Lileks complains about another disarmament issue. An excerpt:
So the ad is bad because it reminds us of those days. I know, I know – some things ought not be used for transient political advantages. For some, the the real issue isn’t what Willie Horton did, it’s pointing out that he did it. I know. But we need to be reminded. In an odd way, the attacks on New York and Washington were so harsh they cauterized the wound they caused. Or to switch metaphors – we were stabbed in the back, and that’s not a scar you see when you face yourself in the mirror.People forget. People must not forget.
People forgot the Cole the day after it happened. People forgot the embassy attacks – if they were aware of them at all – by nightfall. People shrugged at Desert Fox and the Tomahawk attack on empty Afghan camps. No one took it seriously until we were all sitting in a dark room at 1 AM staring at the TV, watching the crawl, wondering what was next, stunned and horrified and scared. Three moments: Bush’s speech on the pile, the speech at the National Cathedral, and then the jaw-dropping State of the Union address, which was the moment when the national mood got off its knees and balled its fists and said that’s not going to happen again.Remember?
The way some people are complaining, you’d think the ad had text like this:
“In the dark days after the attacks on America, President Bush gave the nation hope that this was not the end of our society, but the beginning of a new era in which grave threats would be met and overcome.”
That would be unacceptable, of course. Politicizing 9/11! Wrapping himself in the flag! Implying his opponents are unpatriotic! Plastic turkey! Aircraft carrier landing! Mission accomplished! AWOL! French goodwill squandered!
By this logic, FDR should have run his 44 campaign on his domestic agenda.
The opposition's agenda is a subtle disarmament, no matter what it looks like. Kerry talks tough, and is superbly fisked by Armed Liberal, to reveal that's he's made only marginal policy contributions, and staked out hard line positions on the antipodes of the issue. (Like it's the first time he's ever done that, right?) This is ersatz bravado, like a speech by Hawkeye Pierce on the Korean War that everyone knows is really standing in for the Vietnam War. Remember Korea? Kerry's was a speech about the sophisticated wisdom of doing things halfway, while claiming he's going the extra mile:
I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.
Too little? It'd just be patently bad form to mention something he's actually done, wouldn't it?
Posted by Demosophist at March 5, 2004 11:28 PM | TrackBackIt's this specific faultline that has caused me to decide that I may excuse myself from much of the debate in this election. I know where I stand, and I can see no reasonable, sensible reason to change. I think I may restrict my commentary to tactics and strategy.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at March 7, 2004 07:12 PMA.R.:
I was just thinking of you, and over visiting your blog! An old friend of mine suggested we go see "The Fog of War" and I was a bit dubious. Then I read CVE's review and decided that I need to see it. (I despise McNamara. You know how it is.)
I also enjoyed your empathetic post about Dean. I have many many friends on the port side, and this must really be devastating for them (let alone him). There is such certainty about the rightness of the cause, that when it's so roundly rejected it must be personal. I sure am glad I got my foot untangled from that snare.
The idea that Bush ought not talk about 9/11 really betrays the underlying wishful-thinking theme of the modern-day Fauristes/McClellanites/Kerryites. They actually wish the whole thing would just go away. (Sullivan notes that Kerry only mentioned Al Qaeda once in a recent speech. Once!) God help us if they find a sympathetic ear in the majority.
Posted by: Sierra Whisky Tango (to Bravo Romeo Delta) at March 7, 2004 07:32 PM