Here's an interesting article about the Proliferation Security Initiative, a Bush germ that shows him as an able leader who can "work well with others".

Here's a curious article by a anti-Bush writer racked with doubt. 

Question: Is this apparent $100 billion shrinkage of the deficit something that was factored into the $520 billion projection in Feburary by the administration? 

Kerry and civil liberties - I can understand Ashcroft's shift, but I don't understand Kerry's.

Kerry can't shoot deer or stop terror

Any impressions from day one of the convention?

No?

Here’s mine:  In an effort to curb the anti-Bush rhetoric, most of the speeches replaced “Bush” with “they.”  All in all, still pretty reserved.  The DNC did a good job of pulling tight on Gore’s choke chain.  Most of the venom came from President Carter:

Today, our Democratic party is led by another former naval officer -- one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction.
 
Carter offered up humor too:

To meet these challenges, we need new leaders [Kerry, Edwards] in Washington whose policies are shaped by working American families instead of the super-rich and their armies of lobbyists.
 
Stop it!  Seriously!

Clinton proved that he is still the ablest orator around:

Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.

Leave it to Clinton to define the Democrat mantra.  Still, he seemed half-hearted in his praise for Kerry.

?  from Tim Blair

July 26, 2004

Dog Gone
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog has just been thrown out of the convention. It's unclear why; I tried to get some words from Triumph and his handler as the urbane dog was led away by two policemen, but he seemed a little alarmed and wasn't talking much.
This is the second major political incident involving Triumph this year. Presumably he'll now be caged.
Posted by Tim Blair at July 26, 2004 07:26 PM

Some on the right, like Glenn Reynolds, are having problems with Orrin Hatch & his copyright bill.

Who leaked the Sandy Bergler story...why and what's the reason for?

Does anyone plan on reading the report?  Just curious.  This comment was found on the Corner.  Apparently Richard Clarke was concerned that bin Laden might accept asylum in Iraq.

First Wave of Kerry Ballot Lawyers Lands in Florida

Keep talking, pretty boy.

Economy best under Clinton's tenure, according to Forbes.com

Ranking the economy under the 10 postwar presidents who have completed their terms (current administration not included), Forbes reports it was best under Clinton. They judged based on GDP growth, growth of real personal disposable income, employment and job growth, unemployment, inflation, and deficit reduction.
Reagan's term was fourth.
So, while I'll admit there were factors that were out of Clinton's hands, like the widespread adoption of networking technology in the workplace, which led to increased productivity, there are some things he did do which had a lasting impact.
1) Pushed deficit reduction, which gave Greenspan room to lower the federal funds rate. With a lower short-term rate, and with the government competing less for credit, long-term rates dropped and the housing boom was on. Homeowners began to refinance, leaving them with more money in their pockets.
2) Pushed NAFTA and the expansion of global trade. In the short-term, American workers are suffering the job losses, but since I'm not running for office, I can say it's probably better in the long-term. Americans have cheaper goods, and with a growing middle-class in India and China, there will be greater markets for American companies.
3) Signed welfare reform, which reduced entitlements.
4) Assigned his vice-president to look for ways for the government to more efficiently deliver services with the re-inventing government initiative.

Back when the PATRIOT act was enacted, a lot of mouthpieces on the right made noises that sounded an awful lot like "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".

So... if that's the case - how come the republicans are pullin' a stunt like this?

On a related note - Greg Palast has some good points on the missing votes of 2000 and how Kerry and Edwards SHOULD respond.

Will they "Do The RIght Thing" and bring this issue into the Democratic Mainstream? I Dunno. It's definitely something that needs more light shed on it.

On a aside note from something mentioned in the Palast article - why wouldn't a wrtie in vote for a candidate that is listed on the ballot count? If the specifc marker for that candidate isn't marked, but some kind of entry is made on said ballot to indicate the intent and choice of the voter shouldn't that still be counted?

But at least they had the guts to face up to the NAACP regardless of any personal beefs with the leadership of said institution.

Regarding the Bush strategy for the war on terror:  I think these two maps make a statement.

So far the alleged Allawi executions are based on one Australian news story with two witnesses.

More on Wilson.  I can't help it, to me it's a big deal.
 
Unexplained no show on PBS Newshour.  He did show up last night on Paula Zahn. 
 
The David Corn defense of Joe Wilson misses the point:

The Senate intelligence committee's report on prewar intelligence demonstrates that George W. Bush launched a war predicated on false assertions about weapons of mass destruction and misled the country when he claimed Saddam Hussein was in cahoots in al Qaeda. But what has caused outrage within conservative quarters? Passages in the report that they claim undermine the credibility of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
 
First, the report exonerates Bush from the charge that he misled the country.  And many of the assertions were true.
 
But more importantly, the reason that conservatives are so outraged by Ambassador Wilson is that his charge that Iraq did not seek uranium was the cornerstone of the Bush-lied talking point that, in line with the Goebbels quote, was repeated over and over and over again.  Chris Matthews spent the better part of the year on the topic.  I haven’t had a chance to watch Hardball lately, but I doubt he’s said much about Wilson over the past week.  He certainly hasn’t devoted a whole show to question why he [Matthews] bought into Wilson’s attempt to discredit the president so readily.  I’m not holding my breathe.
 
Corn uses the White House concession that “that Bush should not have included this charge in his speech” as some sort of validation of Wilson.  Actually, as I felt at the time, the Bush concession was the biggest mistake Bush made regarding this “scandal”.  It doesn’t validate Wilson so much as it shows a moment where the administration went wobbly.  Bush has since stood by the 16 words.
 
Corn then diverts the issue back to what he considers the real scandal, the exposure of Mrs. Plame.  Somehow, he thinks this commission should’ve spent as much time trying to uncover the source of that leak.  But that wasn’t the commission’s job.  In fact, there’s a whole other commission looking at that.
 
