|
·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
|
|
Archives-- Installments for
October 11 through 20, 2004, starting below in reverse chronological order.
Oct. 20, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's
Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Dominant-Media
Pots call Sinclair Broadcasting Kettle "black-- Sinclair's single documentary on POW's views of
John Kerry pales into insignificance alongside Dominant Media hatchet-jobs on George Bush.
The Dominant Media are suffering vapors about Sinclair Broadcasting's plans to broadcast all or
parts of a documentary explaining the views of many, if not most, Vietnam War POW's, that John Kerry
is too prone to embrace the political position du jour on issues of national security for
short-term, self-serving political purposes to be qualified to serve as Commander in Chief.
Since the Saturday before the Iowa Caucus, John Kerry made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of
his campaign and simultaneously attempted to place his service (and his anti-war activities
thereafter) beyond challenge by labeling anyone challenging such service or activities as a
right-wing extremist attacking Kerry's "patriotism" as a stooge for the Bush
Campaign.
Dominant
Media Pot Calls the Sinclair Kettle "Black"·
The plan of Sinclair would display
what Swifties and Pris'ners would say
as testament to
what first-had they knew
to challenge what Kerry would say.
Sinclair to be fair had opined
to John they'd afford equal time
but Kerry declined
in order to whine
his "bias" and "prejudiced" lines.
ABC, NBC, CBS
invoking their "newsworthy" test,
decried Sinclair's plans
as "partisan" plans
defiling the "newsworthy" test.
Hypocrisy's
easy to track
as Dominant Media flaks
pretend they are not
the darkest of pots
in calling the gray-kettle "black."
Swift-Boat "Journalism."
As dominant media tracking
the claims of the spokespeople flacking
against or in favor
of viewpoints we savor,
we're balanced reporting such flacking.
We're equally quick to disfavor
attackers of viewpoints we favor
as when we condemn
the ones who defend
attacks from the viewpoints we favor.
So therefore, we cannot perceive
the reason so many believe
we're biased not fair
in print or on air
on viewpoints in which we believe.
We're sure 'twas our duty to push
the claims charging "AWOL" by Bush
and equally sure
critiques from the tours
of Swift Boats we needn't have pushed.
In choosing the news to be pandered,
we're Media "Swift Boat" Commanders
obliged to suppress
the views we detest
and pacify those of our camber.
Most of the Dominant Media have been eager to accept at face value Kerry's impugning the motives of
critics who served with him in different boats on the same missions and those who were POW's in
Vietnam by characterizing them as right-wing, extremist stooges for the Bush Campaign. With
rare exceptions, the Dominant Media dutifully accepted Kerry's tacit argument--i.e., his
opinion-- that his having served our country in combat placed his invocation of such service
as his prime qualification for Commander in Chief beyond dispute by "fair-minded"
people. Yet with respect to critics who courageously served with him on different boats on the
same missions and those who endured torture as POW's in Vietnam rather than to falsely
"admit" the same kind of propagandistic allegations spouted by Kerry in sworn testimony
before the Senate that committing "atrocities" was U.S. military policy "throughout
the chain of command," the Dominant Media stubbornly refused to view the heroic service
of such critics as qualifying them for having their view heard. In the view of the Dominant
Media, only a "Republican operative" could have been interested in the testimony of such
critics.
Contrast the Dominant Media's treatment of views expressed by the SwiftBoat and POW critics of Kerry
with the Dominant Media's treatment of the Democratic National Committee's (DNC), DNC Chairman Terry
McAuliffe's, and the Kerry Campaign's allegations that George Bush got into the Air National Guard
by being moved to the front of a long line of applicants, that he was "AWOL" during the
last 12-18 months of his six-year obligaton (which had begun with 18 months of active duty in the
Air Force), that he had "disobeyed orders" to take a "flight physical,"
and that he had failed to report for duty to a local Air National Guard when he moved to Boston to
earn his M.B.A. Given the fact that the groundless nature of such allegations would have
become readily apparent to any "investigative" journalist seriously interested in learning
the facts and the rules and regulations applicable to service by Air National Guard pilots upon
being granted employment-related transfers (a lawful, routine practice) to units not equipped with
planes such pilots were qualified to fly without first re-entering another 12-18-month period of
active duty, the Dominant Media's stubborn refusal to subject such allegations to the rigors of
"investigative journalism" speaks volumes about their bias for Kerry and prejudice against
Bush.
