Message to Old Europe:

Do not underestimate the power of the wand.

Incidentally, Kerry said to NPR last week that Bush has shown a lack of imagination regarding how to deal with our reluctant allies and get them to help in alternate ways. One thing he suggested was to load Iraqis on a 747 and send them off to Europe to be trained. Well, I'm not sure what type of aircraft they are using, but it seems like we're already doing that according to the article:

"Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so."

Tax cuts as a moral issue

Cutting income, estate, and dividend taxes while not cutting spending by the same amount, continuing to promise entitlements, and even expanding entitlements (prescription drug benefit) is morally wrong. Allowing continued and even increased spending means that we're passing on a tax hike to the next generation. Not to mention that it's taking money out of my pocket (in the form of the payroll tax) and putting it into rich people's pockets.

As of December 2003, I have paid in $13,090 into Social Security and $3,074 into Medicare. My employers have met that same amount. All that for a service that I will probably never see.

Call it putting lipstick on a pig, but if a president cannot fix a broken system with a surplus (or at least, closer to running in the black then the country is now) and with approval ratings over 80%, he's not politically courageous. He's simply pandering for votes with his tax cuts.

Lastly, about 1/3 of the national debt is held by foreigners. The deeper in debt we go, the more vulnerable we are to foriegn interests. China and Japan are the two largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury bonds. If China decided to take their investments elsewhere, our economy could be hosed.

Some blogs blocked for troops

With little rhyme or reason. Coincidentally, my girlfriend works for Websense, the company providing the filtering service for the Air Force.

Nostalgia

It’s nice to see someone praising the score of Where Eagles Dare. I remember watching that credit sequence over and over, copied off a grainy squished channel 34 print. What a great movie. Probably the best from an Alistair McLean book. Guns of Navarone is a better novel, and an excellent film, but it lacks the catharsis of Clint Eastwood mowing down Nazis by the score. It also lacks hot Bavarian cleavage.

Where Eagles Dare has great atmosphere, and Richard Burton is at his coolest. Plenty of plots and counter plots and counter-counter plots.

Lileks is too harsh on American military music. Who can possibly dislike "Anchors Aweigh"? Sheesh! All that Victory at Sea stuff is great.

PLEA FOR THE PATRIOT ACT

Note to Congress

A curiously positive take on Afghanistan from the NY Times.

Revised Answers to Steve's Questions

First, perhaps you should say Republican friend, singular, as the other conservative members of this blog have been virtually silent.

Going after Hussein before getting bin Laden:

I’m not sure it was an either/or situation. Had we not gone into Iraq, would we now have bin Laden? I really don’t think you can put the rest of the war on hold until you capture a man that no one has seen for three years. Who knows when we’ll catch him. I’m not fully convinced that Osama’s not buried in the rocks somewhere.

I don’t see how you can make the argument that the war is best fought by doing one thing at a time, especially when the enemy is in many places at once doing several things at a time. The War on Terror is not just about Osama or al Qaeda, but a web of terror networks that spawn from a depraved midsection of the world.

Also, I apologize if I come across as an armchair general. That is certainly not my intention. My view is that I simply believe we should fight this war aggressively on multiple fronts, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. The overall strategy of going after states that support terror is one that I believe is sound. I try to refrain from “generalship” and leave the specifics up to the commanders. I also realize that even successful wars are a mess, so there is no point confusing victory with perfection.

Tax cuts:

To me, it is a moral issue. Money is property and belongs to the person that earned it. Government does not have a mandate (so far as I know) to redistribute wealth. However, government is responsible for national security and upholding constitutional freedoms. As such, taxes are necessary, but they should be as minimal, and they should cut evenly. I personally believe in a flat tax, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As for now, the rich get the bigger part of the tax cut because they pay the most taxes. Who am I to say that a dollar for a millionaire is not more precious than a dollar for a pauper? Most hand-to-mouth people I know piss their money away as it is (including myself). I have religious feelings about sharing wealth, but that does not mean that I can impose those feelings on others? I am not currently in the income bracket to fully enjoy the tax cuts, but someday I plan to be. (When I get a chance, I’ll look at my tax records and get back to you on that). I have recently joined the investing class, and the dividend tax cuts (I wish they were eliminated altogether) will be welcome. At first, since my dividends are still small, those cuts will be small. However, since I plan on increasing my wealth, I look forward to having a fair and (if Bush can come through during a second term) simplified tax code to help me gain wealth. Once I gain wealth, it's my business about what I do with it.

Tax cuts on the economy:

Most economists that I read (except Paul Krugman) seem to agree that tax cuts and tax certainty (i.e. making the tax cuts permanent) encourage investment, which encourages economic growth, which will create business and jobs. It’s an immense topic and I don’t pretend to know half of it, but I’m learning, slowly but surely. I’m still trying to figure out how much the deficit plays into things. I do believe that part of the reason why a big nation like the U.S. has better unemployment figures than smaller European countries (or the rest of the world, for that matter) is that it taxes lighter and puts more emphasis on individual freedom. Also, the tax cuts are meant for long-term benefit and haven't all gone into effect yet, so it’s impossible to estimate its effects this quickly. However, I certainly think they've played a part in the recovery. I know you don't want to hear about numbers so much, but allow me this one: in 2001 the CSMonitor was posting massive layoffs on an almost daily basis. Since the tax cuts, that trend stopped and has turned around. Aside from a slow mid summer period, this year has posted some pretty steady job creations. Those numbers mean something. When there were 9 democrats running for office, the talking point was that Bush lost 3 million net jobs. Now, Kerry is forced to say it's under a million. Considering that you agreed that the job hemorraging at the beginning of Bush's term was not due to Bush, I'm not sure what your gripe is.

No Child Left Behind:

I don’t have children at the present time, but it does not take much revisionist history to realize that education has been problematic throughout civilization -especially universal education. In fact, such a thing was not feasible until the last two hundred years. I’m not sure what you expect, but to think that a single initiative by the federal government, which accounts for an average of less than 6% of funding for public schools, is going to turn around education is just not realistic. I don’t know how this plan will work out, but I’m willing to give it time. I think that if the federal government is going to give money to schools, then they should set criteria. The schools can always opt out of the funding if they believe they can do better without it. Ultimately, education reform is going to come about locally. I think vouchers are an interesting alternative that I would like to see tried.

Defense of Marriage:

I oppose any amendment to the Constitution, whether for gay marriage or foreigners wanting to run for President. I strongly support leaving the Constitution alone. However, I don’t mind settling the issue of gay marriage through the amendment process. Why? For a couple of reasons. I would rather have the states decide through the legislative branch what is legal and what is not. If unelected judges decide that marriage can constitutionally be same sex, then forty-nine states will have to recognize Massachusetts law. Again, I have no qualms about same sex marriage, but I think it should be decided by the states. At least a amendment has to get a 2/3 vote through congress and then pass through three fourths of the state. At that point, Massachusetts is still able to approve gay marriage, but no other states are obligated to uphold their law. At least, that is how I understand it. The second reason: despite the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with same sex marriage, I don’t see how there’s enough support to pass the amendment. Ultimately, I know some conservatives see gay marriage as a long term threat, but since I don't share that view so I hesitate to explain that position.

The PATRIOT Act:

I don't know all the ways that this act has been used effectively, but I noticed that during the 9/11 Comission hearings, people from both sides of the aisle testified that it was long overdue. Not only am I not a armchair general, I'm not an armchair lawyer or cop either. If people in law enforcement thinks it will help them fight terror, and I don't see significant violations in civil liberties, then I say go for it. I have no problem at all about tweeking the law before renewing - strengthening it in some areas and cutting other areas out.

Whether it is due to the war abroad or the PATRIOT Act at home, I have taken note that there has not been a major terror attack on this soil since 9/11. I attribute that to us and not to the terrorists. I'd like to see that trend continue.

Ultimately, for 2004, I'm a single issue voter. It's about the war. That my candidate supports tax cuts, the 2nd Amendment, overhauling social security, and supporting judges that take a strict interpretation of the Constitution is all gravy.

