Centerfield

I don't know how there can be a debate about these issues without each side arguing, explicitly or implicitly, that more Americans will die if the other guy is elected. But it certainly ain't pretty to watch.

McCarthyism? That is pretty desperate, Rick.

There is no denying that Kerry benefits politically if things look bad in Iraq. As his political adviser I would definetely be telling him to point out the negative while ignoring the positive. Whether or not he is exaggerating the case in order to win an election is up to each indiviudal to decide. More to the point, this isn't any thing more than typical political banter. I think the real exaggeration here is coming from those who accuse Bush/Cheney of "McCarthyism" and out right lying.

However, I was as appalled and offended by Kerry's comments regarding Allawi as Cheney was. I think it is fair to say that the relationship between Kerry and Allawi was damaged yesterday for the sake of a Presidential election. That is not leadership, and it sure as hell is not diplomacy. Kerry could have took what might have been a better week for him after his speech on Wednesday and proved right the majority of American people who still don't think he is capable of leading the War on Terrorism, or the War in Iraq.

Rick,

Seperate from the words of Cheney yesterday, I completely agree with you that the article from Front Page Mag is wrong, and I don't believe that Kerry's actions after Vietnam where in anyway criminal nor should they be portrayed as such. However, I do not believe that those raising questions about Kerry in Vietnam and Bush/Cheney are one in the same, and I think it is unfair at best to claim that they are without making the same connection between Kerry and Moveon.org.

Without accusing either campaign of illegal coordinating with auxiliary groups, there's a informal level of coordination that is done by observing what is stated in public, and working with that. So yes, I think Cheney is implicitly charging Kerry with being disloyal, and conservative groups are doing it explicitly.

Kerry need not consider the impact of his words on his relationship with Allawi. Even if Kerry wins, Allawi won't be head of Iraq by the time Kerry would take office on January 20. Allawi is a caretaker. He wouldn't win a free and fair election.

I don't know that I'd quite go as far as to compare this to McCarthyism, but I could sure see it headed that way without too much trouble. I do agree with Rick that if the opposition opposes the current administration's policies there is often at minimum a charge of being unpatriotic and at most a verbal hinting around of treason.

I don't know about all of you, but I have certainly been more careful of what I say, and where I surf on the Web, for instance, than I might have been in the past. It sort of even makes me nervous that I'm a *registered,* card-carrying Democrat. There is undeniably a sense of fear out here, and it's not only fear of terrorists, but fear of Big Brother.

Allawi will not be in power so Kerry doesn't have to worry about what he thinks? I disagree. The basis of Kerry's argument is that things are going so bad that elections may not even happen when scheduled. Wouldn't Allawi still be in charge then? Even if he is not, Kerry's actions yesterday go further than one man, aren't there some in Iraq close to the power structure that noticed the man who would be Commander-in-chief disputing what they believe to be the conditions of their own country?

I agree it is unlikely that Allawi will win an election, but if my goal where truly improving interational diplomacy, then I wouldn't trash him and then bank on him losing? Maybe Kerry ought to admit that diplomacy does not mean keeping everyone happy, and that sometimes leaders have to act without full agreement from the world community.

Amy,

Funny you should say that, because when I was living in Washington State I was afraid to tell people that I was a Republican. :)

I think Cheney believes what he's saying here. He's entitled to his opinion, even though he's in rhetorical high dudgeon.

I think it's Ok to point out that Kerry's criticisms are colored by opportunism, in other words he's saying what he is saying because of his ambitions, and that he'd probably cast things differently if the shoe were on the other foot.

IMO, It's quite possible that Kerry's words may not be productive, although it's unmeasurable and thus highly subjective. To me, the bottom line is that the tone and volume of his criticism is such that I too question whether he's hurting our efforts. I think if he were really a stateman qualified to lead, he'd find a better way to keep his criticism productive. If Kerry is implying that the guy is a stupid puppet, how exactly does this help us?

Personally, I think Kerry would be much better served by stressing that he hopes our efforts in Iraq succeed no matter who is leading them, and simply mentioning that he has some serious concerns about methods and timetables but that he's not going to play them out divisely in the press. Kerry's tone on Iraq is becoming strident and reflexively negative, when what he needs to project is sober concern and a stubborn reluctance to say negative things (while at the same time still saying them, of course.) he needsa to say things like "it hasn''t gone nearly as well as it could have so far, but we need to stay strong. America WILL work this out." And again, he needs to let people who like Bush keep liking him by stressing that he likes Bush too, but he's just not getting 'er done.