In a special commentary, Hoaxes Propped Up CBS's Fraudulent Memos,
being published today (here)
by PoliSat.Com, Col. John
H. Wambough, Jr., a fighter pilot, methodically and meticulously demonstrates how any
journalist seriously interested in an "investigative" analysis of such allegations against
Bush could have readily discerned them to be spurious. It ought to be required reading for
anyone doubting that the Dominant Media Pot is spuriously calling the Sinclair Broadcasting Kettle
"black" even though Sinclair Broadcasting's plans are pale gray compared to the darkness
of the Dominant Media's behavior.
To view but a tip of the iceberg of such Dominant Media bias and prejudice, see Against
Full Hindsight (and
commentary) on March 29, 2004; Mike
Wallace & Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes on April 19, 2004; CBS
News Contempt for the Troops on May 7, 2004; Dan
Rather's Secret Identity on Sept. 10, 2004; Back
to the Future in 60 Minutes on Sept. 12, 2004; Hi,
I'm Dan Rather and I Approved this Ad on Sept. 17, 2004; I
Am Not a Partisan Hack, Says Rather on Sept. 20, 2004; I'm
Dan Rather Sorry on Sept. 22, 2004; SeeBS
Spin on Sept. 30, 2004. Of course, CBS is not alone-- see, e.g., SwiftBoat
Journalism on Aug. 6, 2004; Dan
Ratherism at ABC News on Oct. 9, 2004; Chris
Matthews & Brian Williams Defame Dick Cheney on Oct. 9, 2004; and O'Neill's
Words, Ted's Ears & Dan's Eyes on Oct. 15, 2004.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Oct.
20, 2004 #00a:
Special
Commentary: Media
Hoaxes re Bush's Air National Guard Service--
Analysis
& Commentary by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)·
Oct. 19, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™ (but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's
Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Vladimir
Putin says defeat of George Bush in Election 2004 would be "victory for terrorists"; Bush
admits mistake in doubting John Kerry's ability to "bring allies to the table."
Russian President Vladimir
Putin told the Moscow Times that a defeat of George W. Bush in Election 2004 would be a
"victory for the terrorists." In the wake of this announcement, PoliSat.Com's
high-tech remote-sensing equipment has intercepted George Bush's brainwaves as he planned a campaign
commercial giving John Kerry credit for "bringing an ally to the table." Here's a
transcript of the commercial:
Says
Dubya, "I'll rate my biggest mistake"
I'm
Dubya to say I've approved
this ad on mistakes I'll reprove.
I'll list, to begin,
examples of when
mistaken by John I've been proved.
When
Kerry proclaimed he'd be able
to "bring allies back to the table,"
I made the mistake
of granting no weight
to odds that for that he'd be able.
But
now I'll admit that I'm able
to credit John Kerry as able
to meet that condition
by nuanced positions
that brought an old friend to the table.
That
friend, thanks to John, is now rootin'
for us to succeed, so he's tootin':
"The terrorists could
claim vict'ry, and would,
if Bush lost to Kerry," says Putin.
The reason that Vladimir tilts
t'ward me is he knows John would wilt
in waging of war
'cause Kerry's no more
than merely "Dukakis on Stilts."
Putin
is not alone in viewing a defeat of Bush as a victory for terrorists despite the fact that he still
claims to disagree with Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a thorough, brilliantly written TimesOnLine
column on October 17, 2004, Sarah Baxter, a lifelong liberal strenuously disagreeing with
Bush on almost everything other than Operation Iraqi Freedom, announced her intention to vote for
Bush to the intense dismay of almost all her "intellectual" friends. In explaining
her reasoning, she said, inter alia:
As for Kerry, he has been sounding more and more cynical with each passing suicide and car bomb. He is giving Iraqi insurgents — who, true to their form under Saddam, relish killing their own people most of all — every reason to step up their attacks in the hope of sabotaging their own elections and replacing Bush in the White House.
It is the behaviour of a politician with more ambition than conscience.
Baxter's
writing skills and clarity of reasoning rival those of Christopher Hitchens, one of a handful of
left-of-center thinkers who openly support Bush despite strenuously disagreeing with him on most
social and economic issues. She has good company with classical liberals imbued with
neocon realism regarding foreign policy such as Ed Koch, Rudi Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Dennis Miller, Ron Silver (a member of the Council on Foreign Relations), Dennis Hopper, Kelsey Grammar,
and many more.
