Naomi Klein: Kerry and the Gift of Impunity

[Q]

Published on Friday, November 26, 2004 by The Nation

Kerry and the Gift of Impunity

by Naomi Klein

"... Impunity--the perception of being outside the law--has long been the hallmark of the Bush regime. What is alarming is that it appears to have deepened since the election, ushering in what can best be described as an orgy of impunity. In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are assaulting civilian targets and openly attacking doctors, clerics and journalists who have dared to count the bodies. At home, impunity has been made official policy with Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzales--the man who personally advised the President in his infamous "torture memo" that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete"--as Attorney General.

This kind of defiance cannot simply be explained by Bush's win. There has to be something in how he won, in how the election was fought, that gave this Administration the distinct impression that it had been handed a "get out of the Geneva Conventions free" card. That's because the Administration was handed precisely such a gift--by John Kerry.

In the name of "electability," the Kerry campaign gave Bush five months on the campaign trail without ever facing serious questions about violations of international law. Fearing he would be seen as soft on terror and disloyal to US troops, Kerry stayed scandalously silent about Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. When it became clear that fury would rain down on Falluja as soon as the polls closed, Kerry never spoke out against the plan, or against the illegal bombings of civilian areas that took place throughout the campaign. Even after The Lancet published its landmark study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation, Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count. By buying the highly questionable logic that Americans are incapable of caring about anyone's lives but their own, the Kerry campaign and its supporters became complicit in the dehumanization of Iraqis, reinforcing the idea that some lives are insufficiently important to risk losing votes over. And it is this morally bankrupt logic, more than the election of any single candidate, that allows these crimes to continue unchecked.

The real-world result of all the "strategic" thinking is the worst of both worlds: It didn't get Kerry elected and it sent a clear message to the people who were elected that they will pay no political price for committing war crimes. And this is Kerry's true gift to Bush: not just the presidency, but impunity. You can see it perhaps best of all in the Marlboro Man in Falluja, and the surreal debates that swirl around him. Genuine impunity breeds a kind of delusional decadence, and this is its face: a nation bickering about smoking while Iraq burns.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1126-02.htm

[raggedcompany]

1. Klein is always worth reading, thanks. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

2. Out of context in one area at least

When Kerry said we were taking 90% of the casualties, he meant in coalition forces. His point was that we didn't have a proper coalition in place, and that the burden was on the US and our troops.

He was in no way suggesting that the death of Iraqi civilians didn't count. He wasn't even talking about that aspect at the time. He was talking strictly about coalition forces.

As for the rest of the article: geez, that's alot to lay on the man's head, don't you think? Sounds more like she's describing the MSM actually. They hardly hold Bush accountable at all. If Kerry had anything to say about the situation, your average American wasn't going to hear it.

[bush_is_wacko]

3. Now these are words I can agree w/

During a campaign like this one. There is no time to address every issue down to the very last sentence. that is why it would be a damn good idea to start getting some media exposure for our next short list of candidates. Kerry is very intelligent and very knowledgable. His staff had to tell him over and over agin to keep his answers short and concise, so they could be heard by our 10 second soundbite American citizens. Our problem seems to me we don't give our candidates enough exposure to the public over time!

[LisaL]

4. But you got to admit-Democrats stayed pretty positive,

while Republicans had a Kerry bash free for all.
Look at Democratic National Convention vs. Republican National Convention. I mean, we hardly ever bashed Bush.
Little good that it did us.

[LittleClarkie]

5. But the RNC was freakin' repulsive

How are we supposed to do some sort of childish hate festival without turning our own stomachs

[LisaL]

8. Well, repulsive worked for them pretty well, didn't it?

Negative advertising works-it has been shown time and time again.

[LittleClarkie]

10. I just don't think we can out-repulsive them

Hey, if we have anyone who can make faces like this, let me know.

[aneerkoinos]

9. Telling the truth

and seeing the truth about youself is not hate festival, it is the opposite, it is the start of healing process.

Bush like most of your nation is sick, why hate sickness? But there can be no cure if you don't admit you're sick.

[AP]

19. Not true. The conventions were when Kerry started to shoot up in polls.

It was the only time in the last 5 or six months when Kerry was ahead of Bush. He lost that advantage when the media started to talk exclusively about the OBL video and the missing explosives.

[robbedvoter]

39. Polls who were manipulated by BFEE - the hoops dems were to

jump to in order to get to that "close enough to steal" ideal point. They had so manipulated our entire primary, deciding who THEY wanted to face W - by selectively poling the candidate du jour (exclusively) against His majesty.

[frustrated_lefty]

33. It was a moving commentary.

Her point, I think, with the "90% of casualties" was that America neither counts nor cares about the Iraqi deaths which are estimated to be around the 100,000 mark. We don't hear about it in American media, we don't demand to hear the toll. The nation of America, on face value, simply does not care about others but our own.

