It’s a simple argument and it goes as follows. One reason to vote for Kerry this time is that, whatever his record, he will, as president, be forced by reality and by public opinion to be tough in this war. He has no other option. You think he wants to be tarred as a wimp every night by Fox News? Moreover, he would remove from the Europeans and others the Bush alibi for their relative absence in the war on terror. More important, his presidency would weaken the Michael Moore wing of the Democrats, by forcing them to take responsibility for a war that is theirs’ as much a anyone’s. As Bob Kagan put it recently,
There are many reasons why, in theory, the US would benefit from a Democratic victory. It is important for the Democrats to own the war on terrorism and not simply be the opposition. Also, we would have a fresh start with the Europeans and other allies, though they would quickly be disillusioned to learn that Kerry wouldn’t be that different from Bush in some respects.”
Max Boot, another neoconservative, echoes the theme:
I am not at all averse to giving a Democrat a shot. In fact, a Democrat might be better able to sell skeptics abroad and at home on the need for toughness. It also would be good for the Democrats to buy into this long-term struggle, just as Republicans bought into the containment policy with Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1952 election.
I’m not saying this is obvious. I am saying it is perfectly possible to be pro-war and pro-Kerry. Especially after the mishandling of the last year in Iraq, our frayed relations with important allies, and the president’s fiscal undermining of our future military capacity.
MORE ON IRAQ NUKE SITES: This story continues to gain ground:
The mysterious removal of Iraq’s mothballed nuclear facilities continued long after the U.S.-led invasion and was carried out by people with access to heavy machinery and demolition equipment, diplomats said on Thursday… Several diplomats close to the IAEA said the disappearance of the nuclear items was not the result of haphazard looting. They said the removal of the dual-use equipment — which before the war was tagged and closely monitored by the IAEA to ensure it was not being used in a weapons program — was planned and executed by people who knew what they were doing. “We’re talking about dozens of sites being dismantled,” a diplomat said on condition of anonymity. “Large numbers of buildings taken down, warehouses were emptied and removed. This would require heavy machinery, demolition equipment. This is not something that you’d do overnight.”
Why were these sites not guarded? Not enough troops. We launched an invasion to prevent dangerous materials from being exported to terror groups or enemy regimes. And yet we stood by as exactly this happened – on our watch. Unbelievable. Unforgivable.
A CONSERVATIVE GAFFE: Here’s an amazing admission:
While the Democrats have been hurling specious and unsubstantiated charges about Republicans suppressing the African-American vote, Kerry and Edwards are leading their party’s effort – on national television no less – to discourage religious and social conservatives from going to the ballot box for President Bush.
How? By mentioning the fact that Dick Cheney’s daughter is openly lesbian. Now why on earth would that fact make one less likely to vote for Bush-Cheney? The only possible reason is that these voters are bigots, and it is partly on that basis that the GOP is appealing to them. If that weren’t the case, Cesar Conda’s argument wouldn’t hold up at all. Well, at least he’s honest. So too is NRO for running the piece: we’re catering to homophobes and don’t mess with that! Just please don’t tell me that the GOP is a tolerant or inclusive party. If you depend on bigots to win elections, and you pander to them, and rev them up by demonizing minorities, don’t expect the rest of us to sympathize when you’re caught red-handed.
The Dish 