Groggy But Alive

Jesus Christ. Food poisioning is a bitch. I’ve been officially recovered for more than a week but still can barely summon up the energy to get my work out every week. I’m afraid the old unpaid blog has been suffering as a result, and for that I apologize. I still can’t say I feel a hell of a lot better, though. Anyway, you may have seen the following post floating around in your e-mail in box:

If you really believe that President BUSH lied – – THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES — then read this.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998″

[many similar quotes from leading Democrats snipped]

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”

– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO, NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? AGAIN, THEIR MEMORY OF THINGS THEY HAVE SAID, SOME MOST RECENTLY, HAS FAILED THEM…NOW, WHO IS THE LYING???

It’s an interesting bit of sophistry, and here’s how it works:

First up, the time-honored rhetorical device of choosing to believe your enemy when it’s convenient. Do Republicans believe that Bill Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky? Of course. Yet they choose to believe the former president, whom they repeatedly called a liar, when he claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. By their own standards, Clinton’s testimony is unreliable. He’s a proven liar, so nothing he says should be taken seriously, right?

Second, many of those quotes are old, going back to 1998 and 1999. Most intelligence experts still believed that Iraq had WMDs at that time. The relevant question about Iraqi WMDs, however, concerns whether or not it had them on March 20, 2003, the first day of the invasion. And the Newsweek headline–“We Were All Wrong”–is bullshit. “We” were not all wrong at all. I just finished compiling my essays about the Bush Administration for an upcoming book last night. I found dozens of comments by myself and more qualified experts dating back to 2001 citing the fact that the CIA did not believe there was enough proof to say that Iraq still had WMDs. “We” weren’t wrong. In fact, neither were the Bushies. They knew that they didn’t have jack for evidence–Colin Powell himself called the charges he listed at the United Nations “bullshit”–but decided to stampede the nation into war nonetheless. Using ancient intelligence to justify new attacks is illogical and immoral.

Finally, many leading Democrats in Congress and the media, either eager to appease GOP warmongers or genuinely misled by Bush Administration liars, joined the call for war that led to the illegal 2003 invasion. At best, they were idiots; at worst they were co-conspirators with the Bushies. John Kerry should be ashamed to have voted with the White House for war. Yes, Virginia, there are evil Democrats too.

The general argument being made, that the war was justified because “everybody”—including Dems—believed Iraq had proscribed weapons of mass destruction, is a another desperate distraction from the central point. Bush, Cheney et al. planned this war back in 1998. The fact that they got a bunch of Democratic simps and liberal fools like Chris Hitchens to go along with them doesn’t diminish their responsibility. (Though we should certainly hold the latter equally guilty as co-consipirators.)

Revised Cover

Check out who did the intro to my upcoming book!

To the People of New Hampshire

You have an important decision to make today. You have a choice between the one Democratic candidate, Howard Dean, with the guts and gumption to take on George W. Bush this coming fall, and an ordinary Democrat like John Kerry or John Edwards.

Howard Dean is far from perfect. I disagree with him on many issues, especially the war in Afghanistan. And it’s a little weird to know that your president sometimes growls like a Siberian snow leopard. But none of the other major contenders can beat Bush.

First and foremost, the nation has become so polarized that the “swing vote” has all but disappeared. I discovered this trend while researching my new book. What used to be a 40% Democratic-20% Independent-40% Republican nation is now closer to 45-10-45. The key to electoral success, as Gore and Bush discovered in 2000, is energizing your party’s base. All of those pumped-up twentysomethings–the successor to the Gen Xers who elected Clinton in 1992–are not going to vote for pro-Iraq war Kerry, or vote at all. Old-line liberals won’t turn out in sufficient numbers. In the final analysis, the difference between Kerry and Bush isn’t great enough to convince the American people to make a change.

Bush is a disaster. He has nearly bankrupted the federal government and many states with his profligate spending policies. He has planted the seed of fascism in the highest levels of government with his concentration camp, red-baiting and increased surveillance powers for Das Homeland. And it’s a fair bet that he’s planning more unwinnable wars for 2005. The Democratic Party needs its best chance at defeating him this fall, and that chance isn’t in the form of John Kerry.

I fear that too many Democrats, and too many Americans, don’t get it. If Bush wins this election, there may never be another one.

If you live in New Hampshire, vote Dean.

376 pp., all prose/no cartoons/all new content, nothing reprinted

TO PURCHASE this important book: you may either pre-order from Amazon or watch Soft Skull Press’ website.

BOOK REVIEWERS/EDITORS: Contact me to receive an advance review copy.

News for Completists

I wrote the introduction for the new MAD Magazine anthology of comic strip parodies. If that isn’t enough to prompt you to buy a copy (and I’m not sure it should be), they really are very, very funny parodies running the gamut from the 1950s to the present. A must for comics fans, methinks.

Heck, looks like I’ll have to buy one myself since MAD didn’t bother to send me a comp copy.

Bush-appointed WMD inspector has resigned. The first question on most people’s minds was “why?”–a question not asked or answered in most American media reports about what easily rates as the week’s most dramatic story.

General Wesley Clark

FOR Rachel sends me the following:

I was wondering what your take on Gen. Wesley Clark is. True, he may or may not have supported the war (see http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7720762.htm), but many of the Democratic candidates did support the war. Dean’s stance against the war makes him stand out but does not necessarily mean he will win against Bush. You mentioned that the Rev. Al Sharpton “won” after using Whack-A-Pol (he did for me, too).

The economy and national security will most likely be key issues this November. Bush will inevitably portray himself as a strong president when it comes to security. Of course, the AWOL Asshole will not have much of a chance to do this next to Clark.

