Winds of Change.NET: The Rope Bridge

October 12, 2004

The Rope Bridge

by 'Cicero' at October 12, 2004 5:37 PM

Reading Andrew Sullivan's blog reveals a riptide of conflicts over the upcoming presidential election. Many have derided the largely conservative Mr. Sullivan for becoming weak before our odious adversaries at the fateful hour of the election. His public irreconcilability between two deficient candidates presents a prescient portrait of internal conflictions within many people who want to promote a progressive, tolerant world without feeding the Zarqawian head-eating monsters seeking its end. It is a tribute to Mr. Sullivan that he presents his struggle publicly, where so many satisfy themselves with assured positions. Heel-digging has its merits in the face of tyranny, but comes with the risk that the entire mountain of reason might collapse beneath you.

Today, Mr. Sullivan points out that American forces in Iraq failed to secure equipment and facilities that collectively can be used to create WMDs---Missing Iraqi Nuke Material:

Here's a report that sends chills down my spine:
Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

Where has the stuff gone? Why was it left unguarded? Another money quote:

The United States also has not publicly commented on earlier U.N. inspectors' reports disclosing the dismantling of a range of key weapons-making sites, raising the question of whether it was unable to monitor the sites. In the absence of any U.S. or Iraqi accounting, council diplomats said the satellite images could mean the gear had been moved to new sites inside Iraq or stolen. If stolen, it could end up in the hands of a government or terrorist group seeking nuclear weapons.

"We simply don't know, although we are trying to get the information," said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. U.S. officials had no immediate comment on the report.
It's about time they did, don't you think?

Portions of the article not quoted by Mr. Sullivan also say:

A new CIA report last week by chief U.S. weapons investigator Charles Duelfer made clear, however, that Saddam had all but given up on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991. ElBaradei, whose agency dismantled Iraq's nuclear arms program over a decade ago, drew similar conclusions to the Duelfer report well before the March 2003 invasion.

The article seems slanted towards the opinion that inspections alone will ensure that the bad stuff stays secure and watched. It underscores how the invasion was unnecessary, and undermined the job of the IAEA to safeguard the WMD materials in question. Meanwhile, next door in Iran, and further away in North Korea, the work of the IAEA has delivered poor results with each nation on the verge of being nuclear powers. Inspections without the threat of force did little to contain the production of WMDs. It is also interesting to note that the anti-war position stipulating that the invasion was unnecessary due to lack of WMDs is refuted in the article, since now related materiel is going missing, according to the IAEA themselves. So there were WMD programs in Iraq after all?

The attributed Duelfer report mentioned in the article provides much egg for all faces in the debate. It underscores how the French were supplying Saddam's forces right up to the invasion; surely, some Americans died from French hardware in the bargain. No, France was never going to be for invasion, nor the UN who was raking in Oil For Food petrodollars. Nor the EU, under the spell of France. Cooperation and goodwill from erstwhile allies might have secured WMD sites in Iraq---there's plenty of blame to go around for Western intransigence.

The Duelfer report underscores failure from all sides: inspections guarantee nothing, nor does invasion.

So, like Mr. Sullivan, this blogger finds himself on a flimsy rope bridge swaying in the winds of a chasm created by two flawed popular positions for defending the Western world. It may be that our system really has met its match this time, because the enemy is not a system at all. It's empowered anarchy, welling up from within and without. It challenges who we are, fundamentally.

This blogger has stated that he's voting for Bush but rooting for Kerry. That's a vote cast from the rope bridge, the logic of which could be inverted. As the chasm widens, this little bridge seems more fragile every day. How many people actually occupy this space? How many feel like the choices presented just don't fill the bill? There's emotional solid ground on each side of this bridge. It would be quite tidy to simply take one or the other position and receive pats on the back from either Democrats or Republicans. In this position, if either of the two cliffs representing the West gives way, so does this little bridge. The world will not be saved by either conservatives or liberals. It will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides. It will be saved by reducing the gap that this little bridge must span. Is this remotely possible?