Well, it looks like I've started a vigorous discussion, which is what I wanted to do, by being provocative.

The problem I see with recent remarks by both Cheney and Bush is that, instead of rebutting the substance of Kerry's critique, they've criticized his right to disagree with them.

It's true that a lack of unity in the home front can give "mixed signals" as Bush put it

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6071152/

which can conceivable undermine troop morale. But in a democracy, one has to debate things in public, even at the risk of giving mixed signals, in order to make course corrections. There are some environments where its appropriate to keep the dirty laundry hidden, but in the months leading up to election, it has to be aired, in order to give the public a chance to make a decision.

The subtext to this, of course, is the notion that it was criticism of the Vietnam War that lost the war, and that Kerry's at it again, trying to undermine the war effort.

I believe the innuendo coming out of both Bush's and Cheney's statements are anti-democratic, challenging the right of the loyal opposition to oppose, and questioning its loyalty.

(by the way, as you will recall from posts months ago, I do think there really are Americans who are traitors, who want the Iraqi insurgents to win. But the essence of McCarthyism is to charge that the loyal opposition falls into the same category)

Amy, Funny you should say that, because when I was living in Washington State I was afraid to tell people that I was a Republican. :)

LOL! Well, yeah, you guys *are* kind of a rare breed out here. Unless, of course, you live where you're harvesting onions or something. :-)

Kerry's actions yesterday go further than one man, aren't there some in Iraq close to the power structure that noticed the man who would be Commander-in-chief disputing what they believe to be the conditions of their own country?

Is it really some kind of problem for Kerry to dispute Allawi's description of conditions in Iraq? That seems like a pretty fundamental point to make -- that the administration is misleading us about conditions in a country where we're at war. If Allawi agrees with Bush's rosy picture, then I suspect Allawi is the one making the mistake, factually and analytically.

It's hard to imagine a campaign where Kerry keeps mum about things being fairly bad in Iraq right now on the basis of not wanting to disagree with the Iraqi PM.

Also, aren't guys like Hagel and McCain saying the same thing?

I've been wondering, finally, about the whole issue of bringing Allawi to America right now. What impact does that have on various actors? It surely doesn't convince potential Iraqi supporters of the insurgency that he's not Bush's lap dog.

I get the sense that the Allawi trip and Bush's address to the U.N. were both more about U.S. politics than prosecuting an effective campaign in Iraq. We seem to be sacrificing the latter for the former.

This is off-topic ... but just a side note to Amy. I've been trying to email you about some of the CC organizational stuff -- responding to your email from yesterday. But I think your email address is bouncing right now.

You can reach me at wswann@mindleaders.com or volunteers@centristcoalition.com. Thanks!

... the bottom line is that the tone and volume of his criticism is such that I too question whether he's hurting our efforts.

I think this illustrates the prediciment Kerry is in. A few short weeks ago, he was being criticized for not pointing out the negative loudly enough. Now he's doing that, and he's being criticized for being too negative and too loud (BTW, I'm not accusing you of this, Brian, I'm just using your point as an illustration). The man can't get a break. I think the problem is, he listens too much to criticism and alters his message and tactics according to the whims of the public. Dance little puppet, dance! The man needs to find a message, find his voice and stick with it. Unfortunately, he's tried out too many messages and too many voices, now (IMO) it's too late for him. Even if he finds his voice and his message, people will only see it as another Kerry uhh.... "transformation."

Cheney's comments don't quite reach the level of McCarthyism--it's legitimate to criticize Kerry's depiction of a foreign leader. However, I have seen too many comments to the effect that any criticism of the war or policy "hurts the morale of the troops" or "undermines our position" or something that implies that it is unpatriotic to criticize the president.

I have never been a soldier, but I don't really understand how Kerry suggesting things aren't going well in Iraq is likely to undermine their morale. They are the ones getting shot at. I suspect they know things aren't going well.