In short: 1) I feel safer when we are fighting the war aggressively and everywhere; I'm not an armchair general, I'm an armchair cheerleader; 2) tax cuts promote investment in the economy; 3) No Child Left Behind is not an end-all reform measure, but deserves time to work; 4) I believe that government should stay out of the bedroom, and the bedroom should stay out of government; and 4) the only thing regrettable about the PATRIOT act is its awful name.

Just Curious...

Since it seems to be getting shrill around these parts concerning Mythical WMDs, historical revisionism on elections (stolen or whatever) or when a world body criticizes the United States by voicing the opinions of the rest of the planet...
I would like to hear from our republican friends why it was so necessary to go after Hussein when we were after (and quite possibly close to capturing) Bin Laden? Erm... wouldn't it have been better to finish one job before starting on another? Maybe this has been addressed before... but I want to read it succinctly stated (hopefully minus a flow chart, diagrams and lots of quotes from other blogs/news services/ whatever)

Or better yet, how about taking a break from the armchair generalship (as I'm sure our republican friends are mighty military commanders in their wargames or wherever it is they work out these brilliant strategies) and please tell me how their candidate is going to help things back home.

Please explain to me how the economy has improved thanks to the tax cuts... or marked improvements that the "no child left behind" act has made in American education... or perhaps to keep a little bit closer to the flavor of the times of late - how the Patriot Act has kept America safe. To venture into the absurd - let's even look at what if's. Like the defense of marriage act... please explain to me how this would improve the lives of americans. Really, I want to know.

And now here's the tricky part.

Instead of just quoting from the blogosphere... how about telling me how such things have made you feel safer, or you child has been better educated, or your job position has been improved. Or your marriage is better off for nearly having been made a constitutionally protected instituion. How have the tax cut and that 300~600 dollars we got way back in the day has overall improved your life?

Seriously, I'd like to hear it. Granted, I may critique it, but for now, I just want to hear some of the positive things you feel that Bush has done here.

Kofi's Conscience

In the wake of Kofi’s recent comments claiming that the U.S. invasion was illegal, (I’m not sure how that squares with UN resolutions 1441, 1511 and 1546, but I digress) it is prudent to look at a more egregious crime against humanity.

The “Stolen” Election

Hopefully, Nov. 2nd will put a stake in the heart of this myth.

Bill Kristol goes over Kerry's Iraq strategy

Why WMDs are Still a Valid Reason for the Iraqi Invasion and Why Circumstantial Evidence is Enough

And a little bit about the state of our intelligence

I don’t think that the WMD argument proved false. Granted, the stockpiles haven’t been found & many believe won’t be found, but it was not necessarily the stockpiles that were a threat to the U.S. so much as Saddam’s ability to make WMDs and provide them to terrorists. And we know that he had dormant programs, and we still firmly believe that he intended to restart them. In fact, many on the left have been quick to acknowledge Saddam’s possession of chemical weapons whenever they could blame the U.S. for providing them, so I fail to see how they rationalize that he did not have them in 2003. What has been found to suggest that Saddam would not have been able to supply terrorists with WMD? In fact, after the USS Cole bombing, Iraqi intelligence seemed open to providing al Qaeda with help in procuring chemical weapons. That threat was too real to ignore. In a post 9/11 world, the burden of proof was with the dictator to convince us that he meant no harm. He failed by not upholding the provisions of 1441.

As for keeping Saddam in a box, the clock was ticking on that. It was only through U.S. military pressure that weapons inspectors were able to get back into Iraq - costly military pressure. Certainly France, who had routinely opposed inspections and previous UN resolutions throughout the decade before, knew that it would hurt the U.S. to keep a large force cramped in Qatar, indefinitely, while the inspection charade dragged on. The longer the inspections went, the more difficult it was going to be for us to use those forces to advance a solution. There were only two options: 1) Saddam could come clean; or 2) the clock would run out.

Since Bush’s job is to protect the U.S., he had to assume the worst regarding Saddam. Given the intelligence, given the trauma of 9/11 on our economy, culture and security, given Saddam’s aspirations, how could Bush justify not toppling Saddam? Since he had been blamed for not connecting the dots with 9/11, how on earth could he explain another catastrophe that might have been facilitated by Iraq? He was looking at a region that was breeding and supporting terrorism. We definitely know that Saddam and the Taliban supported terror. We know that Saudi Arabia supported terror. We know that Egypt supports terror. We know that Syria, Libya, and Iran all support terror. The “stability” of the Middle East produced 9/11. That status quo was unacceptable. So who to go after first? When a cheetah hunts, it goes after the weakest in the herd. In this case, after the Taliban, it was the country that we had been exchanging fire with on a routine basis for the past 12 years and had 17 UN resolutions against it, making it outside the community of nations. It was the country with a dictator that had a vested interest in keeping the Middle East oppressed and problematic for the West.

Obviously Iraq is not the only threat. There’s Iran and Saudi Arabia. Look at the map. As Iran continues its support of nuclear weapons, is it not better that the U.S. has it pinched between Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey? It looks like a nasty zit, ready to pop if need be.

Going back to stockpiles…that we haven’t accounted for what was once out there is very troubling. I’m probably the only person on the planet who doesn’t believe that our intelligence was an overwhelming failure, but I was still alarmed at how little we knew. I was surprised to learn that the CIA did not have agents operating in Iraq. Subsequently, I doubt we have agents in N. Korea (though I hope to God S. Korea does) or Iran. We obviously have a lot of work to do on our intelligence in order to fight this war, but that does not mean we have the luxury of putting it off. We don’t. We put it off for over a decade and instead of changing our intelligence to fit the new threat, we concentrated on budget cuts. I don’t think Clinton should be singled out as the only culprit for this – we were all asleep. It was the climate of the 90’s. But that period is over.

Kerry doesn't understand the war

from yahoo

Kerry said Monday, "Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Kerry ignores the pre-war debate about attacking a country before it was an imminent threat. He also fails to acknowledge the evidence that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda (I realize that others on this blog don’t believe any Iraq/al Qaeda links. Too bad that you don’t consider very real circumstantial evidence in such a link to be as credible as fake memos and ax grinding charges from Bill Burkett towards our president).

He said Bush's invasion of Iraq has created a crisis that could lead to unending war and raises questions about whether Bush's judgment is up to presidential standards. He offered his own four-point plan starting with pressing other nations for help.
_ Get more help from other nations.
_ Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.
_ Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.
_ Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

? Wow! Kerry is sooo creative!

"By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war," Kerry said. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded."

I haven’t counted the reasons, myself, but I know there were more than one. And each one, including WMDs, holds up.

Kerry said Bush's two main rationales — weapons of mass destruction and a connection between al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 attacks — have been proven false by weapons inspectors and the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks.

Again, the deliberate blurring of al Qaeda and 9/11. (Note: even a Saddam-9/11 link hasn’t been proven false. Kerry should know that.)

Conclusion: Not only is the Bush/Cheney ticket the only sane one on the ballot, but I believe Bush is the only elected official in DC that is as patient as the terrorists.

Operation Fortunate Son

aka Operation Unfortunate Strategy:

On August 11, for example, Bob Tuke, the Tennessee state chair of Veterans for Kerry, told a Nashville radio station that, soon, "We may also know why Bush failed to show up for his medical exam that caused him to lose his flight status."

Let me guess, the reason why the DNC is locked into this suicidal campaign is because they are building the foundation for their “October surprise”…. Bush missed his physical because of cocaine.

Watching the Kerry campaign is like watching a train wreck….

RATHER TO BREAK FORGERY STORY?

Say it ain't so. A month ago I would've assumed that Bush got special treatment in the guard, but since CBS had to resort to bogus documents and claims from Bush-hater, Bill Burkett, I'm starting to think that he fulfilled his obligations. Why on earth would Bush have to answer claims based on forged documents, especially when they blew up in the face of the messenger like some incompetent suicide bomber?

CBS Reveals Copies of Kerry Senate Documents

Keeping the eye on the ball.

A good write-up on Bush's National Guard service. The best line:

"A guardsman who did less than he signed up for is coercing other guardsmen to do
more than they signed up for."

