All week, the Kerry campaign hammered Bush on the Iraq issue.  They attacked Bush's straight shooter reputation by contrasting Iraq's daily hit parade of kidnappings, bombings and beheadings with Bush's “stay the course” nonsense.

Bush struck back yesterday and brought out Iyad Allawi, who thanked the U.S. from the podium in the House of Representatives and then robotically spouted Republican talking points supplied by Karl Rove in a Rose Garden press conference. 

Past Democratic practice against a Rovian assault of this magnitude would have involved a quick switch to traditional “issues“ talking points, effectively giving the set to Bush.  This time it was different. 

Amazingly, the Kerry Campaign came back with the same smash-mouth assault the next day.  Overnight the campaign had taken a terrible Bush joke about wrong track/right track polling in Iraq and turned it into a 15 second spot.  Instead of a morass of confusing statements to the press, the ad laid out Kerry's Iraq plan in nine terse words: “Allies share the burden. Train Iraqis to protect themselves.”  Vintage Clinton.  These are the moves that get people elected.

And the Kerry team did not stop there.  Edwards kept up the pressure and released a statement that started with the fateful sentence  “The administration’s credibility on Iraq collapsed today.”   

The effect was heightened by off-script babble from Administration officials.  Sec Def Rumsfeld later on Thursday qualified the January election pledge by indicating that partial elections might be held. 

All of this action signals one thing.  Kerry is staying on message and Rove is not knocking him off of it.  Unlike Gore four years ago, he isn't getting kicked off message by the counter-punch. 

We be just gettin' started folks.

Bush is highlighting the endorsement of 9-year old “Presidential Expert” Noah McCullough on the front page of his website today. 

So this is the guy running Iraq policy.  Let's hope he doesn't lock up the under-10 crowd for the President.

Yesterday, we saw the President of the United States, supported by the leader of another nation appointed only by him, tell the country that progress is being made in Iraq and that everything will be all right.  Like you, we wish that were true. 

But unlike you, we cannot sit by idly and stake the future of two countries on that hope when all facts and all logic show otherwise.  The Iron Mouth asks that all those considering voting for George W. Bush heed to the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln before casting your ballot in this, the most important election in seventy years.

Are you quite sure the demon which you have roused will not turn and rend you?  What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence?  It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army.  These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land.  All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle.  Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms.  Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere.  Destroy the spirit, and you have planted the seed of despotism around your own doors. . . 

Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises. 

For Real.

Juan Cole, yesterday from Informed Comment:  If America Were Iraq, What Would It Be Like?

Hey Sickos,

Some photos below of the candidates, surreptitiously obtained. But if Eddie Izzard is any indication, this may be our reality soon enough. (Question, class: Why do the incumbents look so much hotter?) Cheers, EK  (COMMENTS?: Write me at ekblog@yahoo.com)

Yesterday, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett was featured on “Ask the White House,” where regular citizens send in questions to be answered by the President's minions.  As first reported by Oliver Wills, yesterday's questions were dandies, we can tell you.  Makes you wonder what questions they didn't choose to answer.

The Iron Mouth has edited Dan's answers for clarity. Each answer actually corresponds to its proper question.  Although Dan would certainly deny it, we are sure the edited version reflects the truth of the matter.  We are certain the questions do.

Dan Bartlett:
Great to be here today. I know there are a lot of questions so let's go right to the questions.

From the Department of I Really Think I Can Get Away With Not Answering, But I Inadvertently Revealed The Truth of The Matter:

Stephen, from Colorado Springs, CO writes:
Dan, Why is it that the president or you will not declare that the documents (CYA Memos) are false and untrue? Certainly if the documents are fakes, then the information in them is false as well.

Let's hear you and Mr. Bush say they are false and untrue accusations and we can settle all this mess.

Dan Bartlett:
We don't have the technical expertise to determine if they were fake or not. Remember, these supposedly came from the personal files of man who died more than 20 years ago. Thankfully, a lot of expert bloggers and other news organizations did get to the bottom this growing scandal.

Unintended Truth:

Nathalie, from Washington, DC writes:
Will the President come clean about his missing years in the Texas, Alabama, New England Air National Guard?

