Friday, December 31, 2004
"Democracy is a Greek word meaning the rule of the people, which means that the people do what they see fit," the groups said in a warning. "This concept is considered apostasy and defies the belief in one God — Muslims' doctrine."
Wow! I'm no muslim, but their rejection of the rule of the people seems to contradict the Koran. Somewhere down the line someone has to interpret Allah's intention and Sharia, right? Who better than the people? If it was otherwise, wouldn't the Koran have established a church hierarchy to do so? These fellows would rather return to the enlightened world of Ottoman rule, which consistantly produced horrible leaders that ran the empire into ground.
If the al Jazeera report is right and 250 election officials quit...if the Sunnis refuse to participate in the election...well, back in school, we referred to such stupidity as "pulling a boner." But I think the majority will participate, since that is the only path that offers a future.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
i have just noted an article about 'anonymouslawyer.blogspot', which i then took the time to look over.
pretty cool that a blog will get such attention, and then an article in the n y times. i can't help but think that the authour will surely get a book offer.
then, as i went to the dashboard here, blogspot has even more 'blog in the news' features. pretty darn cool.
so i am glad to have a friend get me in on a blog, even in a small way. thanks jeffrey.
oh also - i was wanting to comment on your last post - 'good news' - i would ask: Do you have a source for this? and sure enough you did, i found the link as i was trying to figure out how to post a comment. i'll figure it all out as i go. as i got some comments from my previous post. blog dialogue. dialogue.blogspot. is that there?
i apperciate that you've written extensively on your 90 minute thesis, i will go back to that for reading and will surely have comments for it.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Chico: I can’t think of the ending.
Groucho: That’s funny, I can’t think of anything else.
Nothing in entertainment is worse than going on too long at the expense of patience. Even the funniest joke can become exhausting if it is overtaxed. Who can explain why it has often been said that the act of smiling uses fewer muscles than frowning, and yet my jaws get tired after an extended period of hilarity while an extended period of moping about seems only to produce pent-up energy? It is with this in mind that I say that comedies should, as a general rule, be no longer than 90 minutes, and only that long if they are funny. Indeed, the unfunny comedy should not be made at all so far as I am concerned.
By comedy I mean any film that is not to be taken seriously. There are plenty of hybrids such as romantic comedies and action comedies that surpass the 90 minute mark successfully. Those will be addressed soon enough, but for now the focus is on pure comedy.
Now 90 minutes represents the longest singular loop of a comedy cycle, which can be captured on film. That is to say, all mediums of art have what I like to call biorhythms. By my best and humble estimation, the comedy film has a biorhythm cycle that can be stretched up to a maximum of 90 minutes (but is better left un-stretched). After that, it is very difficult to maintain hilarity because fatigue sets in and the law of diminishing returns goes into effect. I believe it was Billy Wilder who, upon talking of comedies, said that anything over 90 minutes counts double.
The director has every right to exceed this time limit of 90 minutes, but he does so at his own peril.
Now 90 minutes is meant as a limit, not a universal mean. Every comedy has its own clock and it is essential that it does not exceed that clock. The 90 minute mark simply represents the maximum amount of time to which a clock can be calibrated. If a film is designed to have x number of quips or gags a minute with a projected 33% or higher success rate (laughter rate), then 90 minutes may be justified. However, if the film maintains the quotient for x, but only intends to achieve a 10% success rate, then 60 minutes may be the ideal length. Conversely, if x is dramatically increased while the projected success rate remains at 33%, then the overall length of the film should still be shortened to prevent audience exhaustion. There is a medium effective range where the quantity of jokes coupled with the laugh rate will achieve maximum results and the mean value will always be 90 minutes or less. Violating this formula is like having a sprinter jog a 100 yard dash or marathon runner sprint an entire marathon – neither will earn a medal.
Can comedy fall short of its optimum mean, and if so, can it be improved with added length? The answer is yes. But consider, for example, how many director’s cut versions of films are actually better than the original theatrical release. The simple truth is that even during the most efficient days of the Hollywood system the human instinct is rarely adequately regimented towards brevity, even though, as Shakespeare said: “brevity is the soul of wit.” So, too, is it with comedy.
Duck Soup is a fine example of a film with a rapid joke dispersal rate coupled with a very high reaction percentage where the total running time wisely clocks in at a mere 70 minutes. Had the film gone on for another twenty minutes the law of diminishing returns would have happened prior to the 90 minute mark as evidenced by another great Marx Brothers film, A Night at the Opera, which is 92 minutes. Both are rightly hailed as excellent films, but the latter is clearly on the wane of their artistic achievement while the former is at the very apex. Reasons for this claim can be partly attributed to the difference in running times, including the noticeable fact that A Night at the Opera violates the maximum length by two minutes. Now it may be noted that with the shift to MGM, the Marx Brothers movies focused increasingly on song and dance as well as romantic plots in an effort to expand the range of the films to a more general pool of entertainment, yet these are precisely the elements that should have been trimmed down to achieve an ideal length of 77 to 80 minutes.
An evolution of the Marx Brothers is somewhat telling as they honed their craft to film. The first two productions, Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers, ran at 96 and 98 minutes, respectively. Both were adapted from the stage, which is not necessarily subject to the 90 minute rule. However, both films have slower editing, more intricate subplots and music that was typical of their stage productions. As such, Cocoanuts and Animal Crackers were almost exactly 6 and 8 minutes too long.*1 The Brothers hit their stride when they left New York City to make their next three Paramount pictures in Hollywood. These three films would constitute the greatest triumvirate of comedies ever: Monkey Business (77min), Horse Feathers (67min), and Duck Soup (70min). In these three films the editing was more polished and more brisk, thanks to the advanced skill of the studio system, the subplots were stripped down and the music was minimized.*2 When MGM bought the Brothers, they made sure to dilute their property with more serious romantic subplots, heavier doses of music, stricter censorship and less artistic license. Even when the MGM films fell under the 90 minute mark, this dissolution required an even shorter running time because the jokes were less risqué and the resulting reaction percentage was diminished. Thus, the greatest comedy team of the 20th century did not achieve the stellar record that should have been theirs, though they still hold the top spot in film comedy. Stricter adherence to the ninety minute rule, in all its subtleties, would have only added to their legacy.