But, I don't think the swing voters give a damn about Bush's National Guard record, so I don't think it's going to hurt Bush.

The Burden Of Proof...

Do I think Bush lied about his service, ditched out on a medical exam, disobeyed a direct order and was treated preferentially?
As an unfounded belief, an article of faith?
Yes.
To me, it's par for the course for the scion of a corrupt brood of lying, self-serving usurpers who are desroying our political system and undermining the ideals of this country to return to the Gilded age of the late 19th century when the rich got everything and the rest of us had to work for them to do it.

AS an example, consider the tax cuts that were so touted.
I dunno bout you, but when I got a check for 300 dollars one year and in the following years have had to shell out upwards of $1500 a year in taxes, I'm not seeing any benefits.
And where's the improvement in the economy?
Not some bullshit listing of numbers showing an increase in jobs, but the atcual real jobs? Delta is shutting down operations here in Dallas - looking like a net loss of some 4000 jobs. American is picking up the terminal space, but that's only going to bring back some 1500-2000 jobs... still 2000 people out of work. This is an improving economy?

Getting back to the Draft thing, and my articles of faith...
No, I haven't read the Kitty Kelly book, but other documents/articles/books put out previously corroborate some of the other things she has (now famously) leaked.

So - off the soapbox for a minute - Dan Rather makes a good argument here.
If these are indeed fakes, then how come Bush himself refuses to pony up and say anything?
Can he stand up and directly contradict what the implication of these documents is?
Rather now admits that there is a strong possibility the documents themselves were forged (and nice to see how you on the right decide to attack him, instead of paying attention to the rest of the article) but goes on to say that the Secretary who dropped this bombshell corroborates the information contained therein.
So the papers are phony, but the idea presented is growing in credibility. And as Rather insisted - if these are fakes, come out and refute the implications.
This denial by implication is a smokescreen.
Especially now that we have a someone who while undermining the veracity of the papers, confirms the sentiment contained in them.
This situation is beginning to sound a lot like "kill the messenger" to me.

I guess I should be used to this since we have a presidency that is used to dealing in half truths and falsehoods...
Like the Imminent Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction being so much smoke, I guess I can't expect too much...
So let's see:
Lies: "I served my time in the National Guard"
Damn Lies: "Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, and can use them, as well as meeting with Al-Qaeda"
And Statistics: 1022 dead American Troops in Iraq.

Answer the questions.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Steve.

When faced with the option of admitting a mistake or wearing a clown nose during the evening news, Dan Rather would rather wear the nose

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night.”

A little late for that Mr. Rather. Can you believe this guy? He’s about the last newshound on earth to “break the story”, and if you read the rest of the story it’s clear that he’s still in denial. His recent arrogance is beyond baffling.

"The audience appears to [be] polarized," a top CBS source said from LOS ANGELES on Thursday. "Rightly or wrongly, we're being perceived as 'anti-Bush,' which I do not think is fair to Dan, who is a fine journalist...”

Rightly or wrongly? Try rightly.

Another Ramone Dies

Johnny Ramone of 'The Ramones' Dies at 55

Austin Bay from Iraq

"Money is ammo in Iraq, and right now our troops on the ground are short-changed."

WMD used in Darfur

According to Die Welt. Note: Syrian involvement.

From the Corner on NRO: scroll down to the third photo and look out the window. And this site with some good poster/bookcover art.

A French leader with an American dream

You could've knocked me over with a feather. Chris Matthews actually looked back at the whole Cheney quote and corrected his interpretation. Next thing you know, Kerry/Edwards might remove it from their talking points.

The Democrats can't buy a break. They thought they had Bush on serving in the Air Force, but it turns out that he did. It is getting to the point that the only slime left is what is in Kitty Kelly's book.

Am I dreaming?

DNC TO LAUNCH FRESH ATTACK ON BUSH GUARD DUTY...

Never let 'em see you duped

The blogosphere swats three with one blow:

I know you are all probably weary of memos after the weekend's onslaught. But it would be remiss of me to not blog on what I’ve spent much of the weekend looking at. A few points:

First, Dan Rather decided to defend his story based on newly uncovered and questionable memos. I doubt the blogosphere will be content with his defense. No matter, this won't sink that stubborn ol' cuss.

Second, Terry McCauliffe, who has used multiple and inconsistent stratagems to defend Kerry's Cambodia claims ranging from backing Kerry’s claims to knowledge of any claims…IN THE SAME DAY!!! (see Hugh Hewitt- scroll to the bottom). His bottom line on Kerry’s service is that it doesn’t matter what happened three decades ago. But he wasted no time in asking where Bush was during the time and musing that perhaps the fake memos were a Karl Rove plant. Cute. To the DNC Karl Rove is the Evil Genius that is responsible for all of the Democrats’ woes. As for Vietnam relevancy: Kerry has built his tour of duty as his primary credential for the presidency, Bush has not.

Third, Kerry campaign attack poodle, John Edwards, called on Bush to explain the memos. Thus drawing the campaign into the mud. Bush’s National Guard duty is a legitimate target for questioning and I’m glad that Kerry is going after it. Full speed ahead!

A brief summary of the chatter:

Little Green Footballs and Powerline seem to have took the lead on the memos. Scroll around, there’s plenty.

Hugh Hewitt has some good round-ups.

Stephen Hayes, a good investigative journalist.

Byron York defends Bush’s service here and elsewhere.

Instapundit has this interesting comparison.

Media Matters provides the most comprehensive defense for CBS regarding the superscript and font type, etc.

Interesting that Media Matters hyperlinks Talking Points here, but scroll up and you’ll see that Talking Points backs off its defense.

And there’s Atrios.

Bush and Congress give terrorists new tools on the homefront, despite the urgings of law enforcement. Yes, potential terrorists probably could have smuggled assault weapons into the U.S. during the ban, but the idea is to make it as hard as possible for them to get their hands on them.

I had satisfied myself with restrictions on weapons with the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. Those were 2 pieces of legislation designed to limit the mass-killing ability of a bad guy, while allowing people with clean records to obtain handguns and hunting rifles. Plus, I gave up on any more restrictions when Newt Gingrich put off debate on guns for two weeks right after Columbine, as he did not want to pass hasty legislation. Apparently, the threshold for hasty legislation is somewhere between 13 and 2700 dead.

At least, when a few al Qaeda with AK-47's spray down dozens in a shopping mall or elementary school, we know whom to hold accountable for allowing them get ahold of the weapons.

Beware Mat! The Big Eye will be watching.

Mayor Daley (D) outlines elaborate camera network for Chicago

The Buzzflash lead today is funny:

“Edwards Calls Cheney Remark 'Un-American.' Asks Bush to Apologize. You Got That Right. Cheney is Holding America Hostage to Terrorist Threats.”

Come now, Edwards, stop whining and be a man about it. To date, I haven’t heard Bush or Cheney call any of their opponents ‘Un-American’ or question their patriotism, etc. And yet, they are shrilly accused of doing so or creating an atmosphere for such rhetoric, while both Kerry and Edwards engage in that type of rhetoric directly.

Take a look at the Cheney quote as presented by the AP:

“It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

Implying that a vote for Kerry would result in an attack. That would sink the rhetoric down to the same kind fear mongering rhetoric that Mat dislikes.

But take a look at the full quote from the transcript:

“We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.”

That’s something completely different. That’s questioning Kerry’s beliefs on the nature of the war – a legitimate difference based on Kerry’s own remarks. I wonder if the AP writer kept a straight face when misquoting Cheney.

Mickey Kaus on Kerry's Dept. of Wellness

France didn't oppose Iraqi freedom simply on moral grounds. It was in their financial interest to keep Iraqis oppressed.

Kerry and Foreign Policy

Kerry attempted to bamboozle MTV vote rockers in his first “serious” interview since the Swift Boat ad (Sorry, the second serious interview. I forgot about the Daily Show):

Yago: Your exit strategy for Iraq is based on the idea that if you're elected, you'll be able to bring our traditional allies back to the table to help our cause, but what if they say no to you?

