QandO

Time Machine

For those who think only George Bush has turned the world against us a reminder...

April 24, 1999 ... a little over 5 years ago:

On Saturday, April 24 thousands of people protested in Toronto in front of the US consulate, after which the protest moved to the British onsulate. The speeches mainly dealt with the solidarity of our people in Yugoslavia as well as the solidarity of all anti-NATO protesters in the world. The protest was peaceful and concluded with a walk back to the US consulate.

Thousands of students participated (April 20th) in Spain in a national day of action against the bombing of Yugoslavia. The protest was called by the students Union (Sindicato de Estudiantes). Thousands of students participated in meetings in the schools to discuss a resolution drafted by the Students Union opposing NATO's intervention against Yugoslavia.

On 3rd April 100,000 people marched in a demonstration in Rome against the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. A week later another demonstration of over 50,000 took place. There is a lot of opposition to the NATO bombing among the workers and youth in Italy in spite of the government's support. There was a demonstration about 3,000 strong at the Aviano air base in Northern Italy. This is one of the bases the NATO warplanes are using. The demonstrations have occured throughout Italy: Brindisi, Taranto, Milan, Piacenza, Bari, San Piero a Grado, Aviano, and of course Rome. Many of these demonstrations have taken place outside U.S. or NATO bases.

Most likely these are the same suspects who are "anti-war" now.

Some things never change, except the party in power and length of the memories of Americans.

Nevermind

I assume this will stay under the radar screen on the left after all the huffing and puffing about Bush's African uranium 'lie" in his State of the Union Address.

It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.

That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.

Really?

So much for that "lie".

Hmm ... wonder if the left, in their best Emily Latella, can say 'nevermind'.

Labor's champion

One wonders if you'd ever see an opening like this if it were the NYC police union threatening to picket the GOP:

The Republican-friendly police union in Boston is threatening to play "bad cop" at the Democratic National Convention this summer even as hometown candidate John Kerry prepares to accept his party's nomination for president.

Hey ... a union's a union, boys and one would expect John Kerry to be on even a "Republican-friendly" union's side if he's truely labor's champion, right?

The 1,400-member Boston Police Patrolmen's Association plans a picket to help induce the city to accept its pay demands, an in-your-face tactic to embarrass the city and convention delegates usually sympathetic to union efforts. In the past, the union has held true to its threats by picketing state party gatherings.

Ah, you mean a "put up or shut up" confrontation. Wonder if the Dems will cross the picket line?

Surely this is just a ploy, huh?

Menino has said repeatedly that he will not allow the unions' vigorous protests to push him into a contract at a time when the city is struggling to make ends meet. The union's contract expired in July 2002, when rank-and-file officers were earning an average of $79,000 a year.

Wait a minute ... they've been out of contract for almost 2 years? Sounds like a legit gripe to me.

Where's John Kerry? Where's Jesse Jackson? Where's all the Democrat labor types?

Oh ... $79,000 a year. Uh, that would probably make them 'rich'. And it would be unseemly for Kerry, et. al. to be seen helping the rich.

What a dilemma for the champions of labor.

Kerry's "Pretend" Bush Record

I must have missed something:

"So if we know it's a matter of when, then when are we going to stop pretending that all has been accomplished in our shared mission to keep America safe?" he asked. "When are we going to start dealing with dangers that we still know exist in this country?"

That's John Kerry claiming we're "pretending" that all has been accomplished in the push to make America safe. In this particular case he's complaining not enough has been done to protect the chemical industry from terror.

While that's probably true, its not because we're pretending its all done.

I mean, when did the administration make that claim that it had done all it could do to keep America safe? Seriously, because if they did, I damn sure missed it.

Now I can understand heated rhetoric in an election year, but this is just plain "stoopid stuff." Anyone who makes a statement like that HAS to know its not true.

Oh, wait, I just went throught that ... yup, they have to know its a LIE.

And the purpose of the lie?

To imply incompetence and arrogance.

But when you look into it a bit you find things like this:

To address this challenge, we are further enhancing diplomacy, arms control, law enforcement, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede adversaries seeking biological weapons capabilities. Federal departments and agencies with existing authorities will continue to expand threat reduction assistance programs aimed at preventing the proliferation of biological weapons expertise. We will continue to build international coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. We will also continue to expand efforts to control access and use of pathogens to strengthen security and prevention.

This addresses the bio threat to the US and is on the White House site. Does it give you the impression all is done in that area?

Hmm ... maybe Senator Kerry isn't aware of this (no, that would point to incompetence). After reading this piece, I certainly can't find it in myself to agree that the administration is "pretending that all has been accomplished in our shared mission to keep America safe", can you?

In fact, I see terms like "we will continue to build international coalitions" and "we will also continue to expand efforts to control access and use of pathogens" to be statements of an ongoing and expanding programs that recognize more needs to be done.

And one would assume if you can find that in one program, that it must exist in others. For instance with legislation:

There's other things we need to do. We need administrative subpoenas in the law. This was not a part of the recent Patriot Act. By the way, the reason I bring up the Patriot Act, it's set to expire next year. I'm starting a campaign to make it clear to members of Congress it shouldn't expire. It shouldn't expire, for the security of our country.