Steyn makes an interesting observation: 

 
He [Wilson] makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the American people.
 
…The obvious explanation for Wilson's deceit about what he found in Africa is that his hatred of Bush outweighed everything else.

 To me, this Wilson saga reflects the CIA woes more than any alleged pressure from the White House.  There are problems in the CIA, all right, but they appear to be from people like Wilson.

Ah... Nostalgia

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a Flash Animation must be worth... oh... a couple thousand website links at least.

Once again - The Daily Show shows us that regime change IS a necessity - especially in a governing body controlled by a cabal of fundamentalist nutjobs...

I speak of course, of the United States Senate.

DAMN! Repbulican Lawmakers are INSANE! Part Deux

"If you repeat lie often enough, it is accepted as truth" - (Joseph Goebbels)

The daily show has a great clip giving evidence that this is apparently becoming part of the administrations strategery for dealing with the press.

"He May Be A Sonofabitch, But He's Our Sonofabitch" - (Attributed to Richard Nixon)

Given the fact that Allawi has been previously linked to such great things as car bombs and other tools used by terrorists, this story should come as no surprise. Considering his previously announced methods for dealing with the insurgency, this seems to be a more hands-on approach.

Kerry, in an attempt to further drive a wedge between Bush and the NAACP:

“I will be a president who truly is a uniter, not one who seeks to divide our nation by race, riches or any other label.”

But who’s the one using the class labels?

And again with the magic wand!! Kerry thinks that the UN is willing to just fall in line to help Sudan out of a sense of morality, I guess:

Kerry called for the United States, with the UN, to lead an ''international humanitarian intervention" in Sudan's war-torn region of Darfur, where Arab militias have been killing and displacing villagers, driving some into neighboring Chad.

I’m reminded of this opposition regarding a resolution we wanted to put through the Security Council (and this map).  Kerry, ignoring the actions that the administration has taken, blames Bush for ignoring the problem though the US is the only major power to send a high ranking official there. Kofi had to scramble to get over there in time to have a photo op with Powell.

Going back to the uniter-not-a-divider/we-need-to-respect-our-allies business, Steyn recently made a good point: the protectionist trade policies of Kerry/Edwards are bound to alienate our friends more than liberating Iraq could ever hope to. The Bush steel tariff ordeal was just a whiff of what such policies will do to our relationships.

WMD results on a .50 caliber budget
 
I was actually searching for the Sitting Ducks posters when I stumbled across this study. I'm not sure who the Violence Policy Center is, but the report is an interesting read on how someone could wreak havoc with this weapon.
For what it's worth, I fired a 50-caliber machine gun in the Army. There wasn't a sight on it. The instructions were just to point it downrange in the vicinity of the truck-sized target, and when you see dirt kicking up, adjust accordingly.
According to the Geneva Conventions, this bullet was too large to be used against people, only equipment, such as a truck. The running joke was to aim at the equipment the enemy was wearing on their web belt.

This childrens(?) book I linked to from lileks.com is worth looking at.  An early 60s history of communism from the revolution to the present day.

From the "DAMN, Republicans Lawmakers are INSANE File":

So... apparently Rick Santorum believes that Gay Marriage is somehow helping Al-Qaeda:

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," he said shortly before the vote. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

linky here.

Because, you just KNOW those Fundamentalist Islamists are ALL ABOUT the hot man-on-man action.

Okay, just to make sure I'm following things without my scorecard here...
Orrin Hatch believes iPods promote piracy. And P2P software is destroying our econmy.
Rick Santorum thinks that Gay People getting married will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. And homosexuality leads to pedophilia and beastiality.
And of course the PATRIOT Act is helping protect us, by giving a man who retroactively classifies documents pointing out the failures of american intelligence in regards to 9/11 more free range to intrude on the private lives of American citizens. Um... shouldn't he be investigating what apparently shows that pre- Patriot act there was more than enough information available to fight terrorism? How is hiding this information from investigation going to help?


Isn't the Republican Ideology supposed to be about less government and more defense? How does amending the constitution to say who can and cannot get married provide for the common defense? Or promote economic prosperity? Or reduce the size of government intrusion into private life??

yeah, it's been tabled for now. My point is why waste time on something like this in the first place?

Can anyone shed light on the story that Edwards channeled the spirit of an unborn girl in court? And was that girl under oath? It’s popped up in a few columns with the same quoted excerpts, most recently in Ann Coulter’s column:

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:
"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.’
"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

I will link her column for the sole purpose of citing the quote. If reading her gives you an aneurysm then don’t go here.

Also, for those who dislike Bush because they don’t think he does his homework, apparently Kerry didn’t read the very same threat assessment he criticizes Bush for not reading before he (Kerry) voted to authorize war.

The Hazlitt passage is from an old Signet classic paperback. Selected Writings of William Hazlitt, edited by Christopher Salvesen. It is the 17th Conversation of James Northcote from The Atlas, April 19 and 26, 1829. I can't remember where exactly, but in Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina, the character Levin has similar thoughts.

HAPPY BASTILLE DAY! Today marks another anniversary of storming the infamous prison, freeing all the jailed debtors and looting the armory. Only, there were no debtors in the prison. Chalk that up to faulty intelligence. But that did not stop the French from taking the noble ideals of liberty and running them through the Jacobin meat grinder. Proof that achieving liberty is no easy task.

What terrorists think of their own children.

AN EXAMPLE OF APPEASEMENT: Being the world’s super power is a thankless job. It’s a good thing we don’t have a mind to pull our support from the Philippines.

Of course, if you’re an expert like Bruce Scheier, you could interpret the Filipino pull out to be a major blow to al Qaeda:

Q: Do you think the Madrid bombings, assuming they were carried out by Al Qaeda, were effective as a political tool given the surprise upset victory three days later of the Socialist Party, which wants to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq?