Other comedy teams had virtually no conflicts with the 90 minute rule, and thus were able to maximize their performance. The Bowery Boys, who made over 50 films, not including ones under their other names like the East Side Kids, the Dead End Kids, etc., rarely made a picture much over 70 minutes long. Their track record does not warrant further mention except to say that such devotion to formula, to the point of re-using about seven plots almost equally, resulted in remarkable consistency. I would venture to doubt that a person would have anything more than a +/- 5 laugh differential between any two of their movies – and rarely a +/-5 minute running time differential.
At a higher level of comic achievement, Abbott and Costello, the quintessential duo for comedy timing, stayed very true to the rule. With the exception of three films*3, they did not violate the rule and maintained a rough average of 82.9 minutes per movie. Other comedians followed suit. The silent comedians tended towards films that ranged typically from 40 minutes up to 90 minutes, as did W.C. Fields, Laurel & Hardy, the Three Stooges, the Ritz Brothers, so on and so forth in diminishing rank.
Hybrids offer a way past the 90 minute cycle by fusing humor with another genre to expand the role and scope of a picture while, in theory, still enjoying the acute wisdoms of comedy. However, the success of the film past the 90 minute mark rests solely on whether the adjacent genre can stand on its own.
It is in this way that we can interpret the success of Howard Hawk’s screwball comedies, which consistently ran for lengths of 100 minutes. The performance on a romance/love story level was ably portrayed by Cary Grant and a high-powered actress – instilling longevity to the script. In contrast, the later, lesser, longer works of Charlie Chaplin weighed more and more on heavier themes as his persona virtually lived in torment. When the fusion works – and it’s arguable that it worked well with Chaplin – then the 90 minute rule is ceded in favor of the other genre. But this, too, can be a slippery slope. Such fusions are rarely consistent, and can often lead a picture to be but a hollow over-blown shell of entertainment. I would cite the several star-studded epic race comedies of the 60’s as a prime example (referring to films like Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies and It’s a Mad, Mad…oh, hell, even the title is too long!). Despite allowing for the rare hybrid exception, prudence warns against mixing “overlong” and “action” with “comedy” unless a “zilch” is what you seek. It is simply not in the natural design of comedy to support such things.
Of course, to every rule is a troublesome exception. Perhaps the most notable exception to thia rule is Jerry Lewis. Though many of his pictures that went over the 90 minute mark can be considered too long, it is hard to determine how to cut The Nutty Professor (107min) shorter and at the same time improve it. How he surpassed the mark is unknown, though perhaps that is a question for the French (thus solving two mysteries at once). And of course, there are other exceptions – though most have explanations (Blues Brothers – 133min: action/comedy, still too long; Young Frankenstein – 108min: period piece/comedy; Princess Bride – 98min: swashbuckler/comedy). The thing to notice here is the flexibility of the hybrid factor.
Since the late fifties, the rule as a limit is still often observed, but the calibration of comedy to running time has consistently been stretched and challenged. More and more film makers completely ignore the rule, often with the same predictable results: a funny movie that is x over 90 minutes too long. This has plagued Peter Sellers (as an early example); National Lampoon, Harold Ramis, Mel Brooks (when he decides to violate the rule) and so on.
At the very least, the 90 minute rule should always be applied if only to make a bad movie more bearable by offering a light at the end of the tunnel. It is one thing to be trapped in a theater for two plus hours, it is quite another to be out within 90 minutes. The difference may not sound like much until you accrue all the bad 90+ minute comedies one sees in a lifetime. So, if you are a director of comedies, please, pity your audience and let your conscience be your guide.
*1 As a disclaimer, it should not be inferred that the scores for either picture was sub-par in any shape or form.
*2 Musical numbers involving the Marx Brothers, particularly with Groucho singing or with all three singing, are integral to the films. So when I charge that “These are precisely the elements that should have been trimmed down…” I draw a distinction between the non-Marx romantic lead sharing a duet to the main actress (scrap) and any of Groucho’s songs or the big number at the end of Duck Soup.
*3 The three films include: Rio Rita –91; Little Giant –92; In Hollywood –111.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Then, when I discover I have plenty more time to stay online, I feel frustrated that with the millions of websites available, I only look at a handful. One of the worst feelings is going back to a news page I had just viewed to see if there are any new postings. It's like looking in the fridge again.
Of course I utilize google to search for things, I realize my only limits are my own ideas.
And I do know of many many pages, just like thisone, that have a long list of newspages/blogs/etc to refer to. I often do go to some of these lists and look at a website I am not familiar with.
I suppose really I am looking for a way to feel productive when I am online.
so here I just wanted to post in liverputty, thath makes me fee productive for the time being. I would be curious to know how others deal with the problem of having too much time online.
Has Been is something else. It’s corny, sincere, hokey, and downright excellent. Joe Jackson finds a way to blend Shatner into the music in a way that Transformed Man did not. There’s plenty of opportunity to laugh at this album, but there’s plenty of real sentiment in it as well. Perhaps the difference between this recent effort and Transformed Man is that Shatner realized there would be laughter. His personality, alone, makes this record more interesting to me than anything on the charts, or even a recent release from a veteran performer trying to stir up old waves.
Monday, December 27, 2004
As previously mentioned, I received a handsome box set of all the Marx Brother’s Paramount pictures. Although I refrained from over eating during the holidays and I only hit the peanut brittle jar a few times, I was no match for the lure of this DVD collection. Within about 24 hours I had watched all the films and the bonus material.
