I'm So Dizzy, My Head Is Spinning
My lower back gave out on Sunday, and after a visit to my doctor (who really should be selected as one of the best in the Seattle area--unfortunately, he didn't make Seattle magazine's list from their new issue), I'm laid out on the couch, a little wobbly in the head thanks to some muscle relaxants. Great time to do a lil' reading on the laptop with the ManU v Liverpool game playing in the background.

John F'ing Kerry is back
The old Clinton crowd is starting to work its magic and John F'ing Kerry is back on the campaign trail, more focused and attack-minded than he's been since the early primaries. Today, he let loose a major speech on Iraq (which seems to be what the Kerry campaign will be hitting for the next 6 weeks) that's making the top headlines in just about all the big news web sites. Let's hope it starts to reach the masses and begins to sink in. Mr. Kerry was kind enough to send me the text of the speech in an email (well, I don't think I was the only one to receive it--and it can be found on the Kerry web site). Here are some of the highlights:

National security is a central issue in this campaign.  We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made… and the choices I would make… to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror.  In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone:  more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq.  Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden.  Nearly 90 percent of the troops – and nearly 90 percent of the casualties – are American.   Despite the President’s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

[...]

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell.  But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war.  The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. 

The President has said that he “miscalculated” in Iraq and that it was a “catastrophic success.”  In fact, the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions … from the beginning … in Iraq.  At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the President’s failure to tell the truth to the American people.

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war.  And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war.  If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… and by the 9/11 Commission.  Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts.  Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

[...]

The President now admits to “miscalculations” in Iraq. 

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history.  His were not the equivalent of accounting errors.  They were colossal failures of judgment – and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we’re not talking about 20/20 hindsight.  Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings… major outside studies… and even some in the administration itself… predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. 

This President was in denial.  He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

[...]

Consider where we were… and where we are.  After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists.  On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared “we are all Americans now.” But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security.  It had not, as the Vice President claimed, “reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

The President’s policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this President’s watch…

… The emerging nuclear danger from Iran…

… The tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia…

… And the increasing instability in Afghanistan. 

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains.   He slipped away.  We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

The President’s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent.  Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war.  Now it is, and they are operating against our troops.  Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

Dennis Hastert is a Boob
At a campaign rally Saturday in his Illinois district with Vice President Dick Cheney, Hastert said al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid days before the Spanish national election in March.

When a reporter asked Hastert if he thought al Qaeda would operate with more comfort if Kerry were elected, the speaker said, "That's my opinion, yes."

Juan Cole has a different take:
The remark of Speaker of the House Denis Hastert that al-Qaeda would like to manipulate the US election with a terrorist bombing and would be happier with Kerry as president is simply wrong. The Democrats are correct that such comments are a form of fear-mongering aimed at stampeding the American public into voting for Bush out of terror. Indeed, if the US public votes for any candidate because of concern for Bin Laden, then Bin Laden has been handed precisely the victory that Hastert professed to abhor.

But Hastert is just wrong. Al-Qaeda does not care who wins the elections. If the US withdraws from Iraq (which could happen willy-nilly under Bush as easily as under Kerry), that would be seen as a victory by al-Qaeda. If the US remains in Iraq for years, bleeding at the hands of an ongoing guerrilla insurgency, then that is also a victory for al-Qaeda from their point of view. They therefore just don't care which candidate wins. They hate general US policy in the Middle East, which would not change drastically under Kerry. To any extent that al-Qaeda is giving serious thought to the US elections, it would see no significant difference between the candidates. But given its goal of creating more polarization between the US and the Muslim World, it is entirely possible that the al-Qaeda leadership would prefer Bush, since they want to "sharpen the contradictions."