Onegoodmove reader Jeremiah John responds to David Brooks and company.

Mr. Brooks,

Leaving aside the considerable self-incurred political problems Kerry has on the issue of Iraq, the conservative echo chamber with regard to his suggestions for Iraq has been amazingly well executed. When Kerry rejects Dean's facile proposals for withdraw, he is labeled a War Democrat, which means he agrees with Bush's policy on Iraq in almost every way (Bill Kristol). When Kerry expresses reservations about the way in which the war was launched and managed, reservations which many conservatives have themselves voices, Kerry then becomes a Flip-Flop Democrat (RNC talking points). Now, when, Kerry says that the war was in the final analysis a bad idea and should be ended as soon as possible, he becomes an Irresponsbile Democrat (David Brooks). No matter what Kerry says, he is either pro-Bush, indecisive, or beyond the pale.

More interesting is the fact that this completely manipulative and distorted frame seems to have been made easier to paste on Kerry not by Bush's successes in Iraq, but by his enornous failures. Kerry's goal of bringing troops home soon is called "irresponsible", mainly because the situation--military and political--is an absolute mess. Never mind that any choice we make at this point will be at best the lesser of grave evils, or that it wasn't Kerry, but Bush who has brought us to this range of choices. Bush and conservatives like yourself, who proposed invading and occupying a multi-national, Middle Eastern country with a history of despotism, not for the sake of immediate security interests but for a quixotic project of democratization-to-fight-terrorism are the authors of a policy which may be causing over 1000 soldiers to "die for nothing". Politically, Kerry may not be able to win an election talking about Iraq--somehow it is Kerry and not Bush we are now demanding answers from. But morally this war belongs to Bush and those like yourself who supported it for the worst reasons. Is Kerry irresponsible, simply because he is trying to map out a difficult change of course? I have no illusions that most American troops will be coming home next July. But I do know that if Kerry is elected, he will be considerably less eager to treat pessimistic CIA reports and mounting deaths in Iraq as fodder for spin, and that when he speaks at the U.N. he will be much less likely to lecture foreign leaders for domestic political gain while wasting another chance to secure their help. Lincoln couldn't have produced an easy or painless route out of this disaster. Heaven knows that you never have, nor likely ever will, ask George W. Bush to chart such a route.

Sincerely,

Jeremiah John
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Political Science
University of Notre Dame