If there's solace to be taken from a Kerry victory, it will be the possibility that liberalism will be truly taken to task by historical forces, like conservativism has been. This time around, a liberal president will not have the political advantages afforded by the power vacuum at the end of the Cold War, concurrent with a miracle tech economy that kept eyes planted on the NASDAQ and not the Cole disaster. This time, a liberal president has the unenviable job of showing that the French can be reformed, that the UN is not utterly dysfunctional and that Carterism has workable limits. Let the sobering begin.

President Bush, who ran on a near-isolationist platform in 2000, redefined conservatism in 2001 because the world changed. That's why he's got my vote. Mr. Kerry, so far, seems reluctant to redefine liberalism in the context of the modern world. His heels are firmly planted on a mountain floating on magma. As president, liberalism, as we know it, will either be redefined or it will perish.

Four more years of Bush will only prolong liberalism's promenade with fantasy; four years of Kerry will either return a functional balance within our system or consummate its disequilibrium, at the risk of chaos. It is a vote of fate.

UPDATE: Joe Katzman follows up on this post with some additional observations, and some thoughts and questions for undecided voters to consider.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/3455

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"The Rope Bridge"

Tracked: October 13, 2004 9:17 AM

Meeting in the Middle (Update) from Michael J. Totten

Excerpt: I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan in part because he teaches me new things, and also because I have something in common with him. He and I, at least for a while, were both undecided voters. James Lileks thinks we’re strange...

Tracked: October 13, 2004 9:26 AM

Meeting in the Middle (Updated) from Michael J. Totten

Tracked: October 13, 2004 8:24 PM

Meeting in the Middle (Updated) from Michael J. Totten

Comments

#1 from Mark Buehner at 7:16 pm on Oct 12, 2004

Sullivan has every right to his opinion, and I agree with many of his criticisms of Bush. Whats maddening is how he projects things onto Kerry that he wants to be there, when they clearly arent. I suppose you could equate Chamberlain and Churchill too if you really needed to psychologically, but that doesnt change reality. The bottom line is Sullivan has gone wobbly. He is willing to roll the dice with Kerry, which I can respect, but he has clearly somehow convinced himself that Kerry is someone he is clearly not. And where does this conviction come from that Democrats are more fiscally conservative than republicans? I admit this administration has been wreckless in spending, but come on. Just look at the programs Kerry proposes. No serious person can possibly think Kerry will spend less than Bush. Kerry will spend far more.

#2 from Bill at 9:52 pm on Oct 12, 2004

Good post. Food for thought. Getting windy on this bridge isn't it?

#3 from BumperStickerist at 10:57 pm on Oct 12, 2004

it's worth pointing out that the items that could be used to build a nuclear bomb - precision milling equipment, high strength aluminum, et cetera - could also be used to build a replica of a Shelby Cobra

So it's a bit premature to start guessing that those items are going to be used for the purposes which Saddam originally acquired them.

http://www.moonbowgraphics.com/lauriesphotogallery/cars/cobra.jpg

nothing to worry about, really.

#4 from Oscar at 11:25 pm on Oct 12, 2004

"If there's solace to be taken from a Kerry victory, it will be the possibility that liberalism will be truly taken to task by historical forces, like conservativism has been" -
Nonsense, the left will blame it all on Bushitler: Kerry thought he could save the ship but GWB had created too many leaks.
Now, if you mean "taken to task" in the sense of being run over by a world historical tidal wave, no thanks: the rest of us would be destroyed with them. Having some visiting anthropologist from the Lesser Magellenic Cloud blame the collapse of human civilisation on the feckless Left is not a scenario I could wish for.

#5 from TQ White II at 11:31 pm on Oct 12, 2004

The rope bridge is a fair analogy. "Empowered anarchy" is a good characterization of our problem. "War on Terror" is not.

I sympathize with the concern about how the next steps will be played out but propose that your interest in the approach of John Kerry is a good idea.

The actual empowered anarchists, militant islam, the 'jihadis' as RIchard Clarke likes to call them, do not have a country to attack. In fact, it is apparent from our experience in Iraq, these people love war zones the way that dandelions like an untended lawn. They are opportunists.

So, try to picture the optimistic end game of George Bush's policy. Iraq ends up being a real country. It has police, an economy, etc. There are no terrorist bases.