A: I thought the exact opposite. Al Qaeda wants escalation. When they attacked the United States, they wanted us to attack back with force because that would enrage more Arabs, which enrages more of us, and makes the conflagration worse. I'm amazed that people are saying that the victory for the antiwar people in Spain was a victory for Al Qaeda. I'm proud of Spain. They could have reacted like the U.S. and said they would use even more force. They reacted with restraint.

Someone give that expert some smelling salt!

Interpreting the report: Joe Wilson discredited, Iraqi terror ties listed (though analysis still vague), and Bush exonerated from lying.

I was heartened by Bush's recent speech where he stood firm on preemption despite the faulty intelligence:

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

A fun little cartoon.

When I listen to a debate, I want a winner and a loser. If this is unlikely, I want the debate to go on long enough for the opponents to agree on what the real disagreement is, in other words, to reach the irreducible crux of their irreconcilable differences. One idea would be for the debaters to switch sides. If Tom could argue Harry's case against Harry using Tom's case, and somehow defeat Harry, what would this mean? Rather than prove the utility of Harry's arguments wouldn't this instead demonstrate the strength of Tom's original positions? Example: Tom is anti-war. If Tom can argue the pro-war case sucessfully, shouldn't his anti-war positions gain in strength and standing? This shows that Tom understands the pro-war arguements well, but in the end these arguements do not persuade him. Call me impressed. I propose that people switch sides for intellectual sport. Behind all this is a conversation between William Hazlitt and James Northcote that has stayed with me over the years. Please excuse the length as I quote the Passage:
Northcote: I sometimes get into scrapes that way by contradicting people before I have well considered the subject, and I often wonder how I get out of them so well as I do. I remember once meeting with Sir--, who was talking about Milton; and as I have a natural aversion to a coxcomb, I differed from what he said, without being at all prepared with any arguments in support of my opinion.
Hazlitt: But you had time enough to think of them afterwards.
Northcote: I got through with it somehow or other. It is the very risk you run in such cases that puts you on the alert and gives you spirit to extricate yourself from it. If you had full leisure to deliberate and to make out your defense beforehand, you perhaps could not do it so well as on the spur of the occasion. The surprise and flutter of the animal spirits gives the alarm to any little wit we possess, and puts it into a state of immediate requisition.
Hazlitt: Besides, it is always easiest to defend a paradox or an opinion you don't care seriously about. I would sooner ( as a matter of choice) take the wrong side than the right in any arguement. If you have a thorough conviction on any point and good grounds for it, you have studied it long, and the real reasons have sunk into the mind; so that what you can recall of them at a sudden pinch, seems unsatisfactory and disproportionate to the confidence of your belief and to the magisterial tone you are disposed to assume. Even truth is matter of habit and professorship. Reason and knowledge, when at their height, return into a kind of instinct. We understand the grammer of a foreign language best, though we do not speak it so well. But if you take up an opinion at a venture, then you lay hold of whatever excuse comes within your reach, instead of searching about for and bewildering yourself with the true reasons; and the odds are that the arguements thus got up are as good as those opposed to them. In fact, the more sophistical and superficial an objection to a received or well-considered opinion is, the more we are staggered and teased by it; and the next thing is to lose our temper, when we become an easy prey to a cool and disingenuous adversary. I would much rather (as the safest side) insist on Milton's pedantry than on his sublimity, supposing I were not in the company of very good judges. A single stiff or obscure line would outweigh a whole book of solemn grandeur in the mere flippant encounter of the wits, and, in general, the truth and justice of the cause you espouse is rather an encumbrance than an assistance; or it is like heavy armour which few have strength to wield. Anything short of complete triumph on the right side is defeat: any hole picked or flaw detected in an arguement which we are holding earnestly conscientiously, is sufficient to raise the laugh against us. This is the greatest advantage which folly and knavery have. We are not satisfied to be right, unless we can prove others to be quite wrong; and as all the world would be thought to have some reason on their side, they are glad of any loop-hole or pretext to escape from the dogmatism and tyranny we would set up over them. Absolute submission requires absolute proofs. Without some such drawback, the world might become too wise and too good, at least according to every man's private prescription. In this sense ridicule is the test of truth; that is, the levity and indifference on one side balances the formality and presumption on the other...

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." Jay Rockefeller, October 9th 2002. Steven Hayes puts Rockefeller's additional views in the pre-war Iraqi intelligence report in perspective.

Continuing our romp through campaign message fun...

"How can a party that lets the country get bogged down in an endless war against a fourth rate military power promise anything but decades of conflict? How, in the light of all this, can the American people fail to see that the United States urgently needs new leadership? By now it's clear. The American people do see the need."

Then look here for the answer.

Oh, okay, I'll give you the answer... It was Nixon's 68 campaign.
Irony's a bitch, ain't it?

New Campaign Slogan Apparently...

Bush/Cheney: America, Go Fuck Yourself.

Too bad the picture's not clearer.

From the Tinfoil Hat File:

So Ridge wants the ability to "postpone" the elections if there's some sort of Terrorist Threat.
On the back of the no-change-in-color-code, "we are researching leads", vague announcement that told us absolutley nothing the same day that Kerry Anounces Edwards for a running mate... The Bureau of Homeland Defense is beginning to sound more like the Ministry of Love.

All hail Oceania!

From Drudge yesterday:

"FLASH: Kerry returning to Boston on Sunday, day ahead of schedule to receive national security briefing. Comes after headlines from CNN/Kerry interview: 'Well, I haven't been briefed yet...They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time'..."

I bet next Kerry will announce plans to keep his hands off Edwards.

And apparently Kerry based claims of "best hair" on faulty intelligence.

More about yellow cake and Joe Wilson. Apparently it was his wife who recommended that he be sent to Niger to check on the uranium claims...plus more. And Steyn weighs in on the matter.

I'm here to knock your hats off.

Good grief!

Interesting roundup of events in Iran.