Kerry: Well, I have a lot of tools available to me. This president has not done the statesmanship and has not shown the leadership to bring other countries to us. Their resistance to [helping in] Iraq is not only based on Iraq: It's based on the fact that the United States is now pursuing new nuclear weapons, even as we talk about other countries not having them. It's based on the fact that we walked away from the global warming treaty and we dissed 160 nations that worked 10 years to try to build a cooperative attitude. Only the U.S. said "no" and walked away. We haven't paid attention to North Korea, nuclear weapons there. We've ignored AIDS in Africa and elsewhere in the world. So we need to show global, moral, responsible leadership, and if we do that we're going to be far more inviting to other nations to come to our side. In addition, the president has done almost nothing to reduce the increasing clash of radical Islam with moderate Islam and the rest of the world's religions. We need to reach out to people and isolate the fundamentalist extremists and not have them isolate us. That's a big difference. I'll conduct a foreign policy that lives up to America's values, I'll conduct a war that makes America safer, and I will win friends and allies to our side.

One of the problems before 9/11 was that there was no clash between radical Islam and moderate Islam and the rest of the world’s religions. The radicals got away with murder, literally. Sadly, there still isn’t enough of a clash. It took that attack in Beslan for Russia to accept preemption. What’s it going to take for France or Germany? Kerry’s Kyoto malarkey is discussed here. His allegation that we’ve ignored AIDS in Africa is refuted here. His “we haven’t paid attention to North Korea” claim is discounted here.

And then there was the speech he gave in Cincinnati where he framed Iraq in terms of what it was costing us at home. To his credit, Kerry managed to explain how he could afford trillions of dollars in new domestic programs:

After-School Programs:
…$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children…

Veteran Healthcare:
…$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans.

Cops:
…$200 billion dollars for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford to keep the 100,000 police officers we put on the streets during the 1990s.

Slush fund for Education, Heath Care and Job Creation:
…$200 billion that we're not investing in education and health care, job creation here at home…

An extra $200 billion leftover from the “go it alone” fee:
…$200 billion for going it alone in Iraq.

Unemployment or Job Creation:
And while we're spending that $200 billion in Iraq -- that's to this date; it will go on -- 8 million Americans are looking for work here in America.

Health Care Cost:
$200 billion in Iraq, while the costs of health care are going through the roof.

Medicare:
They're charging 17 percent more for Medicare while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq.

Deficit Reduction:
…we're spending $200 billion in Iraq while we're running up the biggest deficits in American history, the biggest deficits announced yesterday and the biggest debt.

Energy Independence:
...we're spending $200 billion there instead of investing in making America energy independent.

Homeland Security:
...we're spending $200 billion in Iraq, while we're told that we can't afford to do everything that we should be doing for homeland security.

For a total of $2.2 trillion!

Finally, Bill Kristol discusses Kerry's foreign policy shortcomings and his worst enemy, himself.

Captain Ed has the audacity to question Kerry's ability to lead this nation.

The Pentagon's New Map

This weekend on C-SPAN I saw the author of this piece lecture on the military’s new role in the world. It was informative and gave a taste of the kind of thinking that is going on in the Pentagon. The piece I linked to covers part of his lecture, though it was written prior to the Iraqi invasion so it doesn’t cover the current state of security in Iraq. If you get a chance to see it on C-SPAN, it will be worth your time.

On a related note: the Belmont Club has this post about our missile defense posture that was noteworthy.

The Kerry Dilemma – To Fight or Not to Fight

From Newseek: “John Kerry wanted to hit back. It had been a miserable August as he took incoming fire about his military service from a gang of hostile Vietnam vets. But no, campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill and other staffers argued, the Swift Boat ads would blow over.”

James Carville says: Every attack must be responded to. (attributed by me)

From the NYT: “In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam”

Whew! Thank God this fellow isn’t making decisions for a country during a time of change. His indecisiveness has turned his very campaign into a quagmire. We need a Fortinbras more than we need a Hamlet.

TO THE GUTTERS!!!

"Is any alcoholic ever really cured?"

Somehow, after three years of Bush bashing, the anti-Bush crowd thinks they haven't been aggressive enough. Susan Estrich (whom I admire, by the way) thinks it's time to fight fire with fire. It promises to be another muddy 60 days.

What is Kerry thinking? Why does he insist on keeping Vietnam front and center of his campaign while refusing to confront the Swiftboat charges. I don't get it.

Final Night of the Convention

"Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called 'walking.'"

Bush did what he had to do and perhaps a little more. He was a little slow coming out of the gate, but by about 15 minutes into the speech he found a brisker rhythm and I don’t think the protestors did much to throw him off his track.

He outlined his domestic agenda but didn’t get too specific, being a convention speech and all. There were a few bold proposals, from malpractice reform and a health care buying plan for small businesses to social security reform and re-hauling the tax code. I think his “ownership society” rhetoric will resonate among voters. As someone who has recently been breaking into the investor class, I particularly like the idea of individual accounts. For people that criticize Bush for tapping into social security, they should welcome the “nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away.”

All in all, he did a good job focusing on the future and in describing his last term as part of that projection into the future. He effectively explained that many of our institutions and laws were designed for the last 50 years and the we need to change them to accommodate the present and future.

In contrast to the Yahoo article posted by Mat, I think Bush has got a winning argument about Kerry disrespecting our allies:

“In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a ‘coalition of the coerced and the bribed.’ That would be nations like Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, El Salvador, Australia, and others — allies that deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician. I respect every soldier, from every country, who serves beside us in the hard work of history. America is grateful, and America will not forget.”

Everyone knows that the U.S. has most of the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But regardless of how much support we’re given by these countries, support is support, and it is wise to appreciate and be thankful for that support instead of ridiculing it. That is, if you want support in the future. Surely, that is taught in Diplomacy 101.

And Bush showed himself to be humble and emotional, something Kerry has hitherto been unable to express. Unless your heart has been hardened against him, W. came across as sincere and humble; emotional but collected.

Convention Summary - I think the convention was definitely stronger than the one in Boston. Obviously, the GOP figures that the War on Terror is the issue of the day and that it’s a winner for them. I’m not sure what kind of bounce Bush will get in the polls, but I personally had about a 7- point bounce.

Believe the WORDS....

A portrait of the man leading us in these troubled times.

France and the U.S. cooperating?

Third Night of the Convention (aka: All You Can Eat)

I am stuffed like a tick! I haven’t had that much red meat in years! Zell Miller absolutely sassed his party. Sassed it! He beat on Kerry like a tap drum. And as passionate as he was – as much anger as he has towards his fellow Dems – he still didn’t scream and yell and look like a madman they way former Vice President Al Gore has been partial to doing this year. There will be some gristle left over for the Kerry camp to chew on and complain about, but that speech had to smart. Overall, that was the most damning condemnation of Kerry, yet. Zell took his senate record, which Kerry strategically ignored during his own convention leaving it wide-open and unprotected, and he flayed it to pieces. It wasn’t just a few stray votes that you can easily chalk up to the amendment process and nuance. He depicted a voting pattern.

Then came Cheney. He was far more collected and stoic than Miller, but still brutal towards Kerry while comparing the two candidates at the end of the speech. They painted Kerry, alright. By the end or the night that donkey had two thick coats on him before they set him out to wander.

Afterwards, Miller, still fired up, was on Chris Matthews. Matthews asked (and I paraphrase): “do you really think that Kerry and Kennedy want to defend this nation with spitballs (as he said in the speech)?” That was about the time that Miller went off on Chris, saying stuff like he knew he would ask that type of garbage, etc. Of course Matthews kept asking it and Miller responded with something like: “You know what metaphor is don’t you Chris?” Zell got a little carried away, but it was funny stuff. Even Matthews, with rating points in his eyes, liked it. He and panel were laughing about interview for a while afterwards.

So after three strong nights of speeches, which perhaps crescendoed tonight, I'm wondering how Bush will tie it all up in a neat little package for the voters tomorrow. Can he cap off a strong aggressive convention with his intimate theater in the round performance? Stay tuned.

