The Cock-Eyed And The Dukakiied

      As much as this blog is hesitant to refer approvingly to words from Michael Moore, a message from yesterday on his blog is worth reading, especially for those of us massaging our eyes to alleviate our "How-the-hell-did-Kerry-end-up-blowing-things-this-badly" headaches.   It's at this point, though, that I should reaver my cynicism, albeit MY definition of cynicism (i.e., that 90% of the time things will turn out for the worst, but one secretly, quietly, prays for that 10% of the time that one is wrong).   Kerry's wooden, and awkwardly patrician (for an American, anyway), disposition has made him an easy pinata for the Bushies, and he seems to suffer from the Dukakis disease of not retalliating with full-force against the spurious charges of his opponents: Kerry has demonstrated no "fire-in-the-belly," no capacity for gravitas, and if he doesn't do it soon, he'll go down not in history not as one of the Gores or the Carters, but as one of the Mondales and Dukakii. Here I suspect Mr. Kerry should take a page from Mr. Bush's book, that of figuring himself as a Man With A Mission, that mission being to lead the United States out of the international quagmire into which President Bush and his cronies led the country. He has to offer not just an "I'm Not Bush" candidacy, but a difference of course (i.e., direction), and he has to articulate the graveness of his concern, that he sincerely believes that the re-election of President Bush may have irreversible and dangerous consequences, as evidenced so clearly by recent events. He has to ditch the "Let America Be America Again" mantra, which was flimsy to begin with; he has to point to the disastrous ramifications of trusting again in the poor judgment of a cadre of leaders whose pet project (Iraq) has now cost just under a third of the number of the lives that were lost on September 11th; he has to demonstrate that he's not just a political hanger-on, but a man of direction, strength, and purpose.   In short, he has to steel himself and comport himself with a Reaganesque (or even Clintonian) sense that what he offers his country is what his country desperately needs right now. And he's got to do it fast. If he can't start breaking up the logjam in the next two to three weeks, we can all begin gathering the juices and start making the gravy, because despite what Mr. Moore and others (including the pollster John Zogby, cited by Moore), those disaffected "I-didn't-vote-last-time-but-I'm-so-mad-I'm-gonna-vote-this-time" voters tend, like fairweather friends, not to materialize. (Just ask Jack Layton and Stephen Harper.) Unless Kerry can initiate a tectonic shift soon, the rest of us may as well start settling in for two things: Four More Years, and perhaps, just as badly, Four Moore Years.

      BTW, as for the Dan Rather/CBS controversy , I don't want to sound conspiratorial, but the ease with which the documents were proven to be false (see also the implications of this in relation to the Now-Feeling-Very-Important Blogging Community) reeks of a setup-- and this blog has a sneaking suspicion that Karl Rove is sitting in his office like the President of Evian muttering to himself, "I can't believe they bought it!" And, of course, now the Bushies have some trump cards to play. Either that, or this was a Democratic smear tactic, and if so, this has to go down as one of the ineptly-handled conspiracies since, well, those nasty little weapons of mass destruction. Yikes.

      But perhaps there's another surprise lurking in the wings, as this blog anticipated (perhaps a little too wishfully) some time ago, but it seems there are shadows shifting about in the back, almost rustling (if shadows could rustle), as The Nation reports, also perhaps a little wishfully. We shall see.   The fact is, though, that a major break on either side of this campaign could prove the determining factor, and no one is in a better position to influence matters than McCain. This blog's holding to an assertion it made months ago: that McCain could prove the Warwick of this campaign-- even though poor Colin Powell is looking more and more like the Dionne Warwick of it. Walk on by....