"There are other things we need to do?" But I thought, per Kerry, we were pretending we were done? Is Senator Kerry simply unaware of these other things we need to do. Is HE the one pretending.

Well, yes ... he seems to prefer scare tactics and disingenuousness to true issues ... at least in this case.

Kerry likes to claim Bush doesn't have a record to run on, but instead one to run away from. Well, if he had the record Kerry is trying to make up for him, Kerry'd be right.

Ghost workers

This doesn't bode well for a Kerry win. Seems the "gang who can't shoot straight" has problems organizationally as well:

Sen. John Kerry has yet to establish campaign organizations in battleground states that likely will decide who wins the presidential race in November, Democratic strategists said yesterday.

As an example:

Mr. Kerry's campaign apparatus is nowhere to be seen in Michigan, a critical Midwestern prize with 17 electoral votes that Democrat Al Gore captured in 2000, but is now a neck-and-neck race where President Bush has the edge in some polls, Democrats say.

"It's dead even here but there is almost no activity in the state" from Mr. Kerry's campaign organization, said Michigan Democratic pollster Ed Sarpolus.

Contrast that with:

The lack of a Kerry ground organization at this point is in sharp contrast to Mr. Bush's campaign, which has a state-by-state pyramidal organization of precinct, county, state and regional volunteers that already number in the hundreds of thousands across the country.

Does anyone want to argue that organization isn't key to winning any election?

So where's the Kerry campaign?

Lies and damn lies.

This is what passes for reasoning among those on the left bound and determined to make a square peg fit a round hole:

AMERICAN SOLDIERS died in Vietnam because American presidents lied to the American people about the need for war. American soldiers are dying in Iraq because an American president lied to the American people about the need for war.

That is why the Vietnam War is relevant to the 2004 presidential election. Oddly enough, John Kerry, presidential candidate and decorated Vietnam War veteran, needs to be reminded of that as much as anyone.

Really? What you need to be reminded of, Ms. Vennochi, is what constitutes a lie. In fact, its very simple ... its a statement the speaker KNOWS to be untrue WHEN HE SAYS IT.

Now the same question has been asked any number of times of those who continue to carry this canard forward, "what was the LIE?" Did they indeed KNOW before they SPOKE that there were no WMDs? And if so, where's your proof?

Its obvious that some of the assumptions were incorrect, no one argues that, but that doesn't then make them a LIE. Or is this too difficult for those with a vested interest in the "lie" meme to see?

In both wars, the government set up a false premise to justify US involvement - the ''domino theory'' in Vietnam, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In both, it was assumed that America's superior military force would quickly finish off the enemy. In Vietnam, the United States eventually turned its weapons on the people we were fighting to free; the same is true in Iraq.

Here we see the nut of the confusion, or in reality, her disingenuousness. Ms. Vennochi equates a theory (for instance, the Domino theory) with a lie. In other words, the fact that the theory LATER came to be seen as wrong means that those who pushed it BEFORE then, were liars. She then attempts the same argument with WMDs.

*Sigh*

So we now understand how Ms. Vennochi defines a lie. A lie, in her lexicon, is any theory which proves to be mistaken by future events, even though those who touted them believed them to be true.

Amazing.

However, just to illustrate what a lie really is, take a look at Ms. Vennochi's own example of a lie: "In Vietnam, the United States eventually turned its weapons on the people we were fighting to free".

Of course Ms. Vennochi knows quite well we didn't turn our weapons on the people we were trying to free (I'm quite sure we weren't trying to "free " either the NVA or VC) anymore than we're doing so now in Iraq (unless our intent is to free former Ba'athist who've taken up arms). If Ms. Vennochi's statement wasn't a lie, Fallujah would now be a smoking crater. And she knows that.

The article is an interesting case study ... she uses the redefinition of words, false assumptions and extremely shakey reasoning to attempt to push a foregone conclusion. Its quite transparant, but then she doesn't have to fool everyone, just those who won't take the time to see through her intellectual dishonesty will do.

Playing the Hispanic Card

At the DNC Blog...

Many low-income young Hispanics are looking at the army as a place where they acquire skills and an education. However, according to a 2003 Pew Hispanic Center report, two thirds of Hispanics are concentrated among the youngest, most junior segment of the officer corps in the armed forces. The report also found that Hispanics are over represented among enlisted personnel who most directly handle weapons. This means that Hispanics are not just predominantly in lower ranks, but also more at risk of being in the line of fire than other ethnic groups.

During the early part of the war, 22 Hispanic soldiers died and 61 were wounded. Since Bush declared his "mission accomplished," 50 more have died, and 197 have been wounded.[emphasis added]

Hm. Racism? Hispanics being used as "cannon fodder"? Hispanics bearing an undue share of the burden?

Hardly.

Taking their numbers, we have a total of 72 deaths among Hispanic soldiers....out of a total of 734 US Casualties. Rounding up, that means Hispanics account for 10% of US troop fatalities.

