Here's Mark Steyn in the Washington Times claiming that the Democrats and Kerry overplayed their hand on Kerry's Vietnam service:
Look, I would rather talk about the war. The current one, I mean -- not the one that ended three decades ago. But, insofar as I understand the rules of Campaign 2004, every time any member of the administration says anything about the present conflict, he is accused by Democrats of shamelessly "politicizing" it. Whereas every time John Kerry waxes nostalgic about those fragrant memories of the Mekong Delta, he should be allowed to take his unending stroll down memory lane unmolested . . . When Hillary runs in 2008, no doubt she'll be leaning heavily on her four months running a Swift boat up and down the Shatt al-Arab during the Iraq war.
But hang on, most of these fellows in the anti-Kerry ad -- the ones talking about how he can't be trusted, etc -- are also Swift boat commanders? If being a Swiftee is the most important thing in American life, why are all these "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" less entitled to be heard than John Kerry?
Well, because they're part of the "Republican smear machine". Apparently, it's the GOP's fault that only one of the 22 surviving Swift boat officers who served with Mr. Kerry is willing to support him, and that a big bunch of the remaining Swiftees feel strongly enough about his conduct 35 years ago to appear in one of the most remarkable political ads ever seen.
I'm on record already saying that the Swiftees' ad does little for me. But the Kerry campaign's reaction to it has really given it more credit than anything else.
Anyway, I also liked Steyn's observations on the Kerry record:
The one thing the Democratic Party owed America this campaign season was a candidate credible on the current war. The Democrats needed their own Tony Blair, a bloke who's a big socialist pantywaist when it comes to health and education and the other nanny-state hooey but believes in robust projection of military force in the national interest.
John Kerry fails that test. If you wanted to pick a candidate on the wrong side of every major defense and foreign policy question of the last two decades, you would be hard put to find anyone with judgment as comprehensively poor as Mr. Kerry: total up his votes and statements on everything from Grenada to the Gulf war, Saddam to the Sandinistas, the Cold War to missile defense to every major weapons system of the 1980s and '90s. He called them all wrong.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Kerry's just a tax and spend liberal
This issue has been avoided by the press but the fact is the only analyses of Kerry's and Bush's proposed economic plans indicate that Kerry's spending and tax plans will add more to the federal budget deficit (by a LOT) than Bush's plans.
Moreover, Kerry is just a simple tax-and-spend liberal at heart, as the WSJ editorial above makes clear.
Moreover, Kerry is just a simple tax-and-spend liberal at heart, as the WSJ editorial above makes clear.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Humor and democrats
Nice reprint from Iowahawk (click post title). This is "Why I am a Democrat". Here are some of the better ones:
I sometimes hear the question, "Why are you a Democrat?" and frankly, I have to laugh. Laugh and laugh, because perhaps this person may tire of my laughing, and he will eventually wander off. Sometimes I ponder seriously when I hear this question, because I'll look around and around and there's nobody there asking the question. Why am I a Democrat?
* * *
I am a Democrat because I believe in helping those in need. All of us, you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first, okay? I'm a little short this week.
* * *
I am a Democrat because I fervently believe in tolerance. Tolerance is critical in our diverse society, and if you have a problem with that, mister, then I will inform the authorities and I bet that after a few hours in their "special room" you too will agree that tolerance is critical.
* * *
I am a Democrat because I hold sacred freedom of the press, as well as freedom of the TV and freedom of the movie. Where I draw the line is freedom of the talk radio, and don't even get me started about that damn Internet business.
* * *
I am a Democrat because I believe in women's right to choose. I mean, not a church school or a tax shelter, or something like that, obviously. Let's be reasonable.
Read it all.
I sometimes hear the question, "Why are you a Democrat?" and frankly, I have to laugh. Laugh and laugh, because perhaps this person may tire of my laughing, and he will eventually wander off. Sometimes I ponder seriously when I hear this question, because I'll look around and around and there's nobody there asking the question. Why am I a Democrat?
* * *
I am a Democrat because I believe in helping those in need. All of us, you and I, have an obligation to those less fortunate. You go first, okay? I'm a little short this week.
* * *
I am a Democrat because I fervently believe in tolerance. Tolerance is critical in our diverse society, and if you have a problem with that, mister, then I will inform the authorities and I bet that after a few hours in their "special room" you too will agree that tolerance is critical.
* * *
I am a Democrat because I hold sacred freedom of the press, as well as freedom of the TV and freedom of the movie. Where I draw the line is freedom of the talk radio, and don't even get me started about that damn Internet business.
* * *
I am a Democrat because I believe in women's right to choose. I mean, not a church school or a tax shelter, or something like that, obviously. Let's be reasonable.
Read it all.
John Kerry = follower or retreater
In this essay, Robert Kagan discussed John Kerry's foreign policy views and concluded that at heart Kerry is a peacenik whose views are in line with some of the farthest left-wing peace protesters from the Vietnam war era.
In this editorial, Max Boot argues that Kerry has been an isolationist, realist and idealist in line with the greater trends within the Democrats: an isolationist in the Cold War, a realist in the early stages of this Iraq War and an interventionist during the Clinton Administration.
So who's right? Boot examines Kerry's voting record; Kagan examines Kerry's speeches. The latter are more revealing because speeches are a window into the candidate's real thought process and because Kerry has been a remarkably undistinguished Senator who is not known for his leadership.
Ultimately, Kagan is right that Kerry is a dangerous peacenik, as I noted in the previous post below, because his bottomline on establishing democracy in Iraq is this:
. . . I think our diplomacy can produce a very different ingredient on the ground. And if it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want. I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq. And, ah, that's my plan.
Courtesy to redstate.org
In this editorial, Max Boot argues that Kerry has been an isolationist, realist and idealist in line with the greater trends within the Democrats: an isolationist in the Cold War, a realist in the early stages of this Iraq War and an interventionist during the Clinton Administration.
So who's right? Boot examines Kerry's voting record; Kagan examines Kerry's speeches. The latter are more revealing because speeches are a window into the candidate's real thought process and because Kerry has been a remarkably undistinguished Senator who is not known for his leadership.
Ultimately, Kagan is right that Kerry is a dangerous peacenik, as I noted in the previous post below, because his bottomline on establishing democracy in Iraq is this:
. . . I think our diplomacy can produce a very different ingredient on the ground. And if it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want. I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq. And, ah, that's my plan.
Courtesy to redstate.org
Saturday, August 07, 2004
John Kerry's impending retreat from Iraq
In 1975, US prestige around the world collapsed when this country completed its disengagement from Vietnam. Nixon promised peace with honor and obtained retreat and dishonor and Vietnam overrun by Communists.
In 1979-81 the US stood by, inept and impotent, whilst a bunch of students held Americans hostage on sovereign US property, the US embassy.
In 1983, President Reagan withdrew Marines from Lebanon after a suicide truck bomber destroyed their barracks. The country would have supported major action to track down and destroy the terrorists who killed our young men, but the retreat signalled instead that the US would not stand strong.
In 1991, the US showed its strength by throwing Saddam out of Kuwait, but allowed him to claim that he'd faced down the US by not overthrowing him.
In 1993, the US again showed its lack of intestinal fortitude when Clinton withdrew from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident.
In the Somalia and Lebanon cases, as the RedState post linked above shows, public support for the intervention went UP after the disasters that led to the withdrawals. So the presidents in question actually showed less fortitude than the public.
In Iraq, Kerry wants to be president so he can opt out, abandon the US leadership role in the Middle East, and weaken the US in the eyes of the world. I think he WANTS a weaker America and he views this as a virtue. Robert Kagan noted this in an editorial I linked to here.
And the more Kerry speaks, the clearer this becomes. As Redstate shows, here is what Kerry said in an NPR interview:
Inskeep [NPR interviewer]: This is what I'm wondering, though: In a year from now, since you do want to remain committed to Iraq, isn't it the case that there will still be many, many thousands of American troops there, still fighting the insurgents if the insurgents want to fight?
Kerry: Ah, no, not necessarily at all, because I think our diplomacy can produce a very different ingredient on the ground. And if it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want. I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq. And, ah, that's my plan.
That bolded part is liberal-speak for adhering to a country's "freedom" to choose. That is, the notion that each country gets the type of government it ultimately desires. This has been a belief of the Left for generations -- Russians wanted to be living in a Communist totalitarian state, Arabs essentially chose to live under their dictators, Latin Americans chose to live under military strong men -- and it is completely contrary to both the notion that people want democracy and freedom and the notion that they can be influenced into obtaining such freedom and democracy.
In other words, Kerry's world view is a radical left-wing departure from US foreign policy of the last 20+ years and even far to the left of Clinton. A Kerry presidency is a frightening prospect.
In 1979-81 the US stood by, inept and impotent, whilst a bunch of students held Americans hostage on sovereign US property, the US embassy.
In 1983, President Reagan withdrew Marines from Lebanon after a suicide truck bomber destroyed their barracks. The country would have supported major action to track down and destroy the terrorists who killed our young men, but the retreat signalled instead that the US would not stand strong.
In 1991, the US showed its strength by throwing Saddam out of Kuwait, but allowed him to claim that he'd faced down the US by not overthrowing him.
In 1993, the US again showed its lack of intestinal fortitude when Clinton withdrew from Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident.
In the Somalia and Lebanon cases, as the RedState post linked above shows, public support for the intervention went UP after the disasters that led to the withdrawals. So the presidents in question actually showed less fortitude than the public.
In Iraq, Kerry wants to be president so he can opt out, abandon the US leadership role in the Middle East, and weaken the US in the eyes of the world. I think he WANTS a weaker America and he views this as a virtue. Robert Kagan noted this in an editorial I linked to here.
And the more Kerry speaks, the clearer this becomes. As Redstate shows, here is what Kerry said in an NPR interview:
Inskeep [NPR interviewer]: This is what I'm wondering, though: In a year from now, since you do want to remain committed to Iraq, isn't it the case that there will still be many, many thousands of American troops there, still fighting the insurgents if the insurgents want to fight?
Kerry: Ah, no, not necessarily at all, because I think our diplomacy can produce a very different ingredient on the ground. And if it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want. I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq. And, ah, that's my plan.
That bolded part is liberal-speak for adhering to a country's "freedom" to choose. That is, the notion that each country gets the type of government it ultimately desires. This has been a belief of the Left for generations -- Russians wanted to be living in a Communist totalitarian state, Arabs essentially chose to live under their dictators, Latin Americans chose to live under military strong men -- and it is completely contrary to both the notion that people want democracy and freedom and the notion that they can be influenced into obtaining such freedom and democracy.
In other words, Kerry's world view is a radical left-wing departure from US foreign policy of the last 20+ years and even far to the left of Clinton. A Kerry presidency is a frightening prospect.
Friday, August 06, 2004
John Kerry's Secret Plan
You cannot make this up. Here is Kerry's plan to get US troops out of Iraq within one year (a 75% improvement over his previous plan to get US troops out within four years):
1. Increase international involvement
2. Appoint a "high commissioner" to work with Iraq
3. Convert security forces from American to Iraqi
Sounds great, right?
But does it sound familiar? It should, as Captain Ed points out:
Bush got the UNSC to unanimously endorse the occupation and the interim government. He has 31 nations involved in Iraq now. He's working with Muslim nations to provide security to the ever-courageous UN mission that bugged out a year ago, and possibly with Russia . . .
So what other international involvement is necessary -- France and Germany? Since when have those two nations become the center of world politics and sanctifiers of international legitimacy? Was it when France rolled over against the German armies in 1871 and 1940? When France failed to kick Hitler out of the Rhineland in 1936? When France betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938? When France invaded the Ivory Coast in 2003? When Germany announced its imperial ambitions in the 1870s? When Germany started World Wars I and II? When German dissidents protested US missiles that thwarted Soviet expansionism in the 1980s?
The US (and Britain) could barely get the French to help liberate their OWN country in 1944-45, how can they be expected to help out now?
As for a high commissioner, what's the difference between high commissioner and Administrator? And isn't it a bit late, now that the Iraqi Governing Council has assumed sovereignty, to install an outsider as high commissioner. This is hubris gone mad: Kerry is saying either that the IGC cannot be trusted to run Iraq properly or that the whole Bush operation in liberating Iraq and installing an Iraqi government is a fraud that needs to be overturned by the US and the UN (the latter has already voted to approve the occupation and the interim government).
Finally, as to converting security forces, here's Captain Ed again:
No kidding. It's exactly what we have already been doing, and to that end involving NATO in training the new Iraqi security forces.
So Kerry's plan is me-too, but I'm not Bush. That's it. And that's not a reason to change presidents.
1. Increase international involvement
2. Appoint a "high commissioner" to work with Iraq
3. Convert security forces from American to Iraqi
Sounds great, right?
But does it sound familiar? It should, as Captain Ed points out:
Bush got the UNSC to unanimously endorse the occupation and the interim government. He has 31 nations involved in Iraq now. He's working with Muslim nations to provide security to the ever-courageous UN mission that bugged out a year ago, and possibly with Russia . . .
So what other international involvement is necessary -- France and Germany? Since when have those two nations become the center of world politics and sanctifiers of international legitimacy? Was it when France rolled over against the German armies in 1871 and 1940? When France failed to kick Hitler out of the Rhineland in 1936? When France betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938? When France invaded the Ivory Coast in 2003? When Germany announced its imperial ambitions in the 1870s? When Germany started World Wars I and II? When German dissidents protested US missiles that thwarted Soviet expansionism in the 1980s?
The US (and Britain) could barely get the French to help liberate their OWN country in 1944-45, how can they be expected to help out now?