This all goes back, of course, to Viet Nam where supposedly the anti-war demonstrations encouraged the Communists to continue the war and undermined our troops. First, while the Communists were probably aware and happy to see opposition to the war, I seriously doubt there is any evidence that the antiwar protests effected their willingness to fight. They were in it for the long haul--whether Americans supported or didn't support the war had little effect, IMO. Second, even if it did, are we supposed to simply stifle all dissent because it might in some way be seen positively by the enemy? Where do you draw the line? And criticism during war time is nothing new. Lincoln was harshly criticized until the tide turned for the North. I just think the comments coming from the Bush-Cheney camp evince a basic contempt or at least misunderstanding of the way democracy works. Or maybe, more likely, they are doing it for political purposes and don't care.

A few short weeks ago, he was being criticized for not pointing out the negative loudly enough. Now he's doing that, and he's being criticized for being too negative and too loud. The man can't get a break. I think the problem is, he listens too much to criticism and alters his message and tactics according to the whims of the public.

Yeah. He really can't find that in-between ground that I think would sound reasonable and grounded to most Americans -- pointing out what is wrong, but placing it in the context of what we should do to make it better, and showing some confidence we will get there. His attacks sound more like typical politics -- slamming your opponent -- than a sober and reasonable take on the whole thing.

Honestly, this election is driving me crazy. Neither Kerry nor Bush are quality leaders. That's my basic conclusion. Kerry doesn't know how to get beyond politics and practice actual leadership. Bush is much-the-same, with an Iraq policy that sounds more like a reelection campaign than a genuine effort at success.

We're at war right now. And guys on the sidelines, like Hagel and McCain, are the only ones mature enough to deal with it.

Yup, that's what I'm getting at. Amy, you're right that I was calling for Kerry to go negative loudly and now it seems I'm pounding him for doing so. I'm well aware of this, FWIW.

Kerry's not hitting that sweet spot, and it feels to me like part of the reason is that he's just not connected enough to the people, or to what's really important. If Kerry gave up hope of winning and just kept stating over and over all the things he thinks we need to do, he'd stop buzzing around that sweet spot and actually find it. His ambition is what is making him unclear.

It's a matter of tone and emphasis. He can't be seen as strident, and his criticism must come off as constructive, as geared towards improving our chances. he should be embracing the idea that his recent plan/list of goals is similar to Bush's. he should be stressing that from where we stand today, out goals should be clear and we should be united. He should be reresenting Bush as a guy whose heart was in the right place but whose execution has been wretched. Here are the goals, Bush is a nice guy who's not gittin 'er done, I'll git 'er done.

... guys on the sidelines, like Hagel and McCain, are the only ones mature enough to deal with it.

I tell ya, guys, I'm *seriously* thinking about writing in McCain. Not sure who I'd do as VP yet, but I am so frustrated. I *can't* vote for Bush, but I'd feel disappointed with myself if I voted for Kerry. So the choice is between voting for someone I don't like, or toss away my vote on someone I do. Nice options. If I had to vote today, I'd toss away my vote. We'll see how I feel tomorrow. :-)

Hey, anyone wonder if Edwards is kicking himself for accepting Kerry's offer to run as his VP? :-)

So we're not allowed to dissent because it might effect troop morale? Jeez what a stretch. Doesn't anyone thing troop morale might actually be taking a larger hit from the fact that they still don't have all of the safety equipment they need, properly armored vehicles, people being kidnapped, beheaded and blown up, etc?

This blog needs a dose of Operation Truth:

http://optruth.com/main.cfm

Amy, I strongly encourage you to go read Kerry's speech at NYU from last week. It's an excellent speech and gives a very good outline of what Kerry plans to do with Iraq.

Rick is right in terms of the GOP loosely tossing about the label "disloyal". There's also the word "treasonous" which is bandied about by Bush surrogates as well.

Amy, I strongly encourage you to go read Kerry's speech at NYU from last week.

That's right, Carla. I had forgotten about that speech. I actually watched it on C-SPAN. You're right, I thought it was a good speech. Thanks for reminding me of it.

C'mon carla, the point is not whether Kerry has the right. Of course he does. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you can't get criticized for it, or that you are necessarily right to do it. Get off your high horse. The point is that if he doesn't doi it right, it won't help him. Get it?

Rick's correct about the essence of McCarthyism being the labeling of one's opposition as being disloyal citizens and aiding the nation's enemy of the moment.

This is what Wesley Clark spoke out quite clearly and effectively about while he was a candidate. That seemed to result in toned-down rhetoric for a while.

It was also the technique Zell Miller was using during his convention speech when he accused Kerry and the Democrats of trying to 'bring down the commander-in-chief', as though having an election is being disloyal!