Do we really suspect that these guys are finished? Of course not. Their bretheren around the world will carry on. Lots of them won't be in places we can war against. For example, we can't invade Chechnya. We can't invade Indonesia. We can't invade Florida (where some of the 9/11 guys lived).

What do you do then? I suggest that you would try to work with the defense and police departments of those countries. You would work on freezing their assets, preventing their access to weapons, interdicting their travel, etc.

Wait!!!! Your name is still George Bush and you have personally insulted the leaders of the largest countries in the world. You have committed unilateral acts, you have denigrated some of them as 'old europe', you allowed an Army General to use extreme christian language to disparage Islam. You have made support for American policies a political risk for nearly every politician in the world. You can't do those things, even if you had the imagination to want to do so.

Or, you are John Kerry. You've spent your life studying international politics. You have made clear to other leaders that you believe that they, their goodwill and their contributions to the world are important. Your background includes a period of being a States Attorney and you have some personal experience helping to track down bad people, freeze their assets and interdict their ability to get around.

I think the rope bridge has been being woven for some years in response to many world influences. However, Bush has cheerfully dragged a lot of agorophobic people out onto it and then antagonized the guys with knives at the end. I don't think Bush is responsible for the primary situation. I do think that he has made the worst of it.

One of my friends thinks it was a good idea to shake up the middle east by invading Iraq. I think that's stupid but I also think it's in the past. I told him that, even if that's so, that job is done. Now we need a leader, not a bully, to lead the world into a cooperative effort to rebuild Iraq and, more importantly, reduce the problem of terrorism to one with which we can live.

There is nothing about Bush's history or performance to suggest that he can do that. Lots of Kerry's experience, attitude and education suggest that he can.

And, I'll bet that, while he was in basic training and George was not, he learned how to walk on a rope bridge.

#6 from DWC at 11:35 pm on Oct 12, 2004

There is no rope bridge; there is no choice, except perhaps between War and Shame.

I will choose war.

#7 from john b at 11:51 pm on Oct 12, 2004

DWC - sucky choice. Reckon I'd go for shame if given those two options without any indication of why 'war' is good, tho'. Enjoy your pointless death, try not to take the rest of us with you...

#8 from USMC at 12:22 am on Oct 13, 2004

TQ White II

�Now we need a leader, not a bully, to lead the world into a cooperative effort to rebuild Iraq and, more importantly, reduce the problem of terrorism to one with which we can live.�

OK now you peaked my interest. What I really grapple with here is the word bully. I�ve heard it and seen it written as a descriptor of the President. What I�m curious to know is in what way did President Bush bully our allies into a war with Iraq? In what ways did our senators and congressmen bully the French, Germans and Russians into their adamant positions against the war in Iraq? In what ways has the US bullied any nation into some submissive posture that serves US interests? If I�m not mistaken the word bully can be bantered about concerning the IAEA, NATO and UN in general. If one takes into consideration the global issues at hand the US is in no position to bully anyone when there isn�t a global acceptance.

I think it�s fairly safe to say that in some cases acts of diplomacy (bullying) works. In some cases it does not. The bigger question is when diplomacy fails or is undermined (by considered allies) what is the next logical approach concerning US sovereignty and security?

The notion that a cooperative effort in rebuilding Iraq can not be attained because some nations don�t participate because of non favored status is a lot of BS. Why would I put the UN in charge of rebuilding Iraq? The oil for food scandal only leads me to suspect they would be more inclined to rape and pillage the resources belonging to Iraq to serve their own interests. The major problem with the UN is they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and have shown they can not be trusted to police them selves. How can we possibly trust them to keep Iraqi interests at a priority above all else? The UN would never relinquish the oversight of business to the US, UK, or Australia of whom I trust more than the UN at this point. Instead they would favor oversight by those nations that can be bribed.

#9 from Joe Katzman at 1:15 am on Oct 13, 2004

BumperStickerist... so, you're saying that if lots of tricked out vehicles with bad taste decor start appearing on Iraq's streets, we can stop worrying?

Just trying to establish the metrics here. :-)

john b... sorry you prefer shame, and think to resisting totalitarian medieval fascists who think women are cattle, beheading is sport, and murder is worship, is pointless.