Per the US Census Bureau (pdf), the Hispanic population accounts for 13.3% of the US population.

Just a suggestion.....maybe you should check the numbers before you throw out the race card next time, hm?

"Those" People

(with the caveat that I don't think it's indicative of "racism" that a candidate from Massachussets doesn't have a lot of Hispanics in his inner circle....) Robert Tagorda links this NYT piece on John Kerry's lack of campaign diversity...

"Relegating all of your minority staff to the important but limited role of outreach only reinforces perceptions that your campaign views Hispanics as a voting constituency to be mobilized, but not as experts to be consulted in shaping policy," wrote Mr. Yzaguirre, whose group is among the oldest, largest and most influential representing Hispanics.

You don't really have to dig too deeply to figure that out. Take a look at the Democratic Party's "Issues" page...

African American Vote
APIA Vote
Children & Family
Civil Rights & Justice
Disability Vote
Economic Growth & Jobs
Education
Environmental Protection
GLBT Vote
Health Care
Hispanic Vote
Labor
Military & Veterans
National & Homeland Security
Senior Vote
Social Security & Medicare
Women's Vote Center
Young Americans

The Democratic Party: where you're not just a person, you're a voting bloc.

UPDATE: Tagorda points out that the GOP has a similar page here. Natch. As Sean comments, "Neither of the two main parties concern themselves with "individuals". Voting blocs are the only way to get elected nowadays."

NightLine

Regarding NightLine's controversial decision to spend an entire show reading the names of those who died in Iraq....

During the broadcast, anchorman Ted Koppel will read aloud the name of a U.S. service man or woman killed in the Iraq war, as a corresponding photo appears on the screen along with that person's name, military branch, rank and age.

Expanded by 10 minutes from its usual half-hour, "Nightline" will include more than 500 killed in action in Iraq since March 19, 2003, as well as 200-plus non-combat deaths.

"These people have paid the ultimate price in our name," said "Nightline" executive producer Leroy Sievers, "and it's important to remember them, whether you think the price is worth it or not.

Sean at Nosey Online writes...

To the right, what Nightline is going to do is tantamount to "undermining the war effort." To the left it's simply "honoring the dead." I know that some of us on the left will be happy of what Nightline is doing because maybe it will influence people. But that's not the point.

Let's just look at the facts. The soldiers who have died did do while serving their country. What is wrong with honoring them by reading their names over the air? Has anyone asked the families of the dead what they think? You can't escape it, death is part of this war. If you can't deal with that, then don't support the war in Iraq.

I'm tossing in with Sean. He's absolutely right.

Look, the competing opinions on whether this is right or wrong depend almost entirely on an inference. (speaking in general terms...) As Sean writes, those who oppose the war/support the show, think NightLine simply intends respect for those who gave their lives. Those who support the war/oppose the show think this is a subversive message from NightLine....an attempt to undermine our fortitude.

Whatever.

In both cases, those are assumptions. They may be right...they may be wrong. The fact is, we cannot know. Another fact is, it does not matter. Their rationalization for the show - whatever it is - does not intrude upon the justification for the show. The WMD rationalization for the Iraq war may have turned out to be incorrect, but that does not mean the war was not still justified. Bear in mind, rationalizations and justifications are separate matters.

Is the show justified? So long as the soldiers are treated with respect....yes. Take from it what you will, Pro or Con. It is not our job to discern the inner machinations of the mind of NightLine producers. It is simply our job to evaluate the product.
....And a show honoring soldiers who gave their lives is well-justified.

With that said, I do have some complaints:
- What about the soldiers who died in Afghanistan? If we are honoring the soldiers who gave their lives, why limit it to the Iraq theatre? That certainly doesn't lead me to believe there's no political motive behind it.

- What about soldiers who give their lives tomorrow? Why honor them before the task is done? And will NightLine do a follow-up with more names in the future? It would have been better to do this at a notable juncture...an anniversary...the end of the war....the handover. Doing it today seems like less than appropriate timing.

Still....the fact is that this is a way to honor the troops. The potential motivations of Ted Koppel are irrelevant.

UPDATE: (McQ) I have no problem with Kopple doing what he plans on doing if he'll also show us the pictures of the 3,000 people that lost their lives on 9/11 so the deaths of these fine young soldiers will have some context.

War of the Worlds 2004

Oh dear lord...

Flying saucer fever has gripped Iran after dozens of sightings in the past few days. Fanciful cartoons of alien spacecraft have adorned the front pages of local newspapers. State television has shown a sparkling white disc it says was filmed over Tehran on Tuesday night.

More colourful Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have been spotted beaming out green, red, blue and purple rays over the northern cities of Tabriz and Ardebil and in the Caspian Sea province of Golestan.

Newspapers and agencies reported people rushing out into the streets in eight towns on Tuesday night to watch a bright extraterrestrial light dipping in and out of the clouds.

As if the moonbats don't already have enough to chew on. Possible angles?

