Hoping For the Worst

[Annie]

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2107193/

ighting words
Flirting With Disaster
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM PT

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.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His new collection of essays, Love, Poverty and War, is forthcoming in October.

 

[Merlin1047]

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2107193/

It is deeply distressing that Democrats have produced a candidate who is so unelectable that only a major national tragedy may provide the impetus to bring him to office.

It is profoundly revolting that there are a great many Democrats fervently hoping for just such an event.

 

[Zxenith]

Honestly, at this point I don't think anything Bush does will be viewed negatively against him by republicans. Republicans, in general, seem to defend just about any moronic act Bush is involved in doing.

It is deeply distressing that Democrats have produced a candidate who is so unelectable that only a major national tragedy may provide the impetus to bring him to office.

I agree. I have no idea how the Democratic primaries churned out Kerry. I definately think there needs to be some reform for primaries, especially when some states allowed republicans to vote for candidates in a democratic primary ??? Can you say "Conflict of interest"? Also, the first states involved in the primaries/caucases are by no means states that reflect mainstream American. The first primary should be a state such as Florida, New York, California, etc. After that you can mix in some smaller states and go from there, shrug.

It is also sad that some Democrats want a tragedy to occur to hurt Bush. Whats scarier is that Bush can outsource your job, send your son to fight his war, increase deficit spending to epic proportions, thereby undoing social programs like social security, and some people will still vote for him. I wonder if this can be classified by any psychological disorder.. seriously. Its almost like Stockholm syndrome, but in a larger scale lol.

 

[5stringJeff]

Honestly, at this point I don't think anything Bush does will be viewed negatively against him by republicans. Republicans, in general, seem to defend just about any moronic act Bush is involved in doing.

Are you serious? Look at this thread and see how many Republicans, including me, have criticized Bush for things he has done.

I agree. I have no idea how the Democratic primaries churned out Kerry. I definately think there needs to be some reform for primaries, especially when some states allowed republicans to vote for candidates in a democratic primary ??? Can you say "Conflict of interest"? Also, the first states involved in the primaries/caucases are by no means states that reflect mainstream American. The first primary should be a state such as Florida, New York, California, etc. After that you can mix in some smaller states and go from there, shrug.

It is also sad that some Democrats want a tragedy to occur to hurt Bush. Whats scarier is that Bush can outsource your job, send your son to fight his war, increase deficit spending to epic proportions, thereby undoing social programs like social security, and some people will still vote for him. I wonder if this can be classified by any psychological disorder.. seriously. Its almost like Stockholm syndrome, but in a larger scale lol.

Stockholm syndrome... how cynical can you get? What you fail to acknowledge is that the economy is on the rise, and outsourcing works both ways - there are hundred of thousands of jobs in the US created by foreign companies. Should we get rid of those? And nowhere has Bush said that he wants to undo SS. He wants to allow younger people (like me) to have the chance to take personal responsibility for my own retirement, and frankly, it's a great idea - the cureent Ponzi scheme will not last forever.

 

[NATO AIR]

i need to write better title threads else they get ignored...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12547

i thought maybe hitchens had crossed the line b/c nobody responded the first time it was posted... however i think he is completely right and it is just sad that kerry and so many dems have stooped this low

they're hoping for more death and destruction of innocent iraqis and our men and women over there... WTF is that?

 

[Zxenith]

Actually, I did see that thread, and the noticed that alot of the criticism was selective, at best. I loved the response regarding one of Bush's mistakes was to have Ted Kennedy write his education bill. The thread is a bit of a joke.

As for the syndrome thing, yeah its cynical, I suppose, but doesnt seem too far off. I really wonder if there is a syndrome to describe it though. It goes for both parties, but it seems, maybe just because of current administration, to be more dominant among Republicans.

Outsourcing good? I heard that from Bush too, I also heard him say quotes like "Fuzzy Math", so I am not really impressed. I am sure outsourcing is good for some people. If you own a company, and want some dirt cheap labor, you can stand to make a profit outsourcing. If you are an American worker trying to compete against someone willing to work pennies on the dollar for what you are working for, then its not.

And nowhere has Bush said that he wants to undo SS.

No he never said it, hes just doing it. Unfortunately, Americans either don't grasp it, in general, or don't think it will hurt them. I keep seeing this. Smart people who become "naive" when dealing with Bush's agenda. Its pretty damn clear that you are going to undo SS if you continue massive deficit spending, in which you force a reason to dip into the "lock box" as Gore coined so well four years ago. This is nothing new, and you probably know it, just will not admit it, because that would imply that Bush, indeed, is undoing Social Security.