I'll turn your words right back at ya, and say: "you're not allowed to let your cowardice take the rest of US with YOU..."

TQ White II... I must have missed the part where John Kerry made world leaders in Iraq, Australia, Poland, Italy, Britain, and all the rest of America's coalition partners feel respected and important.

Was it his "bribed and coerced" comment?

Maybe it was the part about calling Allawi a puppet - nothing makes one feel respected like that.

Or telling Australians, in the middle of an election, that their leader had made them less safe by cooperating with the USA. Boy, can't beat that thanks for their goodwill and contributions.

Hey, while he's at it, maybe he can diss the participation of the Chinese and Japanese, where "face" is all important, by promising to rudely push them aside and switch to bilateral talks with North Korea! Nothing like telling face-based nations how little their participation matters to really foster trust and close relations.

Oh yeah, your boy is a regular Talleyrand, he is. Makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Miss Manners.

#10 from TQ White II at 1:47 am on Oct 13, 2004

USMC,

Bully starts with "with us or against us", continues through the assertions about 'old europe' and the irrelevance of the UN, and finishes with the determination that Iraq's money would only be spent on America's friends, regardless of the value to Iraq of having others do the jobs.

The US can bully smaller countries by threatening complications in access to our markets, by promising hassles for visitors, by making clear that people that are not our 'friends' can plan to get less friendly treatment in the many international bodies dominated by America.

I don't know why you would put the UN in charge of Iraq. I would have the UN do it because, regardless of its inefficiency, the UN is not hated as much as America is and will get less direct resistance to its efforts.

The corruption in the Oil for Food program, if true, is very sad. However, that corruption is no worse than that being conducted by the Bush administration through Halliburton et al. Corruption is part of the world and cannot be avoided. What we can avoid is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

To that end, I would give Bush the boot and hire Kerry to run around the world kissing ass with both lips and offering other below the waist services to cause other corrupt politicians to spend their political capital and national resources to bail our sorry asses out.

Waste and corruption are ok with me as long as the job is getting done on the way. We have plenty of the former in the Bush administration's incompetent effort in Iraq and none of the latter.

tqii

#11 from lunacy at 2:01 am on Oct 13, 2004

I wouldn't be so sure that the UN is better liked in Iraq than the US. After all, they know who helped screw them the past several years.

UN no worse than Halliburton?

If Hallliburton is in the business of helping evil tyrants skim the cream off the collective pot to buy luxury automobiles and deluxe industrial people shredders while giving barrels of oil so two faced euroweenies will look the other way, I guess your right.

Lunacy

#12 from Marcus Cicero at 2:04 am on Oct 13, 2004

The posts so far seem to miss the spirit of the essay. Questions were asked:

As the (left/right) chasm widens, this little bridge seems more fragile every day. How many people actually occupy this space? How many feel like the choices presented just don't fill the bill?

The world will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides. It will be saved by reducing the gap that this little bridge must span. Is this remotely possible?

I take it then that so far, no one feels the way I do. Fair enough.

Mainly, I see position taking and entrenchment. People seem well versed in their positions, probably having uttered them a hundred times. "The UN should/shoud not run Iraq." "Bush/Kerry is a bully." Reciting party lines is old hat, often worn. Perhaps that's the most we can do. Somehow, I doubt that it is going to get us out of our predicament. But that's just me.

#13 from TQ White II at 2:52 am on Oct 13, 2004

Cicero, I'm with you. Though, obviously, I think there is a partisan component to this.

My original point was to intended to join you in the observation that I think that seeking to connect people and countries in chasing away both the fear and its source is important. Pulling the ends of the bridge closer so that we can see each other better.

It resonates with me especially, and here is where politics intrudes, because I read the Times article about Kerry's international viewpoint and he agrees with you. I was struck not only with that agreement but with the sophistication of his view on the matter.

I was moved to bring it up because of your observation about your 'voting for Bush rooting for Kerry' and the internal conflict that suggests which, I think, is emblematic of our social conundrum overall. Many want the strong daddy that will make it all safe but also want the strong mommy that will keep the family together.

