Fisking Mike Moore

Mike Moore has a new message for his loyal fans that we were able to pick up by installing the special frequency receiver in the back molars of our stuffed Bill the Cat doll.

Let's do what we do best with these things:

Dear Mr. Bush,

Not to be a stickler for details, but that's President Bush to you, Mikey. Maybe you skipped the part in civics class in high school about the Electoral College when you were out pretending that your upper middle class arse was a true righteous son of the working class, but it's the way we've been electing presidents for 216 years now. Show some respect for the office, if not for the man: it's the least we did for President Jiggy-fly.

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq?

What the Democrats are starting to be really afraid about is that Bush could very well win precisely because an increasing number of the public, while not necessarily agreeing with his positions, are comfortable with the fact that it's clear that the President knows where he stands on the issues, and John Kerry doesn't. This scares the bejeebus out of them because it directly strikes the Adlai Stevenson Syndrome at its heart: Democrats like Mike would much rather have a president (like our last one) who is articulate and polished but doesn't mean a word he says, rather than a president (like our current one) who is inarticulate but acts on strongly held beliefs. One wonders what the current effete doyennes of the Democratic Party would do with the likes of Harry Truman, let alone Andrew Jackson. Well we saw what they would do with Jackson last month: he would give the keynote address for the Republicans and they'd pronounce him a lunatic! But I digress.

You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you! Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

Wolfie...heh. Why not pronounce it like you want to, Mike: Wuhlf-oh-witsch. Let the last syllable rolllllll out for all its anti-semitic glory, as your pals in Cannes did....Come on Mike, we know you know you want to say it.......Think of the adulation in Europe if you let rip a tirade about the "Joooooooz".....We know it's in you!

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

Fair enough, but aren't you forgetting a couple of things?

1. The public moral support for Saddam from the Carter Administration, especially Zbignew Brzezinski, which made sense in light of the Revolution in Iran.

2. A little thing called the American Embassy in Iran being seized and our diplomats and personel being held hostage? Ringing a bell?

3. A little thing called the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, a result of the feckless pacifism of the Carter Administration?

Supporting Saddam (who was then and always a military client state of the Soviets) against the Ayatollah was an act of realism, attempting to contain the Iranian Revolution. It was a bet doubled down by the Reagan Administration in helping the Iranians....against Saddam, funneling them parts as well as intelligence in their war. Ruthless? Yes. Ugly? Yes. Necessary at the time? Yes.

And of course, all a result of the "blowback" effect of our support of the Soviets in World War Two. Yes, our support of Stalin seemed necessary at the time to bring down the greater evil and threat, which was Hitler. Foreign policy is like that, sometimes.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

Gosh, where to begin. This was something even the French and the Syrians supported (of course, John Kerry didn't, but that's before he voted for it after he voted against it). Something's registering about a dozen or so resolutions of the UN Security Council.......

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

Actually, no, here's the root of the problem: we didn't want Saddam to live, but our "multi-national coalition" (read: The French) wanted him to. Further direct action was vetoed by our the realities of the UN.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

I seem to remember something about an Operation Desert Fox.... What a tricky bastard Karl Rove is: he was able to advance the cause of the Chimperor by travelling back in time and shaping Bill Clinton's speech! Here's what President Jiggy-Fly had to say:

am convinced the decision I made to order this military action -- though difficult -- was absolutely the right thing to do. It is in our interest and in the interests of people all around the world.

Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop them.

When I halted military action against Saddam last November after he had terminated the UNSCOM operations, I made it very clear that we were giving him a last chance to cooperate. Once again, he promised in very explicit terms that he would fully cooperate.

On Tuesday, the inspectors concluded that they were no longer able to do their jobs and that, in fact, he had raised even new barriers to their doing their jobs.

Then yesterday morning, I gave the order because I believe that we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to dismantle UNSCOM and resume the production of weapons of mass destruction with impunity.

I also believe that, to have done so, would have in effect given him a green light for whatever he might want to do in his neighborhood. I think it would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

We acted yesterday because Secretary Cohen and General Shelton strongly urged that we act at the point where we could have maximum impact with minimum risk to our own people because of the surprise factor.

We also wanted to avoid initiating any military action during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which is slated to begin in just a couple of days.

Our mission is clear -- to degrade his capacity to develop and to use weapons of mass destruction or to threaten his neighbors.

I believe we have achieved that mission and I'm looking forward to getting this briefing.

Added extra Llamabutcher Tasty Bits: follow the link above to the CNN page and it has the link to the video of Al Gore defending the attack on Iraq, sounding downright Neo-con-esque.

Damn that Karl Rove! Now's he gotten to Al using the Wayback Machine!

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:

“I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000

2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:

Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001

Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001

A had an uncle when I was a kid who used to rant and rave about FDR lying in the 1940 election and got us into the needless War in the Pacific. We were nice to him because he was old, he was a relative, he had seen some hard times, and that it wasn't nice to point out he was full of shit.

September 11th showed you can't wait until they are powerful enough to strike at us.

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

Which international law, the one about skimming money off the oil for food program? The one about doing nothing about Genocide in Sudan because it will embarass the UN Human Rights Commission, that includes Sudan as a member? The international law that says "hey, whatever you do, don't point out that our Resolutions are printed on Charmin, because if you do that, it means we are going to actually have to do something difficult rather than go to swanky resorts to pass resolutions condemning Israel?" No interest in going after Osama bin Laden or the Taliban, hence the invasion of Afghanistan was just, what, practice?

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

Wow, THAT'S a persuasive political argument! Have you been boning up on your Aristotle lately, because your rhetoric, she's en fuego.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq.

It's interesting but a major theme used by the Democrats is that you can't criticize John Kerry about anything. No one has the moral authority! It's funny, because truly great pols---Reagan and Clinton come to mind---have the ability to laugh off criticism, and their supporters pick up on this confidence and use it as a strength while it has the opposite effect on the critics, who become increasingly shrill. Lousy pols---Dukakis, Bob Dole, and John Kerry come to mind---are incredibly thin skinned, and it rubs off on their supporters.

By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

I saw a funny bumper sticker yesterday: "When Clinton Lied, No One Died." I guess you'd need to overlook Rwanda and the first years of Bosnia to be acccurate in that assessment (please, no Vince Foster jokes--it's not funny). So it's rich, hearing a partisan Democrat like Mike Moore talking about that.

Seriously, read the above text of Clinton's briefing about Operation Desert Fox, and go and look at the clips from CNN about Al Gore talking about Saddam and WMDs and try to make that statement for us again, Mike. We'll wait right here....

But seriously, Mike's showed us the real fear that the Democrats have: they really think they are going to lose this election. The Republicans are going to open Kerry up like an overripe Mango on this issue.

Just one position, Mike? Here's two right off the bat:

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." (December 16, 2003)

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.[...] I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism" (September 20, 2004)

So much for the "single position" theory---if you are a die-hard Kerry supporter on this, you've got to stick with the theory that there is a lone Kerry speaker, and ignore all evidence of the Kerry speaker on the grassy knoll, stealing all Howard Dean's best lines.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down.

What the....? So what you are saying is that John Kerry should be elected president because he's a guillible idiot easily gulled by a man you lovingly describe as fool? Huh?

And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can't take another minute of it.

The funny thing is, that millions of us are going to go to the polls to vote for the President not only because we have faith in his leadership, and not only because we think Kerry would be a disaster, but also for the added extra benefit of shoving our votes right down your pie hole. I want to see you cry, Mike, and that's the worse thing a partisan pol can do for the other side.

Posted by Steve at September 23, 2004 11:30 AM | TrackBack