Kerry's extraordinary versatility in sequentially, and often simultaneously, being the
"un-Bush," "un-Dean," and "un-Lieberman" have left him firmly
ensconced in the larger, more credible role of being un-principled regarding Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Regarding domestic policy, he is proving himself to merely be "Dukakis on
stilts."º¹
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
º¹
·Many people credit Maureen Dowd as the one who coined the "Dukakis-on-stilts"
description of Kerry in her satirical column (Murder
Most Fowl) on February 8, 2004, ascribing the following comments to Cheney by Rumsfeld
during a hunting trip:
[Dubya]
should have come with us today. He's home hugging his feather pillow. He's worried about fancy-pants Kerry pushing his overblown heroics in Vietnam while Junior was occasionally showing up to fly jets defending Texas against Oklahoma. But my lord, it will be like shooting birds in a pen. Kerry's just Dukakis on stilts. All we need are a few gay nuptials outside the Boston convention hall and we're home
free.
However,
a Google Search of the internet reveals the following source
which, on January 19, 2004, shows a "[unidentified], grizzled farmer [in Iowa]" coined the
prhrase:
As the press labored to market the Iowa Democratic Caucuses as the most exciting horse race since Ben Hur, a grizzled farmer deadpanned: "Does anyone else here think John Kerry is just Mike Dukakis on stilts?"
Unfortunately,
that link doesn't identify its author, who is hereby invited to come forth and identify
himself. I await authoritative identification from someone at the College Publisher domain.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Oct. 18, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's
Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
John
Kerry-- Old Stolen Honor in New Stolen Bottle; Old Kerry Wine in New Kerry Bottle; Swift Boat
Veterans and POW's; Free Speech; 60 Minutes RatherGate-- George W. Bush.
The
John Kerry Campaign, his liberal and leftist supporters, and the dominant media are having vapors
over Sinclair Broadcasting's stated intention for broadcasting "Stolen
Honor" and offering Kerry "equal time" following such broadcast.
Their anti-free-speech attack echoes their attacks on ads by SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth and the
book, Unfit for Command. None of those attacking those ads and that book had expressed
any concern whatsoever about Terry McAuliffe having adopted wholesale the "AWOL"
allegations against Bush which any investigative journalist seriously interested in the facts could
have determined to have been spurious from the start. Thus, they can't seriously expect anyone
to now take seriously their shrill and spurious claims that Sinclair Broadcasting's proposal
"violates" Campaign Finance "Reform."
The weapon of choice wielded by critics of RatherGate was harsh, well-deserved criticism-- not
censorship. This was despite the fact that RatherGate not only propagated an easily
discernible fraud but also failed to even offer "equal time" to George Bush before
broadcasting the 60 Minutes hatchet job against him. That was only the latest in a
series of sequentially timed hatchet jobs by 60 Minutes beginning early in 2004-- e.g., see
Against Full Hindsight
(and commentary) on March
29, 2004; Mike Wallace & Bob
Woodward on 60 Minutes on April 19, 2004; CBS
News Contempt for the Troops on May 7, 2004; Dan
Rather's Secret Identity on Sept. 10, 2004; Back
to the Future in 60 Minutes on Sept. 12, 2004; Hi,
I'm Dan Rather and I Approved this Ad on Sept. 17, 2004; I
Am Not a Partisan Hack, Says Rather on Sept. 20, 2004; I'm
Dan Rather Sorry on Sept. 22, 2004; SeeBS
Spin on Sept. 30, 2004. Of course, CBS is not alone-- see, e.g., SwiftBoat
Journalism on Aug. 6, 2004; Dan
Ratherism at ABC News on Oct. 9, 2004; Chris
Matthews & Brian Williams Defame Dick Cheney on Oct. 9, 2004; and O'Neill's
Words, Ted's Ears & Dan's Eyes on Oct. 15, 2004.
Few, if any, who caustically mischaracterize "Stolen Honor" as a violation of Campaign
Finance "Reform" were heard to criticize Howard Dean when he eschewed federal funding
during the primaries in order to avoid being bound by federal campaign spending and financing
limits. When Howard Dean made such announcement, PoliSat.Com applauded such decision on
free-speech grounds despite intense disdain for his candidacy. Here's an excerpt from that
installment about "Howard the Squirrel":
Though candidate, Dean, I disdain,
on one thing I'm forced to refrain from writing to mock the arrogant "Doc"-- His "no-public-funding" campaign.
