July 24, 2003
Bill Kristol, Waterboy
The man that people used to call "Dan Quayle's brain" goes to the mat for President Bush in today's Washington Post:
Right — because Dick Gephardt sent people to war on the basis of a lie."George Bush has left us less safe and less secure than we were four years ago."President Bush's 16 words on uranium and Africa in his January State of the Union address -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- have become famous, or infamous. But Dick Gephardt's 16 words, spoken in the course of a major foreign policy speech this past Tuesday, are the ones that matter.
-- Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), July 22
Dick Gephardt's 16 words ... change everything. They reflect the considered judgment of a centrist Democratic presidential candidate, one who voted to authorize the war, that his party must stand in fundamental opposition to the Bush foreign policy. They indicate the capture of the Democratic Party by the pace-setter in the presidential race, former Vermont governor Howard Dean.Dick Gephardt speaks for the party?! That's funny — I didn't realize he was still the House minority leader. I also don't know how you can call an anti-free trade congressman who supported the Equal Rights Amendment [PDF] a "centrist Democrat." Maybe he can fill me in on that.
Actually, Gephardt went further than Dean. I suppose it's technically possible that things could turn out worse for the Iraqi people, or for us, post-Hussein (though I'd be happy to take that bet, and I'm sure the Bush campaign would too). But Gephardt has laid down an extraordinarily clear marker for judging the Bush administration: He claims we're less safe and less secure than we were four years ago.Who brought the Iraqi people into this? Did Gephardt say anything about the Iraqi people? Is Kristol hearing things?
If Kristol wants to talk about our security, we can run down a checklist:
- Taliban insurgency still going strong, and getting people killed? Check.
- Homeland security still a bad joke? Check.
- North Korea processing nuclear fuel? Check.
- Iran developing nuclear weapons? Check.
- Osama bin Laden still on the loose? Check.
- Alliances with key European allies in tatters? Check.
- Army overstretched, with no relief in sight? Check.
- Still turning a blind eye to Saudi misbehavior? Check.
I don't even like Dick Gephardt. But for someone to claim that his 16 words turned the words upside down, while a president's lies to Congress don't mean anything ... well, it's actually pretty typical of the Republican Party these days.
Posted by Greg Greene at July 24, 2003 1:11 PM
Trackback Pings
Comments
But we're safer cause Uday and Qusay would be launching WMD at us right about now if not for the Dear Great leader, W.
This is the key though:
"Were we safer and more secure when Osama bin Laden was unimpeded in assembling his terror network in Afghanistan? When Pakistan was colluding with the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia with al Qaeda? When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq? When demonstrations by an incipient democratic opposition in Iran had been crushed with nary a peep from the U.S. government? When we were unaware that North Korea, still receiving U.S. food aid, had covertly started a second nuclear program? When our defense budget and our intelligence services were continuing to drift downward in capacity in a post-Cold War world?"
Some of those things are still happening (Saudis + al Qaeda) and some would never have happened absent September 11th (The taliban). Bush showed not a hint of interest in these things until thousands of Americans were murdered. Something conservatives are trying to do is tie Bush to military successes (while sheilding him from any military or intelligence failures). "Bush is great because we routed the Taliban. Bush is great because we took out Saddam." Military success doesn't vindicate policy. Bush could launch war on Mexico tommorow, but our excellent forces capturing Vincente Fox, would not prove the policy to be good, or Bush to be a good president. Nor would it make us safer.
How would you characterize Gephardt ? Liberal ?
Posted by: wes at July 24, 2003 11:23 PM
What's wrong with supporting ERA?
Posted by: PG at July 29, 2003 10:08 AM
I don't have a problem with the principle — I'm just of the belief that what it tried to get at was already covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I don't know what Gephardt's support of it makes him, but I don't think the correct answer is 'centrist.'
As for how I would characterize Gephardt overall, for me the best word is 'opportunist.' He tacked left in the 1988 primaries to shore up union support, then he signed on with the DLC during the Clinton years; he brokered a compromise with Bush on an Iraq war resolution, but now decries how operations are going wrong. I read an article in the Atlanta paper on Sunday that told a good story about how his son's life-threatening illness formed his thinking on health care, but in spite of humanizing touches like that, I can't get past his history enough to see him as anything but craven.
Posted by: Greg Greene at July 29, 2003 11:47 AM
Post a comment
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://greenehouse.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/708