View Full Version : President Peter Pan

09-22-2004, 03:40 PM
On this, there can be no question. Regarding Iraq, John Kerry is acknowledging reality. George Bush is not.

Bush embarrassed America when he went before a stony-faced audience at the United Nations Tuesday and claimed that all was well in Iraq, calling it a country well on its way to being a "beacon of freedom in the Middle East." More tellingly, he spent far more time defending his decision to invade in the first place, ignoring the consequences of a war that is now dangerously unraveling.

Meanwhile, Kerry seems to have finally found his voice on Iraq. Kerry is in trouble when he tries to parse his explanation of his vote in favor of war in Congress; no matter how sensible it might or might not be, it plays into the "flip-flop" stereotype Republicans have created for him. But there can be no mistaking the current situation in Iraq, and Kerry is spot on when he thunders, as he did Tuesday, that "the president really has no credibility at this point. He has no credibility with foreign leaders who hear him come before them and talk as if everything is going well... The president needs to live in the world of reality."

Alas, on the most critical issue now facing the country Iraq and Bush's misbegotten War on Terror reality is not President Peter Pan's strong suit. White House spinsters will be working hard this week to pretend all is well, crowned by the address to Congress on Thursday of Iraq's appointed U.S. puppet prime minister, Iyad Allawi. Allawi not only has no credibility in his own country, but his government, like U.S. troops, cannot even access nearly half of the country. He is, in the eyes of his countrymen, tainted not only by his past as a thug first for Saddam and then for Western intelligence agencies but by the very fact he was installed by and works with the Americans.

If there was ever a chance that Bush's ideal of a democratic Iraq on the American model could be achieved, it's long gone. No politician acceptable to Washington will be accepted at this point by the vast majority of Iraqis. Bush knows this, or at least he should; his intelligence agencies, as well as Congressional Republicans, have been telling him. But he is either stubbornly clinging to his own fantasy world, or, for political reasons, he's refusing to acknowledge the crisis.

The White House hope is that stunts like Allawi's address to Congress can help maintain the fiction of a normalized Iraq, on its intended course, at least until the US election in November. Oddly, it may not matter much to the election; polling suggests that the fiasco in Iraq is not changing the minds of those coveted swing voters. But that's not the point. Every week that goes by where Iraq military strategy is dictated by the political goals of the Bush Administration is a week where the insurgency grows stronger and more soldiers are put in harm's way for crass political purposes.

Kerry, in an unusually pointed speech in New York on Monday, finally got the situation right: "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions, and... the prospect of a war with no end in sight." His prescription of more foreign assistance may not help much at this point; more radical remedies are probably needed. But at least Kerry understands and acknowledges the situation.

Judging from his public pronouncements, George Bush either doesn't understand what he has created in Iraq, or even worse he understands it, but is working his hardest to ensure that the American public is misled. Either way is inexcusable. And either way leads inexorably to John Kerry's conclusion: that Bush does not have the credibility to lead the world, or the United States.

from alternet.com

09-22-2004, 06:01 PM
Spend HALF as much time trying to better yourself as you do trying to cut down others ... then, you and I might have something about which to speak. tongue.gif

09-22-2004, 06:13 PM
Faulty reasoning, Brad. He does nothing but complain, yet you continue to speak to him. :rolleyes: I hope you didn't waste too much money on your education.

09-22-2004, 06:17 PM
You're correct, Donn.

Somtimes he gets to me ...

I spent nothing ... academic scholarship!! :cool:

Elmer Jenkins
09-22-2004, 06:22 PM
All is well in Iraq. Here are two short stories to confirm that.



I especially like this part. It tells me everything is just fine.

"Bloodied bodies, shattered glass and debris littered the street in the commercial neighborhood of Al-Jamiyah after the first explosion."

That Bush, ain't he a peach? What better way for us businessmen to make a few bucks and get rid of some of the undesirables?

[ 09-22-2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Elmer Jenkins ]

09-22-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Mempis Mike:
All is well in Iraq.. I especially like this part..