It's all pushed to extremity by the fact that, in this case, I think that daddy is a brute. Oh well.

tqii

#14 from TQ White II at 3:03 am on Oct 13, 2004

Joe,

I wish there was a way to settle a bet on the matter but if we could, I'd bet that that "bribed and coerced" bothered Bush a lot more than it bothered any of the national leaders. Further, I bet that most of them pretty much agree. Wasn't it Poland whose leader said they were "deceived" the other day. Those that don't agree would probably figure pretty easily that it was a barb aimed at Bush, not them.

I suspect that you've been listening to a few too many campaign speeches. Bush's writers have adopted the practice of taking a Kerry phrase and spinning it into wild flights of distorted meaning and fantasy.

From 'voted before to voted against', passing through 'global test' and feeding along the way on 'how can you lead if you think they're coerced and bribed', Bush intentionally misunderstands what Kerry is talking about and then repeats the distortion as if it's truth. You sound like smart enough guy to see through that.

Unless, of course, it was intended to be polemic. In that case, start a new thread, and, as your fearless leader says, "Bring it on."

tqii

#15 from lunacy at 3:25 am on Oct 13, 2004

Well, Cicero, I disagree with your final presumption. I don't think 4 more years of Bush will "prolong liberalism's promenade with fantasy". The 8 years of Clinton did nothing to speed up the process. The 1st tower bombing, the American Embassies, the Cole attack (today is the anniversary), did nothing to alter the liberal view that terrorism should be viewed as a police action.

With a large portion of "liberalism" and the left in denial of our current state, or worse yet, blaming our state soley on American foreign policy or our penchant for defending Israel, you cannot seriously expect that anything less than a devastating attack would bring them to keel. And I agree with the poster above who suggested that should we receive a historical tsunami it would not bring about any soul searching from American "liberalism" or the left. It will bring the finger of blame to the Bush administration.

It is not within Kerry's power nor inclination "to redefine liberalism". Although I wish it were. He's not fit for such stoic and thankless work.

The anniversary of the Bali bombing was this week also, as was a monumental election in Australia. I hope you noted that in Australia, their equivalent to our liberalism is still in denial, threatening to move to New Zealand, accusing the Howard camp of cheating and condemning the populace at large of being nitwitted fools. Meanwhile, Howard has won and unprecedented victory.

Will Howard's victory "prolong" the much needed reality check? Would a Latham win have brought about this sea change quicker? Will another Bali pull the veil from the left's eyes? I don't think so in any of these cases.

If terrorism is the bad ideology with which we are warring, than the left to large degree and "liberalism" to some degree are the useful idiots of this war.

What will bring "liberalism" back to liberalism? Not Kerry. He hasn't the stones. I say we clone Hitchens. That project would probably bear fruit sooner than an epiphany in the American Democrat powers that be.

Lunacy

#16 from Engineer-Poet at 3:54 am on Oct 13, 2004

Marcus: I'm with you.

That makes two of us against the world. When do we attack? ;)

#17 from Marcus Cicero at 4:09 am on Oct 13, 2004

Engineer: Thanks. I'm with me too. Whatever I am.

Lunacy: Disagree, by all means. And don't forget I'm voting for W. So no lectures on Kerry's failings are required---you're preaching to the choir. On the other hand, if Kerry wins, I'll pray for the best, not the worst. If this divided country is only capable of 50% support for a given president, then it's all over---A house divided against itself cannot stand. Kerry's warts might be removable. And yes, it's a long shot. Hopefully, it will be W that needs some more adjustment; but we're in over our heads either way.

TQ: I know, partisanship cannot be avoided. But I can dream, can't I?

#18 from bitter mastermind at 4:09 am on Oct 13, 2004

As the world changes, we need leaders who are able to take all facts in, who are able to see things as they are rather than as they should be. Leaders who can take bad news and honset criticism, who are strong enough to admit when past judgements were wrong.

Until then, some of us will keep swaying over the chasm, held up by a thin thread of how they wish things were...

totalitarian medieval fascists who think women are cattle, beheading is sport, and murder is worship

Saudi Arabia? Oh wait...

#19 from Bill at 4:33 am on Oct 13, 2004

Interesting post, interesting discussion.