I’d read complaints that there was not enough extra stuff on this new set. Each movie had the corresponding trailer and the standard language tracks on it, but not much else. The Bonus DVD had three interviews from the Today Show (which was about as stiff and lame in the 60’s as it is now.) totaling a mere 30 minutes. It would have been nice to have some commentary tracks and a bit more on the bonus disk, but I’m just thankful the movies were released at all. Plus, since just about everybody connected to the movies is long gone, I’m not sure who would’ve done the commentary. Duck Soup was the latest film on the collection and that was 1933. Also, some had complained that the prints used were the same as the LD released several years ago. While I agree that these movies deserve a big restoration effort, the prints used are very watchable. There’s one scene in Horsefeathers where the film skips around some, but the rest of the prints are in great condition. Ultimately, the films alone are reason enough to get the collection.
Cocoanuts is the film I was least familiar with since the sound had always been muffled, making it hard to watch. I’d forgotten how racy some of the scenes were. It was before the Hays codes and some of the outfits were pretty hot. I particularly enjoyed some of the Busby Berkley-esque numbers and the Irving Berlin score. The premise of the film, the developement of Florida, was still in its first wave at the time. Topical comedy.
I remember showing Animal Crackers to my friend, Phil, years ago, which turned out to be a mistake because I think the staginess of the movie cemented his distaste for the team. That distaste still persists to this day. However, watching it now, I’m impressed at how quickly the jokes fly. Here are the brothers going over routines that had been honed down to perfection on stage over the course of years. And since the film was made in New York, it now provides a glimpse at the stage designs at the time. I’m assuming that the New York film industry was largely interchangeable with Broadway.
Monkey Business and Horsefeathers mark a clear departure for the team. Not only were these the first films that were not performed on stage, but they moved the production out to Hollywood. Both films are ably directed by Norman McLeod and are about efficient as comedy films can be. I believe Monkey Business was the first Marx Bros film I ever saw, at the tender age of eleven or twelve, and I've been in love ever since. In hindsight, Monkey Business was the picture I should’ve forced on Phil. Perhaps then he would not have the comedy disorder he has now.
Duck Soup is simply the funniest movie ever made. And it transcends the film medim. Its title should stand next to Jonathan Swift and Candide and perhaps a few other pieces of high art as an ultimate expression of humor. Today, most comedians try to be hip and cool and spell out all of the little ironies of life. There are precious few clowns that want an audience to laugh at them. Back then, during the age of comedy teams, there was plenty of the latter. In Duck Soup, as in most of the Marx Brother's features, they achieve the pinnacle of satire and, at the same time, spend themselves as clowns, a win-win for the audience.
So, if you still have some holiday time to burn at home, I can't think of a better way to spend it than getting a six pack of beer, some diapers and renting the set for a marathon jaunt through pure comedy. You may be a little slap happy towards the end, but it's worth it.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Here's a vivid account of what a tsunami is like as told by a fellow near Sri Lanka.
More on the disaster can be found here and here.
As for the Ukrainian election, this site was interesting.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Regarding the future of this blog: it’s pretty obvious that since the election there has been a general burnout regarding things political, which was the raison d’etre of this site. But, like an NGO or charity whose initial purpose is no longer dire, I feel compelled to keep Liverputty going for its own sake. As such, I will be posting other things as well, whether it’s a movie, book or album review, etc. I encourage the other contributors to post anything that strikes their fancy. Of course, political postings are still very welcome. I will keep defending the Bush junta and the war when compelled to, since that has been my programming for the past six months and beyond, though I will try to be less antagonistic about it. However, by expanding the field of topics, I hope the blog becomes more pleasant for everyone involved. The recent addition of party poker to the list of contributors will certainly work towards that end. I’m hoping to get Mr. Clay involved as well. In addition to that, if Dude or Steve or anyone else wishes to include a friend on the contributor list, please send me their email address and I will forward an invitation. In the meantime, I hope everyone has a good holiday and happy new year.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
"The idea that there are some words that are notoriously offensive and some that aren't, and the burden on the employee shifts depending on that, really creates a lot of confusion in the workplace," said commission lawyer Michael Wood.
"We think it's time to clarify that and have some ground rules so people know what's permissible and what isn't."
If I was a canoock, I would feel offended, nay, threatened that a commission lawyer wanted to clarify what was or wasn't permissable.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
he really embraced the pop art aesthetic and created some beautiful images.
although i did not feel a personal passion for his works as i have for some other artists, it is a day to remember when an artist listed in so many textbooks and represented in so many museums fufulls his legacy.
a good article about his life and works in the new york times arts section, and a good assortment of images when you 'image'-google his name.
One scandal at a time, Mr. Annan, one scandal at a time.
I'm not sure if I follow the logic: if you're 250 votes behind then the election is too close to call, if you're 42 votes behind then the election is too close to call, but if you're up by 8 votes then you're ready to declare victory - from a manual recount no less.
The 700+ votes that turned up in King county were not included in the latest tally.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Monday, December 20, 2004
GEN. SPEAKES: The first point is that you'll recollect that one of the questions was the status of the 278 ACR; in other words, the date that we had the visit by the secretary of Defense, we had a question about their up-armoring status. When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278 ACR were up-armored, and they are a part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq.
Q: On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?
GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.
Q At the time of the question -- summarize this, now -- that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?
GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.
Q If he hadn't asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?
GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program.
Friday, December 17, 2004
First, Mr. Kristol first attacks Rumsfeld for his much publicized response to the armor vehicle question, but even when Kristol is willing to move past that response his is misguided in his conclusion:
"Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day," he says.
But that's not so. He simply had a bad response. And it wasn't even a bad whole response. The first portion of the response about going to war with the army you have and not the army you want honored the soldier's he was speaking to by it's directness. Perhaps the secretary should have stopped there. Perhaps he'll be less like to think aloud in the future - but that's an insignificant mistake. Kristol then goes on to use Rumsfeld remarks to paint him as arrogant and stubborn regarding troop strength. Rumsfeld has insisted that he relies on the commanders on the ground to make that decision - not generals in the pentagon or think tankers. What's the problem?
Tom Donnelly thinks Rumsfeld should forget about transforming the military and worry about fighting the current war. The truth is, he has to and is doing both. Part of the reason we are now fighting this war with the army we have rather than the army we want is because for the previous 12 years, we haven't had a Secretary of Defense with Rumsfeld's transformational forsight.