As for the rest of the article, I considered writing her and apologizing for American actions. Upon reconsideration, I realized she IS aware of the weresorry.com site. She undoubtably knows 49% of America rejects what happens in Quantanamo, Aphganistan, Iraq. My suspicion is she is one of many who accept our apologies, support our efforts, but grow tired of our inability to reign in our own elected government. We're sorry is great. But how the f*&^ are we going to implement change? The world in general has a very real and justified right to be pissed at us.

FL

[aneerkoinos]

6. Naomi flip flops?

Of course, she's right about Kerry and the enormous disservice Kerry's campaign did to American society by enabling American fascism by keeping silent about the truth about this war.

But Naomi babe, you too endorsed Kerry, even if for tactical reason of getting rid of ABB attitude that consumed all the energy of the left and kept the progressives from doing something usefull. Does that make you enabler of American fascism too? Are you now admitting you was wrong, dear Naomi?

[LisaL]

7. Many people endorsed Kerry because he was the only

one with a real chance to beat Bush. I fail to see how progressives could have done something useful without endorsing Kerry.

[aneerkoinos]

11. Weasels way

I understand everything about the logic of "lesser evil" and DLC tactical thinking. In the end what does that attitude mean? Progressives despise their countrymen so much that they think the "sheeple" don't deserve to hear the truth, can't handle the truth? That attempting real change is not even worth a try because your nation is so fucked up?

What did we learn? "Reality"-based cynicism and nihilism sucks, it's the loosers way, appeasers way. Faith rocks, and what is idealism, standing up for your ideals if not faith, the thing that can move mountains? Will we ever learn?

[mazzarro]

12. Well, I thought most of the endorsement was mean't to stop

Dean - by any means necessary. I am one of the few who still believe that Dean would have done better. At least he was far sighted enough to have started thinking of attracting the confederate minded southerners. But for the ambush of DLC, Dean, I believe would have given the chimp a good fight, IMHO.

[aneerkoinos]

14. Endorsements

Dean got plenty of those, that was not the problem. The game was much more vicious and smart. Clark - who for all I know was honest guy and not knowingly part of the plot - candidacy was genious DLC plot to divide the antiwar front. MSM Dean bashing campaign was the other nail on the coffing, there Dean made tactical mistake, encouradged by Internet people power he had hubris attack and underestimating the enemy openly spoke against Mediocracy too early, making every media mogul his mortal enemy before he had gathered enough power and momentum to face them.

[Julien Sorel]

30. Do you seriously think Dean has any appeal to

"confederate-minded voters?"

Clinton couldn't pull them in. Gore couldn't pull them in. Carter couldn't pull them in. But Dean could?

This looks like one of those faith-based things that is supposed to be emblematic of Republican thinking, not Democratic thinking. "Yes, we've had two consecutive candidates preach to the South about jobs and healthcare and no one listened, but we haven't tried Howard Dean preaching to the South about jobs and healthcare. It might work -- you can't prove that it won't. Ignore the hundreds of years of consistent behavior in the South that makes the idea foolish. I have faith that it will work!"

[JohnKleeb]

32. they're gonna tell you its guns

It's not that simple, to lure in "confederate minded voters" you really would have to stoop to their level, I don't mean racism per say but I do mean making anti affirmative action statements, you know going against our principles the same things we shouldn't do.

[deutsey]

37. Actually, I think it was more about economics

Showing the "confederate-flag guys" how Bush is jeopardizing their economic well being.

Whether Dean could have pulled that off is somewhat doubtful to me, and I was a Dean supporter and activist. Maybe he could have if he had the weight of the Democratic Party leadership backing such an approach.

Regarding his stance on guns, I know for a fact that it made Dean palatable to Democrats and Republicans in the rural area where I live. I don't like guns myself and I'm not a hunter, but I know the hunting culture here and I know how much safety is a part of it; I also don't know many hunters here who want an AK-47 or anything beyond what they need for hunting. So Dean's gun views made sense to people I spoke to around here.

Maybe making a clear, common sense argument to these people pointing out how Bush policies favor the very wealthy at their expense would also have made some inroads with them. Who knows? It's all parlor-room speculation now.

[KnowerOfLogic]

36. Regardless of his "appeal," he had the courage of his convictions

and even if he lost, at least it would have given the democratic party some solid foundation to build on. With Kerry, we sold out, and we lost.

[welshTerrier2]

13. tragic isn't it ??

