan our ally. Any country that permits the spread of nuke technology to rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea is not our ally. And Krauthammer should do a little self-analysis if he believes otherwise.
Posted by: mkultra at September 3, 2004 12:17 PM
Yeah and Kerry says today that he'll create 10 million jobs (as I believe he has) are you going to whine when he doesn't (if by some miracle he gets elected)?
Look MK, first president's don't create jobs, economies do. The best they can do is help slightly in creating the right atmosphere and talking it up. I'm not sure if you remember but we had Jimmy Carter talk us into an economic malaise and Ronald Reagan talk us out of one. That's the power of the presidency. But they don't create jobs.
So his 6 million jobs forecast hasn't come true. But its closer today than it was 2 years ago isn't it? That's because his tax cuts helped stimulate the economic growth which creates jobs. That was the part he could contribute ... and he did.
What I'm talking about and what Saletan and Oliphant disengnuously do is complain about the 9/10 forecast not being achieved while ignoring the impact of the next day. Its a nonsense argument. What's also nonsense is this canard that the "economy's in the tank". Its as good if not better than it was in 1996 when you guys were touting it as the big reason to reelect Bill Clinton.
What's the deal ... those numbers are only good if your a Democrat?
Posted by: McQ at September 3, 2004 12:26 PM
Good grief. That happened well before we even approached them under Bush.
Historical context ... PLEASE!
Posted by: McQ at September 3, 2004 12:28 PM
I would like to say a few words in Pakistan's defense. It was under the previous government that Pakistan's support was "luke-warm". The present government has been steadily improving that support.
Pakistani troops have been deployed along side ours on numerous occasions throughout the years. Their record here is far better than other countries (like oh...say France). Most of the people I knew in the military who dealt with them had good things to say.
The balance of power within Pakistan has been along regional and tribal lines, more like the USA's prior to the civil war. In the US, we tend to think all foreign governments wield the amount of control control and influence over their states and populace that the Federal government does here.
Yes, I agree that our strong and firm stance helped the Pakistani government make the decision that it was time to exert more control over those regions sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaida. And like the period leading up to our civil war, that intrusion of the Pakistani government into what is considered to be local soverignty has stirred up controversy and conflict. But triggering a civil war would benefit no-one except the very terrorists we're wanting removed. Fortunately, our administration has also helped provide the Pakistani's with additional resources (financial, material, and diplomatic) to help them deal with the situation. And our administration has tried to strike a balance between proding the Pakistani's to faster efforts while simultaneously trying to give them sufficient elbow room to try and accomplish the matter in a way least likely to provoke civil war. This is a situation where a balance must be struck between our desire to move faster and their understandable desire to move slower.
Please remember to give credit and thanks to the Pakistani people who are working, and in some cases dying, to help hinder, disrupt, and remove terrorists. I have worked with a number of Pakistani's over the past couple of decades and they have all been very good and friendly people in my experience.
Posted by: pshaffer at September 3, 2004 12:31 PM
Yeah, we need more allies like, um, France!
to help us stop proliferating nukes to countries like Iran and Iraq.
Posted by: Looker at September 3, 2004 12:40 PM
Kerry wants to talk 'Nam. Fine.
Here are a couple of talking points:
Why is the DoD checking on Kerry's Medals? Because tampering with Military Records is a Federal Crime.
--==--
Steal this sig:
Why did John Kerry meet three times with the representatives of the Viet Cong and Communist North Vietnam?
Some times it takes a while to sell out your country.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records
Posted by: M. Simon at September 3, 2004 02:03 PM
Oliphant, Saletan, NYT, LAT, BG, et al., are running on the last dregs of their influence, and it's starting to dawn on them. Bush has run his administration without them, in spite of them, and they have shamelessly abandoned any pretense of non-partisan reason in a death battle for influence. They are clearly with Kerry, so a Kerry win means they're still viable and necessary. But if Bush is re-elected, the water will have been thrown on the witch.
That's panic setting in at the sea change looming.
Posted by: Jumbo at September 3, 2004 08:47 PM