And when it comes to equipment, I find it strange that senators like McCain, Byrd, and others are quick to pick on the secretary since they are the ones who've been on the committees that could have done something about it over the past couple of decades. Why are they passing the buck?
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
"'What he really needs to write,' harrumphed Drum, 'is a prequel to his current piece, one that presents the core argument itself: namely, why defeating Islamic totalitarianism should be a core liberal issue.'"
"A successful Iraqi election following the Palestinian vote would make it a six-pack of electoral defeats for the twin evils of tyrant and terrorist. The other four? Australia returned pro-war-on-terror Prime Minister John Howard to power. In Afghanistan, voters braved Taliban terror to elect a president. In the United States, Bush won on the family value of protecting and projecting liberty. And people power thwarted thug attempts to steal Ukraine's presidential election, with a new vote set for Dec. 26."
A Blair victory could be a seventh.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
A related aside, this piece suggests that the Iraqi invasion may have positive consequences in the region.
"Evolution posits that species will come and go: some die out, some survive and evolve. I don't regard myself as anything terribly special but in a typical year I'm exposed to temperatures from around 98 degrees to 45 below freezing, in the lower part of which range I evolve into my long underwear."
UPDATE: here's a roundup of global warming news I found off the Corner. Of note was an article about China not wanting any restrictions on their energy needs, citing that they are a developing nation.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Kung fu films never did it for me. My appreciation of them extends to a little Bruce Lee, more Jackie Chan and the “Fistful of Yen” mini film at the end of Kentucky Fried Movie. And if it’s a choice between Hong Kong or the mainland, I tend towards the latter. So I was looking forward to Hero, the newly released Jet Li vehicle directed by Mainlander Zhang Yimou, who is one of the finest directors alive. I can’t think of another contemporary director who is better or has a more impressive body of work, whether compared to Yimou’s string of masterpieces with Gong Li or his smaller budget pictures he did afterwards.
Hero was not as innovative or even as clever as one might expect from Yimou. It was too much in the vain of Crouching Tiger. There were some pretty shots and some impressive sequences, but it was too heavy on the flowing robes and way too poetic. When it comes to swordplay, samurai pictures generally work best because there’s not much in the way of clanking swords. Duels are usually decided by the first or second blow. This picture did not follow the samurai way. Every shot of Jet Li showed him floating softly along a cable with his sword outstretched looking utterly ridiculous. Every thrust of a sword was bound to be met by a parry and counter thrust and then on and on, as if they didn’t want to kill each other. After awhile, the action sequences seemed to lack any decisiveness at all. And the effects didn’t know when to stop. It one scene, when a unit of archers fire a volley, it becomes a steady stream of arrows that penetrate stone walls and turned everything into a porcupine quills. When arrows start to look like fur, it is time to stop. Going a little over the top is fun, but when a picture goes too far the law of diminishing returns sets in.
The Rashomon-like structure of the story was interesting, but wasn’t enough to make it gripping. And I believe it was supposed to be set near the end of the Warring States Period – a nice touch – but little is done with that.
What does it take to make a damn good martial arts film?
Enter Shoalin Soccer, which I had seen the night before. If Hero missed the mark, Shoalin Soccer was right on the money. By far it was a smaller production, but the computer effects were clever, the dialogue and comedy was top notch, the meat was present and it had some pathos. It was a mix closer to the Bad News Bears and Tampopo than to Rashomon and Crouching Tiger. The way it dealt with shoalin was light-hearted and reverential, pitting it against the “science” of the villain who was so sinister that even his soccer team was called Team Evil.
There are some brilliant scenes in this movie, but they don’t make a big spectacle of themselves. They just happen. In one scene, the main character is kicking a soccer ball against a brick wall from a hundred yards way as if he was playing racket ball. And that was better than any computer effects in Hero. Somehow the Shoalin effects team gives their craft real gravity, and when they go further and further over the top, they are mindful to avoid those diminishing returns. The result is that the climax of the film is just as fresh and enjoyable as the first scene. There’s none of that audience numbing that action pics (like Hero) are so keen on using.
In short, I will forget about Hero by the end of the week. However, Shoalin Soccer, probably the best movie I’ve seen in a few years, will stick to me.
"The transatlantic community should not be trying to force a confrontation with Iran, but we must not fear one if that's what is necessary to prevent the introduction of another nuclear weapons program into the combustible Middle East."
Or so says Mr. Scoblic. What so outraged him was Rumsfeld’s response to a query from Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard (and reporter Edward Lee Pitts from the Chattanooga Free Press though he is not mentioned in the article) about why some soldier’s had to scavenge scrap armor from dumps to put on their Humvees. Mr. Scoblic thought it was condescending for Rumself to say that even armored vehicles can get blown up but…
“…more astounding was Rumsfeld's contention that ‘[y]ou go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.’ Astounding because, of course, the United States did not go to war with the army it had; it went to war with a mere fraction of the army it had.”
Of course, but how does that relate to Specialist Wilson’s question? Or at least an accurate response to it? Scoblic goes on to criticize the invasion plans and troop levels, but the question was about the number of armored vehicles available for their mission. To this, Scoblic completely dismisses the role of logistics in the problem:
“On Wednesday, Rumsfeld assured the troops he spoke to in Kuwait that everything possible was being done to get them the armor and equipment they need--that only the logistical hurdles of producing and shipping the materiel stand in the way. But it should never have come to this.”
It should never have come to logistical problems? Earth to Scoblic, logistical hurdles are just a fact of life. Actually, the military has come a long way in solving logistics issues, but they still exist. Consider:
During the Spanish-American War there was a logistical nightmare that clogged the railroad lines from the southern most tip of Florida all the way up to Atlanta. Was that immoral and strategically unfit? Was it immoral or strategically unfit of Secretary of War Harry Hines Woodring to send Sherman tanks into Normandy to battle Panther divisions despite learning of the inferiority of the Shermans in Africa?