As for a high commissioner, what's the difference between high commissioner and Administrator? And isn't it a bit late, now that the Iraqi Governing Council has assumed sovereignty, to install an outsider as high commissioner. This is hubris gone mad: Kerry is saying either that the IGC cannot be trusted to run Iraq properly or that the whole Bush operation in liberating Iraq and installing an Iraqi government is a fraud that needs to be overturned by the US and the UN (the latter has already voted to approve the occupation and the interim government).
Finally, as to converting security forces, here's Captain Ed again:
No kidding. It's exactly what we have already been doing, and to that end involving NATO in training the new Iraqi security forces.
So Kerry's plan is me-too, but I'm not Bush. That's it. And that's not a reason to change presidents.
Funny of the day
This is funny. From pseudonymous blogger "Liberal Larry" at the Blame Bush website. Left-wing nutter? No. Parody of left-wing nutters.
UPDATE: Fixed the link
UPDATE: Fixed the link
Spinsanity on Kerry's enlistment
Spinsanity is a non-partisan blog that examines the arguments proffered by politicians, columnists, public affairs folks, etc. on major issues. There are three main contributors, one is slightly rightist, one slightly left, and one basically dead-on moderate. Last night, Brendan Nyhan examined the distortions of John Kerry's military record, and more importantly, Kerry's motivations in seeking a Swift boat command.
In his speech to the Democratic convention, vice presidential nominee Senator John Edwards, D-NC, was the latest figure to distort John Kerry's service record in Vietnam:
The Swift boat mission changed after Kerry signed up. It is to his credit that he received two decorations for valor but he wasn't going to Vietnam with the intention of being in the thickest fighting.
Note that links to the articles cited in the Spinsanity piece are in the original.
Hat tip: Just One Minute
In his speech to the Democratic convention, vice presidential nominee Senator John Edwards, D-NC, was the latest figure to distort John Kerry's service record in Vietnam:
When John Kerry graduated college, he volunteered for military service. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and to captain a swift boat, one of the most dangerous duties you could have. And as a result he was wounded and honored for his valor.Like many others who have made the same claim, Edwards' implication is misleading. As Chris Suellentrop pointed out on Slate, Kerry volunteered for swift boat duty before it became so dangerous. Here's how the Boston Globe recounted the story in its multi-part series on Kerry:
Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.
"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."
The Swift boat mission changed after Kerry signed up. It is to his credit that he received two decorations for valor but he wasn't going to Vietnam with the intention of being in the thickest fighting.
Note that links to the articles cited in the Spinsanity piece are in the original.
Hat tip: Just One Minute
Nice move, GOP
When Peggy Noonan took leave from the WSJ to help Republicans throughout the country, she said her help was unnecessary for Pres. Bush because Karl Rove and the RNC had the best political minds already. Moves like this one bear out her belief:
The White House yesterday distanced itself from a political ad that questions John Kerry's Vietnam service and called on the Democratic presidential nominee to join President Bush in demanding an "immediate cessation" of all advertisements by outside groups.
Why is this brilliant? (1) Bush publicly distances himself from the Swifties even as Kerry's flaks continually try to link him with them -- something Kerry has FAILED to do viz. the MoveOn.org Bushitler ads and other Soros-backed attacks; (2) Bush calls on Kerry to adhere to the spirit of the campaign finance reform act they both supported and draws attention to the fact that Kerry is all but coordinating the outside-ad attacks on Bush whilst Bush is able to take the high road viz. Kerry, as seen from this quote by Scott McClellan:
"The president has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attack ads from shadowy groups," Mr. McClellan said. "The president thought he got rid of this kind of activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law."
Tippin' cap at: Captain Ed.
The White House yesterday distanced itself from a political ad that questions John Kerry's Vietnam service and called on the Democratic presidential nominee to join President Bush in demanding an "immediate cessation" of all advertisements by outside groups.
Why is this brilliant? (1) Bush publicly distances himself from the Swifties even as Kerry's flaks continually try to link him with them -- something Kerry has FAILED to do viz. the MoveOn.org Bushitler ads and other Soros-backed attacks; (2) Bush calls on Kerry to adhere to the spirit of the campaign finance reform act they both supported and draws attention to the fact that Kerry is all but coordinating the outside-ad attacks on Bush whilst Bush is able to take the high road viz. Kerry, as seen from this quote by Scott McClellan:
"The president has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attack ads from shadowy groups," Mr. McClellan said. "The president thought he got rid of this kind of activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law."
Tippin' cap at: Captain Ed.
Early reading assignments
Today's Opinion Journal page is a must: First this column castigating the NY Times and other left-wing pundits for even considering the issue of whether the Administration should act on terror information -- of course it should, even if that means obscure warnings.
Then, Dan Henninger says Kerry is too "prudent" even for the moderate recommendations of the 9-11 Commission -- aggression and offense, not passivity and hoping not to get hit are what's needed against the terrorists.
Then, Dan Henninger says Kerry is too "prudent" even for the moderate recommendations of the 9-11 Commission -- aggression and offense, not passivity and hoping not to get hit are what's needed against the terrorists.
Mark Steyn is no multilateralist
Mark Steyn's Happy Warrior column on National Review is available two weeks after publication in NR. In this column, Steyn argues persuasively that Bush's problems stem from his attempts to act multilaterally through the UN instead of his instinctual response of "I'll lead, who's with me?"
Here's your excerpt:
In fact, most of Bush’s present difficulties come not from swaggering cowboy unilateralism but because of excessive deference to multilateralism in the run up to the Iraq war. Instead of deposing Saddam before the first anniversary of 9/11 (as yours truly urged), Bush was prevailed upon to “go the UN route”, mainly to provide his most important ally, Tony Blair, with some multilateral cover. As I wrote in March 2003, “The end result is that we’ll be going to war with exactly the same participants as we would have done last August, and the one person weakened by going the UN route is the very one it was designed to protect: Mr Blair. The best way to help Blair would have been to get the war over six months ago.”
That would also have been best for Bush . . . Had Iraq followed hard on Afghanistan, it would have been trickier for the Dems to present it as a separate adventure disconnected from the war on terror. In the 17-month hiatus between the falls of Kabul and Baghdad, the anti-war movement ballooned, and the “what war?” movement – those devoted followers of Michael Moore who believe the whole thing’s just some scam got up by Bush’s Halliburton puppeteers - ballooned even more.
Or, to put it another way, in adopting Mr Blair’s priorities, the President wound up with Mr Blair’s problems. Once Mr Bush decided to “go the UN route”, he was playing not to his ally’s strengths but to his ally’s weaknesses, and those weaknesses became his, too.
Here's your excerpt:
In fact, most of Bush’s present difficulties come not from swaggering cowboy unilateralism but because of excessive deference to multilateralism in the run up to the Iraq war. Instead of deposing Saddam before the first anniversary of 9/11 (as yours truly urged), Bush was prevailed upon to “go the UN route”, mainly to provide his most important ally, Tony Blair, with some multilateral cover. As I wrote in March 2003, “The end result is that we’ll be going to war with exactly the same participants as we would have done last August, and the one person weakened by going the UN route is the very one it was designed to protect: Mr Blair. The best way to help Blair would have been to get the war over six months ago.”
That would also have been best for Bush . . . Had Iraq followed hard on Afghanistan, it would have been trickier for the Dems to present it as a separate adventure disconnected from the war on terror. In the 17-month hiatus between the falls of Kabul and Baghdad, the anti-war movement ballooned, and the “what war?” movement – those devoted followers of Michael Moore who believe the whole thing’s just some scam got up by Bush’s Halliburton puppeteers - ballooned even more.
Or, to put it another way, in adopting Mr Blair’s priorities, the President wound up with Mr Blair’s problems. Once Mr Bush decided to “go the UN route”, he was playing not to his ally’s strengths but to his ally’s weaknesses, and those weaknesses became his, too.
Follow-up re: Swift vet ad
From Instapundit and others: the lawyers for the Democratic National Committee are threatening to sue any TV station that accepts the Swift vet ad. The DNC must think this is a devastating ad, although I've said I don't think it is because all it does is contain a bunch of Swift boat vets claiming that Kerry lied with no other proof.
Judy Woodruff interviewed two Vietnam vets on her show: one was saved by Kerry in a firefight, the other was on another Swift boat during the same firefight and claims Kerry's boat fled. The incident described is the one for which Kerry received a Bronze Star. I doubt the anti-Kerry guy -- he's had opportunity and reason to tell this story at least four times in the past (when Kerry ran for Senator) and never did. Cowardice is a disqualifier for Senators too.
The Bush campaign is playing this right: emphasize that they do not question Kerry's service or heroism, make clear that this is the efforts of people unconnected to the campaign, and watch carefully as Kerry reacts -- or overreacts in the case of trying to stifle the media buy by the Swifties (which gives them even more publicity).
Judy Woodruff interviewed two Vietnam vets on her show: one was saved by Kerry in a firefight, the other was on another Swift boat during the same firefight and claims Kerry's boat fled. The incident described is the one for which Kerry received a Bronze Star. I doubt the anti-Kerry guy -- he's had opportunity and reason to tell this story at least four times in the past (when Kerry ran for Senator) and never did. Cowardice is a disqualifier for Senators too.
The Bush campaign is playing this right: emphasize that they do not question Kerry's service or heroism, make clear that this is the efforts of people unconnected to the campaign, and watch carefully as Kerry reacts -- or overreacts in the case of trying to stifle the media buy by the Swifties (which gives them even more publicity).
John Kerry -- revisionist speculation
This is beautiful: John Kerry claims that he would not have spent seven minutes continuing to read to schoolkids after learning of the 9-11 attacks, instead he would have sprang into action.
Garbage.
RedState.org tracked this down. Here's what Kerry ACTUALLY did (from his CNN interview with Larry King):
"...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon..."
As RedState points out, however, the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m.; the Pentagon plane crashed at 9:43 a.m.
Bush remained calm, conducted his business with the kids for another seven minutes and acted as if things were all okay. Kerry hung out with a trio of liberal Senators completely stunned for 40 minutes. Bush regained his wits instantaneously, protected the kids' sensibilities, and cut short his visit 7 minutes later -- or nearly six times faster than Kerry was able to gather himself.
More proof of Bush's leadership ability? Maybe. But it certainly proves Kerry's claim is grandstanding crap.
Garbage.
RedState.org tracked this down. Here's what Kerry ACTUALLY did (from his CNN interview with Larry King):
"...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon..."
As RedState points out, however, the second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m.; the Pentagon plane crashed at 9:43 a.m.
Bush remained calm, conducted his business with the kids for another seven minutes and acted as if things were all okay. Kerry hung out with a trio of liberal Senators completely stunned for 40 minutes. Bush regained his wits instantaneously, protected the kids' sensibilities, and cut short his visit 7 minutes later -- or nearly six times faster than Kerry was able to gather himself.
More proof of Bush's leadership ability? Maybe. But it certainly proves Kerry's claim is grandstanding crap.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Go for it, Mr. President
The Monk is now EXHORTING the Republican National Committee to prominently display footage of Pres. Bush exhorting the FDNY in the rubble of the WTC on September 14, 2001; his speech to Congress in October 2001 and the State of the Union in 2002; and all other strong, decisive and intelligent responses Bush made to September 11.
The Democrats will whine and scream that Bush is making September 11 a campaign issue. F--- them twice.
FIRST, Kerry took a page from fat nutball Michael Moore's playbook and criticized Bush for continuing as normal to read to Florida schoolchildren after an aid whispered the news of the attack in his ear. What would Kerry have done, jumped into the rubble, turned back time, expected that those seven minutes AFTER the attacks could actually be used in a better fashion than unnecessarily alarming the small kiddies? (Here is the school principal's positive reaction to Bush's response). But now Kerry has made September 11 an issue and the REPUBLICANS SHOULD BEAT HIM TO SMITHEREENS over this.
Second, IT SHOULD BE AN ISSUE. Kerry says another such attack will be met with decisive retribution. Nothing about the ounce of prevention that would make such retribution unnecessary by preventing the attack on the US for which we would seek revenge. We can trust Bush to fight against that type of attack ever happening again. He toppled the Taliban, and toppled a prime terrorist collaborator in Saddam.
Indeed, Bush is doing so even after he has demolished both the Taliban and Saddam (and freed more than 50,000,000 Muslims from tyranny). See here for details. If Kerry wants this fight, and it seems that he does, the Republicans should give it to him and beat the snot out of him for it.
The Democrats will whine and scream that Bush is making September 11 a campaign issue. F--- them twice.
FIRST, Kerry took a page from fat nutball Michael Moore's playbook and criticized Bush for continuing as normal to read to Florida schoolchildren after an aid whispered the news of the attack in his ear. What would Kerry have done, jumped into the rubble, turned back time, expected that those seven minutes AFTER the attacks could actually be used in a better fashion than unnecessarily alarming the small kiddies? (Here is the school principal's positive reaction to Bush's response). But now Kerry has made September 11 an issue and the REPUBLICANS SHOULD BEAT HIM TO SMITHEREENS over this.
Second, IT SHOULD BE AN ISSUE. Kerry says another such attack will be met with decisive retribution. Nothing about the ounce of prevention that would make such retribution unnecessary by preventing the attack on the US for which we would seek revenge. We can trust Bush to fight against that type of attack ever happening again. He toppled the Taliban, and toppled a prime terrorist collaborator in Saddam.
Indeed, Bush is doing so even after he has demolished both the Taliban and Saddam (and freed more than 50,000,000 Muslims from tyranny). See here for details. If Kerry wants this fight, and it seems that he does, the Republicans should give it to him and beat the snot out of him for it.
Swift Boat Veterans AGAINST Kerry
Lorie Byrd at Polipundit and Instapundit say this is one of the most devastating political ads they've ever seen: former Swift boat veterans blasting Kerry. Not just any such vets, these gentlemen SERVED with Kerry.
UPDATE: Upon further review, I'm not impressed. There are a bunch of veterans in the ad who served with Kerry and claim that he lied about his purple hearts and his actions that led to his bronze and silver stars. But that's it, the bare assertions.
