Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Kind of the mirror image of the Bush administration's foreign policy...

Throughout these past few years, The Onion has been both prescient and insightful. "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is now over" they noted as Bush took office. Now in the twilight (oh please Lord!) of the dubyocracy, they continue to cut right to the heart of the matter.

It is of course true. But even with a strategy designed to accentuate the "not Bush" angles, Kerry-Edwards have proposed many many more concrete ideas than the Bush white house enacted in its tenure (funded or unfunded).

I can live with this platform.

In a wicked change of pace, I got to spend five hours today riding in a construction crew van heading out to a remote site, with Hannity, then Limbaugh, and finally O'Reilly, the flogger, on our crew truck radio, and everyone chiming in.

I recommend it for every ivory-tower academic.

The big issue of the day is Kerry's poor memory over whether he was fighting in Cambodia on Christmas, or fighting near Cambodia some later.
But nothing about Bush gone AWOL for two years.

"Kerry a Liar!" all three of them trumpeted, and you might smirk, but smirking is the sign of the Chalabi Devil. Never smirk, you'll end up Lay.

A *whole lot* of people will vote against Kerry. The Three Sirens of Circe: Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, will see to that, especially now that our CIA has outed a British double-agent in Pakistan, solely for the opportunity to elevate three-year old intelligence into a Level Orange.

Democrat Convention? What Democrat Convention?
We're in October Surprise two months early, the stops are out. Told you Bush wouldn't roll over.

"Osama and Al Qaeda's plan is Anybody but Bush."
(Ergo, a vote for Kerry is a vote for bin Laden.)

Four more years of Calvinist KoolAid.
"Jesus is Coming Back -- Look Busy!"

Although Christ is anything but busy. 233 days Bushco flopped around on terrorism because of the Bush family ties to the bin Laden's and Saud's. 233 days Bush himself flopped around at his ranch, on vacation in office, more vacation in four years, one observer noted, than most blue collar workers take in their whole lives.

Anyone remeber Tony Blair's first campaign? The Economist was exasperated how he didn't take any position on anything. His "Third Way" platform was flipfloppism institutionalized. All the way his campaign message was End Tory Rule.

On second thought, maybe a bad example.

Works for me.

Aaron Haffen,

Relax. It was your first ride out to the sticks, right? Here in Alabama "Rush Rooms" are the order of the day at all the best BBQ emporia down here. A "Rush Room" is where everybody's favorite hillbilly heroine hero is blasted out over the loudspeaker during the lunch hour. Yes, the BBQ more than compensates. Anyway, I have noticed a mini-trend recently. Two or three establishments have started tuning their radios to music instead of the old gasbag. I don't think these guys are just ready to vote for Big John yet, but if Perot were running again....

I want to learn more about Kerry's concept for a "sensitive" war on terrorism.

Considering that Bush's strong point was once considered to be "Don't do anything Clinton would do," this may pass like gas.

A positive case may be stated. Having come to regret his fighting in a disreputed war, Kerry may be one of the Defense-knowledgeable few with the psychological depth to devise an effective strategy to deal with the worldwide Muslim insurgency.

Having an enemy as dim and pathetic as George Bush certainly simplifies the policy debates.

@ Lee A.
"Having come to regret his fighting in a disreputed war, Kerry may be one of the Defense-knowledgeable few with the psychological depth to devise an effective strategy to deal with the worldwide Muslim insurgency."

Which is precisely why Kerry will be pilloried for it. Many people don't want an effective policy, they just want one that goes BOOM and leaves lots of dead Arabs.

Look what happened today. Kerry talked about cultivating allies, which Cheney turned into being soft on terrorists.

Like the drug war and the war on crime, it is not important that the war against terrorists be won. It is important that the war be unending. Many Americans are just happy to know that men are being raped in prison and they we're blowing stuff up somewhere over there. It doesn not phase them at all that nothing gets any better.

Success is irrelevant. Entertainment is everything.

While definitely in the anybody-but-Bush camp, I thought the _Onion_ piece was hysterical, particularly the title and the first two paragraphs.

But don't forget this other _Onion_ headline (in addition to the amazingly prescient "Our Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over," as pointed out by another commenter above): "Bush Vows to Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House in 2004."

Having an enemy as dim and pathetic as George Bush certainly simplifies the policy debates.

@ Lee A.
"Having come to regret his fighting in a disreputed war, Kerry may be one of the Defense-knowledgeable few with the psychological depth to devise an effective strategy to deal with the worldwide Muslim insurgency."

Which is precisely why Kerry will be pilloried for it. Many people don't want an effective policy, they just want one that goes BOOM and leaves lots of dead Arabs.

Look what happened today. Kerry talked about cultivating allies, which Cheney turned into being soft on terrorists.

Like the drug war and the war on crime, it is not important that the war against terrorists be won. It is important that the war be unending. Many Americans are just happy to know that men are being raped in prison and they we're blowing stuff up somewhere over there. It doesn not phase them at all that nothing gets any better.