Why can't he just release the missing records so we can all get on with our lives?

Dan Bartlett:
I wish it were that easy.

Straight Shooter:

John, from Royal Oak, MI writes:
Why have there only been two white house press briefings in the last two months?

Dan Bartlett:
He's been traveling a lot lately.

Can't argue with this one:

George, from Kettering, Ohio writes:
1. I would like to understand why President Bush is unwilling to acknowledge the mounting problems we facing in Iraq?

2. Does the White House realize that the rosy picture it presents to American people is unrealistically over-optimistic?

Dan Bartlett:
Insurgents are trying to literally blow up the progress we are making.

Yes, He REALLY Did Say That: 

Michael, from Miami Beach writes:
How has the administration's overall approach toward securing Iraq changed, given what appears to be a progressive increase in insurgent activity against American troops and the Iraqi government, as well as violence against American and other foreign civilians?

Dan Bartlett:
It's also important that Iraqis fight the enemy, not just Americans.

They Made Sense to Us, Too:

Danny, from Chicago writes:
Mr. Bartlett, Why did you not question the authenticity of those CBS memos when you met with John Roberts? Why did the White House subsequently release them?  

Dan Bartlett:
We released them because we believe everyone should have the opportunity to see any record related to the President's military service.

Half Truth:

Dan Bartlett:
Sorry I need to run. I enjoyed taking your questions.

One measure of how far down we have sunk in these last four years is the content of the editorial pages of our erstwhile allies in Europe.  This morning's op-ed headline in Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel said it all.  “Wahrheit nützt nichts”  insisted Berlin's top daily when analyzing Bush's speech to the UN yesterday.  Truth is Useless.  No matter how many cities fall under insurgent control, no matter how many American soldiers and Marines fall in an attempt to prop up a policy doomed to fail from the start, no matter how many Iraqis die in the useless attempt to transform the Middle East at gunpoint--the President is sticking to his story. 

According to President Bush, “Freedom is finding a way in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and “the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom.”  For Bush, fantasy, apparently, truly is reality.

When Fahrenheit 911 came out, I took it as a piece of important propaganda which overstated the problems in Iraq in order to counter Fox's relentless lie parade.  Now I find myself sorely disappointed.  Michael Moore understated the dire situation in Iraq.  The troops over there know it.  Right-wing columnists and bloggers know it.  Republican Senators know it.  Even the CIA knows it.  But stubborn Bush either refuses to face it or is determined to convince the American people that the spiraling conflict in Iraq is on the right track, despite knowing the opposite to be true. 

For Bush, truth really is useless.  He does not have to live with it.  We do. 

I woke up this morning and started to feel it--the election was shifting into new ground--ground where Bush was going to be on the defensive about Iraq.  Ground where John Kerry was going to hit hard and where Bush would really not have an answer. 

Then it hit me.  Bush under fire?  It must be about time for another terror alert.  Lo and behold, when I arrived at work today, there it was: 

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded recently that al Qaeda . . . is moving ahead with plans for a major, "spectacular" attack

Apparently, the terrorists, much like our President, feel the need to engage in macho posturing--

They [al Qaeda] think their credibility is on the line because there hasn't been a major attack since 9/11," said one official familiar with intelligence reports on the group.

Of course,

details of the possible attack remain murky, but analysts say it is planned to be bigger and deadlier than the September 11 attacks, which killed 3,000 people.

I'll tell you something about this administration.  They really are consistent.  They run the same damn play over and over again.  No wonder our enemies can see it coming from a mile away.

For the last few months we've been hearing that Bush is a “resolute” leader because he is willing to stay the course in Iraq.  According to Mr. Bush: “all the world can be certain: America and our allies will keep our commitments to the Afghan and Iraqi people.”

However, Republican pundits are now indicating that word from the White House is that a new type of “resoluteness” is required.  According to all of Bob Novak's sources, all of the expected foreign policy team for a second Bush administration is expected “opt for a withdrawal.”   Since such a course would be sure to provoke civil war,  “[i]t would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.” 

Such “resoluteness” has not been seen since Big Brother decided to fight with Eurasia instead of Eastasia.

Afghanistan:  The Republic of Kabul.

budget estimates:  Laughable.  The soft bigotry of low expectations for professional economists.

