Kerry's Dance

The Nation ^ | June 3, 2004 | Eric Alterman

[Carthago delenda est]

It may have the ring of cliché, but America's next presidential election will be among the most crucial events in contemporary history. Rarely in the modern era has the world seen such unchecked power exercised so ignorantly, arrogantly and with such profoundly counterproductive results as the Bush Administration's bait-and-switch invasion of Iraq. As Al Gore told an audience at NYU recently, "The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States." The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Gore noted, has reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." Al Qaeda now boasts an army of more than 18,000 potential terrorists, with the Iraqi war "swelling its ranks."

The horror is slowly dawning on everyday Americans. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, almost three-fifths of the people questioned disapproved of Bush's handling of the war--the highest level the survey has ever recorded. Meanwhile, a CBS survey revealed that just about two-thirds of those asked responded that the country was on "the wrong track," also the top level CBS has ever reached in the twenty years its pollsters have been asking the question.

Yet John Kerry remains roughly even with Bush in a straight-ahead matchup. There are many reasons for this. The Massachusetts liberal comes across as stiff and uncharismatic, and in America's personality-driven political culture, that matters far more than it should. Bush, moreover, has spent far more money on advertising than Kerry and has succeeded in casting him as an opportunistic "flip-flopper" among people who believe political ads. Much of the media, moreover, remain in thrall to Bush, having embedded themselves in this Administration's flight of ideological fancy and, like the New York Times's Judith Miller, published its spoon-fed propaganda as gospel.

(Miller recently escaped any censure from the Times for passing along untrue stories about Iraq's weapons program, which is only fair, since it was the editors' job to rein in her uncritical embrace of convicted embezzler and possible Iranian spy Ahmad Chalabi. In a more recent example of the same type of shameless shilling for the Bush Administration, CNN's Kelli Arena reported "speculation that Al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House." This was arrant nonsense, as the IISS had just reported that Al Qaeda was using Bush's Iraq invasion as a recruiting tool, having been allowed to fully reconstitute itself owing to this Administration's criminal neglect.)

Kerry's primary problem is that he has so far failed to distinguish himself in a fundamental fashion from Bush on the one issue that has destroyed the President's credibility. Bush & Co. fooled Kerry into voting to give them the authority to go to war back in 2002 on the basis of falsified evidence and meaningless promises, and Kerry has found himself in a straitjacket ever since. As the Los Angeles Times's excellent Ron Brownstein notes, the Kerry campaign's foreign policy focus is "less on criticizing the president's policies than on questioning whether he could provide the international leadership to implement them." Brownstein quotes a Democratic foreign policy analyst worrying that "the best he will be able to say is that Bush is finally doing what I said to do all along."

The election's dynamic is further complicated by the unwelcome presence of political kamikaze bomber Ralph Nader, whose uncured self-delusion is leading him once again to convert the genuine idealism and narrow-minded narcissism of his supporters into another victory for the reactionary Republican right. With his hypercautious position on Iraq--"measured," in the opinion of the New York Times--Kerry risks leaving many of those who rightly see the war as a catastrophe with nowhere to go to express their outrage. As with the election of 1968, an increasingly antiwar electorate is being offered only prowar choices for the presidency. It is just possible, therefore, that Nader may once again insure Bush's "victory" in the election, dooming the world to four more years of a neoconservative imperialism and rogue American militarism.

How can this be avoided? Quite easily, if Kerry could only admit to the entire country what he told me and a bunch of other reporters back in December in Al Franken's living room: Like so much of the country--and its elite media--he made a terrible mistake in trusting George W. Bush. He underestimated both the fanaticism and incompetence of the President and his advisers and their willingness to mislead the country into war. He thought George Tenet's CIA reports were on the level. He imagined Colin Powell was more than just window-dressing.

Today Kerry can stake his claim--together with considerable political cover--alongside the truth-tellers of the Bush era: people like John DiIulio, Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson and generals Anthony Zinni and Eric Shinseki, who have seen their characters and reputations attacked for the sin of patriotism and professional responsibility. Without delving into too much hand-tying detail, he could promise America to extricate the nation from its hubristic Mesopotamian misadventure at the earliest possible moment. He could assure Americans that he will reunite our allies and the world community in an intelligent fight against Islamic terrorists whose enemy is civilization everywhere. He could reassure the nation that he will get America "back on track."