I think its a good idea to have more options for dealing with your retirement finances, but trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, and spending like there is no tomorrow, isn't my idea of a good president. I really do not like Kerry either, and the recent Democratically endorsed extension to Bush's Tax plan, shows you just where Democrats put their priorities. But, I guess I can see why a bunch of rich politicians might want to pay less taxes, if they haven't already found a loop hole to avoid it altogether.


Can I have a 3rd party please, one that doesn't lie, cheat, and steal??

 

[dilloduck]

Actually, I did see that thread, and the noticed that alot of the criticism was selective, at best. I loved the response regarding one of Bush's mistakes was to have Ted Kennedy write his education bill. The thread is a bit of a joke.

As for the syndrome thing, yeah its cynical, I suppose, but doesnt seem too far off. I really wonder if there is a syndrome to describe it though. It goes for both parties, but it seems, maybe just because of current administration, to be more dominant among Republicans.

Outsourcing good? I heard that from Bush too, I also heard him say quotes like "Fuzzy Math", so I am not really impressed. I am sure outsourcing is good for some people. If you own a company, and want some dirt cheap labor, you can stand to make a profit outsourcing. If you are an American worker trying to compete against someone willing to work pennies on the dollar for what you are working for, then its not.

No he never said it, hes just doing it. Unfortunately, Americans either don't grasp it, in general, or don't think it will hurt them. I keep seeing this. Smart people who become "naive" when dealing with Bush's agenda. Its pretty damn clear that you are going to undo SS if you continue massive deficit spending, in which you force a reason to dip into the "lock box" as Gore coined so well four years ago. This is nothing new, and you probably know it, just will not admit it, because that would imply that Bush, indeed, is undoing Social Security.

I think its a good idea to have more options for dealing with your retirement finances, but trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, and spending like there is no tomorrow, isn't my idea of a good president. I really do not like Kerry either, and the recent Democratically endorsed extension to Bush's Tax plan, shows you just where Democrats put their priorities. But, I guess I can see why a bunch of rich politicians might want to pay less taxes, if they haven't already found a loop hole to avoid it altogether.


Can I have a 3rd party please, one that doesn't lie, cheat, and steal??

Be my Guest !!----suggestions?

 

[CSM]

Be my Guest !!----suggestions?

talk to NATO he has three of our initial planks for the third party platform....

 

[Merlin1047]

Honestly, at this point I don't think anything Bush does will be viewed negatively against him by republicans. Republicans, in general, seem to defend just about any moronic act Bush is involved in doing.

I think you're misinterpreting the motivation of a many people. It's not that I believe George Bush to be flawless - far from it. But I believe that electing john kerry to the presidency would be a disaster on an epic scale. It will take us many years to recover from the damage caused by Clinton. If kerry gets into office, we may never recover. I don't like to admit this, but the fact is that a good part of my enthusiasm for GW is based on my loathing for kerry.

Whats scarier is that Bush can outsource your job, send your son to fight his war, increase deficit spending to epic proportions, thereby undoing social programs like social security, and some people will still vote for him. I wonder if this can be classified by any psychological disorder.. seriously. Its almost like Stockholm syndrome, but in a larger scale lol.

Those same things can and WILL be done by kerry if he is elected. Job outsourcing has actually been going on for decades under multiple administrations of both parties. You can thank the rotten bastards in our State Department for much of that. Social Security is going to die unless something major is done to fix it. Privatization was a good idea. Guess which party killed that? Guess which party destroyed the social security trust fund so that they could get their slimy hands on all that money? Guess which party keeps tacking on ancillary programs to social security which further degrades its solvency? George Bush wanted to improve the education system by privatization and giving parents the means to send their children to the schools of their choice. Guess which party killed that. Guess which senator has the most gigantic pork project in the history of man going on in his state? A project that is sucking BILLIONS out of the federal treasury. Do the names "Kennedy" and "Big Dig" ring a bell? Guess which administration gave us NAFTA? Okay, in fairness I'll admit that NAFTA was the spawn of both parties - but Clinton pushed it through.

The fact is that the Democrats are responsible for the very problems that you attribute to George Bush. If you only look at the current administration, you are taking a very narrow view which results in distorted conclusions. If you back up and take a broader perspective, you begin to see that liberals are at the root of most of our national ills today.