Way out

[Dan Scanlan <dscanlan@xxxxxxx>]

In his letter to Bush asking for the real number of American
casualties Ralph Nader asked John Kerry to join in the question. This
gives Kerry an opportunity to wash away his incredible failure to
oppose the Iraq war even if he had known the truth. I don't that
Kerry will seize the moment, however. In my cynical view of him
that's not his job, which is to fracture the left, not consolidate it.

Dan Scanlan

-----------------

CounterPunch.org
Labor Day Weekend Edition
September 4-6, 2004

Dear John (Kerry)

Start Explaining and Fast
By MARK DONHAM

Several times recently on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, the Shields part
of the long time "Shields and Brooks" political punditry (opposite's
attract; "fair and balanced") team of Washington "insiders",
punditized that, in response to the Brooks part saying that the New
York GOP convention protesters were people "without a party," the
reason, according to Shields, that Kerry wasn't getting traction in
the polls was because of his asinine answer standing in front of the
Grand Canyon several weeks ago that, IF HE KNEW THEN WHAT HE KNOWS
NOW ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, HE WOULD STILL VOTE FOR IT.

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show put it well shortly after Kerry made
this blunderous statement. He said, referring to Kerry, "Come on now,
that was a softball. Hit it out of the park! All you have to do is
say, NO." Of course Kerry didn't - he said yes. Oh sure, "it wasn't
that simple." He did actually say he would vote to authorize the
president and not for the war, but to the nation this is a
distinction without a difference. And you don't have to be a
Republican to feel that way. We all heard it. We know what was said.
As Stewart went on to bemoan, "is he trying to lose?"

Oh what a clever trap Karl Rove set for Kerry, and how he took the
bait. Bush taunted Kerry in front of the press, asking the press
whether Kerry, knowing then what he knows now, would he still vote
for the war. Of course, the press went to Kerry but at first Kerry
was smart and wouldn't bite. But Kerry couldn't take the taunting.
Pride cometh before the fall! He got baited into answering. At, of
all places, the Grand Canyon, he turned and said yes. YES?? How could
he say "yes?" That continues to boggle my mind and many others.

Let's see, if we knew then what we know now? That the main reason for
going to war was false, that over 10,000 civilians would be killed,
that a thousand U.S. troops would be killed, that we had too few
soldiers deployed, that we didn't have our humvees properly armored,
that the insurgency would be a lot worse than anticipated, that the
world would generally be opposed to what we are doing and long term
alliances would be damaged, that our national debt would be out of
control and the war would cost us hundreds of billions with no end in
sight, that Iraq and Al Quaeda weren't connected, that our President
had mislead us about a variety of things related to Iraq, that the US
would be torturing prisoners and violating the Geneva Accords, that
we would be locking up people indefinitely with no civil rights at
all, and on and on. If Kerry knew that all this was going to occur,
he would still vote for the war????? Say what??????

All Kerry had to do was to say no. N. O. No. All he had to do was to
say, well, if I knew that there weren't going to be weapons of mass
destruction found, that a thousand soliders would die, that ten
thousand civilians would die, that it would cost us hundreds of
billions of dollars and no end in sight, that we would be violating
the Geneva Accords and torturing prisoners, that we would be
imprisoning people at Guantonamo Bay indefinitely with no civil
rights at all, that Halliburton and Bechtel would be getting most of
the big U.S. governmental contracts without bids, etc. etc., of
course I wouldn't have voted for it. BBBBBBBBUUUUTTTTTTT
NOOOOOOOOOO!!! He said yes.

Ok, so he said yes. Now what. There are a couple possibilities. One
is that he could admit that he screwed up and made a big boo boo. We
all do that sometimes. Especially with that kind of pressure. He
could say that, but the press would jump on that and say he is flip
flopping again, and that would hurt him. So scratch that. People like
Brooks are just waiting for him to do it. That would give credibility
to their flimsly argument that Kerry is somehow an extreme flip
flopper. (Bush is worse in reality.) But he is going to have to
explain it. This is such a fundamental question with the Democratic
base that it threatens to erode what was rock solid support under
him. This is what Shields has been referring to. Kerry has to explain
in a way that doesn't seem like he is completely changing positions
(again) that he didn't mean "yes" in the way that we all took it. If
he can do that, he has a good chance to resolidify the base. If he
can't, then he has a good chance to lose. He cannot continue to stick
with his current answer, trying to distinguish between voting for
"authorizing the president" and voting "for the war," and keep the
base together. This isn't going to be easy, but Kerry is a smart guy.
Maybe he can do it.

In spite of this, Kerry still has a chance to win, not because of his
greatness but because of the ABB (anybody but bush) principle. But he
has to provide an alternative vision. His unfortunate "yes" on the
key question of the campaign has to be explained, and that
explanation has to be credible. Otherwise we all might be doomed to
the worst three words we could ever hear at this time: "4 more years."
--
---------------------------
Nobody but Nader.
--------------------------------------------------

END OF THE TRAIL SALOON
Alternate Sundays
6-8am GMT (10pm-midnight PDT)
http://www.kvmr.org

--------------------------------

"I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke
"I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin
"I claim, therefore you believe." -- Dan Ratherthan

Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube:
 http://www.coolhanduke.com