For links regarding Sudan, go here.

Lileks posed the following question in today’s bleat:

"Related note: I wonder what’s keeping Israel from taking out Iran’s nuclear bomb-making plants. Either they know it’s too late, or they know the facilities can’t be destroyed by the conventional means, or they have good enough intel to know there’s still some time and they can wait until after the election. And then they’ll go no matter who wins. If they attack now, and Bush gives them the thumbs-up, it could cut either way domestically. Kerry would have to approve or disapprove, for example. I would guess the latter, lest he want to make the UN and the IAEA look like the dithering fools they are. If Kerry approves, then he’s thrown his lot in with the cowboy-unilateralist axis, and if people want that they’ll vote for the genuine article. The far-left fringe will howl that this is all a Zionist plot to influence the election. The far-right fringe will howl that this is all a Zionist plot to influence the election. Most Americans would look at satellite photos of demolished nuke-bomb factories and think: good thing.

"We’ll see. When it comes to Iran, I fear that either the bombs get bombed or the bombs get used. The latter is what I always thought would be the end result of the forces set in motion by 9/11, and I still hope I am wrong. I’ve been wrong enough to be hopeful."

Put your (virtual) money where your mouth is

PBS Frontline's presidentialmarket.org just got real interesting this week. They added Badnarik, of the Libertarians, and David Cobb, of the Green Party. (Nader hasn't met the 20-state ballot minimum to get listed.)

More interesting, however, is that you can bet (invest) on shares of whichever way you think a particular state will go - GOP, Dem, or other. You get a base amount to start investing, and candidates pay dividends when officially nominated by their party.

The blogosphere is round! – by clicking on the first link of each post you will go from Instapundit back around to Instapundit again, with stamps from belgravia dispatch and JustOneMinute along the way. The meat of these posts is the Financial Times story about the 16 words.

You better Behave or Al-Zarqawi Will Get You!

Moral Conviction or Cowardice?

To clarify my views on these two guys: While I find the idea of deserting to be kind of weasel-ly say likeif you've outright committed to the program, then suddenly decide you've had enough. After all, if you 've gone through basic, chanted all the killing chants and whatnot, and THEN get cold feet, that comes off to me as... well, dishonest. Like breaking a contract. But, reading each of their websites and the article, both of them present a fair amount of evidence that they attempted to go through the necessary processes to leave, and were summarily refused. Funny, I thought we had a volunteer army. Both of their stories, plus this one brought forth this question:

Why isn't a change of heart (such as a realisation of a deep moral opposition to violence) a valid reason for leaving military service?

The necessary processes do exist, but are they being neglected? We've all heard of conscientious objector status... so I won't go into that.
Speaking with some ex GI friends, there's an opt-out clause during basic training called something like "non adpatation" that allows for you to leave if you proove that you can't get into the mindset. Essentially you get no benefits and after a few years, your record of military service is removed from public record.

From what I've been able to find on the internet, each of these guys tried to to exercise these options to leave.

One of them, Hinzman, actually filed for Conscientious Objector status, and was denied it on grounds that he would respond with violence if attacked personally.
According to my ex-military friends, C.O. status is not quite an honorable discharge, and therefore can have long lasting negative social impact. Specifically being that upon discharge, any time you apply for a job, loan or whatever, you have to offer up your DD2-14 document showing your discharge status. It is possible, they inform me that this can close doors as well as open them.
(engage snark mode)Apparently the appeals process for changing your discharge status is more of a hassle than getting Limbaugh, Hannity or Coulter to present facts and not opinions in their froth-mouthed ravings. (disengage snark mode)
So Hinzman had to be aware of what he was setting himself up for by filing for this. For further clarification on his situation, my friend informed me that working K.P. for 14 months in a field kitchen is one of the shittiest jobs imaginable in the military, so to suffer through that shows some level of committment to his beliefs.

The other one, Hughey - was told that he would face charges of refusing to obey a direct order, and summary prosecution as well as possible incarceration. He also expressed feelings of suicidal depression about his situation.
Once again, speaking with My ex-military friends, this is radically different from what they went through in Gulf War I - if someone wanted out, due to conscientious objection, or due to non adpatation, they had to undergo the process of verifying their intent was valid, but then were released from duty. The idea of someone who didn't want to be in combat but was placed there was viewed as detrimental to the point of dangerous for both moral and survival of the troops.

SO why is our military deciding to not follow up on what seems to be a logical position? If in each case these guys showed that they would be more harm than help in combat, Why were they denied the ability to leave? If the media is giving us accurate information on enlistment figures growing all the time, why would we need to employ such draconian tactics to keep people in there who would probably be better off elsewhere?


Interesting Quotes found on sites related to these stories:

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Albert Einstein (attributed)

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."

General Douglas MacArthur, Speech, May 15, 1951

As a general rule, I consider hooded gangs to be bad news, but the one gunning for Zarqawi might be an exception.

Go here for a decent roundup of good news in Iraq, including some reconstruction stats, a growing talk radio industry and a boom in print media.

I'm sure Hillary will understand, since it's for the common good.

It’s official – I’m now burned out with reading about Fahrenheit 911 after reading this thorough take down of it, which I found off of Little Green Footballs. It’s a long read, but it doesn’t have the Hitchens venom (except for the Hitchen excerpts). Recognizing that Coulter and Hannity and Limbaugh (two of which I like) can be sloppy with the facts, I don’t think they reach the depths of Michael Moore.

Mark Steyn on independence

While we celebrate our freedom and independence, the Chinese government is doing what they can to stifle freedoms, not just in Hong Kong, but the mainland as well.

It took awhile, but it looks like Ken Lay will finally be indicted.

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND! - this tree is in the empty lot across from my house. My neighbors painted it up for the 4th in 2001 and had a big barbecue. Since then, its become a favorite place for others in the neighborhood to have family reunions and various get-togethers. 