- Halliburton is scouting territory in secret plances provided by the Defense Department, so they can tell Bush where to go next.
- Bush is being directed by his Space Overlords, who are now helping out by keeping an eye on things in Iran.
- The CIA is testing psychadelic chemical weapons in Iran.
- "For ABC News....I'm Timothy Leary".

They are all heros

Oliver North answer's Andy Rooney's poorly received column of a week ago. While I'm not a huge Oliver North fan, he does know his Marines. And to his eternal credit, he's been right there with them as they fight in Iraq.

Pay particular attention to the story of Lance Corporal Conyers. Tell me HE isn't a hero. He's certainly not someone looking for the first "legal" way out of combat, is he?

Worth the read.

Oh, yeah ... this is very serious stuff

Anyone who still clings to the hope that something worthwhile will come of the 9/11 commission but partisan drivel had to be chagrined about this:

Kerrey and fellow Democrat Lee Hamilton bugged out early from the three-hour sitdown - each pleading "a prior engagement" - while Bush and Vice President Cheney sat calmly and answered the commission's questions.

Almost as insulting as the walkout was commission Chairman Tom Kean's decision to let it happen. Obviously, Hamilton, Kerrey and Kean don't consider the panel's probe to be all that important.

Whine and cry about the President and VP not appearing before this kangaroo court claiming their testimony was of the utmost importance and then when the opportunity is finally realized, leave early?

Yeah, you're REAL serious about this aren't you?

Sick

Traitors....

American soldiers at a prison outside Baghdad have been accused of forcing Iraqi prisoners into acts of sexual humiliation and other abuses in order to make them talk, according to officials and others familiar with the charges.

The charges, first announced by the military in March, were documented by photographs taken by guards inside the prison, but were not described in detail until some of the pictures were made public.

To get the full idea of just how disgusting this behaviour really was, you can see some of the pictures here. They are disturbing, and probably not work safe.

The soldiers involved are compromising our mission in Iraq, endangering the lives of US troops, and creating more reasons for those in the Middle East to hate us. They should be punished as severely as possible, dishonorably discharged, and publicly humiliated. I would suggest worse, but we are a more civilized society than the actions of those soldiers might lead one to believe.

(Links via Pandagon)

Lautenberg's last minute change of heart

Senator Lautenberg recently decided he doesn't like "Chickenhawks"....

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, called Vice President Dick Cheney the "lead chicken hawk" on Wednesday in the latest round of a war of words over the Vietnam-era military record of President Bush and Mr. Cheney.

"We know who the chicken hawks are," Mr. Lautenberg said on the Senate floor. "They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others, but when it was their turn to serve, they were AWOL from courage."

I say Senator Lautenberg "recently" decided he doesn't like Chickenhawks because, in 1998, he had no problem with urging President Clinton - who avoided the draft - to be a hawk on Iraq...

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

... Frank R. Lautenberg ... [among others]

Furthermore, Frank Lautenberg made a donation to the campaign of Joe Lieberman - a Hawk, with no military service.

So, take his recent conversion with a grain of salt. There's just a chance that it has a bit more to do with the (R) after Bush's name, than with Bush's service.

Hmm ... maybe its working

Apparently SOMETHING is causing a decrease in international terrorism:

The State Department reported Thursday there were fewer international terrorist attacks last year than any time since 1969 — but the figures don't include most of the violence in Iraq. Though Bush administration officials frequently refer to Iraqi insurgents as terrorists, most attacks in Iraq were not considered international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, the report said.

Now realizing that correlation is not causation (that's for you Jon), what's caused this marked decrease in terroist activities?

Well reason one:

In its introduction, the State Department's top counterterrorism official, Cofer Black (search), cited Saudi Arabia "as an excellent example of a nation increasingly focusing its political will to fight terrorism." The kingdom has frequently been criticized by members of Congress for not doing enough to stop terrorism.

Black said terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia in May and November "served to strengthen Saudi resolve."

"Saudi Arabia has launched an aggressive, comprehensive and unprecedented campaign to hunt down terrorists, uncover their plots and cut off their sources of funding," Black wrote.

Terrorism is now a priority among many nations to which it wasn't a big priority before. Good. No question what helped that along.

Reason two:

Black also said Al Qaeda "is no longer the organization it once was. ... Most of the group's senior leadership is dead or in custody, its membership on the run and its capabilities sharply degraded." He said more 3,400 Al Qaeda suspects have been detained worldwide.

Not to mention those who've been killed. That size of a loss will definitely put a catch in your giddy-up. Again, no question as to why or how that's been accomplished.

Reason three:

Of the seven nations designated as sponsors of terrorism, the report said Libya and Sudan "took significant steps to cooperate in the global war on terrorism." But Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea didn't do enough to sever their ties to terrorism.

Iraq technically remains on the list, because it can't be removed until it has a government in place. President Bush has exempted it from sanctions imposed on state sponsors of terrorism.

Three down, two making noises and two who remain threats. I'd call that progress. And I'd say that's three for three for the "War on Terrorism".