      And, it seems the Bushies are still unable to distinguish between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.   How comforting.   Make sure you have a studious gander at this piece from the New Yorker on the politicization of Iraq, which contains this very striking paragraph:

In refusing to look at Iraq honestly, President Bush has made defeat there more likely. This failing is only the most important repetition of a recurring theme in the war against radical Islam: the distance between Bush’s soaring, often inspiring language and the insufficiency of his actions. When he speaks, as he did at the Republican Convention, about the power of freedom to change the world, he is sounding deep notes in the American political psyche. His opponent comes nowhere close to making such music. But if Iraq looks nothing like the President’s vision—if Iraq is visibly deteriorating, and no one in authority will admit it—the speeches can produce only illusion or cynicism. In what may be an extended case of overcompensation, so much of the President’s conduct in the war has become an assertion of personal will. Bush’s wartime hero, Winston Churchill, offered his countrymen nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. Bush offers optimistic forecasts, permanent tax cuts, and his own stirring resolve.

He remains Henry V with Henry VI's intelligence. Frightening.

      And, at last, an idle but slightly-hushed speculation, one most of you may not want to read, and which I surely would rather not get much attention. Click here if you dare to read it.

      Much of the talk in the States has been about an attack on American soil before the election, with Bushies claiming such a move would be an attack on the President, while most uninvolved prognosticators figure it would actually be an electoral boon for him. (The latter makes more sense to me, esp. since it seems Al Qa'eda would prefer that Bush stay in office, the President proving so amoenable to isolating his country from the international community and for initiating gestures that would stir anger on the so-called Arab Street.) As we near the American election, though, this blog's becoming more and more uneasy, because for all of Al Qa'eda's lunacy, its tactics have been anything but stupid. I'm worried there's a misdirection technique coming-- that Al Qa'eda won't strike into the American heart, but against an American ally so that attack would catch the Americans off-guard (and unable to act in defense), and would disallow some of the electoral spin that might otherwise be put on it. This blog has a funny, funny feeling the targets are going to be less-obvious ones, and perhaps more alternately-intimate ones: Australia, the U.K., though attacks on those countries won't send shudders down American spines (witness Bali, even Madrid). Perhaps Israel, too, but decades of such attacks have almost incurred a callous to attacks against Israel in the American media; yes, they're horrible, but they're not perceived to be immediately threatening.

      No, this blog has a queasy, uncomfortable feeling that there's a different target right now, one that's been right under the radar until now, which has been threatened but not yet hit. One nobody ever thinks about. One right in America's backyard, and this blog isn't talking about Mexico. Call it a paranoid hunch, or call it a different reading of terroristic strategy, but this blog has a troubled sense that, until the American election is over and done with, the country with the target on its back isn't the United States but Canada. Why? Because deranged killers, when confronting a more powerful opponent, don't go right after their opponent; they go after their opponent's friends and family, and they try to strike as close as they can get to their target without actually attacking the primary target per se. It's the lesson of the indirect message that rings clear as a bell. It's Kevin Spacey hitting Gwyneth rather than the Pittster, or an attack on Amber instead of Boston Rob, if you need some cruder analogies-- it's the "look how close I can get to you," or the "since I can't get you, I'll get the next best thing" move. The overall effect could be to subvert the Monroe Doctrine (or the larger notions derived and extrapolated from it) that girds the Bush Doctrine, as if to suggest how close terror can strike without actually entering into the dominion in which America can legitimately respond. The shockwaves would be profound: sure the President can do everything within his power to protect his country, but can he do anything about anywhere else, even if "anywhere else" is close enough to be within fallout distance? The possible consequences of such an attack-- including the implications on NATO and NORAD, and the redefinition of notions of sovereignty and continentalism-- could be more staggering, and more perilous, than we've yet imagined, let alone anticipated. And that too is significant: we can't afford, either in Canada or the United States or anywhere else, any more failures of imagination.

      All that said, let's just hope Osama and his company aren't thinking as this blog fears they may be thinking. But this blog hopes CSIS and the PM are paying extra special attention to the possibility-- especially as cities like Vancouver and Montreal and especially Toronto seem as viable as targets as New York or Washington. Especially right now. And on this, this blog would most gladly like to be wrong, very, very wrong, indeed. For God's sake, do let me wrong on this one.