It is a simple, understandable message and one that is already implicitly endorsed by a majority of Americans. Unless the Democratic nominee rethinks his commitment to this neocon nightmare soon, he risks inviting a second Nader/Bush Administration, unshackled from the need to seek re-election, thereby unleashing its most belligerent and fanatical impulses. God help us.

[Carthago delenda est]

You'll notice how Alturdman's opening lines ("Rarely in the modern era...unchecked power exercised so ignorantly, arrogantly...profoundly counterproductive results...bait-and-switch"...blah, blah) bear a remarkable resemblance to the hysterical anti-Bush attitudes that a recent poll of historians unearthed.

That may not be a coincidence: Alturdman received a doctorate in history not too long ago. In a recent article, he berated a documentary filmmaker for disagreeing with him regarding some particular point, noting that his trained historical mind allowed him to ferret out highly nuanced snippets of information from documentary source material that other people, with their one-sided historical agendas, may have missed.

After all, we need fair-minded historians such as Alturdman to offer us thoughts such as these:

[...]Ronald Reagan was many things, but most undeniably he was a pathological liar [...] [H]e also gave every impression of being an unbelievable moron [...]

Not only did Reagan make things up, he also forgot some things that most of us consider pretty important. [Edmund] Morris, for instance, lets us in on the astonishing fact that the President not only did not know his own Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--no big whoop, as the guy was, after all, black [...]

But another, more significant, little-mentioned tendency of the ex-President was his fondness for genocidal murderers. [...]

How did this childlike fantasist and friend of genocide convince a nation of reasonably intelligent, God-fearing and generally decent citizens to avert its eyes from the heart of darkness that beat beneath Ronald Reagan's congenial smile?

Hey Alturdman, enjoy November 2nd. There's a storm comin' your way.

[Carthago delenda est]

Oh man, sorry I forgot the...

BARF ALERT!!!

PS Does anybody have one of those "Barf Alert" signs I can steal?

[Batrachian]

To say that the New York Times is in thrall to the Bush administration tells you all you need to know about the veracity of this article.

If this where in print I would consign it to the parrot cage right now.

[Mustangcountry]

Why the hell did someone on earth decide to post Eric ALterman's Bullshi*?

[Fintan]

 

[Mustangcountry]

Alterman's in his own thrall.

Let's remember this idiot ignores leftist bias in the media while pretending Conservatives have the "numbers" in the op-ed voice at the NYT.

Safire is a centrist, Dowd is a leftist, Rall is a totalitarian Bolshievick, R.W. Apple is a redux lefty, Kristoff is a Maoist psycho, etc. etc.

Safire is the only one whose sane. That is not saying much

[Question_Assumptions]

What three-fifths of Americans think isn't important. What three-fifths of voters think is.

[marlon]

"Gore noted, has reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." Al Qaeda now boasts an army of more than 18,000 potential terrorists, with the Iraqi war "swelling its ranks."

And one can arguably say that it did not!

[GailA]

Page the Admins and tell them to put the EXTREME BARF ALERT on this article.

[MikeA]

I see "the Nation" is still deluding itself into thinking Saddam wasn't such a bad guy. I guess the Iraqi terrorists just lucked in to the 2 last remaining poison gas shells Saddam had left, missed by oversight no doubt when Saddam rushed to destroy his WMD because of his deeply-held respect for UN mandates and his own sense of honor in living up to his word given in ceasefire agreements. And of course Saddam destroyed all those WMD without breathing a word of it to the UN or proving it to the world to head off sanctions that ravaged his country for 12 years due to his non-compliance with his 1991 ceasefire obligations or to head off a war. I'm sure Saddam refused to ever prove the elimination of these weapons because he didn't want to seem to be bragging or patting himself on the back.

This is the Alice in Wonderland "logic" of the left, and the stooges at "The Nation," these days. Oh, and all those emerging connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda as shown in the new book published by Harper Collins "The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America" by Stephen F. Hayes is just more of the "vast, right wing conspiracy" trying to defame the poor, charming rogue Saddam, just like it did Bill Clinton, right?