Ms. Klein is one of the most insightful and truthful journalists we have ... her observations about Kerry's (and the DLC's) centrist line so as not to offend right of center, pro war American voters pinpoints the tragedy that was caused by selling out our values for the sake of political expediency ...

it's really not a matter of placing blame ... it's more a call for returning to our core values ... let's stop dancing around the issue here ... i'm sick and tired of the endless left vs. right bullshit and all the "my candidate your candidate" bickering ...

if we do nothing else, let's start letting the Democratic Party know that if they want to count on us, they need to call for the end of the tragic insanity in Iraq ... enough is enough ...

effective here and now, any democrat who does not immediately call for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq within the very near future (like 3 months maximum) has permanently lost my support ... i am no longer willing to support anyone, especially democrats who should know better, who continues to sponsor this genocide ... this statement is irrevocable ...

Democrats in Congress need to convene an emergency conference on Iraq immediately ... the time for political considerations is over ... we need to see the neo-con empire-building machine for what it is ... the American people will support us if our cause is just and our reasoning is clear ...

[paulk]

15. Kerry is responsible for Bush's actions

yeah, right, Ms. Klein.

Sheeesh!

Why is it that uber lefties like Klein always attack the Democrats first? I truly don't understand the logic of this...

What purpose does this serve in the long run?

[welshTerrier2]

16. look, it's pretty simple ...

before we go throwing labels like "uber lefties" around, let's look at Kerry's role regarding Iraq ...

is it not fair to say that Kerry had a ton of media coverage and consequently a great opportunity to outline his position on Iraq?

and is it not fair to state that while he was critical of many things bush has done in Iraq, Kerry never called for the withdrawal of American troops ... and where does he stand now on the Falujah genocide? if he's spoken out against it, please let me know ... i hope he has ... if not, i hope he does ...

why is it "uber leftie" to acknowledge that Kerry had five months to call for an end to the invasion and the removal of American troops and he chose not to do so? is seeing the death and destruction we're causing in Iraq a left and right issue ... it seems to me it's more of a life and death issue ...

for me it's not about "blaming democrats first" ... it's about deciding whether i can continue to support and work for a party that chooses to support the American invasion of Iraq ... it's not about blame for me; it's about doing all i can to communicate to democrats that i will not continue to support them if they won't do all they can to stop the madness ...

[paulk]

20. simple is as simple does

.....

[LittleClarkie]

21. Kerry's was the more principled answer

He could said what people wanted to hear, that we would pull out immediately.

Instead, he tried to give a timetable, to say what his goals would be, that we'd significantly reduce in the first 6 months, and be out of there by the end of his presidency. There were things that needed doing, Iraqi police to train and such. He talked of first of all to get the American face off the war, and sending in enough troops to take the burden off the ones that are there now.

He said he wouldn't have gone in there in the first place, but that we had no choice now but to succeed in Iraq. He would NOT be doing what Bush is doing now. He'd have cleaned up Operation FUBAR and then gotten us out of there.

Under Kerry, we would not be sending men in there undertrained with no armor on their vehicles. Under Kerry, the National Guard and Reservists would not be treated as second-class soldiers.

No, it is not fair to say that Kerry had a ton of media coverage. It was inadequate at best, and worked against him much of the time.

It seems that both sides of the political spectrum need black and white answers. Please excuse his nuances -- he's only trying to be honest.

Also, with the Senate not being in session, I doubt he has a platform right now to announce much of anything. As if the media would cover it...

[aneerkoinos]

23. Blah blah blah

Kerry is PNACster, just smarter one.

There was nothing honest about his campaign, everything was calculated. Most of all his fraudulant looser campaign changed nothing, just made Bushista Fascistas stronger. A good, honest loosing campaign would have made a big difference.

Just look at DU, look at your society, is there anything that is better because of Kerry campaign? Left is crushed, broken, divided, lacking courage, confidence and purpose. That's all what Kerry and DLC achieved.

[LittleClarkie]

25. Looser?

Seemed pretty tight to me.

Ba-dum-bum.

Eh, I'll see your "blah" and raise you "yadda, yadda." PNACer, bah.

[aneerkoinos]

27. Whose got the "mandate"?

Where are the masses protesting? Besides few funnies in DU, who is informing the masses that it's populist fascism in America now, boy... and Kerryites in denial still keep on trying to make situation worse by their denial, living in their imagination instead of looking out at what is happening.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Should we tell Farwell about Bush's man date?

The masses don't apparently want to hear it. A good half of them ARE the populist fascists. The other half is a mixed baggie of ABB, supporters, and ordinary working stiffs who know the score but don't see how they can fight the power.

What denial are you talking about? What imagination? I'm telling you what I know.

www.kerryoniraqwar.com is a good resource for what I'm saying.

And the masses protesting are in the Ukraine. Sad that it takes people from the former Soviet Union to show us what real democracy looks like, but there you have it. Their democracy is shiny and new -- apparently we're tired of ours. Well, as I said, half of us, anyway.

I guess you'll just have to get used to me and my "denial." I'll be here for another 4 years at least. And I'll be a Kerryite the entire way. Luckily, I'm not alone in my "imagination."