Such action by Howard reverses his statement that money from purses of taxpayers must be fillings and crusts
for sating the populists' urges. Hypocrisy always entwines the ideologically blind, but sometimes with luck
the truth like a nut they find like a squirrel that's blind. (See PoliSat.Com's Howard
the Squirrel on Nov. 9, 2003.)
Likewise, when George Soros and MoveOn.Org began running indefensively offensive ads attacking Bush,
PoliSat.Com held its nose and expressed the view that free speech trumps Campaign Finance
"Reform." Here's an excerpt from that installment titled "Braking for
Skunks":
Though skunks on the roads in the land
spread odors too pungent to "stand," a driver who's wise risks danger to drive around such a skunk if he can.
And likewise, when odors command political roads in the land, the tactic most dumb is "aim for the skunk"
in Campaign-Reformer Sedans. To Dubya from PoliSat-Com: Do NOT drive McCain/Feingold's "car"
at skunks in your way! Throw bait to convey the scent that they favor, by far. To counter the scent of MoveOn
and odors by which they're adorned, my bait is French cheese so folks can perceive the scent most preferred by MoveOn. (See PoliSat.Com's Braking
for Skunks on March 10, 2004.)
In short, in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, what could possibly be wrong with
according highly-decorated Vietnam POW's (one of whom is a Congressional Medal of Honor winner)
their opportunity to tell part of history they know first-hand that's relevant to John Kerry's
having made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his presidential campaign-- especially
since the dominant media has steadfastly refused to even hear their voices (much less try to chase
them down as the dominant media has done in desperate attempts to "prove" that George Bush
was "AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties)?
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
Oct.
17, 2004: No Update for Sunday, Oct. 17, 2004.
Oct.
16, 2004: No Update for Saturday, Oct. 16.
Oct. 15, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this installment in PoliSat.Com's
Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Ted
Koppel lays egg on Nightline in attacking John O'Neill's words about John Kerry in Unfit
for Command-- O'Neill's words, Ted's ears and Dan's eyes.
Watching
Nightline last night (11:30pm Eastern, Oct. 14, 2004) I witnessed Ted Koppel lay an egg while
exhibiting extraordinary deafness to warnings that he was in the process of doing
so. Nightline devoted the first half of the program to interviews with Viet
Cong survivors of the larger incident surrounding the discreet incident for which John Kerry
received a Silver Star. Nightline's presented the surviving Viet Congs'
recollections of the incident as one involving an intense firefight ostensibly to
"contradict" John O'Neill's assertions in Unfit for Command about Kerry's
involvement in a discreet incident within the larger incident.
The Viet Cong survivors said there was an intense firefight between approximately 20 Viet Cong and
swift boats that beached at their "village" in response to hostile fire from the Viet
Cong. They said a Viet Cong armed with a rocket-launcher was killed in this larger incident
and that his body was found some distance away from where the main firefight occurred. They
said he was a "26 or 27 years old" wearing the black "pajama-type" uniform worn
by Viet Cong.
Ted Koppel kept suggesting that O'Neill ought to concede that the recollections of those Viet Cong
survivors "contradicted" the version of this incident described by O'Neill in Unfit for
Command even though O'Neill repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, tried to enable Koppel to understand
that the survivors' descriptions of an individual armed with a rocket launcher conflicted with
the teenager-in-a-loin-cloth description given by Kerry
to his biographers, which is the same description quoted
by O'Neill (in Unfit for Command) from authorized biographies of Kerry.--
i.e., John
F. Kerry: The Complete Biography: By the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best and
Tour
of Duty by Douglas Brinkley.
Then Koppel kept suggesting that O'Neill ought to concede that the recollections of those Viet Cong
survivors "contradicted" the assertions in Unfit for Command that when Kerry killed
the individual armed with a rocket launcher, he (Kerry) was facing a single individual rather than a
"numerically superior enemy force" as asserted in his Silver Star
commendation. Yet those "recollections" did not contradict O'Neill's
description of the larger incident, the gist of which is:
That
as three swift boats approached the area, they began receiving hostile fire from shore, at which
time they began returning fire. When two of the boats headed toward the hostile fire, beached
and waged a counter-attack, Kerry's boat continued beyond the hostile fire and then beached, at
which point Kerry jumped ashore and chased-down and killed a lone individual armed with a
rocket-launcher. O'Neill reiterated that Unfit for Command conceded that Kerry's action
required "bravery" but disputed that it warranted a "Silver Star" and disputed
the accuracy of the "report" (upon which it was based) stating that Kerry had
"charged ashore against a numerically superior enemy force."
