Jonathan, You talk the talk but don’t walk
the walk.� How many attacks have you posted about Kerry compared the GWB? Case
closed. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004
11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [TruthTalk] Bush,
Honesty, Right, Left
Here is a good example of what I wrote to
Judy this morning. Here we have two sides with obviously different
agendas. When one examines the facts in this particular case the left has
a point. The right also has a valid point. This is how analysis of
what is happening needs to be done. We need to read both sides, assess
the truth both sides have and then come to a conclusion. In most cases
this conclusion must be treated with some sort of humility as new developments
often change the initial impact.
This is from the LATimes. This is
the top article on Buzzflash.com. Following it is the beginning
developments of an opposing article from the Drudge Report.
Jonathan Chait
For Bush, Too Late for Honesty
![*]() Missing munitions spark an
explosion of administration excuses.
On Monday morning, the New York Times reported that 380 tons of powerful
explosives had disappeared from a military complex in Iraq that the
American military didn't safeguard. An honest supporter of President Bush would
reply to this by arguing that, despite this mistake, there are plenty of good
reasons to reelect him anyway.
The week before the election, though, is too late for honesty, especially for a
campaign so committed to the infallibility of its candidate. And so Bush and
his allies have been forced to argue that no, neglecting to guard a lifetime
supply of bomb-making material does not in any way reflect poorly on Bush's
military strategy. Indeed, if anybody is tainted here, it's Kerry. This
exercise in defending the indefensible offers a kind of morbid hilarity. So
far, I count seven distinct lines of argument:
1. Look at the bright side.
Kerry, insists Vice President Dick Cheney, fails to "mention the 400,000
tons of weapons and explosives that our troops have captured and are
destroying." This is sort of like arguing, "Your honor, the record
should reflect the countless times I've driven to work without swerving onto
the sidewalk and mowing down dozens of pedestrians."
2. Consider the source. Why,
Republicans ask, are we finding out just now about this? Well, for starters, it
was less than two weeks ago that the International Atomic Energy Agency
informed our government of the lost explosives. A Wall Street Journal editorial
imputed dark motives to the fact that the information leaked, without
explaining why the U.S.
government was keeping it secret in the first place, or why the fact that it
leaked detracts from the substance of the story.
3. Don't judge. As the Journal
pleaded, "Some 380 tons of frightfully powerful stuff has gone missing,
and the objective before us should be to locate it, not locate blame." In
other words, the military can't search for the bombs unless the voters withhold
judgment about Bush.
4. Kerry reads newspapers.
"What would he do as president? Get up every morning and say, 'I'm going
to govern based on what I find in the newspapers?' " sneered Karl Rove.
"John Kerry will say anything he believes will help him politically,"
wrote Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman, "and today he is grasping at
headlines to obscure his record of weakness and indecision in the war on
terror." The horror — Kerry is letting world news infect his judgment.
5. Kerry's a hypocrite.
"After repeatedly calling Iraq
the wrong war and a diversion," Bush declared, "Sen. Kerry this week
seemed shocked to learn that Iraq
was a dangerous place full of dangerous weapons." This is a bizarre
inversion of reality. Bush justified the war primarily as a way to keep weapons
out of the hands of terrorists, yet his handling of it led to exactly that
result.
6. Kerry hates the troops.
"The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in
the field," Bush insisted. By this logic, any criticism of Bush's military
plan amounts to blaming the troops. By the same Orwellian logic, statements
like the one from Bush supporter Rudy Giuliani — "The actual responsibility
for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search
carefully enough?" — do not count as blaming the troops.
7. It was like that when we got here. Republicans seized on an
NBC News report that a U.S. Army brigade had inspected the site in April 2003
and found no weapons. This claim fell apart after NBC and the brigade commander
said the Americans merely stopped at the site without inspecting it. Bush and
his allies have since retreated to claiming that the explosives may have been
moved before the war started. This is possible, though highly unlikely. David
Kay, the man Bush chose to search for WMD in Iraq,
said such a transfer probably would have been detected by U.S.
satellites. And KSTP, a Minneapolis TV station that had staff embedded with
troops who went into the area, has footage of U.S. troops coming across what
look to weapons inspectors very much like the explosives in question, cracking
open locks and then departing. There have been reports of systematic looting
since.
But even in the unlikely event that the weapons disappeared before the war, it
would hardly forgive Bush's policy of invading without enough troops to secure
vital weapons caches. The point is that he didn't plan for the peace, which
included safeguarding weapons. Suppose it turned out that the pedestrians
struck by our reckless driver all suffered fatal heart attacks moments before
they were run over. Sure, the driver would be exonerated of their deaths. But
as far as evaluating his driving skills — or Bush's war-planning skills — it
makes no difference at all.
Below is the current heading at the Drudge
Report. I am sure this will become a full blown article as/if it
develops. If true it will certainly change the face of the discussion.
FLASH 10.29.04 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at
Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al
QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the
101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al
QaQaa complex... Developing...
MAJOR: WE REMOVED
200+ TONS OF EXPLOSIVES FROM FACILITY
Jonathan
Hughes
This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any
dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended
recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in
connection with the above.
Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents s’y rattachant contiennent de
l’information confidentielle et privil�gi�e. Si vous n’�tes pas le destinataire
vis�, s.v.p. en informer imm�diatement son exp�diteur par retour de courriel,
effacer le message et d�truire toute copie (�lectronique ou autre). Toute
diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le
destinataire vis� est interdite et peut �tre ill�gale. Merci de votre
coop�ration relativement au message susmentionn�.
|