(I saw a fyer during the campaign that showed a picture of Lennon and Kerry, with the title "Imagine President Kerry." I'm still imagining it. Timetable's just a bit off, is all.)

[robbedvoter]

40. Kerry and the DLC? Diebold had any role in this at all? None?

[arewenotdemo]

31. well said

To be honest, I don't even know what I would have done if I were Kerry.

Say you know you're close, as Kerry was. If you really want to end the war do you then proceed to take a principled but politically hazardous if not suicidal stand...trying to educate the uneducated or shame the unshameable?

Kerry had to WIN first to be able to end the war (assuming he did want to). In retrospect, of course, I wish he had mentioned the immorality of this tragedy, the IRAQIS dead and maimed, and the inevitability of blowback. I wish that he had let us all know, in no uncertain terms, that this was the same John Kerry of VVAW, the same man who went back to Vietnam to determine the fate of the MIA and to restore diplomatic relations, and the same man who went to meet with Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua to avert another imperialist war.

I just don't think he could signal that. And I detest the Naderites and assorted lefties who would consign the Democratic Party to minority status for perpetuity.

[aneerkoinos]

17. Understanding the logic

It's about winning in the long run, speaking for what we believe, changing people, cultural evolution; not lying cynically to win votes from people who we despice as stupid subhumans who can't handle the truth.

Ask yourself this, does honesty serve anything in the long run?


And who should Naomi speak to and constructively critisize? Those who might share her values or those who are too far out to have meaningfull dialogue with?

[Dr Fate]

22. Kerry was responsible for speaking out against Bush's actions.

Most all Democrats fall short when it comes to being blunt and telling it like it is- especially when it comes to the pure dishonesty of Bush & the GOP.

[lthuedk]

28. To slap sense into those too blind to see. Kerry simply lacked the

spine to challenge the fascists, to define the criminality that is its back bone and to end the war like any true Democrat. Bush willfully killed by design. That, in itself, should have been condemned by Kerry.

And, should Kerry refuse to prosecute the Bushists, his political days are finished.

[Q]

38. Uber lefties? That's really funny...

...because one would think that you were talking about an alien instead of those helping to keep the pressure on the Bush* regime.

But it looks like we need to do much more than simply attack Bush* and his policies. Like Naomi...many of us are at a loss as to why others on the 'left' have enabled Bush* and thus have given him so much power.

You ask about purpose. But what purpose does it serve for some Democrats to continue to vote for Bush* policies? What purpose does it serve to NOT talk about the criminality of the Bush* admin.? It seems that those appeasing and enabling Bush* are serving HIS purpose...not that of our country or people.

[AP]

18. A Media Tenor study showed that the media successfully convinced...

...voters that Bush wasn't to blame for any of the problems in Iraq. Most voters felt that Iraq was a mess but most blamed the military for screwing it up and not Bush. That was despite everyone hating Bush and talking about Iraq all the time.

[JI7]

24. there is a reason why the Republicans AND the media were on the same page

when it came to those issues. notice the Republicans didn't even try to change the subject.

[magellan]

26. A fascist government is nothing without its corporate-owned press (nim)

[Q]

34. As I see it...

...Kerry and his handlers didn't recognize or care that a significant number on the left were against the Iraq invasion/occupation. That 95 percent of the Delegates said they were against it didn't seem to even register with the 'go along to get along' crowd advising Kerry. He was absolutely counting on the left's hatred of Bush* in general to overcome the reluctance to vote for anyone who supported an unnecessary war.

What options did a voter against the Iraq 'war' have in Nov.? Those with long-term memory still intact remembered how the Bushies pushed this nation into aggressive war and how too many Democrats followed without question. Voters were left with a choice between a candidate who started an unnecessary war and one who would wage a 'smarter' war against terrorism. Nevermind that this reasoning seemed to give credibility to Bush's* claim that Iraq was a centerpiece in that war on terrorists.

As it turned out...Kerry was simply offering a different version of a war being fought in the 'wrong place at the wrong time'. Was it up to Kerry to expose the war crimes of the Bush* administration? I submit that this truth would have won him the election despite the fraud.

[KnowerOfLogic]

35. No doubt about it; dems have been complicit since 9-11.

And really since 2000 when they let Gore face the repuke firing squad with nary a peep, and then did next to nothing about the election/vote counting situation for future elections.

[lulu]

41. Kerry and the dems buy into Bush's "reality"

Every since reading Suskind's article "Without a Doubt" from the NYT Magazine, I've realized that the democrats, instead of creating their own "reality", an opposing one of peace and prosperity, have bought into Bush's. Why? I don't know. It is very disheartenting that the players who are supposed to be on our side are so impotent, so scared, so disbelieving of the power that can be drawn from the millions of us that want peace.