A few words: everyone - cheer up. The end of the world always seems around the corner. But I sense that it's not. There is one candidate I definitely (desperately?) hope wins but I expect the other candidate will prevail. So I'm somewhat on that bridge too.

In any event - God bless the man who occupies the Oval Office next January - he's going to need it.

#20 from Elrod at 6:37 am on Oct 13, 2004

I believe Will Forte said it best in his SNL bit on the first debate, "It's hard work. Why would you want this job?"

#21 from Joe Katzman at 7:39 am on Oct 13, 2004

Cicero,

Your position on the rope bridge has more company than you think. Many of those people have already decided, as you have, so they don't show up on surveys. But the blogosphere is full of them, and I suspect the electorate has its share too.

Now, is narrowing the gap remotely possible? I gave that answer once before, and today I give it again: not with John Kerry, not in this election. Kerry's policies and actions are very clear, and all of them widen the gap rather than narrowing it.

I can root for a healthy Democratic Party, but not for Kerry. Wishing for a different leader now won't give us one - and Kerry is no Tony Blair.

His successors may be. Or, they may turn the Democrats into the equivalent of the Britain's Labour Party in 1993, whose loony left platform was described as "the longest suicide note in history" as the party marginalized itself almost to destruction. Eventually, this stark failure forced reform, in the person of Tony Blair. So sooner would be better, but one way or the other, reform comes.

The only way to slow it is to delude ourselves re: the real choices we face, and substitute projection for analysis, and refuse to insist on what is necessary from those who would lead us.

TQII... actually, Poland's leader did complain about Kerry recently - and strongly. But the bottom line isn't complaints - it's your belief that Kerry will make others feel respected and wanted when he's clearly doing the exact opposite. Delusion gets us nowhere.

Bitter Mastermind... Yeah, the Saudis ARE in that group. Their recknoning needs to come, but now would be poor timing.

#22 from Steve at 12:47 pm on Oct 13, 2004

Uninteresting Post, Even Less Interesting Discussion

Does everyone run around with notes written on their hands and arms like cheaters at a freshman college exam in order to regurgitate the same old (inane) "ideas?"

Bashing Yanks and Jews

With friends like these who needs enemies?

Personally I'm thinking of remaining "undecided" until 2008 when, with luck, there will be something to decide. Is there really anything new or of substance in this thread?

#23 from Jerry Bowles at 2:00 pm on Oct 13, 2004

Is there really such a word as "conflictions?"

#24 from Sam at 2:17 pm on Oct 13, 2004

I'm with you on the bridge. I can't believe that our choices come down to "someone who thinks everything in Iraq is going fine vs someone who thinks getting the French involved is a solution" (to quote a colleague). That said, I do think that Bush has grasped one fact that I am unsure that Kerry has; we are at war with people who are not appeasable. They hate the very core of our society.

I also think that losing is more likely than winning to bring the Democratic party to see that it needs to move to a more realistic position on foreign policy. Kerry is not Tony Blair; he's more like Livingston (Red Ken). When Lieberman or Gephart is the Democratic nominee, I will believe that the Democrats are moving in the directiont hat Tony Blair took Labour.

#25 from USMC at 2:22 pm on Oct 13, 2004

Marcus
There maybe some standing on the rope bridge but alas I�m not one of them. My assumption here of course is the gap you are referring to is the WoT and war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman held my interest concerning his views on this issue and national security. The WoT, war in Iraq and national security are things I�m not willing to allow Kerry to meddle with period. That issue alone is the deciding factor for me.

The notion that the world will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides I believe is far too grandiose. This notion seems to imply that no other nation on this earth has the resolve to solve or deal with the issues of the WoT and the war in Iraq. That is if the chasm is the WoT and war in Iraq.