Bush hatred:  More intense than Clinton hatred.  Has yet to generate impeachment proceedings.

congressional oversight:  Embarrassing in an era of one party rule.  Made Harry Truman and Sam Ervin household names.

Conservative Democrats:  Dying breed.  In bygone days they used to vote with their Party most of the time.

Democrats:  Amateurs.  Not to be taken seriously due to a lack of media savvy.

diplomacy:  Sign of weakness.  Easier to avoid all manner of foreign entanglements without it.

elections:  Too important to be left to the pollsters.  Get out and vote!

follow-up question:  Disrespectful.  Rarely used with much effectiveness.  General fear among press corp as to where a good one might lead.

Gallup Poll:  Confusing.  Survived calling the 1948 election for Dewey to become the most respected polling operation in the land.

health care reform:  Expensive proposition.  No real solutions given that it's a responsibility and not a right.

investigative reporting:  Lost art.  Woodward and Bernstein would have had to give up Watergate investigation due to lack of interest shown in Washington Post/CBS polling.

Iyad Allawi:  George Washington of the New Iraq.  Only Nguyen Van Thieu had a higher percentage of popular support.

likely voters:  Mysterious unknown quantity.  Fastest growing segment of our hypothetical electorate.

loyalty:  Rewarded more often than competence and integrity in current political climate.

lying:  More useful as a governing principle than even Machiavelli could have conceived.  Currently no objective means to disprove.

Moderate Republicans:  Much talked about but perenial no-shows in any political debate.  Vote with the conservatives in their Party more often than Conservative Democrats.

negative campaigning:  Rigged game.  American voters supposedly dislike except when it's effective.

North Korea:  Strange paranoid remnant of the Cold War.  If the President isn't worried, why should you be?

nuance:  Overused.  Once referred to slight differences, now synonymous with a lack of principles.

The Pentagon:  Poorly managed.  Closest thing we have to a Soviet-style bureaucracy.

political campaigns:  Boring.  Expensive dog and pony show briefly seen on the nightly news.

Registered Republicans:  Recent polling data suggests they have miraculously defied all historical precedent and are now regularly counted as almost 40% of the entire electorate.  Up from only 33% in all previous elections. (see Gallup Poll)

Southerners:  A proud, somewhat sensitive lot.  “They have only two solutions to every problem; more guns and more Jesus.“  Be assured they know even less about where you come from. 

Texas:  Bigger than France and twice as assured of its own cultural superiority.

Vice Presidency:  Superfluous.  Used to be about as ceremonial a position as the governor of Texas.

War on Terror:  Equivalent of declaring war on Japanese torpedo bombers after Pearl Harbor.  May last longer than the war between Oceania and Eurasia.

Winston Churchill:  Vociferous defender of the British Empire and patron saint of American Conservatism.  He had troubles in Iraq, too.

younger voters:  Rarely have anyone looking out for them.

On Monday, Michael Tomasky wrote a great piece on the American Prospect website arguing that Republicans do well in presidential elections because, knowing they lose on the issues, they focus on character.  The article made a big splash, and a number of bloggers argued against it. 

Mark Schmitt of the Decembrist, however, got it right.  He argued that "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you."   According to Mark, the Kerry Campaign needs to “start trying to choose some issues that really emphasize whatever it is that they want to say about Kerry as a person that contrasts him to Bush.”   

Not only do I think Mark is right, I think the Kerry campaign understands this—and began to connect Kerry's character and the issues yesterday.  The “character issue” Kerry needs to emphasize is Bush's handling of Iraq.

But what is Kerry’s character?  According to the campaign myth, Sen. Kerry is a man who would never short change those he led, and a person who would never send his men in where he would’t be willing to go himself.  The key incidents of his Vietnam service echo these traits.  Kerry went back to save a comrade in the water and in a later incident turned into an ambush and jumped on shore to personally kill the VC attacking the boat.  Indeed, even the key endorsement of the International Association of Firefighters can be seen as playing into the “band of brothers” theme.  The campaign's theme song, Springsteen's “No Surrender“ is also geared to this campaign meme.