A Call For Reason

From REASON Magazine

Second Night of the Convention

Another good convention night, speech-wise. If anyone thought that Arnold regretted his girlie man remark in California, well they now know different. The speech was simple, but effective. I particularly liked the parts about growing up in Austria and his immigrant story. Many have pointed out that this was the first convention to positively invoke the name of Nixon.

And what can you say about the Bush girls? Ouch. Lileks made a good observation:

"Next, the Twins. Painful. Turn-the-channel-painful. They have to stop dragging the kids out in these events before a candidate has a pregnant wife and the fetus has to appear via sonogram. Look! It’s giving us the thumbs up!"

But the hamster joke was funny. I’ll give Clinton credit on this score, after 8 years in office, I don’t think I heard his daughter give one speech.

Laura Bush didn’t say too much that was surprising. Her job was to simply be a classy lady. However, it was notable that despite the compassionate conservative theme, the war was once again front and center, even in her speech. I guess that pitch is the center poll in their big tent.

Swift Boats and Double Standards

It's come to THIS?

A new low has been achieved.

It's one thing to attack a candidate for his actions, unfortunate but expected in the modern politcal climate.
But to lump all those who have been decorated for injury in service to their country, by parodying this medal... it's disgusting.
And the right calls people who question their actions and decisions unpatriotic?
How DARE YOU.
Then again, we're talking the same mindset which allows for the torture and humiliation of human beings to be written off as "the same as a college prank"... I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Oh no... we're simply mocking Kerry and his war record.

Well folks, at least he has one.

(a bit later)

Okay some clarification after speaking with a veteran of Gulf War I...

A purple heart can be given out for just about anything - like say a guy skins his fingers peeling potatoes on KP duty. Bada bing purple heart time.

The difference is - the recipient still got injured in service to their country. That guy on KP still nicked himself after answering the call to duty, and sacrificed his time and freedom for the greater good. He did that so you can sit at home and watch "Friends" without too much fear...

It ain't what they got it for, it's what they were doing that put them in the position to get that injury. In short - serving their country.

Something very few (if any) people in the current administration can claim to have done.

Cheerleaders for truth

This is getting lowdown and dirty.

First Night of the Convention

There was no hesitation in bringing 9/11 and Iraq front and center in the event. I mentioned in a comment before that I did not like the location and timing of the convention and thought it was a little too clever. But, I suppose, if you’re going to do that, you might as well go full throttle. Ron Silver’s (a democrat, I think) speech forcefully set the tone: “This was a war against us!”

And later:

“Even though I am a well-recognized liberal on many issues confronting our society today, I find it ironic that many human rights advocates and outspoken members of my own entertainment community are often on the front lines to protest repression, for which I applaud them but they are usually the first ones to oppose any use of force to take care of these horrors that they catalogue repeatedly.”

In my estimate, the words were dead on even if his delivery was a bit too fiery. The crowd liked it. I must admit that it bothers me a bit when the speaker says something about the tragedy of war or the oppressive nature of Saddam’s regime and the people applaud. But aren’t they applauding the sentiment?

The 1-2 punch of John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani was pretty potent. For eye-rolling cynics who thought the GOP was going to put their most moderate foot forward on the first night, they heard, instead, two of the most hawkish politicians out there.

McCain, who was the first to call for Saddam’s head after 9/11, strongly defended and praised the president. I’m not even sure the Daily Show will be able to mock his commitment to Bush, unless they resort to Michael Moore tactics. In describing the president’s choice in deciding to invade, McCain said, “It was between war and a greater threat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.” I agree. McCain was conciliatory and spoke as a senator who cooled his feet in both political pools. Perhaps those few weeks where Kerry flirted with McCain as his VP candidate lent McCain some gravitas when he extended his hand across parties tonight. He was hardly moderate, though, in his defense of the war.

Giuliani was brilliant. He turned the convention into a night with Rudolph. He weaved effortlessly between humor and tragedy. He laid out some vivid accounts of the 9/11 attacks and a personal story about Bush with NYC construction workers a few days later. Giuliani is the first politician that I’ve have heard to go so aggressively at Arafat:

“Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table…How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?”

And he continued:

“Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

“President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

“On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.
He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.

The president announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.

“It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’”

And then there was the comical take down of Kerry. All in all, it was an excellent speech.

Lileks, who dismissed McCain, had this to say about the former mayor: “…what Giuliani did was completely typical: aggressive graciousness. It’s why people who disagree with many of his positions admire him greatly, and why he spoke Monday night. And dang: he was good. He was hard: first time I’ve heard someone get up and slam Arafat by name in such a context. A sharp elbow at Germany. A Kerry section played mostly for laughs. An amazing last 10 minutes - dodged nothing."

We’ll see what tomorrow brings….

Rich Lowry's account of the protests yesterday.

A kid was holding a sign, "Stop the war on youth, from here to Najaf."
"So," I asked, "do you support al Sadr?"
"I do as long as he's resisting U.S. imperialism."
"OK, so you support Islamic fundamentalism?"
"No," he said, walking away.
"Well, he's an Islamic fundamentalist," I said.
He came back up to me, "Just because you support the youth doesn't mean you side with an extremist."
"Sadr is an Islamic extremist, he's very clear about it."
"It's their mosque."
"He seized the mosque by force!"
"You're wrong," he said. "He supports elections."
"No, he doesn't! He opposes elections."
"Well," he said, walking away again, "they are U.S.-supported elections. Of course he opposes U.S.-supported elections."

Another installment of good news in Iraq.

Rocking the Vote

Did anyone watch the MTV music awards? I didn’t, but heard about the Kerry daughters getting booed at. Was the crowd booing at the daughters or the get-out-the-vote pitch? Just curious.

The Protests in New York: America is Better Than This

While watching the protestors file past Madison Square Garden, I couldn’t help but think how plump and healthy they all were. In contrast to women that marched to Versailles, to the people who surrounded the Winter Palace, or even to the Bonus Marchers, many of these folks looked as though they took some vacation time for a road trip to New York City to celebrate their collective distaste for Dubya. The atmosphere was party-like. There was music and there was dancing and outlandish costumes and balloon heads of the Asses of Evil. You had people of all stripes and many cut a most singular figure. Today, 7th Ave was the place where non-conformists could go to conform with other non-conformists.
Estimates of the crowd ranged from 100K to 500K. I couldn’t attest to which figure was closer, but it was a sight larger than the protests in Boston, and yet, no cages of which I’m aware.
Some of the placards were well worn:
“Stop Bush Now”,
“End the Occupation of Iraq”,
“LIAR!” (under the face of Bush),
“Bush Lies/Who Dies?”,
and a personal favorite, “Fuck Bush!”
Well! I don’t…
And others were a little newer:
“It’s the Neo-Cons Stupid! Not the CIA”,
and “Got Democracy” with a hooded Abu Ghraib prisoner backed by the stars and stripes.
I was surprised that the chant of choice was “Fox News Sucks”, even more popular than “Bush and Cheney: Asses of Evil.” Several in the crowd were alternating chants of “fuck you!” and “bullshit!” Followed by a lady holding the placard “Stop World Hate”.
I saw part of a placard that said “This is what democracy looks like,” but the picture was obstructed by another sign.
Lots of anger out there, no doubt about it. One of the signs simply read: “America Is Better Than This.” Indeed.

Did he really say this? “Well, I don't think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants."- Bush, in the NY Times interview.

Krauthammer derides interventionist foreign policy -
"highfalutin moral principles are impossible guides to foreign policy. At worst, they reflect hypocrisy; at best, extreme naiveté."

An analysis on the Bush job numbers over the last 14 months, throwing out the worst 2 months. Granted, it's by a Clinton economic adviser, but there are a lot of interesting facts, such as that before the July jobs report, "Merrill Lynch & Co. had concluded that almost 90 percent of new jobs created since last August are in job categories paying below average wages."

The did-something Senator from Massachussettes.

Pretty damning!

Krauthammer thinks that unhinged dems are a result of a "pressure cooker theory."

Thomas Sowell says: "Senator Kerry has argued for a more "nuanced" approach to foreign policy and a more "sensitive" way of fighting international terrorism. People who cannot make hard choices often talk about complexity and nuance, about gray areas and twilight issues." That's part 3 of a 3 part series. Part one and part two dwell more on the swift vet issue.