"Bloodied bodies, shattered glass and debris littered the street in the commercial neighborhood of Al-Jamiyah after the first explosion."That's your favorite part, eh? Figures.

Notice the polls, MM? Four more years. tongue.gif

Elmer Jenkins
09-22-2004, 06:34 PM
"Four more years"

If that is the case, I hope you and your ilk are forced to bathe in it. smile.gif

09-22-2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Elmer Jenkins:
"Four more years"

If that is the case, I hope you and your ilk are forced to bathe in it. smile.gif Will you being joining us in the bathing here or defecting to the mideast and the Bathe party?

Jim H
09-22-2004, 06:40 PM
Two Johns, many Iraq positions
Rich Lowry
July 12, 2004

"People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq." -- Democratic platform draft language

What to make of a political party that doesn't officially have a position on the biggest policy question in our politics? The Democratic platform language on Iraq is almost meaningless. People of good will disagree about most everything, up to and including abortion and child labor -- yet the Democrats manage to have positions on those issues. Iraq War, yes or no? The Democrats answer with a definite maybe.

This campaign will witness a stark battle of dueling strategic viewpoints. President Bush's radical new national-security doctrine is "pre-emption." John Kerry's is "cognitive dissonance." The Massachusetts senator is a dovish-hawk or hawkish-dove depending on which set of feathers might suit his particular political circumstance at the moment, molting on command to avoid following any given statement to what might reasonably be considered its logical conclusion.

Kerry has suggested Iraq was not a war of necessity. But Kerry voted to authorize the war. So Kerry made it a practice as a senator to vote for wars of choice? Isn't that irresponsibility worthy of a long, unflattering portrayal in Michael Moore's next film? Kerry has said that Bush should have given diplomacy more time to work. So a war of choice is wrong if it is launched on March 19, 2003, but OK if it's launched on June 19, 2003? A war of choice is fine if it is approved by France, even though it is Americans who will still do almost all the dying?

If Kerry wants to avoid the dishonor of voting for a war of choice, he has to admit that toppling Saddam Hussein was in some sense necessary. Indeed, Kerry said before the war that Saddam had to accept "rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise" (he didn't), or face "enforcement" (he did). John Edwards was even more forthright. Liberal critics have accused Bush of calling Iraq an "imminent" threat -- in their minds, the ultimate in dishonest exaggeration -- but that word never passed Bush's lips. Edwards, in contrast, used it multiple times in reference to Iraq.

John "Imminent" Edwards now has forgotten his earlier alarmism. "When John Kerry is president of the United States," he said the other day, "no young American will ever go to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone." How does a war against an "imminent" threat suddenly become "needless"? And again, why would Edwards, together with Kerry, vote to authorize such a "needless" war?

Ah, but you say, the country was "misled" by Bush about the threat from Iraq? This is the word Kerry uses about Bush's pro-war advocacy. By that standard, he and his running mate, both of whom talked frighteningly about the threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, were also complicit in this misleading rush to war. Worse, Edwards sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, doing oversight of an agency that through its incompetence or dastardliness was helping Bush (and Kerry and Edwards) mislead the country about Saddam.

Of course, our prewar intelligence proved flawed. But when you invade a country and occupy it, you necessarily will have much better intelligence than when it was occupied by a hostile dictator. To his credit, Kerry refuses to play the absurd retrospective game of saying whether he would have voted for Iraq or not given what we know now. But Kerry's caution stems more from an unwillingness to stand up and be counted on Iraq yet again, than from an appreciation of the necessarily imperfect knowledge upon which policy-makers base their decisions.

Kerry, after all, has to preserve his maneuverability. The Democrats' platform language doesn't have it quite right. It shouldn't say that "people" of good will can disagree among themselves about Iraq, but that a "person" of good will can disagree with himself. That would reflect the Kerry position nicely.

09-22-2004, 06:40 PM
My ilk and I keep it in high growth equity investments.

09-22-2004, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Donn:
My ilk and I keep it in high growth equity investments.wheel chairs, tin coffins, and piss bags it is eh donny boy?