After reading this site - perhaps I need to change my political alliances...

I'm embarrassed that I did not mention Afghanistan in any of my scenarios. My friend Ashby sent the following blog about events in the steppe country.

Worst-case Could be one of the following three, but I doubt a combination of them: 1) another attack on the scale of 9/11 or greater [though not necessarily in the US]; 2) a Kerry victory which, while maintaining the presence in Iraq and continuing the reconstruction, doesn’t advance on the momentum of reform in the Middle East [its way too soon to let the dust settle – a representative government in Iraq will help change the region, but far better with U.S. pressure]; 3) a steady vigorous campaign against Iraqi oil pipelines and various engines of industry the considerably cripple the emerging government.

Expected A long summer of steady attacks aimed at Iraqis and the coalition alike; the capture of Zarqawi during the summer; and enough good things to provide a positive sense of direction about where Iraq is going; a possible Bush victory where he actually gets the popular vote; and an improving situation in Iraq thereafter along with some positive developments in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt; the capture of Osama or the excavation of his body in the next few years; a peaceful solution in N. Korea; and (for me) vacation in Baghdad, spring 2010 where I can visit all the newly opened museums. Peace between Palestinian and Israel in about 30 to 40 years if Sharon pulls out of settlements and finishes the wall.

Best case All of the above; the collapse of the Mullahs in Iran; vacation Baghdad, summer 2008; possible extension of my trip to Mecca (okay I’m stretching it).

Disclaimer There’s the chance that Kerry might actually show resolve on the war on terror[Confucius say: even liberal senator make moderate president in two party nation]. If he’s elected, crushed as I’ll be, I’ll support almost any vigorous strategy he employs.

Have a Happy July 4th, with The Onion!

From the Onion's All American All The Time PATRIOT Issue:
American People Ruled Unfit To Govern
Hero Citizen Can Name All 50 States
Government Issues Citizens Official 'Screw You' Packet

Makes me proud ta be uh uhMurriken!

In an attempt to do something a little different and in light of the recent hand-over of power in Iraq – I would like to pose the following questions (WARNING: Answers require projection!)

First, what is the worst-case scenario that can happen in Iraq and the greater war on terror?

Second, given everything that has happened, what is the best possible outcome you can realistically see with Iraq and the war on terror (including after the US election and beyond)? Or, more simply put: what do you realistically hope for?

Finally, what do you expect to happen?

I’ll provide my answers sometime tomorrow.

Glenn Reynolds on the success of the war. Who'd woulda thought that blowing up fellow muslims was bad for PR?

I promised myself that I would withhold judgement on Farenheit 9/11 until AFTER I see it, unlike many on the ideological oppposite end of the spectrum...

After reading the Christopher Hitchens article posted by Jeff, I was disappointed.
I couldn't explain why... Hitchens has always been one of those essayists who while I don't agree with him frequently, I admire his ability as a writer and the breadth and depth of his knowledege. But something just felt... I dunno... well, it felt below his usual caliber of writing.

And then Disinfo.com had a link to the following critique of Christopher Hitchen's review of F9/11 (why does that sound like some overpriced sports car?).

While I find that the reviewer veers sometimes into ranting (which, to be fair, Hitchens did as well) he does point out some of the flaws in Hitchen's argument. Too bad though that this won't get the same level of exposure as Hitchen's. But then again, maybe it will.

Enthusiastic article about Bush's performance in Iraq. And a story about Iranian migration to Iraq.

Cheney weak on defense.

So we can get a ticket with a draft-dodging defense cuttter or a ticket with a combat-decorated defense cuttter. Put me down for the latter.

OUCH! Nicholson Baker will publish an anti-Bush book. And so soon after EL Doctorow's commencement speech. Coincidentally, wasn't VOX the book that Monica loaned President Clinton?

The diplomatic end of the Bush administration is having successes, too.

So the Handover has happened.
Iraqi reaction could be called wary at best.

The following dialogue is from today's bleat by James Lileks:
A minor political note, if you’re interested in such things. The other day a young girl came to the door to solicit my support for her presidential candidate. I asked her why I should vote for this man. She was very nice and earnest, but if you got her off the talking points she was utterly unprepared to argue anything, because she didn’t know what she was talking about. She had bullet points, and she believed that any reasonable person would see the importance of these issues and naturally fall in line. But she could not support any of her assertions. Her final selling point: Kerry would roll back the tax cuts.

Then came the Parable of the Stairs, of course. My tiresome, shopworn, oft-told tale, a piece of unsupportable meaningless anecdotal drivel about how I turned my tax cut into a nice staircase that replaced a crumbling eyesore, hired a few people and injected money far and wide - from the guys who demolished the old stairs, the guys who built the new one, the family firm that sold the stone, the other firm that rented the Bobcats, the entrepreneur who fabricated the railings in his garage, and the guy who did the landscaping. Also the company that sold him the plants. And the light fixtures. It’s called economic activity. What’s more, home improvements added to the value of this pile, which mean that my assessment would increase, bumping up my property taxes. To say nothing of the general beautification of the neighborhood. Next year, if my taxes didn’t shoot up, I had another project planned. Raise my taxes, and it won’t happen – I won’t hire anyone, and they won’t hire anyone, rent anything, buy anything. You see?

“Well, it’s a philosophical difference,” she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clilcking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. “I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

Then she left.

And walked down the stairs. I let her go without charging a toll. It’s the philanthropist in me.


The rest of the Bleat is about the Marx Bros. and not that flattering. He was commenting on the new MGM box set - which he recognizes as past their prime. But I think he needs to re-watch the Paramount stuff again.

Call it the Cassandra Complex:
Orrin Hatch's INDUCE Act puts America first!

Bush made a mistake when he said those 16 words were a mistake. This piece was in the Financial Times. On a somewhat related note, apparently there were mines in Iraq producing yellowcake.