I believe Bush made a constitutional mistake by signing McCain-Feingold. This article makes some pretty good points.

Kerry's Testimony and Other Items of Interest

So - was going to add the linkage to my previous post, but I figured it was better to make a new one. So here it is. Courtesy of the nice folks at www.truthout.org

Commentry on this to follow.

And as far as SBVFT having no ties to the Bush camp - MediaMatters would

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Waiting for Blair: I’m not “in” with the bloggers, yet. I noticed the following post off Tim Blair’s site last week. He’s been on a road trip between conventions before he heads back to his home in Australia. After writing humorously about his time in Albuquerque he announces:

“Tonight, in Oklahoma City, the recommended bar is called Edna's. I have no idea yet where Edna's is, but will try to be there by 8.30pm. Presently in Tucumcari.”

What better way to meet the man? So my brother and I were at Edna’s at 8:30. Apparently his Oklahoma following is either small or simply not mobilized since we were the only two in the bar aside from Edna and some regular. I asked Edna if she’s heard about any “visitors” due in that night. She was distrustful at first, but as we explained who Tim Blair was and that someone out west had recommended Edna’s to him, she was thrilled and began cleaning up the bar for her special visitor.

Anyway, 8:30 came and went; then 9:30 and 10:30. We soon called it a night and left.

The next day, Mr. Blair posted his experience in OKC. Evidently, my brother and I were not the right Hills. I also noticed that he ran into Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) in Knoxville. Glenn posted this picture/account of the two of them (I’m not sure who is who).

But that’s not all. His countless nights of drinking produced this amusing post by lefty blogger Ken Layne. Tim Blair posted this response to tell his side.

So all that drinking and I still didn’t have a chance to break bread with a blogger! Maybe next time.

You Show Me Yours, I'll Show You Mine
Democratic Underground has a very interesting thread (rather long though) on how the W is photographed wearing a medal he apparently did not earn.
I'm sure that our republican friends will attempt to downplay this since it's not a purple heart and they're trying to shift the argument from the Swift Boat Veterans Attacks to the fact that possibly one of Kerry's medals is undeserved. Anyway, here's the article .

Also - has anyone read the transcript of Kerry's testimony - seems to me he's saying the exact same things about the leadership then as people are saying now. (linkage to follow)

Answering My Own Question

I recently asked in a reply to a previous post why doesn't Bush stand up and discuss his war record since his party is making such a point of trying to pick apart Kerry's, seems that opposing comparison would be a good way to Distinguish himself (unless of course, there isn't any such record to speak of).
While this article doesn't address that directly, it does make a good point as to why Bush himself doesn't discuss things, and has other people do his dirty work for him.

So Bush denounced the Anti-Kerry ad. Now it's time for Kerry to call off his 527 attack dogs.

Some Iraqi scientists have been unable to talk about WMDs because of premature death.

With all that searing, Kerry should be tougher than twice-baked biscuit.

I realize Kerry has his magic wand and he says he will make France and Germany fall in line, but, all joking aside, why can’t he take our national security seriously? I’m thinking of his reaction to Bush’s realignment plan. Consider what Kerry said in January of this year about the need for re-posturing. He was for it then, but when Bush proposes re-posturing, Kerry is suddenly against it, as he expressed before a group of veterens:

“Finally, I want to say something about the plan that the President announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way.

“Let’s be clear: the President’s vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war against terror. And in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. And this hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers.

“For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea – a country that really has nuclear weapons? As Senator John McCain said, “I’m particularly concerned about moving troops out of South Korea when North Korea has probably never been more dangerous than any time since the end of the Korean War.” This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time.

“With al Qaeda operating in 60 countries, we need closer alliances in every part of the world to fight and win the war on terrorism. So, as president, I will be a commander in chief who renews our alliances based on shared interests and a common vision for a safer world. For more than 50 years, our allies have joined with us to say: the future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.”

Where to begin? How is it that the time was right in January for rearranging, but not now? Condi Rice makes a stronger case when she suggests that it makes no sense to maintain a Cold War posture while fighting a war on terror.

Also, an announcement following a three-year study on troop placement is about as “hasty” as a two year march to war is a "rush." The main reason for the plan is to enhance our ability to maintain our commitments, not compromise it.

Kerry takes particular issue with withdrawing troops from S. Korea:

“For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea – a country that really has nuclear weapons?”

How is Kerry so sure that N. Korea has nuclear weapons? Has he forgotten his own criticisms about Iraq and our intelligence deficiencies? N. Korea says they have a bomb, but does that make it so? Kerry rakes our intelligence over the coals in Iraq, but then absolutely assumes that nukes in N. Korea are a fact. I’m all for assuming that they have bombs, but I’m hesitant about stating it as fact given what we know about Iraq. (And I’m someone who doesn’t think American intelligence has be an absolute failure) Kerry is making the same mistake that he so harshly charges Bush as making. He is reckless on both claims. If he’s elected president using his current rhetoric about the certainty of nukes in N. Korea, and it turns out that N. Korea did not yet have a device, then will he have misled us?

Second, how are 12,000 troops going to defend against a nuclear attack? I think Rumsfeld made a good case about reducing our manpower while increasing the lethality of our forces there. Capability will be what the N. Koreans pay attention to, not just the number of bodies. Rumsfeld’s logic is that a streamlined force positioned away from the DMZ line and armed with precision weaponry increases our agility and ability to respond. But Kerry is content to leave 12,000 unnecessary troops that will be of minimal usefulness according to Rumsfeld and Meyers. And, in case of a nuclear attack, this excess could potentially become 12,000 extra casualties. This must be what Kerry means when he says, “As president, I will always remember that America’s security begins and ends with the soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and Coastguardsman.”

Kerry says that he will get large numbers of troops from countries that have hitherto been against the liberation of Iraq & that he will significantly reduce US troops from Iraq & that this will reaffirm our commitment to fighting the war on terror. However, re-posturing our Cold War footing is going to bring doubts to our commitment? If I was a terrorist, I’d be licking my chops over a Kerry victory.

Why does Bush hate free speech?

ATTENTION: if any of you have a link or links that you feel should be included on the link section of the blog, let me know and I will add them.

Forsaking the profession: Overall, I like the folks at the Daily Show, but they (specifically John Stewart) have struggled with the war and the election. Stewart’s increasingly apparent partisanship comes at the expense of his comedy. Satire should poke at the truth beneath the surface, not just at the surface itself. An example was his coverage regarding the recent stepping down of James McGreevey. Despite news of corruption and a pending harassment suit on McGreevey, Stewart chose to imply that the governor was forced to resign simply for being gay. The whole thing went over Stewart’s head.

When it comes to the evil right, Stewart and his audience are easily fooled. Friday featured Clinton who made two disingenuous charges regarding the Swiftboat Veterens for Truth. First was that it was the same group that led a smear campaign on McCain. Second, that there was some criticism of the charges on the recent commercial and that “some” had been recounted.

The “group” Clinton referred to is a Houston homebuilder that donated $100,000 to the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. The homebuilder is also generous donator to the GOP and has given money to the Bush campaign. The group did not exist in 2000. In fact, the leader, John O’neill, has been politically dormant since criticizing Kerry in the early 70’s (the Dick Cavett Show featuring a 1971 debate between O’neill and Kerry is a must see). So their funding is primarily republican. Duh. No matter how bipartisan the Swifties are, what Kerry supporters would give them money? Indeed, there seems to be quite a bit of reticence on behalf of the mainstream media in covering/scrutinizing the charges.

As for the recounted charge: one of Kerry’s commanders, Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, expressed regret that he signed an affidavit indicating that he believed Kerry was dishonest about his war record. Why did he regret it? Because, based on the ad, it appeared that his conclusion came from firsthand knowledge. The Elliott still holds the belief that Kerry was being dishonest, but this belief is based on what he learned from others. He also felt that the Boston Globe story misrepresented him.

But Stewart and his audience swallowed Clinton’s claims hook, line and sinker. That’s nothing new, Clinton is good at getting people to swallow.