In his defense, Scoblic tries to pawn off the issue on Rumsfeld’s planning of the war, though much of that is simply a red herring. Take the following excerpt:
“The Washington Post has reported that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, at the time the commander of Iraq forces, had written the Pentagon in December 2003, after a particularly fierce period of counterinsurgency fighting, to complain that his units were "struggling just to maintain ... relatively low readiness rates" on their M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, anti-mortar radars, and Black Hawk helicopters. He further noted that 36,000 soldiers still needed protective ceramic inserts for their body armor.”
Just because a field general requests something, does not mean that something is readily available. The assumption that Scoblic makes is that this material existed.
I remember an intercourse between Rumsfeld and Sen. Robert Byrd when the Secretary of Defense was before the Armed Services Committee sometime after the invasion and before the $87 billion Appropriations bill. During the intercourse, Byrd griped at Rumsfeld about the new ceramic body armor that many of the troops did not have. A senator has every right to light a fire under the butt of the Secretary of Defense, but there was no mistaking the motivation behind Byrd's comments. Rumsfeld explained to Byrd that the armor in question was recently developed and that the soldiers had an earlier version of armor. He also went on to explain that efforts were being made to get the new armor out to the troops, but cited the same logistical concerns that Scoblic so quickly dismisses. Byrd, like Scoblic, wasn’t concerned about logistical issues, but rather the political damage he could lay on Rumsfeld and the administration.
I wonder how many M-1 tanks, up-armored Humvees and ceramic body armor inserts were available in December 2003. I know that since then, production has exponentially increased on some of that to meet demand, but I doubt Scoblic cares about that. If the production increase for these items does not seem enough to him, then perhaps he’d accept a ration system similar to that of WWII or a series of duties on materials necessary for increased production in order to curb commercial demand ? Of course he wouldn’t. Scoblic would bitch and moan about the toll the war has taken on the homefront. To him, it’s not a question of logistics. He doesn’t think the war was necessary at all:
“…even the administration's most dire predictions of Saddam's capabilities did not demand action in March 2003.”
That’s ridiculous in more ways than I can account for here. I’ve discussed the timetables of the war before (links provided upon request). As hard as it may be for Scoblic to understand, the timing of the war was a major factor.
And then we come to troop strength. First, Scoblic misrepresents the initial war plan:
“So when, in late November 2001, General Tommy Franks, then head of Central Command, first briefed Rumsfeld on the existing war plan for Iraq, which called for the use of 500,000 troops following a seven-month buildup, the defense secretary scoffed and sent Franks back to the drawing board.”
Franks was sent back to the drawing board? It sounds like what Gen. Tommy Franks briefed Rumsfeld on was, for the benefit of Scoblic, a “contingency plan”. These plans, as hinted at by his own statement above, already existed. I doubt Tommy Franks drew up those initially plans afresh. It's more likely that he pulled them from a dusty shelf. Chances are, the plan was written right after the first Gulf War, if it wasn’t the exact plan that Schwarzkopf used. To suggest that Franks was sent back to the drawing board is inaccurate. He was sent to the drawing board. And, through many revisions, he honed the needed troops down to 140K. That’s the way things work. And, as it proved, even without Turkey allowing the 4th Infantry to invade from the Northwest, that was sufficient to topple the Baathists. Mission accomplished. Perhaps some future insurgents escaped because of Turkey, but that wasn’t in the mindset of the military or its detractors. Who knew then about looming insurgency trouble? Again, Scoblic thinks there was know timetable involved dictated that decisive action was required. He’s simply wrong.
So Scoblic probably thinks that 500K troops were needed for the invasion and occupation. Okay, let’s say that is what we used. You think our military is stretched thin now, trying to maintain a 100K + force, imagine if it was five times that. Sun Tzu pays special attention to troop strength and the logistics needed to support it…and for good reason. The U.S. can raise a 500K force, but what about sustaining it for months? That’s no small task, even for the world’s super power. How much greater would the “back draft” be? Especially since 200K are tied up in Europe and Asia? (This will soon change, thanks to Rumsfeld) Our friend, Dude, would have likely been called away from fatherhood to participate in the occupation if we were fielding such an occupation force. Rumsfeld had to be mindful of potential trouble elsewhere in the world, not just Iraq. Critics like to employ the term “war on the cheap”, but I prefer the term “efficient.” That doesn’t negate the problem of mis-estimations, but it is still a responsible, and yes, moral way, to approach the invasion of Iraq.
Does Scoblic think that by reducing the force by 80% (I’m rounding the numbers) we’ve reduced translators by the same amount? It is doubtful. The shortages our forces face are not so easily determined. Nor is the necessity of the mission. But such is the narrowness of Scoblic's perspective.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Thursday, December 09, 2004
"Rumsfeld gave no indication that the soldier would face any kind of disciplinary action for speaking up."
Why would he? Rumsfeld gave a pretty straightforward answer to the query - worthy of the question, though he sort've lost me at the comment about being vulnerable in a tank just like in an unarmored vehicle.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Monday, December 06, 2004
He's got some good points, though I think the Bush administration already sees China as a strategic competitor. That was one of Bush's first policy statements after 2000. That Bush might draw a happy face on the relationship doesn't necessarily change that.
My take on China is this: they have followed the vision of Deng Xiaoping who said China must open markets, allow some capitalism and avoid confrontation with the U.S. After the century they've had, living under Mao for decades, and now feeling the first traces of prosperity, that probably sounds like sage advice. I seriously doubt China would resort to military force to keep their N. Korean buffer. I'm not sure how successful we've been pushing China on N. Korea, but I suspect our diplomacy has been more fruitful that Blumenthal thinks. Taiwan is a different story. China seems intent on absorbing them. Our position is pretty clear: Taiwan and the mainland will re-unite when they agree two. In other words, not while the mainland is communist. A classic standoff, but one that China would retaliate to any undue provocation.
