Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Chris Hitchens is a ninny
I've been saying for a few weeks now that Kerry has to get out in front of the issue of Osama bin Laden - and do it HARD. Too many of my liberal friends were bemoaning the possibility of a so-called "October Surprise" in which Bush rode the coattails of a bin Laden capture/killing into November 2. If such a thing were to happen, it would be important to have pointed out the obvious fact that getting Osama should have been Bush's first and most intense priority--leaving no room for error--after September 11, 2001. Even more importantly, the fact that something like that might happen so close to an election, for the most politically shameless administration in memory, would be too much of a convenience to just take at face value (how many times has the American press been shown to be stupid for having taken the Bush team at its word?)...
So then I read this from Christopher Hitchens (referred to by Atrios & MaxSpeak).
"Vile spectacle" indeed.
Hitch Hitch Hitch...
Where to start? My favorite is your contention that Allawi isn't a "puppet" but rather the only leader in the region looking to hold elections. Gosh, we INSTALLED the motherfucker, hold all military power in the country, and are in charge of when (and if) the elections are held, AND the guy just happens to be parroting what Bush is saying about the state of his country in front of Congress and the U.N. I mean, even Elmo has more independence than this dude.
It's easy for Hitchens to ignore the reports before the Dem Convention that the White House was urging Pakistan to deliver a high-level capture around that time. To pretend that the roll-out of the war during the 2002 election season (and use of it in a large number of campaigns) was purely coincidental, despite clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary. To assert his belief that Bin Laden is "probably dead" without demanding even a shred of proof (he's positively BLITHE about the idea). To suggest that Bush--the man who appointed HENRY KISSINGER as the chair of his 9/11 investigation and who intentionally misled Americans to believe Saddam Hussain was connected with that same event--is simply beyond reproach when it comes to his response to the tragedy.
What's difficult ... tortured, even ... is the twisting of a common, rational, and perversely obvious fear among Democrats (that the man who single-handedly turned the Global War on Terror into a political football game (in which his team always has the ball) will use the last card up his sleeve to guarantee his election in a month+) into some sort of desperate defeatism by terrorist-ignoring liberals. I'd say, conversely, that it shows that Democrats and liberals have a great deal of confidence that the President Who Can Do No Wrong is ripe for defeat in November.
We also, however, remember 2000. And we know not to trust these sons of bitches when it comes to elections and power.
So then I read this from Christopher Hitchens (referred to by Atrios & MaxSpeak).
"Vile spectacle" indeed.
Hitch Hitch Hitch...
Where to start? My favorite is your contention that Allawi isn't a "puppet" but rather the only leader in the region looking to hold elections. Gosh, we INSTALLED the motherfucker, hold all military power in the country, and are in charge of when (and if) the elections are held, AND the guy just happens to be parroting what Bush is saying about the state of his country in front of Congress and the U.N. I mean, even Elmo has more independence than this dude.
It's easy for Hitchens to ignore the reports before the Dem Convention that the White House was urging Pakistan to deliver a high-level capture around that time. To pretend that the roll-out of the war during the 2002 election season (and use of it in a large number of campaigns) was purely coincidental, despite clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary. To assert his belief that Bin Laden is "probably dead" without demanding even a shred of proof (he's positively BLITHE about the idea). To suggest that Bush--the man who appointed HENRY KISSINGER as the chair of his 9/11 investigation and who intentionally misled Americans to believe Saddam Hussain was connected with that same event--is simply beyond reproach when it comes to his response to the tragedy.
What's difficult ... tortured, even ... is the twisting of a common, rational, and perversely obvious fear among Democrats (that the man who single-handedly turned the Global War on Terror into a political football game (in which his team always has the ball) will use the last card up his sleeve to guarantee his election in a month+) into some sort of desperate defeatism by terrorist-ignoring liberals. I'd say, conversely, that it shows that Democrats and liberals have a great deal of confidence that the President Who Can Do No Wrong is ripe for defeat in November.
We also, however, remember 2000. And we know not to trust these sons of bitches when it comes to elections and power.