All of this is found in the 181-page Patterns of Global Terrorism Report produced by the State Department which Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism analyst for the Rand Corp. says is considered the "gold standard" for measuring terrorism.

Some facts from the report:

— There were 190 acts of international terrorism last year, compared with 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2003. It was the lowest figure in 34 years.

— In those attacks last year, 307 people were killed, compared with 725 in 2002; 1,593 people were wounded, compared with 2,013 in 2002.

— Thirty-five Americans died in 15 international terrorist attacks. The deadliest was a May 12 attack by suicide bombers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed nine U.S. citizens and 26 people overall.

— Anti-U.S. attacks increased slightly to 82 from 77 in 2002. But they have declined sharply since the 219 attacks in 2001.

— Asia had the highest number of international terrorism attacks, with 159 people killed in 70 attacks.

Well, well, well ... wonder how this will be received by the left side of the political spectrum?

Oh, the trails we leave...

Without a trace of irony, Ted at Crooked Timber writes...

Kaus unequivically states:

Where Kerry Slept: John Kerry didn’t throw his own medals over the wall in that 1971 antiwar protest and he didn’t sleep on the Mall with his Viet Vet buddies either. He snuck off and slept in a Georgetown townhouse.

...Kaus now has no source to back up his accusation that Kerry didn’t sleep on the Mall. And he has no grounds whatsoever on which to contest Kerry’s description of the charge as unsubstantiated. He’s got nothing.
...
Instead, he argues that it was likely, in his own eyes, that Kerry slept there. On those grounds, he calls Kerry a liar and Agnew correct.

So, yeah. I don’t like Mickey Kaus.

And Atrios follows up with....

In my eyes, I have to say, it's likely that it's true. Any claims by Kaus to not have carnal knowledge of goats will just be more evidence that the man is a liar.

So, let me get this straight. He cites a story with circumstantial evidence, missing information, a 30+ year old testimony, uncorroborated allegations.....clearly, Kaus is an unprincipled hack.

So, I guess this means you'll be apologizing for the Bush/AWOL story, right? Right?!?!

NOTE: ChangeForAmerica and RogerAiles will be sending apology notes, too. I'm sure.

Chance Phelps journey home

An incredible and moving account by a military escort officer who escorts a young Marine's body home after he's killed in Iraq.

I can't imagine you having a dry eye when you finish it And I hope you are as gratified by the reaction of ordinary Americans at every step of the way, as I was. It again helps you understand the basic goodness of this country and its citizens.

A tip of the hat to Mike and Cold Fury for this one.

What's the message?

That's what Democrats are wondering:

Six months before the election, some Democrats are anxious about John Kerry's slow development of a coherent general election message and how easily Republicans have knocked him off stride.

At a time when he could be laying out the grand themes for his November battle with President Bush the presumptive Democratic nominee has been fighting skirmishes with Republican surrogates over his service in Vietnam, his votes on taxes and national security and his claims of support from foreign leaders.

Its pretty easy to explain, as I see it ... he doesn't really have a general election message except "I'm not Bush".

Now, for some on the extreme left, that's enough. But I've heard other Democrats complain that Kerry can't really take Bush to task on his record, because in most things he voted WITH Bush .... "No Child Left Behind", war in Iraq, Medicare perscription drug benefit, etc. And those things he wants to go after ... the economy, jobs, etc. ... are improving to the point that they may very well be issues that are a liability to him.

So what's he to do? Because those he's trying to sway haven't any idea of what he is pushing:

"I have no idea what the Kerry message is. He has no positive message at this point," said Democratic consultant Doug Schoen, a former pollster for President Bill Clinton. "I know what his critique is of George Bush, but there has been a virtual absence of a Kerry message."

Say what you might, but it appears the right has been able to purposely and sometimes inadvertantly, keep Kerry off message (assuming there is one in there somewhere). And if he has no real message, then he's been successfully kept of issues that are potentially negative to the Bush campaign.

"They are spending too much time responding and not enough defining themselves," said a strategist for a Democratic group that is supporting Kerry.

"I think they got under his skin," Schoen said of the Republican attacks and Kerry's angry response.

And that sort of anger isn't going to play well, because Kerry, in anger, has a tendency to turn arrogant. And arrogance doesn't sell. Additionally, he has a tendency to deny, deny, deny, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. His SUV gaffe, the medal's flap, and many others. You'd think he'd learn, but apparently he thinks he can talk his way out of anything ... shades of another Dem we all know well.

Stephanie Cutter, however (and not surprisingly), puts a different face on it all:

And while Washington has been consumed by the daily war of words, Kerry has had no problem selling his message in the key battleground states where the race will be decided, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said.

When national newspapers focused earlier this week on the flap over Kerry's medals, local newspapers and television reports in Ohio highlighted his message on jobs, she said.

"That's the only thing we care about," Cutter said of the local coverage. "Our message is perfectly clear -- Building a Stronger America Together."

She may be right, but then again, standing in union halls preaching to the choir doesn't necessarily mean your message is getting out. And while "Building a Stronger America Together" sounds just peachy, if you have people like Doug Schoen out there who are politically aware and STILL don't know what your message is, nice titles just isn't going to cut it.