China's economy is the worrisome part. Much of their growth is because of artificially cheap labor (a result of the yuan fixed to the dollar, making it undervalued and artificially stable), a herd mentality by foreign investors that have convinced themselves that China is the place to be, and mammoth government projects like most of the building in Pu Dong or the Three Gorges dam. Back in 2001, you couldn't sling a dead cat without hitting some infrastructure work along a road way or the demolition of old neighborhoods to make room for industrial complexes. On the one hand, it is good that the Chinese economy is growing. However, their growth is in a race with their unemployment. Their banking system is corrupt and favors pro-government business. The projects that the government oversees are woefully inefficient and costly. Capitalism has not let the people down, but government control has. Yet, the young people are largely hyper nationalists. When the economy jumps the rails, it won't be the Party that they blame, but the U.S. But that's a ways off. Until then, we should pressure them on human rights, show some resolve to defend Taiwan, urge democracy and reform, and get them to take off their training wheels.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Friday, December 03, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
"One alternative would add 6 new permanent members - the likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 new two-year term members.
The other would create a new tier of 8 semipermanent members chosen for renewable four-year terms and one additional two-year term seat to the existing 10."
Bad idea. The problems with the security council will only be worsened by making it bigger. Why not just call the General Assembly the Security Council? I would propose taking France off the permanent seat status and replacing them with Japan. That way, there's a regional counter to China's seat. Or, if there's such a push to get Germany at the table, we should combine the French/German seats into one EU seat, especially if they move forward on the joint EU special forces.
I'd be curious to hear more about reforms to the Human Rights Commission.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Q: My question is for President Bush. And then, Prime Minister, if you would respond en Francais, s'il vous plait? In the days after September 11th, thousands of Canadians went to Parliament Hill to demonstrate solidarity with the U.S. -- and, in fact, in cities across the country. Yet, public opinion polls and other evidence suggest that now, today, our peoples are, in fact, diverging; that, in fact, our peoples are drifting apart. Why do you think that is? And do you have any responsibility for it?
BUSH: You know, I haven't seen the polls you look at, and we just had a poll in our country where people decided that the foreign policy of the Bush administration ought to be -- stay in place for four more years. And it's a foreign policy that works with our neighbors. Trade between our countries has never been stronger. But it's a foreign policy that also understands that we've got an obligation to defend our security. I made some decisions obviously, that some in Canada didn't agree with, like, for example, when we removed Saddam Hussein and enforcing the demands of the United Nations Security Council.
And then after recounting a couple of points of cooperation, he adds:
No, look, I fully understand there are some in my country -- probably in your country and around the world -- that do not believe that Iraq has the capacity of self-government, that they're willing to sign those people up for tyranny. That's not what I think. And that's not what a lot of Americans think. And they believe that democracy is possible in Iraq. That's a legitimate point to debate. But I'm the kind of fellow who does what I think is right, and will continue to do what I think is right. I'll consult with our friends and neighbors, but if I think it's right to remove Saddam Hussein for the security of the United States, that's the course of action I'll take. And some people don't like that; I understand that. But that's a good thing about a democracy, people can express themselves freely.
I, frankly, felt like the reception we received on the way in from the airport was very warm and hospitable, and I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave -- with all five fingers -- for -- (laughter) -- for their hospitality. (Laughter.)
Bush had a good response to a Mad Cow/cattle trade question. It wasn't exactly what they wanted to hear, but it was forthright and optimistic:
BUSH: Look, the Prime Minister has expressed the -- a great deal of frustration that the issue hasn't been resolved yet. And I can understand his level of frustration. There are a series of regulations that are required by U.S. law, and the latest step has been that the Agriculture Department sent over some proposed regulations to handle this issue to what's called the Office of Management and Budget. This is a part of my office. I have sent word over that they need to expedite that request as quickly as possible.
I fully understand the cattle business; I understand the pressures placed upon Canadian ranchers. I believe that, as quickly as possible, young cows ought to be allowed go across our border. I understand the integrated nature of the cattle business and I hope we can get this issue solved as quickly as possible.
There's a bureaucracy involved and I readily concede we've got one. I don't know if you've got bureaucracy here in Canada or not, but we've got one in America, and there are a series of rules that have to be met in order for us to be able to allow the trafficking of cows back and forth, particularly those 30 months and younger. So we're working as quickly as we can. And I understand the impact it's had on your industry here.
Speaking of the intellectual movement in China: "There has been a further split in recent years, with infighting among some intellectuals over whether they should be critics or supporters of market capitalism."
I have a solution: for every free market thinker China wants to get rid of, the U.S. will offer them one of our prize intellectuals in return - harvested from our top college campuses. In this way, people like Noam Chomsky can enjoy the fruits of utopia (where state favored institutions all begin with Peoples' this or Peoples' that) and the gagged Chinese thinker can experience freedom of expression. It's a win-win.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
Update: LGF chimes in.
Friday, November 19, 2004
"More importantly, I forgot the editorial cartoonist's obligation to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. I got the latter in that cartoon at the expense of the former. Special-needs children face a lot of challenges; they don't need, or deserve, mocking from me. ... The cartoon was effective in its way, but it could have been better."
Pretentious to the end.
At least it gives me an opportunity to talk to my 19-month-old son, when I have to explain to him why he has to shoulder our tax burden.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Friday, November 12, 2004
This is a golden opportunity to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. If the U.S. uses its leverage with Israel, we could make it happen.
Of course, there are some Palestinians who are still opposed to the existence of Israel.
Part of the problem was the Anybody But Bushers (me included). I don't know that Kerry defined a vision that was distinctly different than Bush's. Granted, that may have been a vision of denying rights to gays and outlawing abortions (if abortions are outlawed, then will only outlaws have abortions?), but that's what made the difference.
The Republicans did the Dems a favor by chopping off Daschle. This (plus Gephardt's retirement) gives the Dems a chance for fresh blood in Congress.
During Bush's acceptance speech, I dropped a number of f-bombs. Clearly, a president who squandered 90% approval ratings for political advantage isn't all that interested in reaching across the aisle, unless it's to bitch-slap the opposition.
No more northeastern senators for the nomination. That hasn't worked since before Nixon. Look to the southern governors (all 4 of them). A governorship is an excellent place to gain executive experience. And, quite frankly, the Dems are woefully short of leaders who can relate or appear to relate to average Americans.