Kerry is not credible on a lot of issues. And I think he DID volunteer to go to Vietnam in part so that he could later use his service as a qualification for political office. But aside from calling Kerry a liar, this ad tells me nothing. Therefore, unless there are follow-up ads that actually EXPLAIN why these men think Kerry is a liar, the ad has no more credibility than Howard Dean does on national security.
UPDATE 2: Dr. Joyner thinks that the Swift Boat vets are starting to sound like a tinfoil hat brigade.
UPDATE 3: Captain Ed says that this whole thing will backfire against Bush if the Swifties concentrate their attacks on questioning Kerry's (laudable) actions in Vietnam instead of questioning his (disgraceful) actions after he returned.
CORRECTION (and corrected above), the Polipundit agrees with me; Lorie Byrd, a Polipundit contributor, said the ad was devastating.
UPDATE: Upon further review, I'm not impressed. There are a bunch of veterans in the ad who served with Kerry and claim that he lied about his purple hearts and his actions that led to his bronze and silver stars. But that's it, the bare assertions.
Kerry is not credible on a lot of issues. And I think he DID volunteer to go to Vietnam in part so that he could later use his service as a qualification for political office. But aside from calling Kerry a liar, this ad tells me nothing. Therefore, unless there are follow-up ads that actually EXPLAIN why these men think Kerry is a liar, the ad has no more credibility than Howard Dean does on national security.
UPDATE 2: Dr. Joyner thinks that the Swift Boat vets are starting to sound like a tinfoil hat brigade.
UPDATE 3: Captain Ed says that this whole thing will backfire against Bush if the Swifties concentrate their attacks on questioning Kerry's (laudable) actions in Vietnam instead of questioning his (disgraceful) actions after he returned.
CORRECTION (and corrected above), the Polipundit agrees with me; Lorie Byrd, a Polipundit contributor, said the ad was devastating.
Saddam used Oil-for-Food money on WMD
Earlier, I linked to a report by Charles Duelfer, the chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, who said it is too early to jump to conclusions regarding Iraq's weapons programs and the apparent lack thereof.
In July, William Shawcross wrote in The Guardian (link in title) about Duelfer's testimony to Congress this past March, a news item that has been WOEFULLY underreported in the media:
Too little attention has been paid to the preliminary report of Charles Duelfer, the new head of Washington's Iraq Survey Group (ISG). He testified to Congress in March that "we must determine what Saddam ordered, what his ministers ordered, and how the plans fit together. Were weapons hidden that were not readily available? Was there a plan for a break-out production capacity?"
It may be that, despite the prewar intelligence, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the time of the war in March 2003. But to assert that there was therefore no WMD threat is to trivialise the issue. Intelligence has to look at form. Saddam's history over the past 14 years was one of attempting to obtain and conceal WMD. During the Gulf war he fired 39 missiles into Israel . . .
According to Duelfer, Saddam's deception of the UN inspectors "continued right up until war in 2003". Sensitive sites could be sanitised at 15 minutes notice.
The CIA had not one single human agent in Iraq and Britain's agents, according to [Lord] Butler [author of the British report on its pre-war intelligence], were fallible. But even if there had been more agents, it is not certain they could have found the truth about WMD. Strict compartmentalisation is a feature of such regimes. According to Duelfer, "We know from high-level debriefings that Saddam conveyed his most sensitive messages to particular individuals orally. Moreover there were explicit instructions not to repeat such conversations."
Duelfer told Congress that Iraq's illegal military procurement budget increased 100-fold from 1996 to 2003 to $500m annually, most of the money coming from illicit contracts under the UN's Oil for Food programme.
The Tuwaitha Research Centre had equipment suitable for producing biological agents and "was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons programme". In the nuclear area, Duelfer believes that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons", and suspects that one laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development".
The ISG has also discovered "a very robust programme for delivery systems that were not reported to the UN". Saddam had already developed missiles "that easily exceeded the UN limit of 150km". Iraq was discussing with North Korea the possibility of importing a 1,300km missile system. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of UN sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.
Why isn't this getting more attention in the US press other than in NewsMax?
Tippin' me hat to: Say Anything
Submitted to: Beltway Traffic Jam
In July, William Shawcross wrote in The Guardian (link in title) about Duelfer's testimony to Congress this past March, a news item that has been WOEFULLY underreported in the media:
Too little attention has been paid to the preliminary report of Charles Duelfer, the new head of Washington's Iraq Survey Group (ISG). He testified to Congress in March that "we must determine what Saddam ordered, what his ministers ordered, and how the plans fit together. Were weapons hidden that were not readily available? Was there a plan for a break-out production capacity?"
It may be that, despite the prewar intelligence, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the time of the war in March 2003. But to assert that there was therefore no WMD threat is to trivialise the issue. Intelligence has to look at form. Saddam's history over the past 14 years was one of attempting to obtain and conceal WMD. During the Gulf war he fired 39 missiles into Israel . . .
According to Duelfer, Saddam's deception of the UN inspectors "continued right up until war in 2003". Sensitive sites could be sanitised at 15 minutes notice.
The CIA had not one single human agent in Iraq and Britain's agents, according to [Lord] Butler [author of the British report on its pre-war intelligence], were fallible. But even if there had been more agents, it is not certain they could have found the truth about WMD. Strict compartmentalisation is a feature of such regimes. According to Duelfer, "We know from high-level debriefings that Saddam conveyed his most sensitive messages to particular individuals orally. Moreover there were explicit instructions not to repeat such conversations."
Duelfer told Congress that Iraq's illegal military procurement budget increased 100-fold from 1996 to 2003 to $500m annually, most of the money coming from illicit contracts under the UN's Oil for Food programme.
The Tuwaitha Research Centre had equipment suitable for producing biological agents and "was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons programme". In the nuclear area, Duelfer believes that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons", and suspects that one laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development".
The ISG has also discovered "a very robust programme for delivery systems that were not reported to the UN". Saddam had already developed missiles "that easily exceeded the UN limit of 150km". Iraq was discussing with North Korea the possibility of importing a 1,300km missile system. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of UN sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.
Why isn't this getting more attention in the US press other than in NewsMax?
Tippin' me hat to: Say Anything
Submitted to: Beltway Traffic Jam
Like 1998 all over again
Check it out: good pitching, scoring without relying on homers, and beating a good team. The Yanks of 2004 had a turn-back-the-clock day to 1998-99 against the A's. They actually got EIGHT innings out of starter Kevin Brown (0R, 4H, 2BB, 7K) and won 5-1. And they scored 5 runs without a dinger! Shock.
What is funny is that if the standings hold until next Tuesday, the Yanks will play two first-place teams in the span of three series. The A's came into this series up 1.5 over the Rangers; but the Rangers swept the Tigers while the A's lost two of three. The Rangers are now in first in the AL West and play the Yanks in the relaxing paradise of Texas in August next week.
Uh, the relaxing paradise part is sarcasm, for those whose detectors need new batteries.
What is funny is that if the standings hold until next Tuesday, the Yanks will play two first-place teams in the span of three series. The A's came into this series up 1.5 over the Rangers; but the Rangers swept the Tigers while the A's lost two of three. The Rangers are now in first in the AL West and play the Yanks in the relaxing paradise of Texas in August next week.
Uh, the relaxing paradise part is sarcasm, for those whose detectors need new batteries.
Democrats for censorship
A gaggle of 38 Democrats sent a letter to Fox Corp. president Rupert Murdoch complaining that Fox News is a mouthpiece for the Republican party and President Bush. Unfortunately, a similar squawkgroup of Republicans has not sent a letter to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time/Life and Newsweek complaining that they are mouthpieces for the Democratic party.
Here is what the Democrats (whose members include complete Leftist nutters like John Conyers, Fortney (Pete) Stark, and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders) base their claim on: (1) a Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting claim that Brit Hume's show has a 5-1 advantage for Republicans in GUESTS; (2) A winter 2003-04 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes that showed Fox News viewers had more "misperceptions" about Iraq than NPR listeners, CNN viewers, etc.; (3) the skewed documentary Outfoxed.
FAIR's claim is laughable: "If Fox is the 'fair and balanced' network it claims to be, then the guest list of what Fox calls its "signature news show" ought to reflect a diverse spectrum of ideas and sources." But FAIR is a partisan liberal organization.
All that FAIR is calling for is a re-establishment of the Equal Time concept that the FCC deregulated years ago. The guests do not determine whether the show is biased, the HOSTS do. If Hume grills his Republican guests and plays footsie with his Democrat guests (see: Couric, Katie; Lauer, Matt; Schieffer, Bob), then he's working FOR a Democratic agenda. Talk to me when FAIR complains about Bill Moyers.
As for the Program on International Policy Attitudes survey, one of the "misperceptions" is that an Iraq link to al-Qaeda had been found. This isn't a misperception -- it's reality. See here, here, here, and here. So the survey actually proves Fox viewers are either (1) more perceptive than PBS/NPR devotees and print media readers (the comparison groups in the survey) or (2) are getting more accurate news.
As for Outfoxed: that's a crock-shock-documentary supported by MoveOn.org. Go behind the scenes at CNN or Time and you'll get a mirror image politically.
Here is what the Democrats (whose members include complete Leftist nutters like John Conyers, Fortney (Pete) Stark, and Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders) base their claim on: (1) a Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting claim that Brit Hume's show has a 5-1 advantage for Republicans in GUESTS; (2) A winter 2003-04 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes that showed Fox News viewers had more "misperceptions" about Iraq than NPR listeners, CNN viewers, etc.; (3) the skewed documentary Outfoxed.
FAIR's claim is laughable: "If Fox is the 'fair and balanced' network it claims to be, then the guest list of what Fox calls its "signature news show" ought to reflect a diverse spectrum of ideas and sources." But FAIR is a partisan liberal organization.
All that FAIR is calling for is a re-establishment of the Equal Time concept that the FCC deregulated years ago. The guests do not determine whether the show is biased, the HOSTS do. If Hume grills his Republican guests and plays footsie with his Democrat guests (see: Couric, Katie; Lauer, Matt; Schieffer, Bob), then he's working FOR a Democratic agenda. Talk to me when FAIR complains about Bill Moyers.
As for the Program on International Policy Attitudes survey, one of the "misperceptions" is that an Iraq link to al-Qaeda had been found. This isn't a misperception -- it's reality. See here, here, here, and here. So the survey actually proves Fox viewers are either (1) more perceptive than PBS/NPR devotees and print media readers (the comparison groups in the survey) or (2) are getting more accurate news.
As for Outfoxed: that's a crock-shock-documentary supported by MoveOn.org. Go behind the scenes at CNN or Time and you'll get a mirror image politically.
Yankees pitching -- an oxymoron?
The Yanks pulled one out of their collective hindquarters yesterday against the A's. They're 6-2 against Oakland, and if the A's had ANY decent relief pitching, that score would be reversed. Consider: in the first game, the Yanks trailed 8-4 in the bottom of the 8th before scoring six runs on five soft hits with some walks; in the first game in Oakland, the Yanks trailed 7-1 before rallying in the 7th to pull out another 10-8 win; in the second game in Oakland, A-Rod blasted a two-run dinger in the ninth to turn a 3-2 deficit into a 4-3 win and beat Arthur Rhodes. And then yesterday -- when Sheffield cranked a ninth-inning homer off Dotel to tie the game and A-Rod whacked one off Durscherer to win it in the 11th.
Sheffield is the man no pitcher wants to face: he has the bat speed to catch up to ANYTHING (just ask Danys Baez, whom Sheffield took out on a 97 mph fastball) and can adjust to rip breaking balls. His homer last night = hanging breaking ball from Dotel. His single that preceded A-Rod's walk-off homer -- pulled a low breaking ball through the shortstop hole. Having A-Rod behind Sheffield means no one walks the Sheff intentionally.
And Sheff is doing this with an EXTREMELY sore left shoulder. Two words: bad a*s.
Sheffield is the man no pitcher wants to face: he has the bat speed to catch up to ANYTHING (just ask Danys Baez, whom Sheffield took out on a 97 mph fastball) and can adjust to rip breaking balls. His homer last night = hanging breaking ball from Dotel. His single that preceded A-Rod's walk-off homer -- pulled a low breaking ball through the shortstop hole. Having A-Rod behind Sheffield means no one walks the Sheff intentionally.
And Sheff is doing this with an EXTREMELY sore left shoulder. Two words: bad a*s.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Heather MacDonald: We can be our own worst enemy
Heather MacDonald has been pounding this drum since before 2001: decrying the civil liberties lobby's protests against the Patriot Act and the CAPPS traveler screening system. The civil libertarian lobbies have protested against activities that have never been done under the Patriot Act (library record viewing), and completely misrepresented the impact of the Patriot Act on surveillance, searches and seizures and detainees' rights. The civil libertarian lobbies have also forced the shutdown of CAPPS -- a useful screening tool for the otherwise inept FAA.
One of Mac Donald's best pieces is this one from last year in the City Journal -- a Manhattan Institute publication.
Here is the crux of her arguments:
When the War on Terror’s opponents intone, “We need not trade liberty for security,” they are right—but not in the way they think. Contrary to their slogan’s assumption, there is no zero-sum relationship between liberty and security. The government may expand its powers to detect terrorism without diminishing civil liberties one iota, as long as those powers remain subject to traditional restraints: statutory prerequisites for investigative action, judicial review, and political accountability. So far, these conditions have been met.
One of Mac Donald's best pieces is this one from last year in the City Journal -- a Manhattan Institute publication.
Here is the crux of her arguments:
When the War on Terror’s opponents intone, “We need not trade liberty for security,” they are right—but not in the way they think. Contrary to their slogan’s assumption, there is no zero-sum relationship between liberty and security. The government may expand its powers to detect terrorism without diminishing civil liberties one iota, as long as those powers remain subject to traditional restraints: statutory prerequisites for investigative action, judicial review, and political accountability. So far, these conditions have been met.
