Posted on 09/27/2004 2:04:04 PM PDT by Mike Fieschko
There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable":
"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.
As well as being "quotable" (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in "-able." Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable. …
The plain implication is that the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries.
I am not one of those who likes to tease Mrs. Kerry for her "loose cannon" style. This is only the second time I have ever mentioned her in print. But I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid." I first heard this "October surprise" theory mentioned seriously, by a prominent foreign-policy Democrat, at an open dinner table in Washington about six months ago. Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place. It got even worse when the Democratic establishment decided on an arm's-length or closer relationship with Michael Moore and his supposedly vote-getting piece of mendacity and paranoia, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The DNC's boss, Terence McAuliffe, asked outside the Uptown cinema on Connecticut Avenue whether he honestly believed that the administration had invaded Afghanistan for the sake of an oil or perhaps gas pipeline, breezily responded, "I do now.")
What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.
Ever since The New Yorker published a near-obituary piece for the Kerry campaign, in the form of an autopsy for the Robert Shrum style, there has been a salad of articles prematurely analyzing "what went wrong." This must be nasty for Democratic activists to read, and I say "nasty" because I hear the way they respond to it. A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications. If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.
The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?
I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery. One might argue about that: I could even maintain that it's important to oppose and defeat both gentlemen and their supporters. But unless he conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida.
Excellent hitchens column - he nails it.
It is simply absurd to think that bad news means kerry is more fit for office. that doesnt compute and it shows the flaw in their whole anti-Bush campaign.
A little light comes on...
Madeline Halfbright ...
"John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."
Exactly right!
I saw a Kerry ad that trumpeted the fact that two Americans were recently beheaded in Iraq.
The Kerry campaign is publicizing the work of the terrorists in order to get elected. It is as if they and the terrorists are working in a common cause.
It's a good thing for liberals that words aren't knives; after this article, they'd all be dead.
"How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?"
"....John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."
That says it.
This title is too long...This is better:
Flirting With Disaster, The vile spectacle of Democrats
Christopher Hitchens may be the most "honest" writer out there. He has taken stances on certain issues that have offended me deeply... but his arguments are always well researched and artfully worded. I love watching a talking-head show when some (usually liberal) airhead is pitted against Hitchens. These folks typically are scared to death of him and it shows. I have no doubt that guys like Begala, Carville, et al avoid a head-to-head with Hitchens at all costs. (I could be wrong on that, but just a hunch.)
A 2x4 upside the head?
I doubt it would work, but it couldn't hurt to try.
Because the Chomsky/Moore wing of the democrat party would, in fact, welcome it.
At first this need for "bad news" seemed subtle. But with Kerry's latest attacks on Iraq and the terms "chaos" being thrown around on a daily basis, it has become transparent that the dems need bad news in order to win the election.
Hit that right on the head...excellent
Treasonous, treacherous, little hate-filled rats. That is what most of the democratic party has become. How can people act this way in our great country?
Exactly - and in a previous day when the news from the front was not as available as today - it may have succeeded. But alas, everyday soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are able to blog and tell all the good things that they are witnessing while stating matter-of-factly the bad as well.
The problem for Kerry campout is that the good is actually outweighing the bad significantly in these accounts.
I'm convinced that had today's means of communications been available during the Vietnam war that things would have been much different.
A 2x4 upside the head?
Kinda like a dumbo-crat Board of Education, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.