The emperor has no clothes, literally. Ireland shouldn’t suppress these photos. In fact, if I was on the Bush campaign, I’d hope these pics did get out. He could use the help with the woman vote.

Another reason the Bush economy isn't translating into votes for the incumbent.

Yet what is receiving almost no attention from those pontificating on the economy is the nature of the growth they so admire. In fact, it demonstrates a massive growth discrepancy between corporate profits and wages. As the Economic Policy Institute calculated last month, corporate profits have grown by 62 percent since the first quarter of 2001, but "labor compensation" -- which includes paychecks and benefits -- grew only 2.8 percent, and "private wage and salary income" fell by 0.6 percent.

In turn, the EPI study concludes:

"Most of this growth in total labor compensation has been accounted for by rising non-wage payments, like health care and pension benefits. Rapidly rising health care costs and pension funding requirements imply that these higher benefit payments are not translating into increased living standards for workers, but are rather just covering the higher costs of health care and pension funding."

Other recent confirm the view that living standards are not improving and may even be declining. This week, Bloomberg reported:

"A 2.2 percent rise in wages in the 12 months through May has been more than offset by a 3.1 percent gain in consumer prices. It's unlikely that employees will get raises that outpace inflation over the next five to 10 years, said William A. Niskanen, former acting chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors during the Ronald Reagan administration.… Niskanen and other economists cite global competition, which forces companies to keep costs down, shrinking union clout and continuing slack in a labor market…"

- from the Center for American Progress

Hitchens doesn't take kindly to Moore. This is from last Monday. It's odd that OKC was one of ten cities picked for the initial release. I haven't watched tv enough to see an ad, and now the clock is ticking thanks to campaign finance reform.

Interesting commentary on security from one of the men who helped define it for the Digital Age. More about Bruce Schneier here.

Also of interest. Orrin Hatch once again proves he knows absolutely nothing
about technology. Rather long article, but the annotations make it palpable.

So much for the Bush proposal.

Screwy. I still like the Washington Times, though.

Did the Bush administration settle for appeasement of North Korea?
Or, 1994 Redux



BEIJING - U.S. negotiators presented the first detailed U.S. proposal Wednesday on resolving the standoff with North Korea, offering energy aid and a security guarantee in exchange for Pyongyang’s agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.....

"Our credibility has more to do with resolve than it does with empty platitudes of peace and goodwill." - Jeffrey Hill, 12/3/03

Question: Are the only choices appeasement to nuclear blackmail or stalemate? Would China sit by while American troops occupy land right next to their border? Would a full-fledged invasion be necessary? Given enough time, would the North Korean government collapse the way the Soviet Union did?

This showed up on Instapundit. It's an old CNN story from 1999 which has Saddam offering bin Laden asylum.

North Korea hates America. Is that a causality link between Kim Jong Il and al Qaeda? Why not? It wouldn’t just be out of pure hatred that Il would desire to harm us, but a shared hatred might draw Il and al together. Il hates us for his own reasons, what does it matter to him why al hates us?

I happen to believe that going after Saddam scared the hell out of Kim Jong Il & will affect his behavior in our favor. It considerably weakens his nuclear hand. A nuclear attack on the US, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, would almost certainly require the organization and support of a state sponsored nuclear program. I’m not talking about a dirty bomb, but a detonated nuclear device. Saddam would have been a prime suspect because we didn’t know that status of his weapons programs. Il would’ve been another suspect. There are probably less than half a dozen other plausible suspects: Iran, Pakistan come to mind. With the removal of Saddam, the circle tightens. Il is sick in the head, if you ask me, but he’s not suicidal & it’s no good for him to sweat it out in a shorter line-up.

That said, he’s still a threat. And by the comments I’ve heard from both of you, I will assume that if the time comes to move on N. Korea, the administration will have your full support.

May I See Your Papers Please?

The 5th amendment takes a heavy blow. Well, I guess living in a country where our lawmakers can initiate something like the PATRIOT Act to deal with us common rabble, but then not obey the law themselves, it's to be expected.

And just remember - as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to fear... Unless you look like you're the type who would do something wrong.

I can’t say that I put much stock in the 9/11 Commission or the CNN & NYT coverage of it. I’d be very surprised if the commission comes up with any significant recommendations that the Bush administration hasn’t already pursued. The anti-war assumption that a link between Saddam and al Qaeda is so doubtful is simply unrealistic. The left is so ready to criticize Bush for seeing things as black and white and for his lack of nuance that it is odd that they can’t fathom a secular government cooperating with a radical Islamic terror group, nor can they distinguish between Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda & his involvement with 9/11. And it’s odd that the left would completely rule out the latter because there isn’t a long paper trail to base it on. Fact: Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda communicated and had agreements. Both hate America. What is not known: just how deep those ties went. We also don’t know if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. What we should assume: that Saddam and al Qaeda would cooperate to hurt the US. Is that so complicated – so steeped in what-ifs that the left can’t grasp it?

Reactions to the commission’s statements regarding Iraq and al Qaeda:

Russia warned the US that Saddam wanted terrorist attacks in the US post 9/11

9/11 commissioner comments on the comments

and another commissioner

Bush’s reaction & insistence that there were links

Cheney’s complaints on how the story has been covered

Clinton Administration on al Qaeda / Saddam ties

A USA Today story

Andrew Sullivan

And a fairly comprehensive piece in Tech Central

History repeats itself. (That is to say: Republican administration making idiotic proclamation about nutritional value of fast food products served in school cafeterias).

Ketchup and Fries constitutes a full vegetarian meal in the eyes of the current Administration, building as they do on their former glory.

Proof that Bush IS a Reaganite.

But then again, may be not:

'Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."