"People are really calling this game in the third or fourth inning," said Democratic consultant Jenny Backus. "There is plenty of time for Kerry to do the things he needs to do."

And this may be true as well. Or it might be that Backus just thinks its the 3rd or 4th inning when in fact its the bottom of the 7th and the closer is warming up.

Where's the news coverage?

I have to agree with the WSJ on this one:

Jordanian authorities say that the death toll from a bomb and poison-gas attack they foiled this month could have reached 80,000. We guess the fact that most major media are barely covering this story means WMD isn't news anymore until there's a body count.

I guess not. Here we have not only evidence of al-Queda's intent to use WMDs but an attempt as well. And we have confessions. One confession links al-Queda, Iraq and WMDs.

Plotter Hussein Sharif Hussein was shown on Jordanian television saying the aim was "carrying out the first suicide attack to be launched by al Qaeda using chemicals." A Jordanian scientist described a toxic cloud that could have spread for a mile or more. ... The terror cell's ringleader, Jordanian Azmi Jayyousi, said he was acting on the orders of Zarqawi, whom he first met at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan: "I took courses, poisons high level, then I pledged allegiance to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Mr. Jayyousi said this attack had been plotted from Zarqawi's new base of operations in Iraq.

We're still not clear on the Iraq links ... was it before or after the US invasion. But you have to ask the question ... why isn't this a lot bigger news that it has been?

All's fair in war and politics

For those who think Kerry's military service should be "off limits", I'll again make the point ... when HE uses it as a part of his campaign, then it is FAIR GAME:

In one 24-hour period, he invoked his service:

• To fend off attacks by his Republican rivals;

• As evidence he will fight to expand healthcare;

• As evidence he understands the complicated landscape in Iraq;

• To explain his love of peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches.

To say his use is ubiquitous is an understatement. And, its use is also debatable.

For instance, Lt.jg's in Vietnam did NOT "understand the complicated landscape" of Vietnam no matter what Kerry claims.

So there is no reason to believe him when he says his service in Vietnam somehow now engenders him with the knowledge and experience necessary to
understand the "complicated landscape in Iraq".

It doesn't. Its that simple, anymore than being a milkman gives a person the knowledge and experience necessary to understand the "complicated landscape" of running a national dairy.

So when he uses it to bolster his position or explain why he's qualified in some area or another, it is ENTIRELY fair to question the validity of that assertion without hearing a chorus of whining and crying about 'patriotism' and 'service".

More Democrat Hypocrisy

Speaking of questioning someone's service and patriotism, you have to wonder if Wes Clark has contacted Kerry and asked him to have Lautenberg back off.

Fair's fair, right?

"We know who the chicken hawks are," Mr. Lautenberg said on the Senate floor. "They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others, but when it was their turn to serve, they were AWOL from courage."

Because we know that Wes thinks its Bush's responsibility to do so:

"Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them."

That's certainly what the "Bring it on" crowd has been whining about the most lately, correct?

I await Wes's follow-up op-ed where he ask Kerry to do the same thing. Uh, if he can get Kerry to stop his personal attacks on Bush first, that is.

Democrat, heal thyself

Gee, I wonder if Kerry will "call off the attack dogs".

Senator John F. Kerry, whose attacks on President Bush this week have becoming increasingly personal in tone, told voters yesterday that the Iraq occupation was faltering because of Bush's own ''pride" and that the president was afraid to ''look the people in the eye who have lost their job."

Oh, wait, Kerry's the attack dog.

So let me get this straight. Clark wants Bush to call off those attacking Kerry, but apparently its ok if Kerry personally attacks Bush?

Desperation and hypocrisy, thy name is 'Democrat'.

Thank God he lost

You've probably heard me say it before, but let me say it one more time:

Wesely Clark isn't worth the powder to blow him to hell.

I can only be thankful that he never had a snowball's chance of being nominated or elected to the Presidency.

In an NYT op-ed, he makes the following statement speaking of the Kerry medals flap:

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve — often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.

First, as I recall, Republicans haven't tried ANYTHING OF THE SORT. The story broke in the Boston Globe (yeah, there's a "Republican" bastion). It was followed up in a Good Morning America broadcast on ABC (another HUGE Republican bastion).

The Republicans haven't had to "question his .. truthfullness", those media outlets have done so instead. And, his truthfullness is in question because of contradictory remarks available ON TAPE in his OWN WORDS which point to him either lying in '71 or now. And, maybe I missed it, but I've NEVER heard John Kerry's "patriotism" questioned by Repbulicans. I have heard John Kerry question Bush's patriotism and service, however, on the very same Good Morning America show.

In fact, in a pregnant moment, after the GMT interview with Charlie Gibson, he was heard saying on an open mike, "... they're doing the work of the Republican National Committee", speaking of GMT. That would say to me that even Kerry understands this isn't a Republican attack.

And I loved this from Clark:

"Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them."