This would be funny if not so sad
![This would be funny if not so sad](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040804/ids_photos_ts/r1817091613.jpg"target="_blank){kind=link}
Check out the picture on the page linked above. No, it's not Kerry making fun of the Vietnamese who reached for the last US helicopters as they lifted off from Hanoi in 1975. But it says so much, doesn't it?
Now compare that actual photo to this parody.
Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll.
Now compare that actual photo to this parody.
Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll.
Professor Bainbridge and Kerry
Unlike John Kerry's "Because I said so" attitude to those challenging his assertions (see here), The Monk likes to offer proof that what you read is correct (if facts) or reasonable (if argument). And occasionally, The Monk will guide you to someone who has walked his paths before.
In this case, that someone is Stephen Bainbridge and he has numerous links demonstrating just how far left Kerry is. Let's go through the notables:
1. Kerry's lifetime Americans for Democratic Action (left-wing lobbyists) rating is 92; Paul Wellstone's was 99, Ted Kennedy's is 90. Kerry's lifetime American Conservative Union (right-wing lobbyists) rating is a mere 5. Bainbridge notes that from 1992-2000 (end of Bush I through Clinton), the average ADA rating for US senators was 42, while senators averaged 56 on the ACU's scale.
2. The late Wellstone lauded his own liberalism. From 1991-2000, however, Kerry was nearly as liberal as Wellstone during the years they were both in the Senate.
3. Investors and economists think Kerry's tax plans will hurt growth.
There's more from the good professor. And it just reinforces The Monk's fear: Kerry is the next Jimmy Carter.
In this case, that someone is Stephen Bainbridge and he has numerous links demonstrating just how far left Kerry is. Let's go through the notables:
1. Kerry's lifetime Americans for Democratic Action (left-wing lobbyists) rating is 92; Paul Wellstone's was 99, Ted Kennedy's is 90. Kerry's lifetime American Conservative Union (right-wing lobbyists) rating is a mere 5. Bainbridge notes that from 1992-2000 (end of Bush I through Clinton), the average ADA rating for US senators was 42, while senators averaged 56 on the ACU's scale.
2. The late Wellstone lauded his own liberalism. From 1991-2000, however, Kerry was nearly as liberal as Wellstone during the years they were both in the Senate.
3. Investors and economists think Kerry's tax plans will hurt growth.
There's more from the good professor. And it just reinforces The Monk's fear: Kerry is the next Jimmy Carter.
Absolutely sick II
On July 18, The Monk posted this snippet, which included a link to an "as told to" piece in the NY Times Magazine. The subject is Amy Richards, a freelance writer, sometime journalist, and fulltime feminist activist who chose to have two of the three babies she was pregnant with aborted. The Monk was quite tempered in his reaction on this blog because so many other bloggers had filled the web with their rage. See here, here, here and here. Note that all the babies were healthily gestating.
Most of the rage centered around three things Richards said or did: (1) her narcissistic concern that three babies would mean she'd have to move to Staten Island (from Manhattan) and shop at Costco; (2) her conceptualization that she merely wanted to "get rid" of two fetuses; and (3) her willingness to do it all over again.
Today, blogger Tim Worstall (link in title of this post) has Richards' response to an email from a very nonjudgmental correspondent who is a business acquaintance of Worstall.
Give Richards credit for an honest response, but read it in full CAREFULLY. None of the concerns about her narcissism or her willingness to kill additional fetuses is addressed. If anything, she provides more support for her detractors. There are three main points: (1) her fears for HER health if she carried triplets to term (despite no actual confirmed problems in the pregnancy and despite living in NYC -- where there is arguably the best medical-care in the world); (2) her desire to allow HER children access to diverse activities, good lifestyle, etc., and the inability she had to furnish those things for three children all at once, even though she had no qualms about having three children total; (3) thinking that it would be worse for HER son to know he has siblings "out there" than eliminating two of the potential siblings.
Most of the rage centered around three things Richards said or did: (1) her narcissistic concern that three babies would mean she'd have to move to Staten Island (from Manhattan) and shop at Costco; (2) her conceptualization that she merely wanted to "get rid" of two fetuses; and (3) her willingness to do it all over again.
Today, blogger Tim Worstall (link in title of this post) has Richards' response to an email from a very nonjudgmental correspondent who is a business acquaintance of Worstall.
Give Richards credit for an honest response, but read it in full CAREFULLY. None of the concerns about her narcissism or her willingness to kill additional fetuses is addressed. If anything, she provides more support for her detractors. There are three main points: (1) her fears for HER health if she carried triplets to term (despite no actual confirmed problems in the pregnancy and despite living in NYC -- where there is arguably the best medical-care in the world); (2) her desire to allow HER children access to diverse activities, good lifestyle, etc., and the inability she had to furnish those things for three children all at once, even though she had no qualms about having three children total; (3) thinking that it would be worse for HER son to know he has siblings "out there" than eliminating two of the potential siblings.
And you thought Clinton pandered
John Kerry is now pandering to the press! How? Promising more press conferences because he has "nothing to hide." What a steaming pile THAT is!
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he would have discussed his glorious Senatorial record for more than 26 seconds in his acceptance speech last Thursday.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he would have touted his support for Communist governments in Central America in the 1980s, his opposition to deploying nuclear missiles in western Europe (a move that hastened the US victory in the Cold War by staring down the Soviets), his peacenik advocacy for a nuclear freeze, his opposition against 10 of the most effective weapons systems/attack vehicles used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his opposition to Gulf War I that freed Kuwait and kept Saddam from controlling key parts of the world's oil supply.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he would have discussed his antiwar stance after he returned from Vietnam and his efforts on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- a group that wanted to assassinate Senatorial leaders (which Kerry would not have endorsed) and made mendacious accusations that all US soldiers were war criminals (which Kerry regurgitated).
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he'd tell us which European leaders allegedly want him to win in November.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he'd tell us about his secret plan to end the war in Iraq.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he'd tell us why it's acceptable for him to push his personal views for higher taxes, weaker defense and left-wing judges but not his personal views on abortion.
And if Kerry had nothing to hide, his wife's tax returns would be public just as previous potential First Ladies have revealed their own returns.
Then again, perhaps Kerry has something to hide.
Tip o' the cap: Captain Ed.
Screeching to a halt at the Beltway Traffic Jam.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he would have discussed his glorious Senatorial record for more than 26 seconds in his acceptance speech last Thursday.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he would have touted his support for Communist governments in Central America in the 1980s, his opposition to deploying nuclear missiles in western Europe (a move that hastened the US victory in the Cold War by staring down the Soviets), his peacenik advocacy for a nuclear freeze, his opposition against 10 of the most effective weapons systems/attack vehicles used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his opposition to Gulf War I that freed Kuwait and kept Saddam from controlling key parts of the world's oil supply.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he would have discussed his antiwar stance after he returned from Vietnam and his efforts on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- a group that wanted to assassinate Senatorial leaders (which Kerry would not have endorsed) and made mendacious accusations that all US soldiers were war criminals (which Kerry regurgitated).
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he'd tell us which European leaders allegedly want him to win in November.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he'd tell us about his secret plan to end the war in Iraq.
If Kerry had nothing to hide, he'd tell us why it's acceptable for him to push his personal views for higher taxes, weaker defense and left-wing judges but not his personal views on abortion.
And if Kerry had nothing to hide, his wife's tax returns would be public just as previous potential First Ladies have revealed their own returns.
Then again, perhaps Kerry has something to hide.
Tip o' the cap: Captain Ed.
Screeching to a halt at the Beltway Traffic Jam.
The Great Steinbrenner's financial genius
This is brilliant! Steinbrenner is in negotiations with NYC to build a new Yankee Stadium, with only the Yankees' money, and have NYC contribute $300,000,000 in area renovations, roads, parks, business help, etc. The current Collective Bargaining Agreement allows baseball teams to deduct the costs of stadium operations from their revenue sharing obligations. MLB has allowed those "costs" to INCLUDE stadium construction debt. Thus, Steinbrenner would NOT contribute revenue sharing and instead would be able to keep that money to pay down the construction debt!
Neil deMause on Baseball Prospectus (link above) calls this a scam and says "If it works--and it's worth noting that there's nothing stopping the other 29 teams from rewriting the revenue-sharing rules in the next CBA in 2006--it's a breathtaking ploy to build a stadium with other people's money, and reveals a huge loophole in baseball's revenue-sharing plan, which was designed specifically to keep the Yankees from doing stuff like this."
That's the socialist mindset for you: the Yankees' revenues that they obtain by being the best product and most recognizable brand in team sports is "other people's money." What a crock.
And I'm supposed to cry for the other owners? Like Carl Pohlad of the Twins, the richest owner in baseball, who actually RECEIVES a net profit of revenue-sharing money (revenues received minus revenues paid into MLB's overall revenue-sharing fund) and then pockets it whilst strangling his team's payroll, or Wendy Selig-Prieb who owns the Brewers -- the most profitable team in baseball according to Forbes? Get real.
Or stated better, by Rob at Say Anything:
Steinbrenner [is] forcing other professional baseball teams to pay for his team's new stadium because he found a perfectly legal loophole that allows him to deduct the stadium's cost from the amount of money he has to give to those other teams? That's sort of like accusing me of forcing orphans to pay for my new patio because I deducted the cost of its construction from the amount I give annually to the Poor Little Orphan's charity.
Give me a break.
Since when did it become the responsibility of the New York Yankees to fund every other team in baseball? Aren't these other teams supposed to be businesses? . . .
And let's not forget that most of these teams who benefit from revenue sharing aren't actually spending those proceeds on the betterment of their team. Most of the owners of those teams just pocket the money while only diverting a bare minimum of it to the team itself (I'm looking at you and your Milwaukee Brewers Mr. Selig).
So lets not kid ourselves. The Yankees are building themselves a new palace with the profits they receive from being the most successful franchise in all of professional sports and the rest of the league is jealous.
Neil deMause on Baseball Prospectus (link above) calls this a scam and says "If it works--and it's worth noting that there's nothing stopping the other 29 teams from rewriting the revenue-sharing rules in the next CBA in 2006--it's a breathtaking ploy to build a stadium with other people's money, and reveals a huge loophole in baseball's revenue-sharing plan, which was designed specifically to keep the Yankees from doing stuff like this."
That's the socialist mindset for you: the Yankees' revenues that they obtain by being the best product and most recognizable brand in team sports is "other people's money." What a crock.
And I'm supposed to cry for the other owners? Like Carl Pohlad of the Twins, the richest owner in baseball, who actually RECEIVES a net profit of revenue-sharing money (revenues received minus revenues paid into MLB's overall revenue-sharing fund) and then pockets it whilst strangling his team's payroll, or Wendy Selig-Prieb who owns the Brewers -- the most profitable team in baseball according to Forbes? Get real.
Or stated better, by Rob at Say Anything:
Steinbrenner [is] forcing other professional baseball teams to pay for his team's new stadium because he found a perfectly legal loophole that allows him to deduct the stadium's cost from the amount of money he has to give to those other teams? That's sort of like accusing me of forcing orphans to pay for my new patio because I deducted the cost of its construction from the amount I give annually to the Poor Little Orphan's charity.
Give me a break.
Since when did it become the responsibility of the New York Yankees to fund every other team in baseball? Aren't these other teams supposed to be businesses? . . .
And let's not forget that most of these teams who benefit from revenue sharing aren't actually spending those proceeds on the betterment of their team. Most of the owners of those teams just pocket the money while only diverting a bare minimum of it to the team itself (I'm looking at you and your Milwaukee Brewers Mr. Selig).
So lets not kid ourselves. The Yankees are building themselves a new palace with the profits they receive from being the most successful franchise in all of professional sports and the rest of the league is jealous.
Victor Davis Hanson: Europe's wish
The link in this post is to a Wall Street Journal article, so if it doesn't work you have two choices: buy the paper or subscribe online.
Nonetheless, Hanson nails the European character and pathology very nicely:
Europeans talk of the Kerrys' environmentalism in tired references to the American reluctance to sign the Kyoto accords, a flawed treaty that no Democratic president could defend and few Democratic senators would ratify. In the meantime, one sees an occasional train rush alongside the Rhine spewing from its lavatories raw human waste onto the tracks. Mammoth nuclear plants dot the French countryside. Restaurants are so smoke-filled that the pâté takes on the flavor of Gauloise, and tipsy afternoon drivers emerge from upscale restaurants with three or four glasses of wine under their belts to swerve on antiquated roads. Tourists take cheap shots that they fear being cooked alive in an August Paris flat or being buried in rubble at de Gaulle airport.
McDonald's is prominent among the stylish cafés of Luxembourg. Dubbed-in "Friends" and "Jerry Springer" blare from hotel televisions. Bare navels, Ray-Bans, pierced everything, and baggy jeans suggest a studied effort to emulate the look of Venice Beach. For a bewildered American, the key in squaring the anti-American rhetoric with the Valley Girl reality is simply to understand Western Europeans as elite Americans. Their upscale leisured culture is not much different from Malibu, Austin and Dupont Circle . . . Perhaps this notion that Europe itself has become a cultural appendage of the U.S. explains why it views our upcoming election as a referendum on its own future as well.
None of these paradoxes is new. Yet the European meddling in this particular presidential election is. Less talked about is that the image of an allied Europe has been shattered here at home. And all the retired NATO brass and Council on Foreign Relations grandees are finding it hard to put the pieces back together again. The American public now wants to be told exactly why thousands in their undermanned military are stationed in a continent larger and richer than our own without conventional enemies on its borders. If Europeans think it is nonsensical to connect Iraq with our own post 9/11 security, then Americans believe it is far more absurd to envision an American-led NATO patrolling their skies and roads 15 years after a nearby hostile empire collapsed -- especially when NATO turns out to be as isolationist as America is expected to be engaged abroad.
