This post is likely to go all over the place, just as the paint seems to be doing on the kitchen cabinets and trim I’m redoing, but I wanted to mention and comment on some items I’ve noticed during this very busy week.
A UK friend asked me a week or so ago, “Is Bush going to win over there? Kerry just seems, from this distance anyway, to be giving Bush a free ride.”
I think there are too many variables to even hazard a guess who’ll win, for instance, the prediction by AEI election watchdogs that the outcome will be determined by a “spectacular event” in September or October. There are voting machines to worry about and felons to be purged. And we’re all painfully aware that the Democrats have done nothing but give George a free ride when it comes to staying the course in Iraq, in fact, they’ve furthered it along. What follows are recent observances that add to my overall impression that the Democrats wouldn’t be entirely upset if George remains the go see on all matters relating to the continued occupation of Iraq.
Tune in to Sean Hannity‘s June 15th radio programme and you’ll hear his exchange with John Podesta. If like me you don’t crave Hannity’s rhetoric for simpletons it starts around 20:00.
Podesta is cowed and ultimately agrees with Hannity who states the serial liar Clinton was telling the truth when in ’98 he fronted bogus WMD intelligence to justify bombing Iraq. That Democrats aren’t rushing to review that historical moment is a weakness I expect shills like Hannity to capitalise upon and pound them with at every available opportunity. When Kerry asks, “Why did Bill Clinton bomb Iraq based on this nonsense?”, I will believe he has a real interest in winning this race and the best interests of this nation at heart. You can read about the circumstances that led to Podesta’s appearance here and here.
The Nation‘s June 21, 2004 issue carries copy from both David Corn and Eric Alterman addressing Kerry’s allegedly nuanced stance on Iraq. Corn puts his insider foot forward and presents the current strategy of the power behind the candidate. But all it really boils down to is the flip side of the same imperialistic coin. Alterman, on the other hand, gets a bit emotional, declaring the election “will be among the most crucial events in contemporary history.” And he pushes the only nuance Kerry has a prayer of gaining ground using which is that the world is a more dangerous place thanks to George’s belligerent handling of the invasion. Alterman’s assertion that Kerry was fooled by Bush into believing Iraq possessed WMD’s is a ridiculous notion. The level of debate in this country is in a sad enough state. I hope the Kerry campaign doesn’t pull the plunger with that lame excuse.
I’m not sure if you can access this letter from that same issue without a subscription. Howard Zinn takes issue with Jonathan Schell’s May 10th column, “Truth and Politics“, which advances “the political reality that no antiwar candidate of modern times has ever made it into the White House.” Oh bother! There is no reason to believe that Kerry wants out of Iraq even if he jumped on the bandwagon for 5 seconds when Dean was at the top of his game. He’s manipulating voters into believing we simply need a better plan and using misinformation to do it.
But I applaud Howard Zinn for his closing remarks:
(And) look at the polls. Support for the war has gone down steadily to below 50 percent and will continue to go down as the disaster in Iraq becomes more and more clear. So “political reality” does not require a prowar candidate. Both morality and reality converge on this issue, and we should have a national campaign to push Kerry into recognizing this or to call for a grassroots rebellion at the Democratic National Convention to nominate a “national security through peace” candidate.
I think it’s a terrific idea. Much more promising than the worthless demo scheduled for George’s coronation this summer. Will shouting one more time about how corrupt he and his administration are, as if we don’t already know this, alter the course our country is careening down at breakneck speed?
Finally I wanted to point people in the direction of The Monthly Review‘s online publishing of The Illusions of Empire by Bashir Abu-Manneh. The article is an abridged version of his introduction to the 2003 symposium he edited “Empire and US Imperialism” which can be purchased in its entirety here.
Alterman wrote:
With his hypercautious position on Iraq–“measured,” in the opinion of the New York Times–Kerry risks leaving many of those who rightly see the war as a catastrophe with nowhere to go to express their outrage. As with the election of 1968, an increasingly antiwar electorate is being offered only prowar choices for the presidency. It is just possible, therefore, that Nader may once again insure Bush’s “victory” in the election, dooming the world to four more years of a neoconservative imperialism and rogue American militarism.
As Bush and Kerry’s plans bleed into one another, hucksters scurry to paint the same picture with brighter colours, then ask us to appreciate and defend minor differences in brush strokes. Replace Bush’s name with Kerry’s and we’ll suffer the same doom. I’ll be voting for David Cobb should he get the Green Party’s nomination this month. There are places to go. Only by finally saying enough to the lies and going there in numbers will the spot ever amount to a political reality. If not now, when?
Peace