So far, Kerry’s problem on Iraq is that its really hard to argue that anyone could put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.  Most Americans realize that the Iraq situation is grave and don’t think anyone can really fix it. Yesterday, Kerry began to argue that the real issue on Iraq isn’t how to fix it, but whether President Bush has leveled with the American people and shortchanged the soldiers and Marines forced to fight this war.

[H]onoring your service with our thoughts and prayers is not enough.  Especially when right now, in so many ways, we’re shortchanging our men and women in the Guard. . .

[I]n our democracy, which you defend, it is so important to have a truthful conversation about the choices we face in our nation. . .

Right now, our troops over-stretched and over-extended and the Guard and Reserve have been called on to fill the gap. As President, I pledge to you that I will end the backdoor draft of our National Guard.   

Subtly, Kerry began to bring the character issue to the fore—and linked it directly to the issue at hand.  This was a direct attack on the President's so-called “leadership qualities,“ the only real leg Bush can claim to stand on.

The way I see it, this is a matter of values and priorities – and on these issues, President Bush and I couldn’t be more different.  I believe that America’s security begins and ends with our men and women in uniform – with every member of our armed forces who stands guard at the gates of freedom.  I will be a President who goes into the Oval Office every morning knowing that it is my job to help you do yours. . .And you deserve no less than the best.

And there’s something else we owe you and all the men and women serving right now in Iraq.  We owe you the truth. True leadership is about looking people in the eye and telling the truth – even when it’s hard to hear.  And two days ago, President Bush came before you and you received him well, as you should.  But I believe he failed the fundamental test of leadership.  He failed to tell you the truth.  You deserve better.  The Commander in Chief must level with the troops and the nation.   And as president, I will always be straight with you – on the good days, and the bad days. 

Two days ago, the President stood right where I’m standing and did not even acknowledge that more than 1,000 men and women have lost their lives in Iraq.  He did not tell you that with each passing day, we’re seeing more chaos, more violence, more indiscriminate killings.  He did not tell you that with each passing week, our enemies are getting bolder – that Pentagon officials report that entire regions of Iraq are now in the hands of terrorists and extremists.  He did not tell you that with each passing month, stability and security seem farther and farther away. 

. . .   But that is the truth – hard as it is to hear.    You deserve a president who will not play politics with national security, who will not ignore his own intelligence, while living in a fantasy world of spin, and who will give the American people the truth about the challenge our brave men and women face on the front lines. 

 . . .So when it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently than President Bush – I would have done almost everything differently.

And when you compare Bush and Kerry as people, the nexus of character with this issue presents a stark contrast.  Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam.  Bush, it is becoming more clear, avoided facing the very fate he sends American soldiers and Marines to daily.  Kerry would do well to play these themes subtly and often.  Doing so would highlight the central aspect of this race: Kerry must campaign against lies about his record, while Bush must campaign against the truth of his.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

Proverbs 29:2

John Kerry is a better choice for President of the United States than George W. Bush.  Kerry has dedicated his adult life to serving the people.  He fought this country’s enemies on sea and on land.  When he returned, he had the courage to speak against a war he knew was wrong, even though doing so made him unpopular with many.  As a young district attorney, he prosecuted violent offenders and brought new weapons to the fight on crime.  Kerry also served as Lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.  As a U.S. Senator, he led the fight to protect veterans, and drove terrorist funders underground with his investigation of the BCCI bank. 

George W. Bush has presided over one of the greatest downturns in U.S. history.  He will be the first President to preside over a net job loss since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression.  In four short years, Bush’s massive tax cuts squandered the greatest surpluses the country had ever seen and left the nation with its largest deficit ever.  Bush let the world’s sympathy and good will slip away after September 11.  Instead of working to turn the Arab world against the terrorists, he launched a war in Iraq which attracted thousands of more converts to their cause.  Bush’s conduct of that war has left American troops undermanned and surrounded by a hostile population.  The result has been thousands of U.S. casualties and an unstable Iraq.  Worst of all, The Bush Administration has stripped away the freedoms that made America great at home while shockingly violating civil rights abroad.

This year, the choices for President of the United States could not be more distinct.  For four more years of fear, vote Bush.  To bring hope back, vote Kerry.   

Johnny, R.I.P.