Nonetheless, Hanson nails the European character and pathology very nicely:
Europeans talk of the Kerrys' environmentalism in tired references to the American reluctance to sign the Kyoto accords, a flawed treaty that no Democratic president could defend and few Democratic senators would ratify. In the meantime, one sees an occasional train rush alongside the Rhine spewing from its lavatories raw human waste onto the tracks. Mammoth nuclear plants dot the French countryside. Restaurants are so smoke-filled that the pâté takes on the flavor of Gauloise, and tipsy afternoon drivers emerge from upscale restaurants with three or four glasses of wine under their belts to swerve on antiquated roads. Tourists take cheap shots that they fear being cooked alive in an August Paris flat or being buried in rubble at de Gaulle airport.
McDonald's is prominent among the stylish cafés of Luxembourg. Dubbed-in "Friends" and "Jerry Springer" blare from hotel televisions. Bare navels, Ray-Bans, pierced everything, and baggy jeans suggest a studied effort to emulate the look of Venice Beach. For a bewildered American, the key in squaring the anti-American rhetoric with the Valley Girl reality is simply to understand Western Europeans as elite Americans. Their upscale leisured culture is not much different from Malibu, Austin and Dupont Circle . . . Perhaps this notion that Europe itself has become a cultural appendage of the U.S. explains why it views our upcoming election as a referendum on its own future as well.
None of these paradoxes is new. Yet the European meddling in this particular presidential election is. Less talked about is that the image of an allied Europe has been shattered here at home. And all the retired NATO brass and Council on Foreign Relations grandees are finding it hard to put the pieces back together again. The American public now wants to be told exactly why thousands in their undermanned military are stationed in a continent larger and richer than our own without conventional enemies on its borders. If Europeans think it is nonsensical to connect Iraq with our own post 9/11 security, then Americans believe it is far more absurd to envision an American-led NATO patrolling their skies and roads 15 years after a nearby hostile empire collapsed -- especially when NATO turns out to be as isolationist as America is expected to be engaged abroad.
Terror warnings and Democrats
First, read this article on how Kerry's team is reacting to the current, and any future, terror warnings.
Then read Captain Ed's analysis, excerpted here:
What almost no analysis has addressed, however, is the context of the alerts with regards to the capture of Naeem Noor Khan, the computer expert and al-Qaeda planner whose data provided the basis for the alert. Khan was captured on July 12 but his arrest was only recently acknowledged. Khan held surveillance for a number of financial targets in the New York area, apparently quite detailed, going back as far as three years ago. What we now know about AQ operations tells us that multi-year planning and careful building of teams is their hallmark, and their plans take at least that long to fully mature.
Now, with Khan's capture announced to the world and the collapse of his communications infrastructure to the field teams involved in any of his plans, one likely result will be that individual cells will act on their last orders and launch attacks in the near future. Their ability to coordinate will likely be severely disrupted, as terrorists cells probably have no direct contact with each other, so that attacks occur randomly and not strategically, as on 9/11.
. . . Without Khan's communication network, the cells will have no other way to communicate back to AQ masters or each other, and the lunatics will be forced to disband quietly and assimilate into the American society they hate with such passion. Their money will quickly dry up and with it their ability to do anything on a large scale.
Faced with these two choices, which one do you suppose the AQ cells in the US that Khan controlled will select? Assimilation and surrender, or following the last plan given to them? And given that the Pakistanis have sundered their communications and with it access to new financing, when do you suppose that decision will be made?
Frightening thought process, but unfortunately logical.
Then read Captain Ed's analysis, excerpted here:
What almost no analysis has addressed, however, is the context of the alerts with regards to the capture of Naeem Noor Khan, the computer expert and al-Qaeda planner whose data provided the basis for the alert. Khan was captured on July 12 but his arrest was only recently acknowledged. Khan held surveillance for a number of financial targets in the New York area, apparently quite detailed, going back as far as three years ago. What we now know about AQ operations tells us that multi-year planning and careful building of teams is their hallmark, and their plans take at least that long to fully mature.
Now, with Khan's capture announced to the world and the collapse of his communications infrastructure to the field teams involved in any of his plans, one likely result will be that individual cells will act on their last orders and launch attacks in the near future. Their ability to coordinate will likely be severely disrupted, as terrorists cells probably have no direct contact with each other, so that attacks occur randomly and not strategically, as on 9/11.
. . . Without Khan's communication network, the cells will have no other way to communicate back to AQ masters or each other, and the lunatics will be forced to disband quietly and assimilate into the American society they hate with such passion. Their money will quickly dry up and with it their ability to do anything on a large scale.
Faced with these two choices, which one do you suppose the AQ cells in the US that Khan controlled will select? Assimilation and surrender, or following the last plan given to them? And given that the Pakistanis have sundered their communications and with it access to new financing, when do you suppose that decision will be made?
Frightening thought process, but unfortunately logical.
The Bush Recovery
Former Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State Schultz points out how successful the Bush recovery has been since the 2000-01 recession.
Tipping me cap: at Wongdoer
Tipping me cap: at Wongdoer
Oil-for-Food-for-Osama?
Claudia Rosett has been muckraking on the UN's Oil-for-Food program for months and the information she has uncovered has helped spur Congressional calls for investigations and even shed some sunlight on the UN's corrupt practices. The Oil-for-Food program was supposed to allow Iraq to sell some of its oil for necessary food and medicines whilst Iraq was under UN sanctions. But Saddam cut side-deals with the UN-approved suppliers to obtain kickbacks for himself (that went to his various bank accounts in countries with strong bank secrecy laws).
In this week's Weekly Standard, she connects the dots from the Oil-for-Food program to Saddam funding terrorism and, potentially, al-Qaeda. Here's an excerpt:
Under terms agreed to by the U.N., Saddam got to sell oil to buy such humanitarian supplies as food and medicine, to be rationed to the Iraqi population. But the terms were hugely in Saddam's favor. The U.N. let Saddam choose his own business partners, kept the details of his deals confidential, and while watching for weapons-related goods did not, as it turns out, exercise much serious financial oversight. Saddam turned this setup to his own advantage, fiddling prices on contracts with his hand-picked partners, and smuggling out oil pumped under U.N. supervision with U.N.-approved new equipment. Thus did we arrive at the recent General Accounting Office estimate that under Oil-for-Food, despite sanctions, Saddam managed to skim and smuggle for himself more than $10 billion out of oil sales meant for relief.
And the timing gets interesting, especially the year 1998. Not only was that the year in which bin Laden signaled his big comeback in Afghanistan. It was also the year in which Oil-for-Food jelled into a reliable vehicle for Saddam's scams, a source of enormous, illicit income.
* * *
UNTIL 1998, Iraq had not loomed large in bin Laden's rants. Why, then, such stress on Iraq, at that particular moment, in declaring war on America? It is certainly possible that bin Laden simply figured Iraq had become another good selling point, a handy way to whip up anger at the United States. But it is at least intriguing that the month after bin Laden's fatwa [against the US], in March 1998, as the 9/11 Commission reports, two al Qaeda members visited Baghdad. And in July 1998, "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."
There's more and it's worthwhile reading it.
In this week's Weekly Standard, she connects the dots from the Oil-for-Food program to Saddam funding terrorism and, potentially, al-Qaeda. Here's an excerpt:
Under terms agreed to by the U.N., Saddam got to sell oil to buy such humanitarian supplies as food and medicine, to be rationed to the Iraqi population. But the terms were hugely in Saddam's favor. The U.N. let Saddam choose his own business partners, kept the details of his deals confidential, and while watching for weapons-related goods did not, as it turns out, exercise much serious financial oversight. Saddam turned this setup to his own advantage, fiddling prices on contracts with his hand-picked partners, and smuggling out oil pumped under U.N. supervision with U.N.-approved new equipment. Thus did we arrive at the recent General Accounting Office estimate that under Oil-for-Food, despite sanctions, Saddam managed to skim and smuggle for himself more than $10 billion out of oil sales meant for relief.
And the timing gets interesting, especially the year 1998. Not only was that the year in which bin Laden signaled his big comeback in Afghanistan. It was also the year in which Oil-for-Food jelled into a reliable vehicle for Saddam's scams, a source of enormous, illicit income.
* * *
UNTIL 1998, Iraq had not loomed large in bin Laden's rants. Why, then, such stress on Iraq, at that particular moment, in declaring war on America? It is certainly possible that bin Laden simply figured Iraq had become another good selling point, a handy way to whip up anger at the United States. But it is at least intriguing that the month after bin Laden's fatwa [against the US], in March 1998, as the 9/11 Commission reports, two al Qaeda members visited Baghdad. And in July 1998, "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."
There's more and it's worthwhile reading it.
Liberal nutters at the RNC
The Allahpundit discovered the tactics that protestors will use during the Republican National Convention in NYC. The protest group RNC Not Welcome has developed methods to prevent police from doing their jobs generally, setting small booby traps for cops trying to break up the protests and tactics to resist arrest. Nasty stuff. If people ever realize the types of whack-jobs who want Kerry to win, Kerry would lose in a landslide. Or so I'd like to think.
Start flinging the mud
That's the call by Bridget Johnson in Opinion Journal. And let's be honest, although her piece is primarily observational humor, the fact is that more is revealed by "negative" campaigning than by the positive and content-free platitudes that Kerry regurgitates in every stump speech, and which Bush mutters all too often as well.
Why? Because the threshold for "negative" comments is so low that an ant can leap over it. Any statement that challenges the other candidate's record, prior statements, inconsistencies, ties to "special" interests, etc. are now considered negative. Thus, Bush pointing out the multitudes of inconsistencies in Kerry's positions is negative campaigning; questioning Kerry's fitness as commander in chief after voting against major defense programs (that were essential to the victories in Afghanistan and Iraq) and questioning his judgment in voting against Gulf War I, proposing a nuclear freeze during the Cold War, etc., are all "negative campaigning." Rubbish. That's the type of information we need -- what has the candidate done and what should those actions lead us to expect him to do in pressure situations in the future.
The press wants Marquess of Queensbury rules. But this is a presidential campaign, we need strong men seeking the office, not slap-fighters.
Why? Because the threshold for "negative" comments is so low that an ant can leap over it. Any statement that challenges the other candidate's record, prior statements, inconsistencies, ties to "special" interests, etc. are now considered negative. Thus, Bush pointing out the multitudes of inconsistencies in Kerry's positions is negative campaigning; questioning Kerry's fitness as commander in chief after voting against major defense programs (that were essential to the victories in Afghanistan and Iraq) and questioning his judgment in voting against Gulf War I, proposing a nuclear freeze during the Cold War, etc., are all "negative campaigning." Rubbish. That's the type of information we need -- what has the candidate done and what should those actions lead us to expect him to do in pressure situations in the future.
The press wants Marquess of Queensbury rules. But this is a presidential campaign, we need strong men seeking the office, not slap-fighters.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Stealth from the Left!
Here is the must-read of the day: Jonathan Cohn on how Howard Dean is attempting to pull the Democrats farther to the left by emulating Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition's influence on the Republican Party. Why? In essence, the left-wing fringe is accepting the two-party reality of US politics and feels that it can get influence by working within the party structure.
There are some concepts here worth noting: (1) it is only the ultra-far Left, such as Greens, Communists (the Communist Party of the USA supports Kerry), Socialists, International ANSWER and MoveOn types that really are trying to gain influence in this manner because the mid- to far-left already has tremendous standing in the Democratic Party -- unions, Ralph Neas, feminists, Nan Aron, NARAL Pro-Choice America, ACT-UP, etc.; (2) the point of the exercise is to prevent another split vote on the left by a Nader type of candidacy; (3) but the unification of the ultra-far Left with the establishment Left has the effect of letting the Democrats quiet all those voices so that they can present a moderate image for Kerry and the party whilst being assured that the whole left-wing will support the presidential ticket. Thus, a Kerry Administration would owe a LOT to the far-Left and would bring that circus to town if it wins in November.
The Democratic Party in the US is functionally a far-Left party. Its most prominent members are: Kerry, H. Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore Jr., Bill Clinton, and Howard Dean. Kennedy, Byrd and Levin all have far-Left voting records; Kerry's is more liberal than theirs. The only near-moderate in the bunch is former president Clinton -- and his instincts are much more liberal than his actions were, thanks to a gridlocked government. But the effect of getting the loony-leftists who wandered off the farm back into the party and quiescent is part of a greater strategy to present a presidential candidate who can appeal to people that do NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, concur with the Left's broader agenda.
Thus, Cohn explains:
Although nearly all activists here oppose the war in Iraq, they've embraced in Kerry a candidate who voted for it and has yet to disavow that vote; although nearly all favor not just civil unions but actual marriage rights for gays, they've signed off on a candidate who says he opposes same-sex marriage; and, although nearly all are critical of--if not steadfastly opposed to--free trade, they have endorsed a candidate who voted for NAFTA and said he continues to support free trade. All this has given Kerry and the Democratic leadership leeway to project a broadly appealing moderate image--by, for example, herding the high-profile liberal convention speakers through early on Tuesday night when the networks weren't broadcasting.
And the press will enable all this so that its preferred candidate wins in November.
There are some concepts here worth noting: (1) it is only the ultra-far Left, such as Greens, Communists (the Communist Party of the USA supports Kerry), Socialists, International ANSWER and MoveOn types that really are trying to gain influence in this manner because the mid- to far-left already has tremendous standing in the Democratic Party -- unions, Ralph Neas, feminists, Nan Aron, NARAL Pro-Choice America, ACT-UP, etc.; (2) the point of the exercise is to prevent another split vote on the left by a Nader type of candidacy; (3) but the unification of the ultra-far Left with the establishment Left has the effect of letting the Democrats quiet all those voices so that they can present a moderate image for Kerry and the party whilst being assured that the whole left-wing will support the presidential ticket. Thus, a Kerry Administration would owe a LOT to the far-Left and would bring that circus to town if it wins in November.