All I want to know is why ending the slaughter of innocents was sufficient reason for Democrats and leftists to demand war against Serbia, but to have ended a far greater slaughter in Iraq by Saddam is now labeled as a "war crime" by the hypocrites on the left? Milosevic on his worst day couldn't begin to match Saddam on his best in terms of brutality and bloodshed. But when Clinton was president, Democrats and their media allies all but begged him to go to war to stop Milosevic, not to mention passed a regime change resolution against Iraq in the Congress which apparently the Democrats had no intention of ever actually bringing about.

When will America wake up to the utter evil and mendacity of the Democratic party and their American-hating hangers-on like the liars at "The Nation?"

[proxy_user]

These guys are REAL leftists, not phoney-baloney cocktail-party leftists.

[TC Rider]

Bush & Co. fooled Kerry into voting to give them the authority to go to war back in 2002 on the basis of falsified evidence and meaningless promises, and Kerry has found himself in a straitjacket ever since.

LOL, according to Alteredstatesman, Kerry got snookered by a 'moron'. This is the intellect that little Eric wants in the White House?

..if Kerry could only admit to the entire country what he told me and a bunch of other reporters back in December in Al Franken's living room..

Any politician having any kind of meeting or making any pronouncements in Al Franken's living room should be barred from office. (In fact, it should be noted as a 'jump the shark' moment)

[TC Rider]

I guess the Iraqi terrorists just lucked in to the 2 last remaining poison gas shells Saddam had left, missed by oversight no doubt when Saddam rushed to destroy his WMD because of his deeply-held respect for UN mandates and his own sense of honor in living up to his word given in ceasefire agreements.

Yet if the contents of those two insigificant shells had been released in NYC's Grand Central Station, does anyone doubt the left would have been calling for W's head?

[Carthago delenda est]

When will America wake up to the utter evil and mendacity of the Democratic party and their American-hating hangers-on like the liars at "The Nation?"

I wouldn't hold your breath: "The Nation" was an anti-American, Stalinist rag way back in the 1930s, and it ran an article denouncing Holocaust reports as pro-American propaganda in 1945 (I believe the author of that piece was James Agee, who now has a chair in Social Ethics named after him at some Ivy League university).

Since 1865, "The Nation" has always been the home of radical socialists and associated America-haters, leftist revolutionaries, and sansculottes. On the plus side, the unique texture of its pages feel unusually smooth when placed against the skin, making it a fitting companion to the outhouse.

[LongsforReagan]

I enjoy seeing Alterman on TV when confronted by competent interviewers like Dennis Miller. He absolutely gets destroyed and falls to pieces.

He really should go on TV more for our sake.

I cant wait to see the horror and devastation little punks like Alterman will suffer on Election Day!!!!!!

[dirtboy]

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Gore noted, has reported that the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." Al Qaeda now boasts an army of more than 18,000 potential terrorists, with the Iraqi war "swelling its ranks."

So a leftist think tank makes the claim, a leftist politician who has become completely unhinged repeats the claim, and a leftist journalist annoits the claim as the truth. And another acoustic tile is added to the liberal echo chamber.

[r9etb]

Cripes -- I literally couldn't get past "Al Gore said." I can't believe you were able to wade around in this raw sewage long enough to pick out quotes....

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Does anybody have one of those "Barf Alert" signs I can steal?

Here you go.......

[Ann Archy]

Eric Alterman was Bryan's guest so often that I quit watching C-Span!!!

[dirtboy]

But when Clinton was president, Democrats and their media allies all but begged him to go to war to stop Milosevic, not to mention passed a regime change resolution against Iraq in the Congress which apparently the Democrats had no intention of ever actually bringing about.

In the warped minds of the leftists, the only proper use of American military power is in situations where we have no security interests, lest such "taint" the nobility of our actions. Of course, when we have no compelling national interest, we also tend not to have much staying power in the conflict nor the desire to commit any serious resources, which is why such interventions typically result in disasters such as Somalia and Kosovo.