In fairness to Kerry, one could infer that his purpose in piloting his boat further before beaching
it was to go ashore at a place from which he could maneuver behind the force counterattacked by the
other boats. In fairness to Kerry, as he jumped ashore, he could not have known whether he
might have encountered a numerically superior force. No doubt his doing so required
commendable courage but certainly no greater courage than that routinely exhibited soldiers in
combat whenever they move toward, rather than away from, unknown or feared danger. O'Neill's
point is that the purpose of the Silver Star is to recognize extraordinary bravery above and
beyond ordinary bravery without being intended in any way to minimize or trivialize such routine
bravery in combat.
Koppel closed with an argument implying that critics of Kerry ought to consider the military
"record" -- i.e., the report on the basis of which Kerry received the Silver Star--
to be presumptively correct and that for other witnesses to question its accuracy is somehow
unwarranted. Of course, such argument seems to have been far beyond the intellectual grasp of
the dominant media when-- at a time many months before there was any "SwiftBoat"
criticism of Kerry-- the same dominant media was mightily interested in the
"newsworthiness" of interviewing anyone willing to challenge the "presumptive
correctness" of George Bush's honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Long
before there had been any "SwiftBoat" ads, the dominant media gave dignity to allegations
by Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, and candidates in the Democratic primary that George Bush had
been "AWOL."
To this day, the dominant media still
refuse to correct their "reports" about Bush's failing to "fly" during his
18-month assignment to the Alabama Air National Guard by including the fact that he wasn't
qualified to fly the planes in that unit and couldn't have become qualified to do so without first
returning to active duty for at least 18 months. To this day, the dominant
media still refuse to correct their "reports" about such matter by including
the fact that all National Guard and Reserve units routinely granted for assignment to
other units for temporary and/or permanent changes of address and/or employment. It was no big
deal. It didn't require any "special favor." Sometimes the result was that the
unit nearest to such employment lacked a position matching the training of the person transferred to
it.
O'Neill's
Words, Ted's Ears and Dan's Eyes.
I'm
Ted-- "Mr. Koppel"-- to you,
O'Neill, re: the facts you construed
about Kerry's action--
I'm seeking redaction
of two of the facts you construed.
I'm
sorry my hearing's impaired
so much I remain unaware
that you have explained
in words that are plain
that grounds for redaction ain't there.
I'm
deaf to the fact that your wording
describing the Cong killed by Kerry
had quoted what John
told authors belonged
in books touting courage by Kerry.
I'm
deaf to the fact that the fight,
if Viet Cong mem'ries are right,
occurred the same way
your book has portrayed
and thus shows I'm wrong 'stead of right.
And
therefore, O'Neill, I'm proceeding
to trash you instead of conceding
the fact that I'm nearing
impairment in hearing
like Rather's impairment in reading.
In short, Ted Koppel seems to have acquired a hearing impairment as severe as Dan Rather's reading
disability. Maybe when Koppel reads the transcript of last night's Nightline he'll be
able to see what he was unable or unwilling to hear last night.
Oct. 14, 2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this
installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
No
Update today.
Oct. 13,
2004 #01: Political
Satire/Commentary where satire is always commentary
but commentary isn't always satire™
(but we're confident you'll know the difference) Search
PoliSat.Com Home Tell
a friend about PoliSat.Com Subscribe
Permanent link to this
installment in PoliSat.Com's Archives Google-News
list of recent updates About
author, Jim Wrenn.
Third
Bush-Kerry Debate: It's not "the economy, stupid"; It's "the vision,
stupid"-- The non-existence of a "Goldilocks" luxury of being "just right"
re Saddam left choice between "too soon" or "too late."
In the current fever of anti-war arguments predicated on the now apparent absence of WMD stockpiles,
many people forget that before the war many anti-war activists posited the presumed presence of WMD
stockpiles as an argument against our taking military action to topple Saddam Hussein. The
gist of their argument was that Saddam Hussein's presumed possession of, and previously demonstrated
willingness to use, weapons of mass destruction made it too dangerous to try to topple him.