The Democratic Party in the US is functionally a far-Left party. Its most prominent members are: Kerry, H. Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Robert Byrd, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore Jr., Bill Clinton, and Howard Dean. Kennedy, Byrd and Levin all have far-Left voting records; Kerry's is more liberal than theirs. The only near-moderate in the bunch is former president Clinton -- and his instincts are much more liberal than his actions were, thanks to a gridlocked government. But the effect of getting the loony-leftists who wandered off the farm back into the party and quiescent is part of a greater strategy to present a presidential candidate who can appeal to people that do NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, concur with the Left's broader agenda.
Thus, Cohn explains:
Although nearly all activists here oppose the war in Iraq, they've embraced in Kerry a candidate who voted for it and has yet to disavow that vote; although nearly all favor not just civil unions but actual marriage rights for gays, they've signed off on a candidate who says he opposes same-sex marriage; and, although nearly all are critical of--if not steadfastly opposed to--free trade, they have endorsed a candidate who voted for NAFTA and said he continues to support free trade. All this has given Kerry and the Democratic leadership leeway to project a broadly appealing moderate image--by, for example, herding the high-profile liberal convention speakers through early on Tuesday night when the networks weren't broadcasting.
And the press will enable all this so that its preferred candidate wins in November.
Save the Routemaster
The London Routemaster open-backed double-deck bus is an icon. But it is being phased out due to EU regulations. For some reason, London Mayor Ken Livingstone is removing Routemasters even faster than required -- the regulations take full effect in about 7+ years, the Routemasters will be off the streets under the current schedule by the end of 2005.
The saddest facts: (1) the Routemaster gets better mileage than its replacements (all run on diesel fuel); (2) Routemasters have fewer handicapped passenger injuries than "fully accessible" buses.
The EU, where history is just a thing of the past.
The saddest facts: (1) the Routemaster gets better mileage than its replacements (all run on diesel fuel); (2) Routemasters have fewer handicapped passenger injuries than "fully accessible" buses.
The EU, where history is just a thing of the past.
Kerry: I don't need proof, what I say is true
Ron Fournier, no friend of the Bush Administration, has a very skeptical report on the ability of a Kerry administration to get more foreign troops to Iraq. Kerry's sources for his belief? Anti-Bush blowhard Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who agreed with Kerry on just about all of Kerry's moronic foreign policy and defense votes during Kerry's Senate tenure (see here for a rundown), and Joe Biden, a Democratic Senator who is angling to be Kerry's Secretary of State.
As Fournier notes, "when asked for hard evidence that his victory would produce a troops-reducing deal for America, neither Kerry nor his fellow senators cite anything other than their vague perceptions and utmost hopes."
Ouch. Sounds like the Democrats' approach to terrorism in general.
Meanwhile, the reality is that Europeans were displeased that Kerry promised to NOT ask for anyone else's permission to defend the US. As John Henke at QandO noted, "They are 'disappointed' that a US President promises to US force to defend the United States against a threat. We are, apparently, obligated to wait meekly for the trains to round us up."
That cannot be allowed to happen. We're not French.
UPDATE -- Captain Ed has this comment on Fournier's analysis:
Fournier reveals Kerry to be nothing more than an empty suit on Iraq, pronouncing secret plans to deliver nothing different than what George Bush already has done, and insinuating that heads of state around the world will abandon negotiating with the US if Kerry is not elected. Not only is that ridiculous on its face -- the US is the most dynamic economic market in the world, for one thing -- but it speaks to a hint of narcissism and megalomania that hearkens back to Nixon, along with Kerry's secret plan. Most damaging of all, Fournier's shot across the bow of the Kerry campaign may signal that some of the mainstream media has had enough of the empty-suit campaign and may start taking their Kerry coverage seriously -- and that will be very, very bad news for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
As Fournier notes, "when asked for hard evidence that his victory would produce a troops-reducing deal for America, neither Kerry nor his fellow senators cite anything other than their vague perceptions and utmost hopes."
Ouch. Sounds like the Democrats' approach to terrorism in general.
Meanwhile, the reality is that Europeans were displeased that Kerry promised to NOT ask for anyone else's permission to defend the US. As John Henke at QandO noted, "They are 'disappointed' that a US President promises to US force to defend the United States against a threat. We are, apparently, obligated to wait meekly for the trains to round us up."
That cannot be allowed to happen. We're not French.
UPDATE -- Captain Ed has this comment on Fournier's analysis:
Fournier reveals Kerry to be nothing more than an empty suit on Iraq, pronouncing secret plans to deliver nothing different than what George Bush already has done, and insinuating that heads of state around the world will abandon negotiating with the US if Kerry is not elected. Not only is that ridiculous on its face -- the US is the most dynamic economic market in the world, for one thing -- but it speaks to a hint of narcissism and megalomania that hearkens back to Nixon, along with Kerry's secret plan. Most damaging of all, Fournier's shot across the bow of the Kerry campaign may signal that some of the mainstream media has had enough of the empty-suit campaign and may start taking their Kerry coverage seriously -- and that will be very, very bad news for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.
The Monk is a goon wannabe
DRUDGE currently has some lovely quotes from the POSITIVE and ISSUE-FOCUSSED John Kerry and his lovely and demure wife.
John Kerry said in response to protestors at his Milwaukee rally "I want to thank George Bush for sending the goons here tonight to excite us to do a little more work." Kerry's pro-Labor so he really should know what folks do and do not qualify as goons. Monk thinks he's settin' the bar a bit low. Nonetheless, it's good to see the Senator remaining positive in this campaign and offhandedly commenting that the 47-53% of the electorate who side with the President are just a bunch of goons.
Then there's her loveliness herself, from the Yahoo Reuters feed:
Heinz Kerry subtly questioned Republican President Bush (news - web sites)'s intellect, saying: "It's vital for anyone with intelligence to acknowledge mistakes and change positions -- hello."
When a Bush supporter with a bullhorn shouted "four more years" from the back of a large crowd packed into a downtown Milwaukee park, Heinz Kerry, who was introducing her husband, responded: "They want four more years of hell."
Let's break these two comments down. First, THK says that Bush is stupid. That means her husband and John Edwards are completely vegetative. After all, Bush asked for Congressional authority to go to war against Iraq and BOTH of the Johns said yes. In addition, that concept of changing positions based on new knowledge is rubbish: has Kerry ever disavowed his position FOR the nuclear freeze in the 1980s, AGAINST placing intermediate-range missiles in West Germany, FOR cutting the military budget even further than Clinton did, AGAINST the first Gulf War that threw Saddam out of Kuwait, AGAINST the ten military programs that were probably the most vital to winning the Afghan and Iraq II wars with less than 2000 fatalities for US forces and AGAINST $87,000,000 in additional funds for armor-plating vehicles and additional weapons for US soldiers? Maybe he's not that smart Theresa.
Finally, if she thinks four years of Bush are hell (as her investment portfolio grows at a faster rate than her ego), perhaps she would prefer to experience four years in Cuba, the former USSR, in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1939-43 or in the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain . . . the woman is a menace to reality.
And of course, the Republicans will never say this about the Democrats.
UPDATE: Check out the audio.
John Kerry said in response to protestors at his Milwaukee rally "I want to thank George Bush for sending the goons here tonight to excite us to do a little more work." Kerry's pro-Labor so he really should know what folks do and do not qualify as goons. Monk thinks he's settin' the bar a bit low. Nonetheless, it's good to see the Senator remaining positive in this campaign and offhandedly commenting that the 47-53% of the electorate who side with the President are just a bunch of goons.
Then there's her loveliness herself, from the Yahoo Reuters feed:
Heinz Kerry subtly questioned Republican President Bush (news - web sites)'s intellect, saying: "It's vital for anyone with intelligence to acknowledge mistakes and change positions -- hello."
When a Bush supporter with a bullhorn shouted "four more years" from the back of a large crowd packed into a downtown Milwaukee park, Heinz Kerry, who was introducing her husband, responded: "They want four more years of hell."
Let's break these two comments down. First, THK says that Bush is stupid. That means her husband and John Edwards are completely vegetative. After all, Bush asked for Congressional authority to go to war against Iraq and BOTH of the Johns said yes. In addition, that concept of changing positions based on new knowledge is rubbish: has Kerry ever disavowed his position FOR the nuclear freeze in the 1980s, AGAINST placing intermediate-range missiles in West Germany, FOR cutting the military budget even further than Clinton did, AGAINST the first Gulf War that threw Saddam out of Kuwait, AGAINST the ten military programs that were probably the most vital to winning the Afghan and Iraq II wars with less than 2000 fatalities for US forces and AGAINST $87,000,000 in additional funds for armor-plating vehicles and additional weapons for US soldiers? Maybe he's not that smart Theresa.
Finally, if she thinks four years of Bush are hell (as her investment portfolio grows at a faster rate than her ego), perhaps she would prefer to experience four years in Cuba, the former USSR, in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1939-43 or in the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain . . . the woman is a menace to reality.
And of course, the Republicans will never say this about the Democrats.
UPDATE: Check out the audio.
Chuck Hagel gets one right
Now that John Kerry is demagoguing the 9-11 Commission report and the Bush campaign is starting to cave to the 10 dopes' recommendations, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says NOT SO FAST.
Here is an excerpt:
. . . if we allow the current national consensus for intelligence reform to become a tool in the partisan rancor of presidential politics, we risk doing enormous damage to our intelligence community. We must not allow false urgency dictated by the political calendar to overtake the need for serious reform.
* * *
A mistaken impression has developed that since Sept. 11, 2001, little has been done to improve our intelligence capabilities. This is not true. We are unquestionably a safer nation today than we were three years ago. The legislative and executive branches of government have been reviewing and adjusting our intelligence -- the gathering, processing and management of it -- since Sept. 11 . . . Last month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I serve, issued the first part of our report on intelligence failures prior to the war in Iraq. We have begun the second phase of our report, which will include recommendations on reform of our intelligence community.
And despite the impressions you may have from the press, it's not just the 9-11 Commission that has studied (or is studying) the US intelligence community and ways to improve it. As Sen. Hagel notes:
In 2001 the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, provided the president with a comprehensive review of the intelligence community and recommendations.
* * *
This year President Bush designated a bipartisan panel to examine U.S. intelligence capabilities. The commission, led by former senator and governor Chuck Robb of Virginia and federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman, has been given a broad mandate to "assess whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained and resourced to . . . support United States Government efforts to respond to . . . the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century." They are to report their findings to the president by March 31.
In addition to the intelligence committees, Senate and House committees are studying reform of our intelligence community. Some will hold hearings during the August congressional recess. The work of intelligence reform cuts a wide swath across our government. All these hearings in committees of jurisdiction are critical for any reforms to succeed.
Furthermore, as James Joyner notes,
The 9/11 Commission was a panel consisting almost entirely of people with no expertise in intelligence gathering or analysis . . . [I]t is the job of presidents and legislators to make judgments on such weighty matters for themselves. Blue ribbon panels are sometimes useful for defusing a political hot potato. They must not become mini governments . . .
Here is an excerpt:
. . . if we allow the current national consensus for intelligence reform to become a tool in the partisan rancor of presidential politics, we risk doing enormous damage to our intelligence community. We must not allow false urgency dictated by the political calendar to overtake the need for serious reform.
* * *
A mistaken impression has developed that since Sept. 11, 2001, little has been done to improve our intelligence capabilities. This is not true. We are unquestionably a safer nation today than we were three years ago. The legislative and executive branches of government have been reviewing and adjusting our intelligence -- the gathering, processing and management of it -- since Sept. 11 . . . Last month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I serve, issued the first part of our report on intelligence failures prior to the war in Iraq. We have begun the second phase of our report, which will include recommendations on reform of our intelligence community.
And despite the impressions you may have from the press, it's not just the 9-11 Commission that has studied (or is studying) the US intelligence community and ways to improve it. As Sen. Hagel notes:
In 2001 the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, provided the president with a comprehensive review of the intelligence community and recommendations.
* * *
This year President Bush designated a bipartisan panel to examine U.S. intelligence capabilities. The commission, led by former senator and governor Chuck Robb of Virginia and federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman, has been given a broad mandate to "assess whether the Intelligence Community is sufficiently authorized, organized, equipped, trained and resourced to . . . support United States Government efforts to respond to . . . the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, related means of delivery, and other related threats of the 21st Century." They are to report their findings to the president by March 31.
In addition to the intelligence committees, Senate and House committees are studying reform of our intelligence community. Some will hold hearings during the August congressional recess. The work of intelligence reform cuts a wide swath across our government. All these hearings in committees of jurisdiction are critical for any reforms to succeed.
Furthermore, as James Joyner notes,
The 9/11 Commission was a panel consisting almost entirely of people with no expertise in intelligence gathering or analysis . . . [I]t is the job of presidents and legislators to make judgments on such weighty matters for themselves. Blue ribbon panels are sometimes useful for defusing a political hot potato. They must not become mini governments . . .
Moral insincerity -- Nat Hentoff on the UN
Nat Hentoff is a true and intellectually consistent civil libertarian. Today, he has the first of two columns blasting the UN for fiddling while Darfur burns and calling on Pres. Bush to act now. Hentoff's right. And here's his clarion call:
Susannah Sirkin of Physicians for Human Rights speaks the raw, saving truth in the July 23 New York Times: "The goal of prevention, which is paramount, cannot wait until a full legal determination is made."
On the same day, in a dispatch from BBC News, photographer Marcus Bleasdale, who reportedly took "pictures of between 30 and 40 mass graves in Darfur, in which up to 100 people had been buried," told the BBC: "As we looked along the horizon, we could see hands and heads sticking out of the trenches [of those graves]."