If we toss in the social issues Kerry falls short in this arena as well. Of course that�s my opinion. His answers on stem cell research, health insurance and abortion just don�t ring true. You would think he could point to our allies or other leading nations to convince us that his policies will work and are for the benefit of all. Those issues are fairly cut and dried between the candidates. Just as an aside on compromise alone I might add that both parties do give and take but it seems the give is not enough for Kerry. For example Kerry would spend federal dollars on abortion Bush will not. No one says you can�t have one. Kerry is for a national health care plan Bush wants individual health care plans compromises in medicaid are already taking place and even that is not enough. Kerry would spend unlimited funds on embryonic stem cell research with out restraints. Bush has limits on embryonic stem cell research and wants moral and ethical questions answered before we proceed any farther. There have been compromises on these issues yet the compromises are not enough for Kerry or the democratic party. It would be nice if we could put these issues on the table as propositions for a national vote. Even then I�m not so sure a populace decision of yes or no would close the chasm of emotional diatribes.

TQ II
So disagreements of �us against us� now constitutes bullying? I don�t think so. If anything IMO it is an emotional divide verses a healthy debate that raises the issue of the WoT and war in Iraq to the boiling point. You seem like a pretty smart guy and I�m sure you understand that on some issues there will always be the option of accepting the fact that we can agree to disagree and let the voters decide. The vote will determine political discourse not emotions or passions over the issues.

As for your comments on waste and corruption being ok as long as the job is getting done. Here we disagree again. My objective is to eliminate the waste and corruption. I certainly don�t want corrupted cops on the streets as much as I don�t want the Enron or Tyco corporate mentality. While waste and corruption may be acceptable to you and you may be willing to look the other way depending on results they are totally unacceptable to me and not open for compromise.

#26 from a z at 2:49 pm on Oct 13, 2004

* As the (left/right) chasm widens, this little bridge seems more fragile every day. How many people actually occupy this space? How many feel like the choices presented just don't fill the bill?

I do not know how many people are on this bridge. I believe neither candidate represents my views on most subjects. However, my mind is firmly against one more than the other.

* The world will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides. It will be saved by reducing the gap that this little bridge must span. Is this remotely possible?

I do not believe it will be possible until the Democrat and Republican system as it stands today falls. Labels and party vindictiveness ultimately is what is driving the country apart. While the citizens do the voting, it is ultimately up to the parties in control to work together. That simply hasn't happened in a long time, but for me became much more noticeable in 1994.

The Democrats lost influence due to many factors, internally and externally. Internal interests splintered the party. Perhaps we will see the same in the Republican party as the religious interests and neocon elements struggle along with the small government/fiscal conservatives and the progressive conservatives. Meanwhile economic and social pressures will prevent any real, open and frank discussion of the problems and potential solutions.

I see no change in the status quo of deep American division until citizens start armed rebellion or the moderates of both Democratic and Republican parties vote through legislation allowing viable third party options and then immediately leave their parties. I'm not even sure that will work unless the citizenry realize the need to communicate is different from the desire to conform to stereotypes portrayed by mass culture. But it would be a first step to removing the republicat framing of our country's needs.

Perhaps in 4 years another option will have presented itself, but I see no other means to honest change until then.

#27 from TQ White II at 3:48 pm on Oct 13, 2004

Steve,

I continue to believe that Kerry is a more respectful person and has evinced more respectful behavior personally and publicly than Bush. Poland's leader may feel that it's worse to be considered 'bribed and coerced' than "deceived". So be it. He is also, it says in your reference, the only country where Bush is supported. Politics is everything.

I don't believe that any of those leaders will hold political campaign statements against Kerry. However, if they do, I note that the only one that has the ability to do anything important for us in Iraq is Great Britain, maybe Japan if they can get over their cultural issues. Most of the rest are tiny or poor countries. If necessary, Kerry can bully them as easily as Bush has - and still be nicer about it.

AZ,

I don't have any problem with differing viewpoints, with "or". I have a problem with "against" In fact, I have a huge, gigantic problem with that. Disagreement with Bush is treated as enmity in international politics, domestic politics, and, I have heard, personally. It is an awful concept to introduce into the public discourse and, even aside from the bully concept, is enough to remove him from public life. This concept is poisonous.

I don't want corrupt police either. I don't want any corruption. I am, however, a realist. Corruption exists. I am more skeptical of the Bush administration and his corporate cronies than I am of Kofi Anon and his cronies.