Those critics, of whom Sen. Carl Levin was an example, argued that "containment" was the
only sensible way for dealing with a fanatic like Saddam Hussein possessing stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons and eagerly seeking ways to develop nuclear weapons. (I remember Levin,
and others, making these very arguments on more than one occasion on Meet the Press and in similar
forums when the country was debating the wisdom of Bush's strategy before commencement of Operation
Iraqi Freedom.)
Their argument was, in essence, that it was already "too late" for military action to be a
viable solution to the threat posed by Saddam. Stressing the success of the West in
"containing" the vastly larger threat posed by the Soviet Union for 70 years, they
vigorously argued that events had deprived us of the luxury of preventing Saddam from reacquiring
such capabilities and had thereby left us "containment" as the only viable
option. (For a then-contemporaneous explanation what was wrong with their
"containment" theory, go
here.) They predicted that toppling Saddam would lead to the deaths of "hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis" and tens of thousands of American Troops. They predicted that Saddam
would destroy the oil wells. They predicted the collapse of neighboring governments.
They predicted a massive refugee problem.
Goldilocks,
Kerry & Bush.
For
Kerry, the "test" to "invade"
would count on a "Goldilocks" fate
to wait for a fight
'til timing's "just right"
to not be "too soon" or "too late."
For Dubya, the "test" to "invade"
did not trust a "Goldilocks" fate
'cause hist'ry has shown
"just right" can't be known--
it's better "too soon" than "too late."
These same people today complain that after toppling Saddam, we've discovered that he had not
preserved, or re-created, the capabilities everyone presumed he still retained even though their
pre-war opposition to the use of force rested upon the implicit argument that using force to
topple him would not be unwise if we were to have had ample reason to believe that he had not
retained (or re-created) such capabilities. Go figure.
The most prescient statement on the subject was by Rumsfeld in the Spring of 2002 before a Senate
Committee. After reciting instances in which other countries (for example, China, India,
Pakistan) developed nuclear weapons long before the time within which our intelligence services
believed they would have such capabilities, he explained that we cannot safely assume that we will
have the luxury of being able to know precisely the last moment at which we could safely act to
preempt a danger such as the acquisition of such a weapon by Saddam Hussein. He elaborated that
the absence of such luxury left us with only two choices-- To act too late or too soon, and he
sensibly expressed a preference for the latter -- especially with respect to a sociopathic
megalomaniac such as Saddam Hussein with a long track record of using chemical weapons, maintaining
an interest in developing more dangerous weapons, and furnishing funds and supplies to terrorists
(not to mention authorizing an attempted assassination of former President Bush).
Thus, like those of us who supported Operation Iraqi Freedom on the assumption that Hussein probably
still retained WMD stockpiles and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons in the near term, those
opponents ought to be congratulating rather than condemning Bush for having succeeded in acting
"too soon" rather than "too late" in toppling Saddam Hussein. If Kerry
were to have been President and were to have done what he now says he would have done, Blixeau would
have reported that no WMD stockpiles could be found, the sanctions (already on the verge of being
rendered meaningless by what we now know about how Saddam used the Oil for Food program to corrupt U.N.
officials and Kerry's favorite "allies") would have become meaningless, our continued
enforcement of the "no-fly" zones would have become politically unsustainable for a
President Kerry trying to placate our "allies" in the U.N., and the rationale for our
continued large-scale military presence (250,000 troops) in the Gulf for the purpose of
"coercing" Saddam to submit to inspections would have evaporated.
In short, by now, Saddam Hussein would have already reconstituted chemical and biological
stockpiles, would be well on his way toward reconstituting his nuclear program (with help from Libya),
and our entire strategy of trying to prevent him from succumbing to the temptation to covertly
furnish such weapons to our terrorist enemies would rest entirely upon taking a leap of faith that
this madman would somehow decline such opportunities to use surrogates to inflict catastrophic
injuries on us. Like Rumsfeld and Bush, I prefer too soon over too late.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Oct.
12, 2004--Special Commentary for today-- Go
here.
Oct.
11, 2004-- No Update. Editor away for medical procedure.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above: go here.
Other sites that feature
PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary-- Click here
to view our Affiliates page.
·
The plan of Sinclair would display