The man who wouldn't disavow Michael Moore's "deserter" canard, now has the temerity to lecture Bush about not stopping these accusations? The man who said that Moore had the right to make those statements is now saying that others don't have those very same rights? Never mind the so-called attacks have come through the media, this partisan hack demands that they be silenced when his ox is being gored, and demands that be done by Bush.

Amazing.

"I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve — often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism."

And I believe this is BS on a stick. When a candidate makes his "service" the centerpiece of his campaign then it "deserves" to be scrutinized. The fact that it doesn't stand up that well to scrutiny isn't the problem of those doing the scrutinizing. The "bring it on" crowd is now whining about "fairness" and trying to wrap themselves in the flag. They think that their service ENTITLES them in some way to be innoculated against questions concerning it. Well it DOESN'T.

Lastly, Clark attempts to make the argument that those who "didn't serve' or "didn't show up for service" (a not so backhanded revival of the AWOL/Deserter canard) should essentially bow at the alter of those who did.

Well again ... BS. That was then, this is now. Your "service" while commendable, does't make you sacrosanct nor does it make you immune to criticism. Expect inconsistencies to be exposed and explored. This is the big leagues.

It does have one amusing aspect though. Clarke and Kerry are very good at yelling "bring it on" but when it is brought on they resort to a chorus of whining and crying about this being "unfair" and a "smear" instead of handling it and moving on.

Maybe they ought to think about a new slogan, like "do it again and I'm gonna tell mommy" or something simliar.

Backatcha

Oliver Willis...

The Right Doesn't Like Democracy

You saw it in Florida, then you saw in Texas as Tom Delay tried to rewrite congressional districts to roll back increasingly Democratic areas, and now Fox News Democrat Zell Miller doesn't trust the people to pick their own Senators.

Yeah, those radical right-wingers. Like, you know, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Say, Oliver, you know the Constitution set up the Senate to be filled by the State legislature, right? (eventually changed by the 17th ammendment) So, you know, those "right wingers" who hate Democracy include the Founding Fathers.

Of course, running in the exact opposite direction of our founding documents seems to be all the rage these days....

Still. Lest we have to hear any more about the Democrats being the last remaining defenders of democracy, go read this. Apparently, Democratic-associated groups will be attempting to infiltrate/sabatoge the Republican Convention.

Not everyone thinks Tillman's a hero

In a screed by someone named Rene Gonzalez entitled "Pat Tillman is not a hero: he got what was coming to him" in the Daily Collegian, we get a peek at what is loosely called "thinking" by the extreme left. We also get the usual peek at the smoldering hate they bring to the "debate".

However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "pendejo," an idiot. Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him. That was not heroism, it was prophetic idiocy.

Gonzalez can't imagine someone who'd believe so strongly about what happened to their country that they'd actually DO something which seems contrary to their best financial or social interests. He hasn't the ability to conjure a circumstance where HE would act in that way because of a strong belief, so obviously, following Gonzalez's "thinking", Tillman must be an "idiot."

No, this pendejo, to borrow his word, can't imagine such a thing. In his world, only "idiots" walk away from financial bliss and social adoration to take a stand on principle. Nope, Gonzalez instead believes THIS is why Pat Tillmand did what he did:

Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.

Well Gonzalez is wrong. Whether he likes it or not, Tillman was acting in his defense. He seems to have forgotten that on 9/11 a "foreign power" did invade the East coast and inflicted 3,000 casualties on his fellow Americans. He was fighting the very faction that enabled that attack.

It seems most of the extreme left has developed a case of amnesia when they pump out blatant bullshit like this. They're still living on 9/10. In order to erect their strawman arguments, they have to willfully ignore 9/11 ... and that's precisely what Gonzalez does.

While I'm sure this isn't the worst nonsense out there, its certainly pretty disgusting. But my guess is Pat Tillman would respond that Gonzolez's right to be an absolute callous asshole about his death was one of the freedom's his service represented.

Tillman got himself killed in a country other than his own without having been forced to go over to that country to kill its people. After all, whether we like them or not, the Taliban is more Afghani than we are. Their resistance is more legitimate than our invasion, regardless of the fact that our social values are probably more enlightened than theirs. For that, he shouldn't be hailed as a hero, he should be used as a poster boy for . It might just make a regular man irrationally drop $3.6 million to go fight in a conflict that was anything but "self-defense." The same could be said of the unusual belief of 50 percent of the American nation that thinks Saddam Hussein was behind Sept. 11. One must indeed stand in awe of the amazing success of the American propaganda machine. It works wonders.

Noam Chomsky junior speaks to us about propaganda? Read through that paragraph and wonder. Wonder why someone attending a college in this day and time isn't better able to reason than this fellow. Wonder at the depth of hate that would find one able to rationalize the death of another American in combat as "the dangerous consequences of too much "America is #1," frat boy, propaganda bull." Wonder at ability of this person to completely divorce the consequences of the attack on the US from Pat Tillman's actions and then revile him in death as a "Rambo".

And then dismiss it as the trash it is.

Blog Rolling

When I really don't have that much to say, I take a spin around the blogroll to see what other bloggers are saying....

