Repatriate: Now with 40% more Vitriol!

There's no place like home...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Sunday, August 15, 2004
No Shortage of Apologists

I used to think William Saletan was a pretty good writer. He had a distinct conservative bent, but was not afraid to point a critical finger at the right. In the world of political opinion writers, honest brokers are few and far in between. However, it seems that sometime when my back was turned, Saletan morphed into just another dime-a-dozen Bush-bashing hack.

Now, you know damn well that Kerry supporters are defined not by their support of Kerry, but are completely driven by their hatred of President Bush. Hell, you see and hear it every day - ask a liberal pundit what John Kerry's plan for Iraq is and you get "Bush lied!" Ask what Kerry's plan for the economy is and you get "Bush lost 2 million jobs!" Not a damn one of them can name three specific proposals Kerry has made, foreign or domestic, and yet this lack of substance just gets spackled over by the legions of orange knit-cap wearing Deaniac retreads. The more thoughtful (cough, cough, sputter, sneer) of them actually try to take the high road and make sense of the meaningless, contradictory pap that issues forth every time Kerry opens his seditious hole.

Which brings us to William Saletan. In this piece about where John Kerry really stands on the Iraq war, Saletan attempts to explain that contrary to what your ears tell you, John Kerry really didn't contradict himself when he said he still would have voted to give President Bush authority to use force, if he had it to do over again. He does this by printing alot of excerpts of Kerry doing what he does best - not answering direct questions asked of him directly.

If the basis of Kerry's concern about Iraqi WMD was the intelligence, and the intelligence turns out to be mistaken, does this change Kerry's view of the war?

That's the focus of the video's final clip. It shows Kerry's on 60 Minutes a month ago. Lesley Stahl tells him: "You voted for this war. Was that vote, given what you know now, a mistake?" Kerry answers: "What I voted for—Lesley, you see, you're playing here. What I voted for was an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war." Stahl persists, "But I'm trying to find out if you today, now that you know about [the absence of WMD], think the war was a mistake?" Kerry stonewalls, "I think I answered your question. I think the way he went to war was a mistake."

Kerry sticks to his position. He doesn't answer Stahl's question. But this time, somebody who can speak English is sitting next to Kerry: John Edwards. Seconds after the RNC cuts away from the interview, Edwards steps in to rescue his running mate.

Edwards: I'm going to finish this. The difference is, if John Kerry were president of the United States, we would never be in this place. He would never have done what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work to build the alliances and the support system. …

Stahl: Why build an alliance if they didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

Edwards: We would have found out.

Kerry: That is it.
Edwards and Kerry (in unison): That's the point.

Kerry: That is exactly the point.

There you have it. Edwards says if Kerry had been president, we would have found out Iraq had no WMD, and "we would never be in this place." Kerry emphatically agrees with this translation. It makes pretty clear that given Kerry's principles, and given what we now know about the absence of WMD, Kerry wouldn't have gone to war.

That's right, Waterboy. Pick up the fucking Kerry bucket and explain to us in thirty paragraphs or less exactly what Kerry's words meant. Because he damn sure can't do it for himself.

I am getting so damn sick of all the Kerry apple-polishers taking his meaningless evasive bullshit and trying to shape it into a definitive position. EVER STOP TO WONDER WHY HE NEEDS YOU TO TELL US WHAT HE MEANT?!!! Because half the time he doesn't know, and the other half he's letting you define his words so if he changes his mind later he can blame the misinterpretation on you!

Kerry makes me sick. His convictions change with the wind. But he's not even a weathervane. A weathervane has a distinct form and at least points in a direction. Kerry's just a fucking windsock. Even when he's puffed up to his fullest, running his yap at 50 knots, he's completely empty. The rest of the time he's totally limp.

I've yet to see strings of press conferences given by Dick Cheney or Scott McClellan saying, "What the President REALLY meant by that was...". And yet every time Kerry speaks, out pops some homonculous like Saletan, already twisting his decoder ring, ready to explain to us neanderthals what the Great Man meant, because us working stiffs are just too fucking stupid to understand nuance, you see.

Real Men don't need apologists like Saletan, dissecting dozens of utterances made over a span of years to decide what they really mean, or if they contradict each other. Real Men say what they mean, and they say it so that there's no question about their intent. If there is any confusion, Real Men clear it up themselves, without having to rely on blow-dried shysters to pull another murky non-answer from their briefcase.

But what would a fucking waterboy like William Saletan know about Real Men?