I long ago decided that the idea of turning one's back on things because of corruption or waste is an excuse for turning one's back on important issues. (My favorite example is the frequent republican cant that we are not going to increase funding for schools because school systems are wasteful. As if there was any possibility that will change before the kids have grown old and died.) The nature of the corruption and waste matters but I believe it's going to be there. Accept it, minimize it and get the job done.

tqii

#28 from pragmatist at 3:59 pm on Oct 13, 2004

"Empowered anarchy" is a very good line. And,
at the end of the day, the same despots who
run things in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya,
etc. will be in charge.

"Plausible Deniability" is what allows the
state sponsors of terror like Arafat to go
on killing without consequence.

It seems trite but the solution is rather
simple. Hold those accountable who are
promoting the terror.

Take out a couple of Iran's mullahs and
you will see a huge change in how the
remaining leaders deal with the world.

Our strengths is that top leadership
doesn't matter much. Nixon made many
of the same decisions that Humphrey
would have done. We have a 'system
of governance'.

The terrorists have the same problem
all thugocracies have. If you aren't
the ultimate leader you better watch
your 6 every minute of the day.

Isn't it remarkable how the terror
attacks in Israel have diminished once
those sending out the bombers have,
themselves, been dispatched to paradise?

Why do you think Ghadaffi has changed
his spots? It wouldn't have been much
fun for him to be the "LATE" revered
leader now would it?

#29 from Stephen at 4:59 pm on Oct 13, 2004

I've come up with 10 reasons why Republicans should vote for John Kerry. Not all should be taken seriously.

#30 from Jason at 6:28 pm on Oct 13, 2004

Your quote:
"The world will not be saved by either conservatives or liberals. It will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides."

All I can say is that you read my mind. I'm a full-blooded Kerry supporter, and I couldn't agree more with that comment. Well done.

#31 from SR at 6:39 pm on Oct 13, 2004

Only a fit of uncharacteristic modesty is keeping Andrew Sullivan from nominating himself for one of his "Sontag Awards."

#32 from Joe Katzman at 9:26 pm on Oct 13, 2004

TQII - So the facts of Kerry's behaviour and its consequences are irrelevant to your belief in his diplomatic abilities, allied nations who have sacrificed for the USA are unimportant anyway and exist to be bullied, and Kofi Anan, his $10B oil-for-palaces cash cow, and his corrupt dictators club are your idea of propriety.

The first is simply partisanship. Fine, and nice to acknowledge that up front. The second and third, items, however, are exactly the kinds of beliefs that make narrowing the gap so very difficult.

#33 from Tina at 1:47 am on Oct 14, 2004

The only - and I mean only - thing that has me still considering Kerry is this: is it possible that his election will dispel some of the poison in our international relations? Is it possible that electing Kerry will get the Franch et al to stop obstructing us, rather than deliberately digging out the ground beneath our feet?

I know, President Bush isn't really to blame, but to other countries, he's like a red rag to a bull.

Even if (God willing) Iraq becomes the Switzerland of the Middle East in the next year, that won't do anything to identify, surveille (sp?), capture and interrogate a 3-man cell in a quiet suburb of Marseilles who are plotting to blow up the Mall of America. The best people to give us those tips are locals, i.e. the French.

This presupposes that the French have intel we need. This is reasonable, since their government and business communities were embedded in Iraq up to the last minute. They have networks that we can't plug into (yet). Is the only thing standing in their way irrational Bush-hatred?

So, taking the loooooooong view: do the French have access to needed intel? And is it worth risking a Kerry presidency to (try to) get it? Chirac would rather see a Concorde dropped on Notre Dame and blame it on Bush than do anything that could be construed as helping him out.

Would a President Kerry get cooperation? Is the obstruction really personal to Bush, or is it anti-Americanism? If it's personal to Bush, well, this is a generational war we're in, and no one is expendable. If it's general anti-Americanism, we're on our own for a very long time.

#34 from Robin Burk at 2:19 am on Oct 14, 2004

is it possible that his election will dispel some of the poison in our international relations? Is it possible that electing Kerry will get the Franch et al to stop obstructing us, rather than deliberately digging out the ground beneath our feet?

Based on working with Europeans over a number of years, and doing a little business in the Far East, and a lot of reading in European philosphy, historians and social criticism, I think the answer is a resounding "not a chance".