I’m surprised I haven’t seen any hint of your opinion on Clark. Back in August of 2003, your article “Love Me, I’m (Not Really) a Liberal” didn’t endorse Dean; in fact, you described him as “opportunistic” and providing “strident vagaries that fuel (his supporters’) self-delusion.” Granted, these are general political tools, but in less than 6 months you endorsed him. I’m finding that many liberals get caught up in a popularity contest. Of course it’s about beating Bush (without the help of Republican-in-sheep’s clothing Lieberman). I was wondering if there was any other reason, besides big talk from the Dean camp, why you endorsed him?

Thanks for your time!

Great questions all. Let me take them one at a time.

1. I haven’t discussed Clark because (a) I don’t think he stands a chance of winning the Democratic nomination and (b) his decision to refuse to accept the vice-presidency negated him as a personality of interest for me. When he got into the race at the last minute (arguably, beyond the last minute) I assumed that he was running for the veep spot. Those stars would have made a big difference; a Dean-Clark ticket would have rocked. That said, he was a registered Republican until a month before he announced that he was running and there’s a better choice for Dean’s possible future veep (assuming he wins the nomination–I’m astonished that Iowa caucausers didn’t see him as being the most electable of the bunch) in the form of Florida Senator Bob Graham.

2. Why did I endorse Dean? As I wrote way back in August, Dean isn’t a liberal. He’s pro-business, a deficit hawk (which I agree with, by the way), supported the war in Afghanistan, etc. Were I going to support a candidate whose positions I agreed with, I would have picked Sharpton or Kucinich. Neither man, however, stands a chance of winning the nomination. Dean, however, stood a chance and still does–I’m keeping my money on him. Had Joe Lieberman, whose positions nearly make him a Republican, had the best chance of kicking Bush’s ass come November, I would have endorsed him.

This election is critical. Our economy is in fiscal freefall, we’re bogged down in two unwinnable wars, we’ve pissed off our allies and our government has been hijacked by a cabal of roughly a dozen neofascist loons. What mainline Dems don’t get, as proven by the wimpy Democratic response to Bush’s State of the Union Address last night, is that they’re not running against a normal Republican. This time it’s for keeps. If Bush goes back for a second term, with a GOP Congress and Supreme Court, they’ll be out of control.

This time we’re playing for all the marbles. Losing isn’t an option.

Separated at Birth?

There’s a photo of Scott Peterson awaiting trial on page A10 of today’s New York Times that caused me to ask: are Scott and Ben Affleck the same person?

Just asking.

We’ll Always Have New Hampshire

Obviously I was wrong to prognosticate Howard Dean victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Well, half wrong so far, anyway. you probably ought to consider my primary prediction record when considering the rest of today’s post.

The grand irony is that John Kerry won Iowa by convincing caucus delegates that Howard Dean couldn’t beat Bush in November–when in fact, Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential contender who can.

In Howard Dean Republicans would be faced with the first aggressive Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ–a guy who’s as mean as he is smart. And we need someone mean to parry Karl Rove’s dirty tricks and lying attack ads–not to mention to convey to an insecure post-9/11 electorate a sense of strength and determination.

That man, unless I’ve missed something, doesn’t seem to be John Kerry or John Edwards.

Today’s Associated Press analysis reads, in part:

Aides to Kerry and Edwards said their positive messages contrasted with Dean and Gephardt. ”I hate mudslinging,” said Theresa Strabala, who voted for Edwards.

Jesus H. Christ. When are Democrats going to learn? Politics ain’t a tea party. It’s a bar brawl. Come this fall, when Bush’s neofascist thugs are administering a ferocious beatdown to the Democratic nominee, we’re all going to wish we’d sent someone to the brawl who knows how to sling mud, kick ass and keep on going.

Stung by criticism of his record on race relations, Medicare and trade, Dean said a week ago he was tired of being the party’s ”pin cushion,” and suddenly looked weak to voters drawn to his blustery image.

This is what leading Democrats I’ve been talking to have been echoing in recent weeks. I agree with them. Dean decided to try to run out the clock after achieving frontrunner status–don’t mess it up, just keep coasting–without understanding that his rivals would view his approach as an invitation to attack. Dean got as far as he did, expecting to receive 42 percent in Iowa just two weeks ago, by aggressively chastising Bush and his fellow Democrats for selling out the American people and getting us into the unwinnable Iraqi quagmire. He needs to get back to what he does best–standing up for the Democratic wing of the Democratic party–and quick.

Fortunately, New Hampshire is a truer measure of the feelings of the Democratic Party, the first true primary. Iowa doesn’t even require its caucus attendees to present proof of state residency, as Dan Savage wrote in the New York Times a few days ago. It’s prone to manipulation by party bosses. Never doubt for a minute that the clammy hand of Al From’s Democratic Leadership Council is behind the Dean defeat in Iowa…the abominable “Stop Dean” campaign came out of Washington, dutifully fueled by a gullible and compliant media.

I will support any Democrat against George W. Bush this fall. Despite their faults, Kerry and Edwards would represent substantial improvements over Bush. (And Dean is hardly perfect either–he still supports the invasion of Afghanistan, which was no more justifiable or winnable than Iraq.) After all, none of the remaining seven candidates–Mosely-Braun and Gephardt have dropped out–echo Bush’s neofascism.

That said, we need a winner in November. Unless Kerry changes his tune (saying that Bush conned him into supporting the war, though it’s obviously untrue, would be a start), I don’t think he’s got what it takes.

Why don’t Democrats realize what’s at stake this year?