Previously, Stewart ridiculed the vets because they did not serve on the same boat as Kerry – equating that to simply being in Vietnam at the same time. That too was disingenuous. There’s so much comedy gold in Kerry’s imaginary escapades into Cambodia – Stewart needs to wake up and start being a comedian again.

The Kerry Campaign Platform. Simple, Elegant, Correct.

Bush declares an end to the German occupation

25 instances of Bush flip-floppery

The Frenchurian candidate is no doubt spending this weekend searing January into his mind. Hugh Hewitt on Cambodia. Chris Matthews on John O'neill.

Hammorabi is keeping up on the fighting in Najaf.

When you are a master of illusion, it's no good simply having a magic wand. One must also have a magic hat. All Kerry is missing is a magic cloak so he can avoid attention until election day. Hugh Hewitt has been all over the Cambodia story.

Low hanging fruit. Great Bush response to Kerry’s defense of his war vote.

The Conservative Case Against the Conservative Case Against George Bush
By someone who is not a Bryk

We live in some heady times and it is natural that after three years of war people would want a break in the action. Sadly, though, such a break would not play to our advantage. Instead, perseverance is the order of the day. What is needed is a president that is decisive and bold. Fifteen shades of nuance and self-doubt are not going to defeat the terrorists because they feed off that sort of uncertainty. That is why a conservative argument to elect John Kerry over George Bush is tantamount to suicide for the party and a detriment to the republic. On the whole it is utterly ridiculous. If Bush has been such a violation to party principles, then the time to throw him out of office would have been during the party’s nomination. Every point that Mr. Bryk uses for his argument would be made worse with a Bush defeat and the long-term goal of righting the conservative course would be hopelessly derailed.

Bryk does not bother acknowledging the natural shifts in the economy or the potentially disastrous impact of terrorism on our economy and way of life. He does not even recognize the long-term internal debates among conservatives, which are at the very core of allowing the conservative movement adapt to the times and remain a viable political force. Instead, Bryk chooses to paint the president as an incompetent cheat, harping on deficit spending and preemptive war to suggest the he has recklessly discarded conservative principles wholesale.

But first things first: nobody has announced that there should be no criticism of this president. But, in the same way that Texans in the Alamo probably didn’t spend too much time criticizing their commanders while Santa Ana’s forces stormed the walls, Bush supporters, like me, are a bit busy defending the man from the onslaught of strident condemnation to offer much in the way of criticism. Still, you don’t have to search too far to see conservative criticism of Bush. Several of the points that Bryk cites are discussed on a daily basis in the blogosphere. These are not the shrill “you stepped on my rights” outcries that you are used to hearing on the left, but real and sober discussions defining conservatism and what direction it should be going. Conservative critics of Bush, most of whom I believe will still vote for the man, have taken the president to task on his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, his treatment of Saudi Arabia in our war strategy, his position on gay marriage & the wisdom of a marriage amendment, etc. etc. In fact, back in 2002 and 2003 while many liberals were crying for a “real” debate over the proposed war in Iraq, a real debate was already going on, mainly in conservative circles. It was at that time that the preemption doctrine was created and the rationale for invading a country that did not pose and “imminent” threat was hammered into shape. That 18-month period was a phase for the gradual lead up to the war that most of the democratic presidential candidates chose to characterize as a “rush” to war. If Bryk thinks that the pro-Bush position is to submissively fall in line, then he simply has not been awake. And Bush has been very open to differing views. Time and again he chose to follow the advice of others in the spirit of concession: whether it was in going to congress or the U.N. for support or in supporting steel tariffs to help an ailing industry. The fact is that no democratically elected leader can survive if they are as dense and thick skulled at critics charge Bush as being.

Bryk defines the conservative doctrine to suggest that it is some sort of unchangeable law. The idea that conservative values cannot or do not change over time is a fallacy. As a writer with a history background, Bryk should be aware that the Republican party of TR’s time, whom he quotes, has shed a few skins between then and now. TR’s predecessor, McKinley, sponsored an unprecedented large tariff and led a party that supported world intervention. Indeed, TR was a major interventionist himself. That was before the party shifted to isolationism. That interventionist tendency has returned. The conservative isolationists are an increasingly shrinking group forced to rally around the likes of Pat Buchanan and the American Conservative. But to listen to Bryk, one would assume that the neo/paleo con rift is something that Bush initiated in an unprincipled fashion. Bryk blurs the distinction between libertarianism and conservatism. When he does make the distinction, he fails to credit Bush for upholding the conservative values. For example, he says conservatives believe “that political and economic liberty were indivisible” but fails to mention that this very notion drives the Bush doctrine in foreign policy. He says, “that government's purpose was protecting those liberties” but does not acknowledge that the Bush administration believes that by fighting the war on terror they are protecting those liberties. On this point, it should be noted that many conservatives (and some 9/11 democrats) have criticized the president for not allowing racial profiling in airport security so that the government might fight the war more effectively and be less intrusive on the rest of us. Bush is also heavily criticized for not funding state police or beefing up border patrols – things some of us conservatives equate with a “police state”

And then there is this: “Thus American conservative politics championed private property, an institution sacred in itself and vital to the well-being of society.” This idea of a private property is the core of Bush’s 2004 platform about an ownership society. The recognition of private property is nothing new to the way Bush thinks or acts. His view of taxes is that money belongs to the people who earned it and not as government property to be doled out like an entitlement. With limited success, Bush pushed for the elimination of the dividend tax, which is very much in line with the way conservatives view tax dollars.

Bryk’s arguments are most effective on the domestic front. Conservatives have a reason to be on edge about record deficits and increased government spending. Bryk’s argument about agricultural subsidies will stick to conservatives most of all. But woe to the president that gets between congress and its pork-barrel spending, especially if that president didn’t win in a landslide and there can’t bludgeon the congress with the people’s mandate. No doubt, if Bush had decided to use his veto powers even once during his first term, legislators would label him as a divider and not a uniter. Fiscal conservatives have been complaining to Bush about his spending and he has indicated that fiscal prudence will play a larger role in his policies. Since he’s already passed the tax cuts, the drug benefit and No Child Left Behind, it is likely that a second term will see more cuts and less entitlement expansions. Even with all that, non-homeland security and defense spending increase 1% under Bush, compared to 15% under Clinton. That stat is nothing to base a platform on, but it does suggest some fiscal frugality somewhere in the mix. In contrast, his opponent, in the spirit of trying to have it both ways, criticizes Bush for recklessly spending too much and yet dreadfully under-funding every program. He is likely to increase spending and increase taxes more than Bush.

Bush’s energy bill is a different matter. Congress hasn’t passed an energy bill since Bush is in office and considering the energy crisis we are going through now, it is high time they did. Bush would be well served to make his energy plan a focal point for his campaign.

The deficit argument will not resonate during a time of war. It is curious that Bryk would cite the growth of our debt from now to 2040 when the previously cited 10-year estimate missed the mark. Conclusion: such projections are not accurate. But, since Bryk likes to use him, why not use Bush’s projection that he will cut the deficit in half within five years?

Of course, what condemnation of Bush is complete without howling about the PATRIOT Act? It is easy to say that it grants law enforcement unprecedented powers because it largely deals with newer technologies. Any law about that would be unprecedented. Should not law enforcement keep up with technology? Would it be better for cops to fight crime with loincloths and clubs? By reading Bryk’s interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, one would think that the idea of warrants was chucked out the window. In fact, the PATRIOT Act sets up a speedier way for law enforcement to obtain warrants. And how many times has Ashcroft obtained library records? If you listened to the screaming, you would think it was done on a regular basis. In reality, the answer is zero. How is it that critics insinuate that Ashcroft abused his powers. So a few drug dealers were nabbed through laws designed for terrorist. Big deal. We are a long way off from the gulags and concentration camps, let along the Japanese internment camps. This president has been careful with our rights and he should be commended. Is the PATRIOT Act perfect? No? Is it necessary? Yes, according to many experts that testified to the 9/11 commission, including Clinton officials.