Of course this is genocide. It is also pure evil. Mr. Bush is not afraid of that word. Let him, right now -- unlike Bill Clinton turning away from Rwanda -- save lives in Darfur.
Susannah Sirkin of Physicians for Human Rights speaks the raw, saving truth in the July 23 New York Times: "The goal of prevention, which is paramount, cannot wait until a full legal determination is made."
On the same day, in a dispatch from BBC News, photographer Marcus Bleasdale, who reportedly took "pictures of between 30 and 40 mass graves in Darfur, in which up to 100 people had been buried," told the BBC: "As we looked along the horizon, we could see hands and heads sticking out of the trenches [of those graves]."
Of course this is genocide. It is also pure evil. Mr. Bush is not afraid of that word. Let him, right now -- unlike Bill Clinton turning away from Rwanda -- save lives in Darfur.
Monday, August 02, 2004
NO BOUNCE HERE
USA Today reports that Kerry not only did not get a "bounce" in the polls from the Democratic convention, but he LOST GROUND to Pres. Bush. The pollster = Gallup, sponsored by USA Today and CNN. Here's the key result:
In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.
The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.
The results are within the margin of error, but a no-bounce Democratic convention had not occurred since 1972.
AND AN UPDATE ON THE NEWSWEEK POLL that showed a (very, very, very, very) modest bounce for Kerry: it was over-weighted with Democrats!
Hat-tip: Man Without Qualities.
In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.
The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.
The results are within the margin of error, but a no-bounce Democratic convention had not occurred since 1972.
AND AN UPDATE ON THE NEWSWEEK POLL that showed a (very, very, very, very) modest bounce for Kerry: it was over-weighted with Democrats!
Hat-tip: Man Without Qualities.
No Unit No Cry
Read Joel Sherman on why the Yanks' empire hasn't crumbled merely because they did not get Randy Johnson in a trade.
This morning on Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio, Greenberg claimed that the 2002 Angels are an anomaly -- a team that did not win with pitching and defense in the playoffs but relied upon its offense and we're not likely to see that repeated this year or in the future. This assertion is rubbish.
Consider the following: (1) 1996 Yankees, team ERA 4.65, 5 quality starts in 15 playoff games (two in the WS), beats defending WS champion Atlanta despite 5 quality starts in 6 WS games; (2) 1997 Indians and Marlins face off in the WS, 'nuff said; (3) 2000 Yankees win World Series despite only two winning pitchers (Pettitte, Clemens) in starting rotation; (4) 2003 Marlins give up 42 runs in NLCS (6 per game) and win NL pennant by scoring 40 (blowout loss in game 2 skews the totals). That's just four recent examples.
Can the Yanks bang their way to a World Series? No. Even the '96 team had some good pitching from the starters (Pettitte, game 5 of ALCS, WS; Key, game 3 ALCS; Cone, game 3 WS); ditto the '02 Angels (most notably John Lackey in game 7). But the '97 Indians, '96 Yanks, '03 Marlins and '02 Angels all show that you can go one or more playoff series without decent starting pitching and win.
And another thing: Gammons yesterday on ESPN noted that the injuries to Brown and Moooooooooose could HELP the Yanks because those two won't have 33+ start seasons wearing on their arms in October. This is especially true of Brown, whose arm is ok to begin with.
This morning on Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio, Greenberg claimed that the 2002 Angels are an anomaly -- a team that did not win with pitching and defense in the playoffs but relied upon its offense and we're not likely to see that repeated this year or in the future. This assertion is rubbish.
Consider the following: (1) 1996 Yankees, team ERA 4.65, 5 quality starts in 15 playoff games (two in the WS), beats defending WS champion Atlanta despite 5 quality starts in 6 WS games; (2) 1997 Indians and Marlins face off in the WS, 'nuff said; (3) 2000 Yankees win World Series despite only two winning pitchers (Pettitte, Clemens) in starting rotation; (4) 2003 Marlins give up 42 runs in NLCS (6 per game) and win NL pennant by scoring 40 (blowout loss in game 2 skews the totals). That's just four recent examples.
Can the Yanks bang their way to a World Series? No. Even the '96 team had some good pitching from the starters (Pettitte, game 5 of ALCS, WS; Key, game 3 ALCS; Cone, game 3 WS); ditto the '02 Angels (most notably John Lackey in game 7). But the '97 Indians, '96 Yanks, '03 Marlins and '02 Angels all show that you can go one or more playoff series without decent starting pitching and win.
And another thing: Gammons yesterday on ESPN noted that the injuries to Brown and Moooooooooose could HELP the Yanks because those two won't have 33+ start seasons wearing on their arms in October. This is especially true of Brown, whose arm is ok to begin with.
Iraq update
Be sure to read Arthur Chrenkoff, who shows that Iraq reconstruction is progressing at a better pace than you could tell from the news shows.
Kerry the Crackpot
Meanwhile, Kerry is pledging to cut our troops in Iraq within four years (note the timetable). Big deal. As reconstruction progresses, the need for the troops will decline anyway, therefore the four-year timeframe is a cynical pile of ----.
Kerry's plan? It's SECRET. As the WaPo article linked above quotes him:
"I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."
Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."
WOW. What a naked display of power hunger!
Here's the reaction from Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters Blog:
John Kerry -- the new Nixon! He won't tell you anything about how he plans to convince the French and Germans to put troops they don't have into Iraq in numbers great enough to have us go home and leave them holding the bag. If that sounds like a stupid deal for the French and Germans to accept -- even Republicans wouldn't demand that of them -- Kerry wants you to know that his superior brain power will convince them to do it. Why? Because he has a secret plan, and you don't get to see it unless you elect him President.
It's really too bad he's not already an officeholder, a person with some official standing in the US government, or he could already be working on America's behalf. Darn it! If he wasn't an outsider in Washington, we could already have harnessed his superior intellect to solve this Gordian knot.
Crashin' in on the Beltway Traffic Jam
Kerry's plan? It's SECRET. As the WaPo article linked above quotes him:
"I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."
Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."
WOW. What a naked display of power hunger!
Here's the reaction from Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters Blog:
John Kerry -- the new Nixon! He won't tell you anything about how he plans to convince the French and Germans to put troops they don't have into Iraq in numbers great enough to have us go home and leave them holding the bag. If that sounds like a stupid deal for the French and Germans to accept -- even Republicans wouldn't demand that of them -- Kerry wants you to know that his superior brain power will convince them to do it. Why? Because he has a secret plan, and you don't get to see it unless you elect him President.
It's really too bad he's not already an officeholder, a person with some official standing in the US government, or he could already be working on America's behalf. Darn it! If he wasn't an outsider in Washington, we could already have harnessed his superior intellect to solve this Gordian knot.
Crashin' in on the Beltway Traffic Jam
Not a serious party
On CNN Howard Dean questioned whether the Bush Administration had issued the terror warning for political reasons. On Fox News, the Democrat hack arguing point/counterpoint with C. Boyden Gray pushed the "Bush lied us into Iraq" nonsense.
Which lie was that? The Niger-uranium lie that has since been conclusively proven true? The "imminent threat" lie that is actually a complete fabrication by Democrats because the President said that we could NOT wait until a threat became imminent before we acted? Or was it the WMD lie, which was uttered by the French, Germans, Russians, Brits, UN and every foreign policy player in the Clinton Administration?
The Dems have been so Clintonized by 8 years of that fat redneck playing politics with his presidency that they cannot even think straight. The mendacity of the Democrats boggles the mind.
Which lie was that? The Niger-uranium lie that has since been conclusively proven true? The "imminent threat" lie that is actually a complete fabrication by Democrats because the President said that we could NOT wait until a threat became imminent before we acted? Or was it the WMD lie, which was uttered by the French, Germans, Russians, Brits, UN and every foreign policy player in the Clinton Administration?
The Dems have been so Clintonized by 8 years of that fat redneck playing politics with his presidency that they cannot even think straight. The mendacity of the Democrats boggles the mind.
Thurman Munson, R.I.P.
Twenty-five years ago today, a small jet plane that Yankee catcher Thurman Munson owned, and had recently become accredited to fly, crashed due to pilot error in a field near the airport of Munson's hometown, Canton, Ohio. Munson was 32 and the soul of the Yankees that went into the 1979 season as the three-time defending AL champs and winners of the previous two World Series. The story linked in the title of this post is very good and has a rather harrowing description of the crash and the conditions of Munson's plane in the immediate aftermath of the crash. One quibble: Munson was NOT a good pilot -- his teammates would not fly with him and Steinbrenner REPEATEDLY begged Munson to ground himself because The Boss worried that the worst would happen.
And yes, The Monk remembers where he was when he learned the news. The Monk was just a young Monkling and vacationing in Spain with MaMonk and PaMonk when he saw the back page of the International Herald Tribune from August 4, 1979. Then The Monkling began to cry, sad that one of his heroes (whom he did not appreciate nearly enough -- a common failure of young baseball fans) was gone forever.
And yes, The Monk remembers where he was when he learned the news. The Monk was just a young Monkling and vacationing in Spain with MaMonk and PaMonk when he saw the back page of the International Herald Tribune from August 4, 1979. Then The Monkling began to cry, sad that one of his heroes (whom he did not appreciate nearly enough -- a common failure of young baseball fans) was gone forever.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Kerry's foreign policy
Robert Kagan is one of the most trenchant thinkers on foreign affairs and his formulation of European-American views on international policies has provided one of the defining policy perspectives of the past decade.
Here are the key points from Kagan's analysis:
Someday, when the passions of this election have subsided, historians and analysts of American foreign policy may fasten on a remarkable passage in John Kerry's nomination speech. "As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation." The statement received thunderous applause at the convention and, no doubt, the nodding approval of many Americans of all political leanings who watched on television.
Who but an American politician . . . could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?
The United States has sent forces into combat dozens of times over the past century and a half, and only twice, in World War II and in Afghanistan, has it arguably done so because it "had to." It certainly did not "have to" go to war against Spain in 1898 (or Mexico in 1846.) It did not "have to" send the Marines to Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Nicaragua in the first three decades of the 20th century, nor fight a lengthy war against insurgents in the Philippines. The necessity of Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I remains a hot topic for debate among historians.
* * *
The United States did not "have to" go to war to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. No one knows that better than Kerry, who voted against the Persian Gulf War, despite its unanimous approval by the U.N. Security Council. Nor could anyone plausibly deny that the Clinton administration's interventions in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were wars of choice. President Bill Clinton made the right choice in all three cases, but it was a choice.
Why is Kerry invoking an American "tradition" that does not exist?
Perhaps he's distorting American history simply to cast the Bush administration and the war in Iraq in the harshest possible light. But maybe Kerry is not being cynical. Perhaps, finally, he is saying what he really believes and not what American policy has been, but what it should be.
The doctrine Kerry enunciated on Thursday night, after all, was the doctrine initially favored by the antiwar movement and the mainstream of the Democratic Party after the debacle of Vietnam. "Come home, America" was the cry of those who believed America had corrupted both the world and itself in "wars of choice" in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Advocates of this doctrine did not propose a "return" to some mythical American past. Rather, they proposed a radical departure onto a very different course in American foreign policy. Their goal was a retraction of American power and influence from around the globe. Nor did they have any doubt that their view of America was patriotic. They would cleanse America of its sins.
* * *
The ironies abound. Three decades ago, Kerry came out in opposition to the war he had fought in Vietnam. Today, Kerry extols that service so that he may safely, patriotically distance himself from the war in Iraq that he had supported.
If Kerry has revealed himself in an unusual moment of honesty, it's time everyone took an equally honest look at where he would lead the country if elected. Kerry's "doctrine of necessity," if seriously intended, would entail a pacifism and an isolationism more thorough than any attempted by a U.S. government since the 1930s. It would rule out all wars fought for humanitarian ends, all interventions to prevent genocide, to defend democracy or even, as in the case of the Persian Gulf War, to uphold international law against aggression. For those are all wars of choice.
And the most frightening thing: Kerry could be the "Manchurian Candidate" of the isolationist Left.
As Kagan noted:
Would it really be surprising if John Kerry, whose life and thought were so powerfully shaped by his Vietnam experience, now returned to the view of American foreign policy which that experience led him to three decades ago? There seems to be a conspiracy on both sides in this campaign not to take Kerry seriously as a man of ideas and conviction. But the fact that he has waffled so visibly on Iraq may be the best proof of his commitment to the beliefs about American foreign policy he came to hold in the 1970s.
Here are the key points from Kagan's analysis:
Someday, when the passions of this election have subsided, historians and analysts of American foreign policy may fasten on a remarkable passage in John Kerry's nomination speech. "As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation." The statement received thunderous applause at the convention and, no doubt, the nodding approval of many Americans of all political leanings who watched on television.
Who but an American politician . . . could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?
The United States has sent forces into combat dozens of times over the past century and a half, and only twice, in World War II and in Afghanistan, has it arguably done so because it "had to." It certainly did not "have to" go to war against Spain in 1898 (or Mexico in 1846.) It did not "have to" send the Marines to Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Nicaragua in the first three decades of the 20th century, nor fight a lengthy war against insurgents in the Philippines. The necessity of Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I remains a hot topic for debate among historians.
* * *
The United States did not "have to" go to war to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. No one knows that better than Kerry, who voted against the Persian Gulf War, despite its unanimous approval by the U.N. Security Council. Nor could anyone plausibly deny that the Clinton administration's interventions in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were wars of choice. President Bill Clinton made the right choice in all three cases, but it was a choice.
Why is Kerry invoking an American "tradition" that does not exist?
Perhaps he's distorting American history simply to cast the Bush administration and the war in Iraq in the harshest possible light. But maybe Kerry is not being cynical. Perhaps, finally, he is saying what he really believes and not what American policy has been, but what it should be.