Ron Reagan Jr.
remarks at funeral of his father,
June 11, 2004

The Law Applies to Everyone EXCEPT The Attorney General

(linky found on Boing Boing - A Directory of Wonderful Things)

Found this link (bottom of post) reading a discussion on the differences in Empiricism (i.e. right wing) vs Postmodernism (i.e. left wing) (all terms used there as sweeping generalizations for economy's sake) as applied to dogmatic thinking in political/economic discussions. That thread is still going... mostly seems to be a case of each side offers valid qualifications to their arguments, but it still seems to boil down to an "I'm right you're wrong" discussion from both sides.

The interesting thing about the below link is that they make the argument that Left vs Right is a flawed representation of political ideology. Given that the nature of most issues consist of multiple factors - generally attributed to social/political/economic/religious areas of influence, they propose using an X-Y axis. While still very general, it does make for a more accurate snapshot of one's ideology, I'm thinking.

Given the self-declared slants of involved parties in this little forum, I thought it would be fun to see where we all measure up when questioned by an objective observer. Are you as conservative/liberal as you think? Take this and see!

The Political Compass

Posting my results in a later entry.

It's time to declare independence from the foreign occupiers!

How can Kerry justify wanting a VP who's more hawkish than the president? It just goes to show that he stands for nothing. While Kerry's been keeping the McCain rumor alive - hope against hope - McCain stumps for Bush.

I've been meaning to post more, but things have been hectic lately. In the meantime, here's an interesting post about oil. Below that is a good post about Rudyard Kipling. For something spicier, Mark Steyn assesses the European mainstream and Victor David Hanson sees a pattern.

It's Dawn Of The Dead in America

The invasion was a good use of our resources

The invasion of Iraq was the best use of our resources – if winning the war on terror is the aim. Sure our intelligence was sketchy. Intelligence always is. But does that make it the failure that everyone seems to think it is? Should we improve it? Sure, we should always be trying to improve our intelligence. But, flawed as it may have been, it was good enough to point us in the right direction in a post 9/11 world. Saddam ran a regime that supported terror and had an association with al Qaeda. Saddam also developed and used WMDs and had a capacity to make more. He was also actively deceiving the world community. Those facts alone were enough to fear the passing of WMDs from the Baathists to al Qaeda. As Bush aptly put, Iraq was a “grave and gathering threat.” As for stockpiles? Iraq had plenty that were unaccounted for – I see no one disputing that. And I see no one disputing that Saddam violated 1441. But the terror/WMD threat was never about stockpiles. It was about small amounts that could be smuggled into our borders or those of our allies. Given what we know now would you say that Bush was wrong to fear this scenario? What we don’t know can always fill a book. Failure to locate WMDs is important in so much that terrorist might get to them before we do. But, in such a circumstance, you don’t just go after your intelligence agencies, tying up resources and creating an atmosphere of bureaucratic fear in the CIA & then assume that the war in Iraq was a mistake. No, you expect your agencies to examine their own performance and work on improvements. Heads should role when the president decides it’s in the interest of winning the war.

Non corporate-funded-thinktank commentaries on the G8 summit:
From www.accuracy.org

Interesting that the G8 summit was held on a private island off the coast from a primarily african-american town that hosts "four Superfund sites, seventeen identified hazardous waste sites, six actively polluting industries and hundreds of illegal toxic dumps".

And Kyoto was at the bottom of the list of important resolutions - as mentioned in a previous post. Oh... but there's no correllation, nor am I inferring any. Just making an observation.

The difference between selling arms to Iran and selling arms to Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the 80s:

Our stated policy was not to deal with Iran. Not only that, but Iran was dealing with Hezbolla to release a few American hostages at the time, so that went against the law about negotiating with terrorists. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have never held American hostages for 444 days, nor are they part of today's Axis of Evil.

What's wrong with the war on terror?

In my view, the whole Iraq thing comes down to two questions:
1) Was it the best use of our resources given that our assessment of Iraq's capabilities was based on sketchy intelligence? (Remember, Osama is still out there, unless he's at Gitmo awaiting W.'s October surprise. Not only that, but poppy production is in full swing in Afghanistan)
2) Are we killing or capturing more terrorists than our actions are creating (a question that Rumsfeld did not yet have the answer to when recently asked at a Congressional hearing)?

Here's a list prioritizing areas to focus on to improve life on earth. And it validates some of Bush's positions.

Good news in Iraq: Aside from the U.N. Resolution, which is a nice feather in Bush's diplomatic cap, there's new evidence to suggest that we didn't invade Iraq just to grab her oil.

Or as Dude has commented, you could concentrate on the differences. Though the differences he mentions are mainly with circumstance and not with leadership:

1) You can't deny that Bush is a Reaganite. No doubt he marked the differences between Reagan's foreign policy and his dad's and ultimately chose the former well before Perle and Rice got him up to speed in 1998. I’m guessing he started developing his diplomatic philosophy after his dad lost to Clinton. But I must confess that I'm not quite sure what Dude’s point is regarding when Reagan and Bush each developed their foreign policy strategies.
2) I’m sure someone is willing to point out that we sell arms to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries that prefer not to have a de-Baathed democratic Iraq in their backyard. The Iran/Contra scandal is a significant blemish on Reagan’s record. By the time all is said and done, Bush may well have a scandal to mar his record. So far the opposition hasn’t found it.
3) Regarding net job gains: again, the circumstances are very different but not necessarily the men. Bush took over right as the tech bubble had burst. There was no bubble that I know of that Reagan inherited, except perhaps the inflation bubble. Surely you don't think Bush is responsible for the bulk of job losses that happened before he had a chance to implement any part of his economic policy? But granted, Bush might have a better job record if he'd cut taxes even sooner than he did.
4) Of course Reagan worked with NATO. NATO was an alliance tailor made for the cold war, but not the war on terror. I would assert that the same spirit that provoked Reagan to position Pershing IIs in Germany (which caused a great stir among our European allies - though I guess they signed off on it in the same way the Security Council passed 1441)...that same spirit, I say, can be seen in Bush cleaning house of obsolete arms agreements and revamping our foreign policy. Don't look now, but the Cold War is over and so is the usefulness of many of the agreements, alliances and stratagems that were created to fight it. When an alliance no longer works, you must change it or scrap it – but you shouldn’t let it sit there and tie your hands from protecting your interests. I recall George Washington warning against long-term foreign alliances. I also recall the web of such alliances that facilitated so much suffering during the Great War. I believe both Reagan and Bush remembered those things as well. Neither settled for the status quo or the conventional wisdom – much to the chagrin of foreign leaders and many legislators. Does that mean that NATO is irrelevant? Not necessarily, but it’s going to have to continue changing to meet the new needs. The same goes for the U.N.
5) I doubt Bush condemned the gassing of Kurds when it happened. Oh well, that’s no reason not to condemn it now.