So much for Kerry's whim that he could win the contest without the South.
One element of the vote that completely perplexed me is the contingent of people who felt Bush got us into the Iraq mess, so he should be the one to get us out of it. In corporate America, you get fired and replaced for major snafus.
At least it's all on the Republicans now. No more blaming Clinton.
"Democracy in the West evolved over centuries. It required first a church independent of the state; then the Reformation, which imposed pluralism of religion; the Enlightenment, which asserted the autonomy of reason from both church and state; the Age of Discovery, which broadened horizons; and finally capitalism, with its emphasis on competition and the market. None of these conditions exists in the Islamic world."
"In the potential cauldron after the January elections, some degree of internationalization is the only realistic path toward stability inside Iraq and sustained domestic support in America. The survival of the political process depends in the first instance on security—for which the United States retains the major responsibility—but ultimately on international acceptance to enable the Iraqi government to be perceived as representing indigenous aspirations."
"Unilateralism for its own sake is self-defeating. But so is abstract multilateralism. The former absorbs purpose into a sense of special national mission; the latter waters down purpose in a quest for a formal consensus. The challenge for America is to reconcile consultation with vast power."
Saturday, November 06, 2004
I served 87-91 on active duty as an M-1 turret mechanic, and my Inactive Ready Reserve commitment ended in '95.
In a related note, a friend at work told of a buddy who had been in the service until he was in a Humvee accident. As a result of the accident, he has a plate in his head and rods in his legs. That resulted in a medical discharge. He recently got called back into service.
But hey, at least we don't have a draft.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Monday, November 01, 2004
But this period has claimed one victim for sure. A determination to defeat George Bush has led many newspapers, television networks, academics, NGO's--and now even medical journals--to jettison their standards of fairness, restraint, objectivity, and integrity. Whether Bush wins or loses, it will take years for these institutions and organizations to regain the reputations they freely chose to throw away.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
He has shown disrespect for the Constitution, including:
- Nominating a running mate from the same state as him. Technically, Cheney's Wyoming citizenship came before he was sworn in, but the concept behind having pres & veep from 2 different states (12th Amendment) is to avoid undue influence of any one region. In other words, to avoid the Big Oil ticket we currently have.
- The sneek & peek provision of the Patriot Act violates the unreasonable search and seizure provision of the 4th Amendment.
- The Free Speech Zones violate the right to peaceably assemble, granted in the 1st Amendment.
- Holding Jose Padilla, an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil, for an indefinite time violates his right to a speedy and public trial, as granted in the 6th Amendment. It also deprives him of his liberty, without due process of law, noted in the 5th.
- The Patriot Act's provision gagging librarians from telling people whether the FBI has requested their library records violates the librarians' free speech rights, granted in the 1st.
Now some will point out that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during a time of constitutional crisis. Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, upholds the right to do so, but only in areas in which martial law has been declared. To date, Bush has not declared martial law as a response to the 9/11 attacks.
Bush also adopted a policy of pre-emptive war, and then said, essentially, that the burden of proof was on the country we invaded.
The strategic goal of re-shaping the Middle East has been hampered, not helped, by the Iraq war. NPR's recent series, "Bordering on Instability", shows that Iraq's neighbors have used the Iraq war to say that now is not the time to implement reforms. Once Iraq settles down, those governments say, then they will revisit planned reforms. Not only that, but Syrians have been radicalized by the notion that they are next on the list.
The execution of the post-combat phase of the war has been abysmal. The dead-enders that Rumsfeld spoke of in the summer of 2003 are still there, with the most recent estimates coming to about 7,000 - 8,000 insurgents with an almost unlimited supply of cash. The Bush administration ignored a great deal of advice from military and state department professionals about how to handle the postwar phase.
Bush not only went the Iraq deal mostly alone, but his administration publicy berated traditional allies in doing so. (Rumsfeld linked Germany to Libya and Cuba, and also knocked Germany and France as "Old Europe".)
Afghanistan has passed Columbia as the world's largest drug producer.
Bin Laden and Zarqawi are still at large.
Bush has been the most fiscally irresponsible president of my lifetime, cutting revenue while increasing spending, both military and non-military.
Instead of fixing the Kyoto treaty, he completely abandoned it.
Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission.
Anti-Americanism in the Arab world is at an all-time high, somewhere in the 90's, depending on which poll you look at.
Bush has not used America's leverage to push for some resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is the foremost issue in the minds of Arabs when it comes to anti-American feelings.
A few years after Clinton declared the Era of Big Government was over, Bush expanded entitlements, despite the fact that the liabilities owed to the Baby Boomers are about due. He also created the Department of Homeland Security, which remarkably does not encompass any intelligence agencies. Actually, I'm not sure exactly what the department does outside of tracking down runaway Texas legislators, telling Americans to buy duct tape, and issuing color alerts, which will never rise to red or drop to green.
A second term would be the end of legalized abortions. I've known people who've had them, and they've never been happy about it. However, I think more people will die if it is outlawed.
Bush scoffed at free markets with his steel tariff.
Russia is by all appearances, further from democracy than 4 years ago.
North Korea has probably gone nuclear.
I am not worried about the spending plans Kerry has proposed. He'll have a Republican Congress, and a huge deficit to keep him from enacting much of those programs. He would have to spend 4 years trying to clean up Bush's mess. And if he screws it up, I'll vote him out in '08. But he deserves a crack at it.
Friday, October 29, 2004
1. FBI has begun investigating whether the Pentagon improperly awarded no-bid military contracts to Halliburton.
2. 400 tons of missing explosives. giuliani blames the troops.
3. A new survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months since the U.S.-led invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
This Washington Times piece popped up as the Drudge lead today. If half of it is true, then it nullifies Kerry’s core arguments…I mean complaints…against Bush’s strategy and tactics. First, it destroys Kerry’s credibility when it comes to getting “allies” on board when you consider that while we were diplomizin’ with them, they were plotting with Hussein, aiding him to cover their own interests. That we wrangled 1441 out of them is proof of some good steadfast diplomacy on the part of Bush and Powell. That Russia never threatened a veto is remarkable. But expecting them to join in on the liberation was folly. Lesson for Kerry: countries have national interests. That is why his global test nonplussed so many folks. All politics is local.
