Opinion Journal has the whole speech.

I wonder if Kerry enjoys french-kissing the mat.

Dear Joe:

I've kind of been wondering when Cheney would make his appearance in the campaign. This is the traditional role of the incumbent vice president: axe-man while the President stands back looking presidential.

It's about freaking time the administration went after Kerry and brought the senator's voting record into the campaign.

The media notwithstanding, this isn't really only about the campaign.

We're at war: morale needs to be maintained on the homefront as well as in the military, and I don't mind admitting that I feel a definite need for spirited and encouraging words from the Executive branch.

More, please?

Of the four points listed on the linked Cold Fury page, I don't really see that any of them mean much of anything in terms of Kerry...what was it?...french-kissing the mat?

1. Yes, Kerry's "foreign leaders" comment was dumb, but was anybody really under the impression that support from Schroeder, Chirac, Zapatero, or whoever the hell he was alluding to is going to be the basis for his campaign? Clearly not. The basis of his campaign is the fact that in the past 4 years, many Americans feel that the Bush administration has undermined civil liberties, politically isolated the country, driven the economy into the dirt with tax cuts, and repeatedly lied to the American public in order to support the interests of the weatlthy.

No doubt previous commenators would disagree, but regardless, it's a message that resonates with a large portion of the country. The foreign leaders issue will fizzle in a week.

2. Cheney relies here on the flawed conservative logic that everybody who is against the U.S.-led war in Iraq is in favor of Saddam Hussein staying in power. Kerry, and the vast majority of anti-war Americans clearly take issue with the way in which the Bush administration crafted a unilateral, pre-emptive war based on intelligence they (at least to some degree) knew to be faulty. This is a argument that probably doesn't need to be re-hashed here, but again, Cheney has not by any means brought up any point detrimental to the Kerry campaign - this is simply an issue of national disagreement.

3. Now this point is just silly. The idea that Kerry leans only toward nations who oppose American policy is laughable. The man is running for president, for goodness sake. He clearly has some stake in the nation's international standing. In the instances I assume Cheney is alluding to (ie Iraq), Kerry supports nation's decision not to go along with Bush administration's controversial war. He applauds nations who oppose policy that he too opposes. It's just logical. Furthermore, the coalition of the willing isn't looking too good these days, what with harsh words from both Spain and Poland.

4. This comment is too broad to really make much sense at all. It generically accuses Kerry of being weak on national security. Kerry has voted against security bills that he has found inappropriate (meaning that he does not feel that they would effectively aid national security). Any thinking person knows that this does not mean security is not a priority for him. I mean, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, yet you don't hear a lot about him being weak on security? Maybe we should bring that up more.

So, how is Cheney "da man" again?

Oh, and on the topic of "maintaining morale on the homefront," the executive branch has been spewing nothing but "spirited and encouraging words" about everything from the war to the economy to healthcare ever since Bush's term started. The question is whether the optimism is warranted, or whether it is just covering up for a more accurate representation that might damage the campaign of an incumbent administration.

Are we supposed to unquestioningly accept eveything the administration tells us and ignore anything they do wrong so that nobody has to feel sad about the president?

Somehow that doesn't seem like a great long-term strategy.

Dick Cheney: "Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in control of Iraq. In fact, he’d probably still be in control of Kuwait."

On the other hand: "Thanks to the decisions of President Bush, Osama bin Laden still is in power and bombing the world, while a huge portion of the U.S. military is effectively neuterized and being used for target practice in Iraq."

that damn McCain, off message again. First Tenet, now McCain.
more Cheney would be just fine for the ongoing lies documentation project

Phil, the difference between Cheney's arguments and yours is that Cheney backed his arguments up with reference to documented votes and quotes. It calls into question assumptions and consequences. In short, it is rational and persuasive.

Here's my simplification of your critique, which hits all the "ABB" hot buttons:

1. Kerry is dumb and may fib, but Bush is
dumber and lies, and Kerry's heart is
in the right place.
2. Anti-interventionists had their hearts
in the right place, even if that
meant full employment for Iraqi mass
gravediggers.
3. U.S. opponents have good hearts.
U.S. allies are in it for the money.
4. Kerry gives the military "tough love".

This is a comment, so I apologize if this is unnuanced. But jeez, I wish the ABB crowd would address the potential shortfalls of their own moral superiority.

And as to the morale-boosting effect of what the Administration has to say, your mileage may depend on how evil you believe the adminstration to be.

Oh, one more. Kerry has actually killed men in personal combat (and then agonized about it publicly - he was in Vietnam, you know) so he must be tough.

Wait, there's a Vogon reference here someplace...

