The Gordon piece bears re-reading. It addresses a major issue in the debate we’re having over the election. Sarah Baxter, Greg Dejerejian and others rightly point out the superior worldview of the Bush administration in response to terror. But that really isn’t the issue this time around. The issue is: even if they see the world the right way, are they capable of pursuing their policies competently? I cannot believe that anyone fairly reviewing the shambles that is the Iraq occupation can have any real confidence in this administration’s ability to meet logistical means to ideological ends. It hurts me to say it, but Rumsfeld is clearly the main man responsible for ignoring early advice, refusing to heed the military, creating an intimidatory atmosphere in which important criticism cannot be heard, and for sticking to theories when cruel, hard experience has debunked them. Here’s Garner again:
“John Abizaid was the only one who really had his head in the postwar game. The Bush administration did not. Condi Rice did not. Doug Feith didn’t. You could go brief them, but you never saw any initiative come of them. You just kind of got a north and south nod. And so it ends with so many tragic things.”
Do you really trust these people to protect us in the months and years ahead? Do you trust them to make the right decisions? Do you trust them to subject their own beliefs to scrutiny? That’s the first issue in this election, before we get to the question of Kerry. I say this as someone who did once trust them, and who found himself unable to marry the reality on the ground with the words coming from the White House. I trusted but couldn’t verify. And the stakes are too high for me to trust again.
THE POLLS ARE UNCHANGED: Since last week, that is. That’s the view of MysteryPollster, who has done the best analysis I’ve read so far of what’s going on.
JESUS FOR BUSH: Yep, a divine endorsement. And why not?
Mr. Brinson persuaded Mr. Caviezel, the actor who portrayed Jesus in Mel Gibson’s hit film, to appear in a Webcast imploring Christians to vote. Although Mr. Caviezel never explicitly endorses the president, his message is designed to remind Christians that Mr. Bush shares their opposition to abortion, judicial activism and homosexual marriage. “In this election year, Americans are faced with some of the most important issues in the history of our country,” he said. “In order to preserve the God-given freedoms we each hold dear, it’s important that we let our voices be heard.”
We’re still waiting, of course, for an endorsement from the Virgin Mary. But I’m sure Richard Neuhaus has that one lined up.
WHEN GLENN IS PISSED OFF: He can be really funny. I wish he’d be more abusive at times – of the people who deserve a little slapping around. And I haven’t heard the term “sod off” since I left England. Good for him. But it’s also true that he doesn’t really defend his own pro-Bush sentiments at any length, and he routinely avoids any news that could reflect badly on the president. I’m sure Glenn is aware of the many mistakes in Iraq, but he doesn’t link to them, and seems content merely to link to positive news. That’s his prerogative, of course. And given the bad news emphasis of MSM, defensible. But it is a cocoon of a sort. And his assumptions would be more persuasive with a bit more substantiation at times.
The Dish 