The doctrine Kerry enunciated on Thursday night, after all, was the doctrine initially favored by the antiwar movement and the mainstream of the Democratic Party after the debacle of Vietnam. "Come home, America" was the cry of those who believed America had corrupted both the world and itself in "wars of choice" in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Advocates of this doctrine did not propose a "return" to some mythical American past. Rather, they proposed a radical departure onto a very different course in American foreign policy. Their goal was a retraction of American power and influence from around the globe. Nor did they have any doubt that their view of America was patriotic. They would cleanse America of its sins.
* * *
The ironies abound. Three decades ago, Kerry came out in opposition to the war he had fought in Vietnam. Today, Kerry extols that service so that he may safely, patriotically distance himself from the war in Iraq that he had supported.
If Kerry has revealed himself in an unusual moment of honesty, it's time everyone took an equally honest look at where he would lead the country if elected. Kerry's "doctrine of necessity," if seriously intended, would entail a pacifism and an isolationism more thorough than any attempted by a U.S. government since the 1930s. It would rule out all wars fought for humanitarian ends, all interventions to prevent genocide, to defend democracy or even, as in the case of the Persian Gulf War, to uphold international law against aggression. For those are all wars of choice.
And the most frightening thing: Kerry could be the "Manchurian Candidate" of the isolationist Left.
As Kagan noted:
Would it really be surprising if John Kerry, whose life and thought were so powerfully shaped by his Vietnam experience, now returned to the view of American foreign policy which that experience led him to three decades ago? There seems to be a conspiracy on both sides in this campaign not to take Kerry seriously as a man of ideas and conviction. But the fact that he has waffled so visibly on Iraq may be the best proof of his commitment to the beliefs about American foreign policy he came to hold in the 1970s.
The ACLU won't avoid employing terrorists
That's the ultimate effect of the article linked above. On Saturday, the NY Times reported that the ACLU would continue to accept contributions through a government program that allows charities and nonprofit corporations to receive donations from federal employees through payroll deductions. But to do that the ACLU had to certify that it would not employ people on terrorist watch lists.
After the July 31 article appeared, the ACLU reversed itself and opted out of the program because (1) it thought the prohibition was against KNOWINGLY employing such persons and (2) the government program required some affirmative prevention (such that a failure-to-inquire defense would not work). Naturally, this is pure bunk -- the ACLU was exposed for its duplicity of opposing such watchlists and simultaneously pledging not to employ people on those lists for the sake of accepting the payroll contribution and decided against the watch lists.
The fact is the watchlists are just that: lists of people who COULD be threats to the nation. The notion that such people are actually having their civil rights harmed because the government is only calling for some extra precautions against them (no handling sensitive governmental information, and suchlike) just shows how low the ACLU has set its bar for a "civil rights violation."
Hat-tip Just One Minute.
After the July 31 article appeared, the ACLU reversed itself and opted out of the program because (1) it thought the prohibition was against KNOWINGLY employing such persons and (2) the government program required some affirmative prevention (such that a failure-to-inquire defense would not work). Naturally, this is pure bunk -- the ACLU was exposed for its duplicity of opposing such watchlists and simultaneously pledging not to employ people on those lists for the sake of accepting the payroll contribution and decided against the watch lists.
The fact is the watchlists are just that: lists of people who COULD be threats to the nation. The notion that such people are actually having their civil rights harmed because the government is only calling for some extra precautions against them (no handling sensitive governmental information, and suchlike) just shows how low the ACLU has set its bar for a "civil rights violation."
Hat-tip Just One Minute.
Another rip job on Kerry's speech
This one from David Brooks, the NY Times second house conservative hired to "balance out" the paper's liberals (Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, every member of the editorial board, etc.).
After noting Kerry's strident calls for strengthening the military and the small parade of retired generals supporting Kerry (as opposed to the division-sized group that support Bush), Brooks made the following observation:
Maybe the Democratic Party is going to recapture the security policy credibility it had during the Truman and Kennedy years. Maybe this display of McCainiac muscular moderation is not just a costume drama, but the real deal. Maybe hope is really on the way!
Alas it was not to be, as Brooks realized by reading the rot that Kerry read from the TelePrompTer Thursday night:
I should never have gone back and read the speech again. I should never have gone back on Friday morning, in the unforgiving light of day, and re-examined the words Kerry had so forcefully uttered the night before.
What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that the speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern. The Iraq section is shamefully evasive. He can't even bring himself to use the word "democratic" or to contemplate any future for Iraq, democratic or otherwise. He can't bring himself to say whether the war was a mistake or to lay out even the most meager plan for moving forward. For every gesture in the direction of greater defense spending, there are opposing hints about reducing our commitments and bringing the troops home.
He proves in the speech that he can pronounce the word "alliances," and alliances are important, but alliances for what? You can't base an entire foreign policy on process.
* * *
And it all brings back the memories of Kerry the senator. For though convention viewers may not be aware of it, Kerry has actually had a career since his four months in Vietnam - mostly in the Senate. It's not true that Kerry is a flaming lefty (he's a genuine budget hawk and he voted for welfare reform), but he was wrong about just about every major foreign policy judgment of the last two decades. He voted against the first gulf war, against many major weapons systems. He fought to reduce the defense budget. He opposed the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in the early 1980's. He supported the nuclear freeze. His decision to authorize war in Iraq but vote against financing the occupation is the least intellectually coherent position of all possible alternatives.
The upshot of all this: it's a vast LEFT-wing conspiracy:
. . . As a friend joked, from the voters of Iowa to the delegates in Boston, there's been a vast left-wing conspiracy to present a candidate who looks like a muscular moderate, but they picked someone who is not in his heart of hearts a muscular moderate, or anything else.
After noting Kerry's strident calls for strengthening the military and the small parade of retired generals supporting Kerry (as opposed to the division-sized group that support Bush), Brooks made the following observation:
Maybe the Democratic Party is going to recapture the security policy credibility it had during the Truman and Kennedy years. Maybe this display of McCainiac muscular moderation is not just a costume drama, but the real deal. Maybe hope is really on the way!
Alas it was not to be, as Brooks realized by reading the rot that Kerry read from the TelePrompTer Thursday night:
I should never have gone back and read the speech again. I should never have gone back on Friday morning, in the unforgiving light of day, and re-examined the words Kerry had so forcefully uttered the night before.
What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that the speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern. The Iraq section is shamefully evasive. He can't even bring himself to use the word "democratic" or to contemplate any future for Iraq, democratic or otherwise. He can't bring himself to say whether the war was a mistake or to lay out even the most meager plan for moving forward. For every gesture in the direction of greater defense spending, there are opposing hints about reducing our commitments and bringing the troops home.
He proves in the speech that he can pronounce the word "alliances," and alliances are important, but alliances for what? You can't base an entire foreign policy on process.
* * *
And it all brings back the memories of Kerry the senator. For though convention viewers may not be aware of it, Kerry has actually had a career since his four months in Vietnam - mostly in the Senate. It's not true that Kerry is a flaming lefty (he's a genuine budget hawk and he voted for welfare reform), but he was wrong about just about every major foreign policy judgment of the last two decades. He voted against the first gulf war, against many major weapons systems. He fought to reduce the defense budget. He opposed the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in the early 1980's. He supported the nuclear freeze. His decision to authorize war in Iraq but vote against financing the occupation is the least intellectually coherent position of all possible alternatives.
The upshot of all this: it's a vast LEFT-wing conspiracy:
. . . As a friend joked, from the voters of Iowa to the delegates in Boston, there's been a vast left-wing conspiracy to present a candidate who looks like a muscular moderate, but they picked someone who is not in his heart of hearts a muscular moderate, or anything else.
Big Stein's Big Heart
In the NY Post today, a nice story about how a certain multimillionaire principal owner of the Yankees helped out a random minor leaguer in the Yankees' system who had unexpectedly high medical bills . . . just click the link.
Baby Bounce
Outside the Beltway notes that Newsweek found only a four-point bounce for Kerry after the Democrats' quadrennial circus; Zogby found none, according to DRUDGE (link taken down since he initially posted it). Why not?
One, Kerry is simply the dullest man to run for the presidency since Mike Dukakis.
Two, Kerry is an empty suit: he is nothing except the embodiment of Bush-hatred that is among the most dishonorable reactions to the policies of a President (when this country has troops in combat zones) in the history of the US. The feelings Bush engenders in Democrats is more negative than the feelings most Confederates had for Lincoln. This man spend 26 SECONDS in his speech on his Senate career. Why? Because even Kerry supporter Al Hunt realizes that Kerry is a middling (at best) Senator.
Three, Kerry received NO hosannahs from the most important singers in his amen chorus: NBC, CBS (other than Byron Pitts, who loves Kerry more than Theresa does), the NY Times, the Washington Post, The New Republic, and Slate.
One, Kerry is simply the dullest man to run for the presidency since Mike Dukakis.
Two, Kerry is an empty suit: he is nothing except the embodiment of Bush-hatred that is among the most dishonorable reactions to the policies of a President (when this country has troops in combat zones) in the history of the US. The feelings Bush engenders in Democrats is more negative than the feelings most Confederates had for Lincoln. This man spend 26 SECONDS in his speech on his Senate career. Why? Because even Kerry supporter Al Hunt realizes that Kerry is a middling (at best) Senator.
Three, Kerry received NO hosannahs from the most important singers in his amen chorus: NBC, CBS (other than Byron Pitts, who loves Kerry more than Theresa does), the NY Times, the Washington Post, The New Republic, and Slate.
Baseball Trade Deadline
The Yankees got nothing for their rotation except shuffling a pair of deck chairs (Contreras for Loaiza) on the Titanic, right? Who knows. Let's look at some key facts:
(1) Randy Johnson has been in the playoffs in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002. In FOUR of those seasons he did not even win one playoff game. Andy Pettitte was in the playoffs from 1996-2003 and failed to win a playoff game twice: 1997 and 2002 and Andy Pettitte is no Randy Johnson. The point is that one impact pitcher was not going to be the difference between the Yankees' success and failure this postseason because they have too many other questions in their starting pitching right now to guarantee anything.
(2) This season is looking like 2002 all over again -- no dominant pitching team. Out of the Yankees, Red Sax, A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox and Twins there are exactly FOUR starters with ERAs under 3.50: Mark Mulder, the injured Tim Hudson, Curt Schilling and Johan Santana. Thus, the team that wins the AL will be more like the 1996 Yankees, 1997 Indians and 2002 Angels -- relying on solid starting and great bullpen work backed up by good timely hitting. Because the NL champion will have a weaker lineup (except the Cardinals) than any AL playoff team, the AL champion will be a viable World Series team -- just like the '96 Yankees (won), '97 Indians (lost in 7) and '02 Angels (won). Simply stated, the Yankees' success depends upon Kevin Brown's velocity, Mike Moooooooooooosina's health, Javy Vazquez's control and not killing QuanGoMo before October.
As for the other trades: The Cubs seem to have gotten the best of the RedSawx-Twins-Expos-Cubs 4-team deal by adding Nomaaaaah. The RedSawx upgraded their defense at the expense of their offense today by adding Mientkewicz and Cabrera and subtracting Garciaparra and the Twins just cut loose a guy who was insulted about potentially being traded (Mientkewicz had been on the block in a possible Kris Benson deal). Personally, The Monk thinks the RedSawx dissed and jerked around a
Fenway icon -- instant karma would be pretty cool.
For other analysis, see Jayson Stark's column linked to in the title to this post. The Mets tried too hard for this year and need to hope that Zambrano and Benson will be good in the FUTURE. The Marlins traded spare parts for a good bat and some solid arms, and the Dodgers blew up the bridge that got them from their iffy starters to Gagne but did get a nice player in Steve Finley.
(1) Randy Johnson has been in the playoffs in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002. In FOUR of those seasons he did not even win one playoff game. Andy Pettitte was in the playoffs from 1996-2003 and failed to win a playoff game twice: 1997 and 2002 and Andy Pettitte is no Randy Johnson. The point is that one impact pitcher was not going to be the difference between the Yankees' success and failure this postseason because they have too many other questions in their starting pitching right now to guarantee anything.
(2) This season is looking like 2002 all over again -- no dominant pitching team. Out of the Yankees, Red Sax, A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox and Twins there are exactly FOUR starters with ERAs under 3.50: Mark Mulder, the injured Tim Hudson, Curt Schilling and Johan Santana. Thus, the team that wins the AL will be more like the 1996 Yankees, 1997 Indians and 2002 Angels -- relying on solid starting and great bullpen work backed up by good timely hitting. Because the NL champion will have a weaker lineup (except the Cardinals) than any AL playoff team, the AL champion will be a viable World Series team -- just like the '96 Yankees (won), '97 Indians (lost in 7) and '02 Angels (won). Simply stated, the Yankees' success depends upon Kevin Brown's velocity, Mike Moooooooooooosina's health, Javy Vazquez's control and not killing QuanGoMo before October.
As for the other trades: The Cubs seem to have gotten the best of the RedSawx-Twins-Expos-Cubs 4-team deal by adding Nomaaaaah. The RedSawx upgraded their defense at the expense of their offense today by adding Mientkewicz and Cabrera and subtracting Garciaparra and the Twins just cut loose a guy who was insulted about potentially being traded (Mientkewicz had been on the block in a possible Kris Benson deal). Personally, The Monk thinks the RedSawx dissed and jerked around a
Fenway icon -- instant karma would be pretty cool.
For other analysis, see Jayson Stark's column linked to in the title to this post. The Mets tried too hard for this year and need to hope that Zambrano and Benson will be good in the FUTURE. The Marlins traded spare parts for a good bat and some solid arms, and the Dodgers blew up the bridge that got them from their iffy starters to Gagne but did get a nice player in Steve Finley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)