Texas Conservative Drinks the Repub KoolAid; Bush Looks for Votes in Space

Over at the “Texas Conservative” blog, there’s an extremely fair-and-balanced comparison between "a Kerry quote and a Bush quote." Actually, Kerry is only given a couple of sentences while Bush is given around 700 words, but one comes to expect that from a site subtitled “Views on current events from a Texas conservative.” So when I say “extremely fair-and-balanced,” I mean that in it’s new sense of “wholly influenced by an Australian uber-conservative that’s got his dirty mitts all over American politcs thanks to a certain media empire.”

Texas Blogger calls Bush’s speech a "vision that will keep generations of Americans safer", but the way I read it, it's the opposite -- it's a protest against peace and a rallying cry for endless war. Kerry hasn't taken an "easy path of protest and defeatism," as Bush says. He's taken on the tough task of battling against a popular and powerful president that he knew, from the start, would drag his name through the mud no matter how clean his life had been.

If Bush had launched a U.S. invasion of Iran or North Korea, or if he'd cracked down on Saudi Arabia or bulked up our forces in Afghanistan, then perhaps I could see the logic behind his actions. But, instead, we attack an economically shattered country with a second-rate dictator, a crappy arms program, and no plans of attacking the U.S. (the much ballyhooed instances of Saddam paying rewards to the family of terrorists never – or at least almost never – coincided with attacks against the U.S.)

And Osama and Saddam were enemies!

All right, in truth, I've got no problem with Saddam or his sons being taken out -- and installing Democracy in Iraq is a noble idea -- but we had higher priorities on the list of nations that needed their asses kicked. So Bush's logic rings false. Also we know that Bush & Co. were already planning an attack on Iraq from BEFORE Sept. 11, so it's scandalous that Bush is still pretending that Sept. 11 is what drove him on this Crusade.

Kerry wasn't "changed" by Sept. 11 because he already loved and respected his country and was already prepared to protect his country from any threat. Sept. 11 was a terrible event, but for those who weren't in the midst of the fray, it's not the sort of thing that has to fundamentally alter one's viewpoint (disclosure: I was in NYC at the time of 9/11). Instead, Kerry has simply become more alert about foreign threats, as we all have become more alert. Alert does not have to imply fundamental and eternal change – but “not changed” also does not imply an inability to learn from an experience.

Bush, on the other hand, was "changed" only in the sense that he was changed from being an unpopular president (who lost the popular vote) to being the Commander in Chief of a Nation Under Attack. And he took advantage by using America's fear as an excuse to settle old scores (took advantage being the key phrase here, reminding me of Nabokov’s use of the phrase in his Humbert Humbert poem: "Because you took advantage of a sinner/because you took advantage/because you took/because you took advantage of my disadvantage).

Kerry is full of rhetoric and bullshit much of the time, admittedly, but he can't touch Bush in these departments -- because Bush is an amazing bullshitter. He's King Bushitter.

Look at this part of his quote:

"He has complained that my administration -- quote -- 'relies unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations.' Let me repeat that. He says that preemptive action is ‘unwise,’ not only against regimes, but even against terrorist organizations."

This is ingenious (and disingenuous), because the first part actually does reflect a Kerry statement (out of context), but then, after Bush says "let me repeat that", he doesn't actually repeat the statement at all, and instead says something entirely new -- an entirely new and outlandish statement said in the (false) context of being a quote from Kerry, but parsed in such a way that the statement could be defended as not being a lie, exactly, but an interpretation (a bad one).

What Kerry is actually saying is that it’s unwise for Bush to RELY on this strategy. He’s not saying the strategy should be completely abandoned, but instead is pointing out the folly of relying (solely relying) on such a potentially destructive, lethal, and limited solution.

That being said, Kerry’s own ideas are limited in nature and not incredibly groundbreaking, but how anyone can believe in Bushes rhetoric is incredible, because it’s all so far from any shred of truth.

Oh, Bush has done one good thing. As governor of Texas, he helped give Texas Astronauts the right to vote from outer space:


1 comment:

Steven said...

Well said !

Congrats aside, isn't it disingenuous to suggest that the totality of Bush's foreign policy strategy amounts to preemptive attacks?

Kerry's proposals offer what alternative to endless rounds of diplomatic "nuance" that result in nothing being accomplished.

The fruits of these labors can be seen in the rampant corruption in the "Oil for Weapons/Palaces/Bribes" programs that allowed Saddam to skim billions, and enriched some of our "allies".

I don't think Bush has a "perfect" answer, but Kerry hasn't provided even a clue regarding his "answer".