And despite protests about 'the librul media bias', the left/Dems has no match for the effective synthesis of formal and informal coordination among various elements of the right wing (pundits, publishing houses, Drudge, FOX, Norquist, contributors, et al.) -- YET. Add to that Rove's own history, there's probably not much that goes on that doesn't have Rove's approbation, active or passive. He's simply very good at this and he IS in control.

*sigh...* Wesley Clark. That's who I voted for in the caucus. Then I had to vote for Kerry because Clark didn't get a big enough percentage in my precinct, so he was eliminated as a viable candidate.

What bugged me about the whole Clark issue was that many Dems just could not get beyond his Republican past, and they sort of eyed him with suspicion. Yet at the convention, they just *loved* him. The public is fickle.

bk:

Umm..there's something I'd like to say about kissing my high horse's ass...but I digress. :)

And this IS about whether or not Kerry has the right to say it. When you try to box someone in as a traitor to their country because they dare criticize the government...you're in essence removing their right to speak out. It's one thing to say that they're wrong and explain why. It's quite another to accuse them of committing crimes against the country by "emboldening" the terrorists when speaking out.

Further...where's the critique of what Kerry is actually saying? Where are Bush and Cheney and the GOP surrogate crowd when it comes to explaining to the country why their policy is correct and Kerry's isn't?

Can anything be anti-patriotic? If it is, is calling it that bad?

It IS fair to identify non-patriotic speech as "words that are used by the enemy as recruitment slogans". Like "Bush = Hitler".

America has, and should have, enough freedom to allow burning the flag. AND to call flag-burning non-patriotic.

Kerry's 1971 words were used against POWs by their captors. (I expect a big Swiftie ad on this in Oct. Maybe their last one?)

Criticizing the gov't in war, without being on the other side, is actually not so easy. But Kerry isn't making any big effort, because he hasn't accepted that booting Saddam was good, and that the only morally acceptable outcome is for us to stay until there is some democracy in Iraq.

The terrorists don't think booting Saddam was good, and want the US out before any stable democracy is established. If you, or Kerry, or Kerry's words, seems to agree with the terrorists, you're at least a third order friend of the enemy.

In Vietnam, Keery wanted peace instead of fighting.

Peace and genocide instead of fighting evil. The Killing Fields are a fact, and are what the "peace" folk were supporting, in reality. Maybe not what they meant ...

There were some people back then who wanted the Communists to win, and chanted "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win!” (NLF=Viet Cong) That was certainly unpatriotic and anti-American. If Kerry did that, he'd have a lot of explaining to do, but there's no evidence he ever did. His opposition was loyal and respectable. If the Communists used his legitimate dissent to try to manipulate POW's, that is not his fault, but just a price we pay for being a democracy.

Whether Kerry's policy agenda back then was wise is a separate issue. I think we prematurely abandoned the South Vietnamese government by not funding it appropriately after we pulled our troops out.

On Saddam, the obvious rejoinder to Bush's taunt that if were up to Kerry, Saddam would still be in power, is that if it were up to Kerry, the 1000+ dead American soldiers would still be alive. Maybe he's keeping that in reserve for the debate.

I've never thought Iraq was capable of democracy, and nothing I've seen lately supports the notion that a democracy in Iraq will last long. I thought that we should have preserved a rump of the Baath Army, and turned things over to a military junta like the one Musharaff's been running in Pakistan.

Today's New York Times seems to label the president a divider, not a uniter:

President Bush and his surrogates are taking their re-election campaign into dangerous territory. Mr. Bush is running as the man best equipped to keep America safe from terrorists - that was to be expected. We did not, however, anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists.

...This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

...It is fair game for the president to claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a blow to terrorism, to accuse Mr. Kerry of flip-flopping and to repeat continually that the war in Iraq is going very well, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is absolutely not all right for anyone on his team to suggest that Mr. Kerry is the favored candidate of the terrorists. And at a time when the United States is supposed to be preparing the Iraqi people for a democratic election, it's appalling to hear the chief executive say that loyal opposition gives aid and comfort to the enemy abroad.

...We think that anyone who attempts to portray sincere critics as dangerous to the safety of the nation is wrong. It reflects badly on the president's character that in this instance, he's putting his own ambition ahead of the national good.

Hear, hear!

editorial

Kerry's slap at Allawi hurts his own future presidency and America.

