He can't possibly mean what he says

Let's pick apart some of the Republican rhetoric on Iraq that we've been hearing over the past few days. And let's start with an easy one. Here's from the Press Conference held by Bush with Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq yesterday:

Q Mr. President, you say today that the work in Iraq is tough and will remain tough. And, yet, you travel this country and a central theme of your campaign is that America is safer because of the invasion of Iraq. Can you understand why Americans may not believe you?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No. Anybody who says that we are safer with Saddam Hussein in power is wrong. We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein defied the demands of the free world. We went into Iraq after diplomacy had failed. And we went into Iraq because I understand after September the 11th we must take threats seriously, before they come to hurt us.

I don't have much to about that, because it's hard to really argue with it, in this sense: I understand why Bush thinks the way he does. I listen to what he says, hear his perspective and his (only occasional) arguments, and then I decide that he is wrong. President Bush, however, doesn't understand why it is that I don't believe that America is safer because of the invasion of Iraq. What does it say about a president that doesn't understand the perspective of a citizen who disagrees with him? I thought he was supposed to be "a uniter not a divider"?

But here's the bit that I really don't understand:

It's hard work. The American people know that. But I believe it's necessary work. And I believe a leader must be consistent and clear and not change positions when times get tough. And the times have been hard -- these are hard times. But I understand that -- what mixed messages do. You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages. That's why I will continue to lead with clarity and in a resolute way, because I understand the stakes. These are high stakes. And we'll succeed.

I mean, I know most of it is just election year drivel, and that's fine, I don't really care. But I honestly don't get the thing about "mixed messages." First of all, what is a mixed message? Is he referring to Kerry's vote to authorize the president to use force, and his subsequent criticisms of how the president handled the authority? If so, in what way is that message mixed? It seems pretty clear to me.

But let's take some of these one by one: "You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message." In all seriousness, how is that saying that invading Iraq was a mistake, especially done in the manner in which it was done, makes an enemy emboldened? Is the idea that Zarqawi is sitting somewhere and seeing John Kerry criticize the president on TV, and the fact that Kerry is saying that is causing Zarqawi to become bolder? Do we really think that terrorists are that stupid? And isn't the fact that they don't really care about their own lives, that they don't pay any attention to the personal consequences of their actions, what really makes them terrorists? Surely, the 9/11 hijackers still would have struck whether Bush and democrats were arguing or not. Bush always says that they "hate us for our liberties." If that's true (it's not), why does it matter that Kerry is criticizing you? They hate him just as much as they hate you.

And what about this one: "You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages." Yes, John Kerry has some pretty mixed signals on this one: "We must give our troops the equipment and support to carry out their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan." Confusing. Or maybe this bit from a press release: "Kerry is guided by a basic rule: “Mission First, Troops Always.” He will never turn his back on the military and will provide our soldiers and their families with higher pay, health care and a commitment to only use their services when all other options have failed." I can't believe how mixed those messages are.

And the last: "You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages." That must not include the 71% of Iraqis that thought that the United States where "occupiers" not "liberators" when asked in April of this year.

The fact that this "mixed messages" stuff doesn't make any sense, of course, doesn't matter. What really matters the fact that Bush brings up that point as the salient one against his opponent. The important thing, above all else, Bush seems to imply, is "to lead with clarity and in a resolute way," not the direction in which you lead. Never has the president said how he would feel if his resoluteness were misplaced, and his clarity blurred. I guess that would be not be strong leadership or something.

Of course, the fact that Bush is criticizing Kerry merely becuase Kerry spoke his mind is despicable enough. But Bush hasn't been the worst as far as that goes. Today, the WaPo has a story on the myriad ways in which Republicans have criticized Kerry just for criticizing the president. "Aid" and "comfort" are two words you might find a lot. As in when Ed Gillespie said that Tom Daschle had brought "comfort to America's enemies," or when John Ashcroft said that criticims of the Patriot Act "only aid terrorists"

Of course, everyone remembers where the phrase "aid and comfort" comes from, but here's the whole paragraph in case you've forgotten:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

OK, Republicans, why don't you just come out and say it? If you think John Kerry and Democrats are traitors, why don't you make your case known to the American people, instead pussy-footing around it? I'd like to see your evidence. Then we'll remind you that we have a 1st amendment, and you'll lose the election.

-- Michael

Comments

[d meyers]

""Kerry is guided by a basic rule: “Mission First, Troops Always.” He will never turn his back on the military and will provide our soldiers and their families with higher pay, health care and a commitment to only use their services when all other options have failed." I can't believe how mixed those messages are. " Except of course if Kerry doesn't get his tax increase on the rich to pay for the equipment...

Here is what mixed messages are: Vietnam proved that the way to defeat the US is not on the battle field but to defeat the US at home. The way is to turn the public against the action and tear apart the country from within. When you start putting time tables on troop withdrawls the eneny knows they can wait us out. When the enemy sees a politcal party speaking out against the war they know they can wait us out. When the enemy hears the presidential candidate call the Prime Minister a puppet to the US it echos their own message.

The only message the enemy needs to hear is total and complete victory by Iraq and the US. The only message they need to hear is the US will do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorism. The message that the enemy needs to here is

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. " JFK

Will John Kerry pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship for Victory in Iraq?

[here's what's left]

did you actually read the post, d? i don't think you did, because i addressed those points.

The only message the enemy needs to hear is total and complete victory by Iraq and the US.

as i said in the post, the logic behind this is flawed. terrorists are ideologues, and are going to do what they want do no matter what. what john kerry says doesn't matter to them.

[d meyers]

why do you think the terrorists use Al-Jazeria so much if the PR effort does not matter?

[d meyers]

CONGRATS, John Kerry FINALLY sits down for an on camera interview with a journalist, it has only been 58 days.. It contained this beauty regarding I voted for it before I voted against it..

The good news is John Kerry did an interview on Good Morning America, and he was asked about his "I voted for it before I voted against it" comment.

Kerry responded, "No, it wasn’t classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly."

.........

“‘I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it,’ he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University. He went on to explain that he preliminarily backed the request, so long as it was financed not by deficit spending but with a tax surcharge on the wealthy that Bush opposed.”

Maybe he meant "late in the evening" in Paris