Usually we get to choose the lesser of two evils. Now we get to choose the least hawkish of two ultra-hawks. That’s my take on the Edwards-Cheney dust up.
That is, if you could get past the idiotic questions of moderator “Ma’am Gwen.” Was she kidding or what? Two questions on gay marriage nonsense, with extensions? Some oddball thing about African-American women with AIDS? In general, she was an awful moderator, and even her questions about Iraq were weak. And no question about Social Security privatization? No question about insuring the uninsured? Nothing about Medicare or drugs? Earth to Gwen: What universe are you in? Plus, I thought her question to Edwards about his qualifications was edgy and mean-spirited. In any case, she isn’t qualified to moderate a debate.
Cheney was Cheney, sticking to his guns. I thought Edwards let him get away with murder. Did I miss the part where Edwards gloated about Cheney’s belief that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq?
But Edwards was distressingly hawkish. More troops for Iraq? Paul Bremer may have double-crossed Bush by speaking off the record, but only ultra hawks think we don’t have enough troops in Iraq. Enough troops for what—to kill every resistance fighter from Basra to Kurdistan? Then again, Edwards was scarily murderous in defending Israel. Yes, Israel has the “right” to defend itself. But defending itself doesn’t mean annexing West Bank lands, destroying the Palestinian Authority, bulldozing huge areas of Gaza, assassinating Palestinians by the dozen (with collateral damage in the form of dead babies) and so on. Is that Edwards’ model for Iraq? More troops, so we can implement an Israeli-style peace of the dead?
Justin Raimondo, writing for Antiwar.com, writes today about Kerry the Hawk, noting his Saudi-bashing especially, and citing Bill Safire’s column welcoming Kerry as the newest neocon. Here is part of it, referring to the Saudi-bashing nonsense coming from the Media Fund ads:
If warmongering hysteria works, then the Democrats are more than eager to try it: anything to capture the White House. And you'd better believe that behind this display of Saudi-bashing is the implicit threat of war. Another aspect of these ads is typically American whining about "high oil prices," which are supposedly the fault of the Saudis. What else can this complaint mean, coming from the world's biggest bully and newest Middle Eastern colonial power, except the implied threat of force?
Saudi Arabia is not the land of democracy. But as I have said here before, Saudi Arabia was opposed to war in Iraq. If Bush-Cheney were in King Fahd’s pocket, they would not have invaded Iraq. Edwards’ best line of the night was when he said that Al Qaeda is in 60 countries, and he asked Cheney how many of those countries he would like to attack. I want to ask Edwards the same thing.