On the social front, conservatives should be well pleased with Bush. He’s passed a ban on late term abortions, made faith based organizations eligible for federal money and has come out against the use of quotas for affirmative action. His anti-AIDS programs reject passing out condoms and promote abstanance.

Ultimately, most disgruntled conservatives will think it better to swallow their fiscal qualms and wait four more years when there will be an open nomination and then they can try to nominate a deficit hawk, instead of voting for a democrat that will raise their taxes and increase spending.

Bryk’s foreign policy arguments are much weaker because they are based on false footing.

It is funny how Bryk doesn’t mention al Qaeda, terrorism, terrorists, or the War on Terror one single time. He mentions 9/11 once, only to indicate that there is not conclusive evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. Go figure. In criticizing the president, he chose to leave out the main focus of the administration. He chose to leave out the reason why WMDs in Iraq became important all of a sudden. He chose to ignore the whole reason why Bush’s supporters “joyously anticipate a succession of wars without visible end.” For shame, Bryk, for shame!

His second point is some sort of half-hearted accusation that Bush has usurped the power of war making from congress. In the same breathe, Bryk admits that this was a power that congress ceded way back during the Korean War. Still, in the same vein that he believes the PATRIOT Act is the doomsday of our civil liberties, Bryk pretends that Bush somehow defied the intent of our Four Fathers and stripped congress of it’s war making powers, never-mind that it was a bipartisan trend over the past 50 years. That accounts for little in Bryk’s book. My question: why blame a president for using every tool in his arsenal? I suspect Joe Conservative will say that Bryk’s fish is three days old and he ain’t buying it.

Third is an inane fixation on behalf of the anti-war crowd that the administration was promising a cakewalk where we would be greeted with flowers and our men could set down their M-16s and everyone would sing about peace, love and understand. Granted, Wolfowitz said we would be greeted with flowers, and, as it turned out, many Iraqis were too busy trying to hit a portrait of Saddam with their shoes to throw flowers on our troops. Personally, I remember the celebrations when the Saddam statue fell. Even Chris Matthews stopped saying that Bush was liar for a moment. Was that celebration supposed to last forever? It’s time to grow up and moveon.org. Bush always said it would be tough. Somewhere along the way his confidence in victory was wrongly taken to be cockiness and arrogance. Perhaps he has a swagger. Perhaps he’s a cowboy. But all that merely compliments his humility (something lacking in his campaign opponent). And because the pro Bush neo-cons share his confidence does not mean that the horrors of war are lost on them or that they do not appreciate the sacrifice paid by the coalition troops, regardless what Bush-haters think. Who in their right mind would gleefully anticipate perpetual war? Certainly not the president, who quietly visits the wounded on a periodic basis and has the weight of the 1,000+ coalition casualties and unknown Iraqi dead on his shoulders.

Bryk’s fourth point is that there is nothing conservative about war and thus quoting Madison:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [There is an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and…degeneracy of manners and of morals…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

True, true: but this line of thinking as a criticism of the war neglects the change that happened on September 11th. It neglects the map of the Middle East and the grave and gathering threat that it produces. It ignores that al Qaeda has been at war with the U.S. for years and in 2001 we just realized it. It ignores the fact that inaction would produce a state of perpetual violence on our shores. It neglects that the way to peace and stability – sweet peace and stability – is through the sword.

Which brings us to the fifth point: that Bush rejected Wilsonian diplomacy in 2000 and then reversed course after September 2001. That is a flip-flop that anyone should be able to understand. Still, it’s noteworthy to point out that Bush still rejected Clintonian policy: that is, he still refrained from involving us in some place that didn’t serve our national security interests.

Some would argue that by invading the Middle East we’ve encouraged the terrorists and inspired their ranks. Well, the same thing happens to bees when you destroy their hive. But, when their hives are gone, eventually they follow. Bush is right. The time has come that we drag the Middle East, kicking and screaming, into the modern age. Otherwise, al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists add to the American dead accumulated over a decade of terror attack and we will have the perpetual conflict of which Madison speaks.

Some would also argue that it was foolhardy to declare war on terrorism. How can you defeat a stateless institution? But the free world has done it before. We defeated piracy and slavery in the 19th century. Both are not completely gone, but neither threatens us like it once did. We can defeat terrorism.

Bush has done much to uphold conservative values. He has also done much to put us on the course to success on the war on terror. To vote against him is to throw all of his accomplishments in the wind. A vote for Kerry may not make the war un-winnable but it will drag it out and send the message to the terrorists that Americans don’t have the stomach for a hot war. Better for the party, the nation and the free world that Bush is reelected. American conservatives will reelect Bush because, as Bryk says, the “seek what Lord Acton called the highest political good: to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey one's own will and conscience rather than the will and conscience of others.”

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH
from The New York Press

Michelle Malkin's book defends the Japanese internment camps during WWII. It still seems like over-kill to me (I haven't read the book) but it's refreshing to finally see a slightly different take on it.

Charles Taylor had ties to al Qaeda.

More good news in Iraq.

Thank God we have a wartime president with Texas-sized nards who'll stick to his decisions.

I don’t know about this intelligence czar stuff. To me it sounds like a bureaucratic solution to a bureaucratic problem. I’m afraid Bush is bowing to political pressure.

I agree with this:

"I don't think the person should be a member of my Cabinet," he [Bush] said. "I will hire the person and I can fire the person. ... I don't think that the office should be in the White House, however, I think it should be a stand-alone group to better coordinate."

Kerry’s “blanket endorsement to all the commission's recommendations” does not seem like leadership to me.

Kerry and his magic wand.

"I don't envision it," he said when asked if he would send more U.S. soldiers [to Iraq]. "I believe that my leadership and my plan to approach these countries -- and I'm not negotiating it publicly -- I know what I want to do. I know what I believe can be achieved."

Kerry’s position has forced Biden to soften his steady calls for more US troops in Iraq. On Meet the Press today, Biden was ambiguous on such a need and apparently thought Kerry’s diplomatic wand would work:


SEN. BIDEN: Well, let me tell you what our flag officers, generals, that I met with three or four Sundays ago in Baghdad told me. They said from their experience, they know, since there's going to be somewhere on the order of--there are going to be thousands of polling places, up to 25,000 polling places, for this election in January, that they're going to need a surge of force. Now, what they're planning on doing is they're planning on keeping people there a little longer and sending people a little sooner so you overlap with up to 20,000 to 30,000 additional forces. In addition to that, it's about time that the French and the Germans and the rest having voted for this resolution to turn this over to the Iraqis and the U.N. mandate here, that they come up with at least the 4,000 troops that are required to protect the U.N. forces. So the combination of additional forces from outside, possibility of this Muslim force, and probably the need to surge forces are all there.

The questions for Kerry are: What happens if you can’t get France and Germany on board? Part of Bush's problem was that he didn't get some international support that he hoped for - how are you certain that you will? Why can’t you tell us about what you will do to get more international support? Can you envision a scenario where your protectionist trade policies might alienate some of the foreign support you say you will bring to Iraq? Or are the two issues completely separate? Do you believe, as Biden seems to think, that France is holding out because of a personal dislike for Bush?

The Biden quote I refer to is from today’s Meet the Press: And John Kerry's going to end up as president of the United States, God willing, where he is going to have to tell the French and the Germans and the rest, "Get over it. You don't have George Bush as an excuse anymore. Move. Get moving."

This makes bad sense. The Council on Foreign Relations is urging Bush to block a possible Israeli air-strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. They think it will hurt our interests in the region because we will be blamed for it. What difference does that make? We’ve already stirred the hive. The council believes that such an Israeli strike “…would most likely generate also hostile Iranian initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan." Are they a day late and a dollar short or what?

I thought keeping Iran from having nukes serves our interests. Especially if you believe the Council’s estimate that the current regime would survive. I guess the council thinks that the Europeans have the situation well in hand.

Your honor, I move that the Council on Foreign Relations be stricken from anything that is taken seriously.

As a follow up to the story about the pro Bush Marines who Kerry ran into while treating Edwards and wife to a Wendy’s lunch, we now know what their real lunch was.