By what measure has the "economy been driven into the dirt"? Has per capita income fallen in four years? Has GNP declined over this period in a manner remniscent of the Japanese long term recession of the 90's?

I'm curious about the statistical basis of such assertions.

Bottom line of this speech is that it serves notice: the Democrats' "electable" candidate has more potential holes than the San Diego Chargers' Defense.

Armed Liberal has noted this problem before. Now the reality of it begins. Expect to see a number of these themes used frequently in the coming months. It will be interesting to see how Kerry holds up.

Thanks for concentrating my earlier commentary, Mark, but maybe I can do some revisions, as your versions distort rather visciously the points I had made earlier.

First of all, I'm assuming "ABB" means Anybody But Bush? If that's the case, I will concede that Kerry is not my candidate of choice, but that given a choice between Kerry and Bush, I will certainly back Kerry. Judging by your tone, you seem to be intimating that this is an uninformed, kneejerk decision without really having any knowlege to that effect.

In any case, my points are:

1. Kerry is not my idea candidate, and like most politicians (or people) he sometimes makes inappropriate statements, but overall, it think Kerry's heart is in the right place, whereas the Bush administration seems to be loyal only to corporate interests.

2. People who opposed the US war in Iraq are not all anti-interventionists. Most of us are simply opposed to the way in which the US bucked the international community in order to wage a war under false pretenses and then allow their buddies to step in and reap the profits. Furthermore, it seems more than a littl hypocritical for the right to drone on about Iraqi mass gravediggers. Last time I checked, it was Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand while he was using the chemical weapons he purchased from the U.S. on his own people. If the war had really been a humanitarian mission, why fabricate all the stuff about WMDs and 9/11 connections? Furthermore, why Iraq? Why not any of the other nations under brutal, autocratic rule? How about Egypt? Or Zimbabwe?

3. Those who opposed the U.S.'s nearly-unilateral action in Iraq made the right decision, though it's often difficult to say whether they made that decision for the right reasons. U.S. allies are few and getting fewer, but they are in it for disparate reasons. Among those reasons are probably a desire to stay on America's good side and a desire to profit from the rebuilding effort, but also the honest (though, in my opinion false) belief that disposing of Saddam was worth the casualties and the post-war chaos.

4. Bush gives U.S. troops and their families lip service while making repeated attempts to cut veterans benefits. For a reference on that, check the Army Times article "An Act of Betrayal" Kerry is not as interested in turning the country into a privatized police state as the Bush administration seems to be, but to suggest that he isn't concerned with national security is simply dumb.

I think you need to explain more fully what you mean by "shortfalls of their moral superiority." I don't know exactly what you're getting at.

And to respond to Tom, I'm referring to the lack of real job creation despite ridiculously optimistic reports. I'm also referring to the practice of cutting taxes (mostly for the wealthy) while we have the largest deficit in history (which was a surpluss at the end of the Clinton administration) and to the dismantling of Social Security.

Hi.

It really is worth reading the speech, not just a few of the many telling points. Here it is:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040317-3.html

Phil said: "3. Now this point is just silly. The idea that Kerry leans only toward nations who oppose American policy is laughable. The man is running for president, for goodness sake."

Yes, it would be laughable for anyone running for American President to say such things. Alas, John F. Kerry does say such things, and he is running for the American Presidency.

"Senator Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition - allies and friends of the United States - Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Senator Kerry calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are, in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How would Senator Kerry describe Great Britain - coerced, or bribed? Or Italy - which recently lost 19 citizens, killed by terrorists in Najaf - was Italy's contribution just window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition."

Bingo! Dick Cheney gets. John F. Kerry doesn't.

Phil, thanks for making my points for me again. I don't have time to fisk your response, (I love that "nearly unilateral" construction, though) but I do want to address one question:

I think you need to explain more fully what you mean by "shortfalls of their moral superiority." I don't know exactly what you're getting at.

The ABB crowd (and I have to ask, is there a non-Republican you would NOT vote for when run against Bush?) arguments are all based on the following premises:

1. It was wrong to act without international consenus.
2. The Iraq War was initiated to fill corporate coffers.
3. We killed innocent people, and that's wrong.
4. We coddled evil regimes in the past, therefore we have no moral authority today.
5. Bush lied, people died.

I believe we should act based on moral and ethical principals. It's not that I don't admire your idealism; I'm only viscious because I think the above five points represent a gestaltic combination of sloppy thinking, revisionist history, covert isolationism, and nihilistic acceptance of evil. That makes me cranky.