Success is irrelevant. Entertainment is everything.

While definitely in the anybody-but-Bush camp, I thought the _Onion_ piece was hysterical, particularly the title and the first two paragraphs.

But don't forget this other _Onion_ headline (in addition to the amazingly prescient "Our Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over," as pointed out by another commenter above): "Bush Vows to Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House in 2004."

I think we will not have an "unending" war, for three separate new reasons. (1) Weapons of mass destruction--WMD. The little tribes who attacked Ancient Rome could not kill thousands with only a few guys. Among WMD are nuclear weapons, which will poison the globe. (2) Martyrdom, a virtue in jihad. They don’t mind going with their weapons. (3) Our enemy is tending to 1.3 billion strong, and Usama bin Laden has attained an historic popularity not least because he preaches a mainstream version of conservative Islam. And this will also inspire many more grass-roots leaders, like Muqtada al Sadr. We in the U.S. are less numerable, and that sticks us with the ultimate military tactic of long-distance mass-killing, ourselves. We may not go this far. The civil religion of the people of the United States--i.e., freedom and self-determination, hatred of injustice, the spasms of self-loathing at gluttony--may prevent it. Indeed we are about to be turned to gaze quite steadily upon our beliefs...

The only way I can see unending “war” is in one possible alternative: Walls built everywhere--the world cordoned-off; another cold war. But even that might not last very long.

I think there is in fact hope in a new approach which would incorporate a good deal of talk, along several lines at once.

Lee, point 3 is just flat-out wrong, unless you really think that the US should strive to piss off every single muslim in the world. Point 2 is true, but to a very limited degree. If suicide bombers were as numerous as one would think from the warbloggers posts, their cause would have won. Most people aren't suicidal.

Point 1 is important, but the thing to do is make sure that WMD's don't fall into the hands of terrorists. So far, the Bush administration has pursued a policy of striking where the WMD's are no, and ignoring where they are (including the former USSR, a prime place to acquire nukes).

Barry, please explain on point 3?

How many people are tired of the Republican vs. Democrat (and vice versa) child-like bickering that happens in D.C. year round, and especially during an election year? John Kerry's platform is the removal of George W. Bush. As was mentioned in a previous comment, Bush's strong point in 2000 was "Don't do anything Clinton would do". What's really going on here! We, as Americans, are always forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? Bush made a decision to go to war in Iraq based on a letter from the CIA that stated that Iraq "possibly" had WMD's. At least he made a decision, however premature and inept it was. Kerry has flip flopped on so many different issues that he doesn't even know how to make a decision! It probably takes him an hour to decide what to have for breakfast in the morning (oh yeah, his wife makes that decision)! He didn't even make the decision himself to have John Edwards as his running mate. Ted Kennedy is backing Kerry for president. Ted is a good friend of John Edwards, he wanted to back Edwards in the primary's. Because of Kerry being the other Massachussettes Senator, it wouldn't have looked good for him to back a Senator from another state. Kerry blasted Edwards during the primary's, saying that Edwards couldn't run the country. Now all of the sudden Edward's is his running mate!?! This is the biggest flip-flop of them all! Do you think the Kennedy's had anything to do with his decision? Hell yes! The Kennedy's want back in the White House, and we all know Ted will never be President (remember Chappaquiddick!). Of course none of this puts Bush out of political danger! Most of his cabinet members, including his VP, are all friends of his fathers! Get your own friends, junior!!! Bush is definitely not one of the brighter bulbs in the circuit! Going into Afghanistan to track down Bin Laden was justified, but then turning the tables and saying that Iraq had something to do with it and they have nukes!?! Okay, no doubt Saddam was hiding something. He kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998 and didn't let them back in until after the Sept. 11th attacks. Do you think 4 years was enough time to either hide or destroy his arsenal!?! Maybe the UN should be held responsible for the Sept 11th attacks, they drug their feet until it was too late. Now with all this in mind, should we have removed Saddam from power? Yes! Should it have been done in the fashion that it happened? No. Honestly, Saddam should have been removed a long time ago. Bush Sr. couldn't finish the job, Clinton didn't care (too busy with his interns), and Bush Jr. got caught holding the bag!

So here's my proposal, there are theoretically 3 choices in November; Bush, quick on the trigger and slow in the gray matter; Kerry, hasn't made a decision on his own since 1973; or Nader, spoiler supreme. Well, just in case you didn't know, there is a D)none of the above. It's called a write in vote. Do you know how many votes Mickey Mouse gets each election year! Make your voice heard if you're concerned about how our government operates and just write in a vote. Mickey Mouse is the old stand-by, but be creative. There is no need to vote for somebody you don't like just because he's the lesser of 2 evils! Maybe some reform will come if our government realizes that we don't like what they're doing! Stop the bickering, Go Mickey!!!

it's a parody, ed.