Kerry suggests Iraqi elections might not take place in January. If he is right, Kerry would then be working with Allawi for a very long time past January. The ongoing success of Kerry's Iraq policy would depend on working closely with Allawi, the man he just got through insulting, questioning his credibility and calling him a puppet.

Kerry's plan for Iraq is a point by point copy of Bush's plan, except Kerry says he will garner greater foreign support through diplomacy. After this undiplomatic speech trashing Allawi, I just don't see it.

Critics rightly warn Kerry for hurting the country with this ill-conceived speech. He should criticise our policy and offer alternative solutions, while avoiding damaging the relationship with our allies.

Kerry says he can get more foreign support, but his speeches emphasize defeatist pessimism about our efforts there. If he convinces people that Iraq is a losing, wasteful proposition, is that pitch going to make foreigners newly eager to join in with their soldiers and money?

Frankly, Allawi is really just a stooge of the United States. He was selected by the United States over the wishes of the Iraqi people and is kept in power by the United States. He has little commitment to democracy, despite his rhetoric, and little support in the country. It was Allawi who originally suggested that elections might have to be postponed. So it's nonsense to treat this guy like he is George Washington. Susan is talking as if Allawi is some elected leader. He is not much different than the people we put in power in South Viet Nam.

What is the problem with Kerry telling people the truth (at least as he sees it) about Iraq?

"First, while the Communists were probably aware and happy to see opposition to the war, I seriously doubt there is any evidence that the antiwar protests effected their willingness to fight. They were in it for the long haul--whether Americans supported or didn't support the war had little effect"
-------------------------------------------------

MWS,

I just have to correct you on this one point. Your contention here has been directly contradicted by North Vietnamese commanders of no less authority then Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap (Chief of Staff NVA) and Bui Tin (Giaps immediate subordinate and the man who accepted the surrender of Saigon). Thier statements regarding the importance of the anti-war movement (and a perponderance of inaccurate negative reporting of the war by the U.S. press) to the North's war effort are absolutely damning. Please do some research for yourself about both these gentlemans statements on the issue. Here is just one small excerpt from a Wall Street Journal Interview of Tin.....

"(Reporter)Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

(Tin) A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."

There have been myriad other quotes by these men on these issues...although they have been given remarkably little attention considering how damning they are.

I firmly believe that it is ESSENTIAL for a functioning democracy to allow it's citizens to freely debate and criticize it's policies....including the conduct of on-going wars. However, lets not try to sugar-coat the effect of this on the battle-field and upon the enemies willingness to continue the struggle. We shouldn't try to distort the truth simply because
it becomes inconvenient to our ideals.

I believe that then as now, it IS legitimate to question and even criticize the conduct of a war. However there are different ways to do so....and I do believe that then as now .....some of the people involved in such activities (though not neccesarly Kerry) have gone well beyond what could be considered respectfull debate and strayed into the territory of pandering to the enemy (though likely they have done so out of misplaced zeal and not maliciousness)

The subtext to this, of course, is the notion that it was criticism of the Vietnam War that lost the war, and that Kerry's at it again, trying to undermine the war effort.

"Vote John Kerry for another Vietnam!" Sadly, that's been the subtext of Kerry's entire campaign since the primaries. And as I've said repeatedly since the primaries, it's a losing message.

Has anyone ever read or seen the play "The Crucible"? by Arthur Miller, the author, seems to have made a consciouse effort to present a parallel between McCarthyism and the Salem With Hunts. I can say that I agree with it, and now reading it in the context of todays world, I can see another line drawn into the parallel Miller created. Although McCarthyism was basically about communism, and today it is about terrorism. initially they may seem different, but they involve the same ideas, such as the fear of the unknown which is slowly turning into a state of hysteria. So really, I am agreeing with the initial statement by Rick Hellar.

(by the way i am Australian...)

The Crucible is standard issue school fare here in the US. The problem with the parallel is that witchcraft is not real, so the threat is at best mental. The same can't be said of terrorism.

Nor could the same have been said about Communism (that it was illusory) as Arthur Miller knew. McCarthy was a demagogic rabble-rouser. But he wasn't totally wrong. What the hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

Hitler burned the Reichstag and accused communists. It all boils down to using fear of an unknown to silence any and all critisms.

We still do not know where OBL is, perhaps there will be a little gift for us in Bush catching OBL a week before the election.

I find it hard to be optimistic now that Poland is pulling out.

Nice blog, really enjoyed it.