Thought experiment time. Roll everything back to September 10, and say that the planes weren't aimed at the United States, but were aimed at the twin towers in in Malaysia, and those towers come down too. Thousands are dead. The world has a wake-up call, airport security gets tighter everywhere, but the United States doesn't see this as "our problem." So everything keeps going as it was.

1. Islamofascism is fully funded, and the camps are humming smoothly in Afghanistan.
2. The Hussein family is making corpses at a steady clip.
3. Oil prices are lower than they are today.
4. The economic recovery is farther along.
5. Pakistan is providing nuclear goods and services.
6. Libya's clandestine WMD program is progressing nicely.

Is that a better world than the one we have now? Is it a safer world?

(Please note that I think "big business" - which supposedly bitchslaps Bush around until he provides service - would be much happier if we would just go back to our happy shell. Markets do not like turmoil.)

My somewhat long-winded rant here has all been about actions and consequences. All I hear from the ABB crowd is how evil Bush is, etc. without any indication of what they actually want to do, other than achieve consensus. We saw what ten years of consensus in the UN got us.

What are you going to do today to make the world better tomorrow? The democrat who could convince me they have a plan would get my vote. That democrat lost in the primaries (Lieberman) so I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush.

Phil wrote:

Last time I checked, it was Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand while he was using the chemical weapons he purchased from the U.S. on his own people.

Really? Evidence please.

I have always considered myself a pragmatic progressive Democrat.

George Bush is absolutely crazy to have supported so many tax cuts skewed to the wealthy, running up huge uncontrolled deficits, especially in a time of war. These policies have been particularly misdirected in view of our need for more jobs, better schools, better access to health care, and ensuring that our young in the future are not burdened by our debts. Bush could also have employed much better diplomacy in seeking broader allied support (or at a minimum avoiding largely unnecessary alienation and hostility) for real enforcement of a badly needed set of international norms of behaviour, in particular in the areas of WMD risks and proliferation, and especially in regard to Iraq's non-compliance with its non-negotiable ceasefire commitments requiring transparency regarding its WMD programs documented over years by the UN, the Democrats, former administrations and our allies as posing an unacceptable risk. The costs of the liberation of Iraq have been far greater than anticipated, especially in light of our "allies" failure to contribute to those costs, and the administration should acknowledge that. Bush also needs to explain more clearly U.S. homeland security policies, adopted by almost unanimous bipartisan agreement, and recognize and explain the need for a clearer definition of necessarily new procedures with appropriate levels of government accountability and due process in cases of detainees presenting specific terrorism risks as well as detained battlefield combatants. Given the obvious fact that the coalition would have to foster democratic governance after the removal of Hussein's regime (a 'humanitarian' need that existed quite independently of any supposed "neo-con" plan to conquer the world), the administration must remain committed to this goal and explain the importance to Americans of devoting the necessary resources.

The Democrats also need to seriously address these issues. On the other hand, if they run on opposition to Bush because of his "loyalty to corporate interests", "waging a war under false pretenses", "allowing his buddies to step in and reap the profits", "Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand" while Saddam was "using the chemical weapons he purchased from the U.S. on his own people", "fabricating all the stuff about WMDs and 9/11 connections", the U.S.'s "nearly-unilateral action" with coalition allies "desiring to profit from the rebuilding effort", and "turning the country into a privatized police state", then I will conclude that the Democrats are immersed in or catering to such a dangerously paranoid view of reality that no one in good conscious could entrust them with running the country. Period.

Hi Gabe;

Been catching up on my reading and am nearly done and I find you here!!! WOC makes for fine reading, does it not?

I appreciate your stance and open declaration of democrat sentiments, which to an extent I share. I think I read a fine characterization of our collective plight in the phrase 'Dhimmicrat.' Yes, I too could consider voting for a Democrat. I voted Clinton in '92 since I felt the need to provide for some uniting influence from what I saw as a country pulling itself apart. That was my one vote of appeasement. All of the rest were for change. As you may remember, I voted Nader before the realities of 9/11 woke me up to the hyper-real cost of doing business with appeasers.

I wanted to comment on Bushes strategy of tax cuts and whether or not you find it necessary to slow the recovery of our economy after taking huge body blows after 2000. Of course you may feel that fiscal responsibility in a time of National Crisis is vital, but how could one argue against being called an ideologue? As far as 'Not Paying Down' the national debt, one could argue that this is a deliberate strategy to sabotage the Boomer generations retirement, but you open the door a crack against entitlements by doing so.

Enough wonkspeak for now, mainly because I feel pretty creaky about speaking so forthrightly wonkish while remaining rusty; I just wanted to know if in fact you held onto fiscal conservatism from an old style democratic loyalty, or from a new found admiration for true conservativist ideology?