The Passing Of Reagan... Film at 11

(must...resist....urge to make jokes about the American Body Politic having finally gotten rid of the remains of the spicy meal that was the Reagan Era...)

Anyway - coming from the left side of things I guess I should weigh in on the passing of Cowboy Ronnie and make the expected comments on him being so horrible, evil and blahdy blahdy blah. But that's expected innit? ...and you can find that on perhaps a couple thousand other websites. Alternet has an interesting listing of "unflattering things" about Reagan's time in office that pretty succinctly sums up all the noisemaking that could be done in that regard.

So - instead... allow me to ramble on about the overall journalistic circle jerk (in my opinion) that has been going on in mainstream media concerning the passing of the man, Ronald Reagan.

Watching CNN yesterday - most of the pieces I saw relating to Reagan were praising him. Eulogizing is fine for those who know a person recently deceased, or due to similiarities of ideology would be inclined to praise them. BUT - Since these are subjective situations... they're better left to the editorial commentary sections of news programs and websites. When an institution that portrays itself as "neutral" (as American News Stations tend to) presents an image of the man that (from what I saw yesterday) reveal few, if any, flaws... the whole thing comes off as rather suspect.

If we truly wanted to give the man the respect he would be deserving as a leader of this country - we should in hindsight examine his actions objectively. After all, what was he to most of us? Our primary interaction with him was the fact that he made decisions which affected the way our country functions, and our place in it, for better or worse. But instead of a respectful overview of what he got right and what he got wrong, I was inundated with fluff piece jouranlism that nearly convinced me that Reagan's time in office was as close to heaven on earth as we're likely to see until the Rapture happens for all you Christians.

I realize I've defined myself as a non-objective participant by referencing an article on a left-leaning website before making my argument, along with the running snark commentary...
(Hold on - gotta adjust my tinfoil hat - there)
But I contend that this was done out of trying to find some counterbalance to the "Morning in America, Smiles and Jelly Bellies" effluvia that constituted most of the reporting I saw yesterday. By the end of the day it was my personal quest to find something, anything, that was not portraying Reagan as some sort of demigod who America was blessed with having as a leader for (apparently) too short a time.

Now, it could be argued that the mainstream news sources are merely reflecting the opinions of the public at large... okay fine, but that's editorializing, not reporting. If journalism is meant to be a means of relaying factual accounts of events for those who do not directly witness said events in the present, and then provide a record for future generations what occured at a a specific time... (an idealistic appraisal perhaps) then our current standards of journalism falls far from this mark.

Hell even this posting is guilty of that but then again, I would not indicate in anyway that this was meant as journalism. Definitely editorializing, but not journalism. I mean, I would be hard pressed to be able to verify Reagan's divinity one way or the other... though I often did smell brimstone when he was on television. Increasing the dosage seemed to help with that.

So - to put more of a left/right, us/them, right/wrong, libertive/conserval, democan/republicrat, spin on things and keep with the spirit round these parts:

(ahem)

Portaying Reagan PURELY as a great leader and neglecting to point out his failures in contrast to his successes, has made American Journalism as laughable in our portrayal of our political system and our leaders as the Soviet Union was criticized for "back in the day". The buffoonery of our current duly installed psuedoleader not withstanding... "Mission Accomplished" anyone?

And who can help remembering Reagan without recognizing the similarities he has with our current president?

An interesting piece on Palestinian tunnels. I'm sure the canned goods mentioned at the end of the article make up a significant percentage of tunnel traffic.

A good article by Mr. Krauthammer.

Plus, words of wisdom from Tony Blankley.

Hey Dude,
So why did you leave off the other 280 million American names? Regardless, I appreciate the company. As Bush likes to say, "I look forward to a spirited debate."

The world is a funny place: a president makes the decision to release about 50 million souls from tyranny and put them on the road to freedom and about half the American people think he's the most vile, stupid, evil, incompetent thing ever to move into the White House. And the lion's share of these same people say they champion human rights. Curious.

People who could do a better job than Bush (in order of preference, kinda):

Joe Biden
Madeline Albright, if she were eligible
Bill Richardson
Mario Cuomo
John McCain
Richard Lugar
Bob Kerry
Colin Powell
Sam Nunn
Bill Bradley
John Kerry
Bill Graves
Evan Bayh
Lamar Alexander
Al Gore
Ralph Nader
John Edwards
Elizabeth Dole
Chuck Hagel
Charles Schumer

Every time Kerry blames Bush for failing to build alliances and squandering long time friendships with this war, I truly wonder if he knows why countries form alliances. If he thinks for a minute that they do it out of a simple sense of friendship and goodwill, then he has no business being in the White House. Also, when he talks about the new post cold war realities and that we need to prepare for it, I wonder what he thinks Bush has been doing for the past three and a half years. It seems to me that Bush understands that our cold war alliances and policies must change and has been working feverishly towards that end. As far as Bush’s diplomatic prowess, I thought this was an excellent take on the interim Iraqi government and the outsmarting of the UN.