I also think this incident shows Bush as a deft, cautious and able diplomat. In three years of war, he has done a good job maintaining the public face of diplomacy – he’s been bold, defiant and even demanding, but he’s also shown respect to every leader within the community of nations. When Chirac was mouthing off and telling other leaders and nations that they missed an opportunity to shut up, etc. – Bush consistently showed respect – acknowledging differences in a vague sense, but keeping the atmosphere positive. Some things need greasing. But in the same way that you can’t get blood from a stone, you can’t get the French government to support liberty. That we cooperate with main four antagonistic powers at all is a testament to Bush’s efforts. He’s been professional, courteous and aggressive, – I would dare say like a cowboy. And even when he knows that the antagonist powers are corrupt and double dealing, he likewise knows when to keep his mouth shut. No simple task for a gaffe prone simpleton, right? Meanwhile, Kerry has fallen into Chiracs trap. Kerry can’t make his point about allies until he insults our allies. He can be overheard calling the president a liar and a cheat & he lashes out at veterans that contest his Vietnam record. And he’s supposed to be the smart one! That’s just bad public diplomacy. His private diplomay? I haven’t the slightest clue. He apparently thinks we are so dumb he needn’t bother explaining them to us.
As for the October surprise bit…consider: The NYTimes breaks the missing weapons story ahead of CBS, who wanted to sit on it until right before the election; the story directly says that the explosives were taken since the occupation; Kerry seizes on the story and blasts angrily at Bush for not doing more to safeguard these sites; somewhere in between, NBC says that they were embedded with the 101st when they got to the facility and there was nothing there then, which is at odds with the NYTimes version; Bush does not counter-attack for a whole campaigning day. Rope-a-dope? How did the NYTimes or CBS get the story? Why was this suddenly a story? Kerry continues the attack the next day; Bush retaliates, telling Kerry he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that is under investigation; now this story. If it has legs and can make it way to the kitchen table in homes everywhere, it could be devastating for Kerry. The play books might call it judo surprise. I’m not really a Rove conspiracy theorist – but the above thought crossed my mind.
"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."
"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."
"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."
It's not votes delivered, but some people may be swayed.
"They call American soldiers 'The Jews,' as in, 'Don't go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.' " - Scott Pelley of CBS News's "60 Minutes"
Also in the story:
"Judith Allen, another lifelong Republican, has no reticence. This former Superior Court clerk is a member of Republicans for Kerry, which contributes funds to the Democrats.
'I just do not have the sense that Bush is bright. And I'm embarrassed to say that about our President,' she said."
"The damage visited upon America, and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. "
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Monday, October 25, 2004
Supporter: Kerry's going to take PA.
Liz Edwards: I know that.
Supporter: I'm just worried there's going to be riots afterwards.
Liz Edwards: Uh.....well...not if we win.
Apparently she's picking up on the same desperation of the left that RCP comments on. (Make sure to click on the "LIAR" link as it epitomizes the Democrat response to the Swiftvets) Do we want a hysterical party in power?
"Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
"Top 10 Reasons Not to 'Do' Iraq" --from the cato institute (2002)
"Invading and occupying Iraq would distract the U.S. government from the vital task of destroying an enemy that has actually attacked the U.S. homeland--al Qaeda."
"Because the United States would probably be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be expected to defray the costs."
Sunday, October 24, 2004
"Four years ago, the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president based on our trust in him to unite America. We expected him to forge bipartisan solutions to problems while keeping this nation secure and fiscally sound.
This president has utterly failed to fulfill our expectations."
Friday, October 22, 2004
"The president's war on terrorism, which initially offered a striking
contrast to his special interest-driven domestic agenda, has come to resemble
it. The common thread is ideological certainty untroubled by empirical evidence,
intellectual curiosity, or open debate. The ideology that guides this
president's war on terrorism is more appealing than the corporate cronyism that
guides his domestic policy. But it has been pursued with the same sectarian,
thuggish, and ultimately self-defeating spirit. You cannot lead the world
without listening to it. You cannot make the Middle East more democratic while
making it more anti-American."
Thursday, October 21, 2004
"But we conquered Afghanistan and caught Saddam Hussein, who presumably will eventually be hanged, but nothing much has happened to lower the intensity of our rhetoric -- we have become warriors through and through. The only thing that makes this plausible is that a fight rages on in Iraq. Although we conquered Baghdad, we have not quelled the anti-Americans. On top of which, we came to lose sight of just what it is that has provoked them to anti-Americanism."
I'd always figured Kerry was on relatively strong ground criticizing the "outsourced" approach at Tora Bora because he must have criticized it at the time. But Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute has come up with a transcript of a "Larry King Live" broadcast on Dec. 14, 2001, during the month-long battle, in which (responding to a question about why we weren't up in the caves using "napalm or flamethrowers"**) Kerry appears to actually endorse a play-it-safe, minimize-U.S.-casualties approach:
"But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way."
Perhaps Kerry was only referring here to the failure to use flamethrowers (though his language can just as easily be read more broadly). But earlier in the same interview-- in response to the question "how goes it so far in Afghanistan, in your opinion?"-- Kerry generally praises the U.S.'s strategy, which even as he spoke was relying heavily on proxies:
"I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on right track."
Kerry certainly isn't critical of the "outsourcing." Nor was this interview at the beginning of the Tora Bora seige, when its contours were unclear. It was in the battle's final days, more than a week after bin Laden (by some accounts) had already escaped, at a time when even Donald Rumsfeld was having public doubts about our likely success. ... P.S.: If anyone has evidence of real-time Kerry criticism of the Tora Bora strategy (which may well exist) I'll be glad to reference it. Update: Silence. ...
After hearing his endless drone about flu vaccines, outsourcing, allies and Tora Bora, I bet Kerry would give his left nut for a real talking point.