* David Adesnik...

As for Kerry's inconsistent comments about the medals during his various Senate races, those aren't really worth bothering with. What really gets me is that on Good Morning America, Kerry tried to pin all the blame for this controversy on the GOP attack machine rather than recognize that his own questionable behavior was responsible for it.

I'd agree with every word of that. The fuss over what Kerry did and said in 1971 is minor campaign fluff. His reaction, though.....

* (via Oxblog) Thoughtsonline gets it right...

It's not surprising that Clark would come to Kerry's defense, since they are both trying to do the same thing: use their service in the military as a shield against criticism of actions and positions they have taken and statements they have made after they got out.

* Pejman....

I wish though that Glenn and others would stop entertaining fantasies of Condi Rice in the Number 2 spot. It's not going to happen this year, folks. Ditching Cheney would be a sign that Republicans are panicking, and there certainly is no reason to panic. It would also be a tremendous act of disloyalty...

I'm really not sure that Cheney adds anything positive to the ticket, but I'm quite sure that Bush won't replace him. Whatever else Bush may be, he is loyal to his inner cadre.

Also, for good measure: Hillary isn't going to be on the Democratic ticket; John Kerry will be. Can we please quit with the fantasy elections?

* Captain Ed...

Annan's remarks boggle the mind. He literally endorsed the entire idea of unilateral action by the Anglo-American alliance to enforce UNSC restrictions that the UN was clearly unable to maintain. In fact, what he says here is that the [Oil-For-Food] corruption can be blamed on the US and the UK failing to act, even without specific UN approval, when Saddam clearly was in violation of UNSC resolutions well before 2002.

What did Annan say? "We had no mandate to stop oil smuggling. ... The U.S. and the British had planes in the air. We were not there. Why is this all being dumped on the U.N.?"

So, we already had planes in the area, so we should have (without a UN mandate) gone ahead and enforced the resolutions by force. Uh-huh. What a load. This is the same Kofi Annan who said that Iraqi attacks on US planes patrolling those no-fly zones were not a violation of the UN resolutions.

So, he blames the US for not responding to oil smuggling that was under UN auspices, since we had planes in the area......but also blames the US for the attacks on US planes patrolling the no-fly zones. And people wonder why we don't think a whole hell of a lot of the UN.

* Bill Hobbs...

Help me understand this: Instapundit charges $1,000 per month to run an ad on his blog and he's currently got what looks to be four paid ads (The Spirit of America ad is likely a freebie for a very good cause.) Yet yesterday for some reason several folks dropped cash in his tip jars. The rich get richer. If I was a Democrat, I'd be proposing a National Blog Tip Jar Fairness Act....

I've thought pretty seriously about setting up Blogads here, but haven't take the dive. Yet. In the meantime, if you are so inclined, I'd remind you that there is a PayPal tipjar near the bottom of the sidebar. It would help defray the cost of this site.

* John Hawkins....

So let me branch out: Why are comparatively so few female bloggers of note in the political blogosphere?

Personally, I have come to suspect it's just a numbers game. On the whole, women aren't as interested as men in politics, so therefore there are a lot less women than men writing about politics, and hence there is a much smaller pool of female bloggers with the talent to move up the ranks.

This is all a bit silly. Statistically speaking, a lower percentage of women than men write/care about politics. So, it follows that a lower percentage of good political blogs are written by women.

And this has nothing to do with sexism.

"But", you might respond, "what about the male bloggers who often mention the physical attributes of female bloggers, rather than their political opinions?" Well, what of it? Men like attractive females. Sometimes, we mention that fact. In itself, that is not sexist. It only becomes sexist if we substitute a physical evaluation for an intellectual evaluation.

I've got the impression that a set of sensitive

* Kevin Drum...

Can you say "suck" on the radio? As in, say, "George Bush sucks" (just to pull an example from a hat)?

Perhaps once upon a time you could, but no longer. NPR's lawyers believe that the FCC's new "zero tolerance" rule prevents use of the word.

While this does outline the untenable and indefined nature of the FCC's "Community standards" rule in regards to broadcast standards (pop quiz: define "community standards". Pt 2: Define "community"), I would point out that the FCC has made no statement on the word "suck". It is simply the NPR lawyers being overcautious. "Sucks" has been in common use on the radio for nigh on 20 years now, and there's a vanishingly slim-to-zero chance that's going to change.

In short: this has nothing to do with the FCC. Relax.

* Ipse Dixit...

Of course, the phrase "Pro-Choice and Anti-Capitalist" only makes sense in the semantic Universe of the lunatic Left. To everyone else, it's self-annihilating.

I kid you not, somebody actually put both phrases on the same sign. He's got the picture. (Communists? Natch)

I think a more accurate sign would be: "Consequences suck!"

UPDATE: Ok, one more. Via Baldilocks....

“I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion.”
--US Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif) at Pro-Abortion Rally Sunday, April 25

If you say so....

Eva Braun reporting....

Life lesson: when writing for a site called "antiwar.com", you have to put a nice fresh layer of shinola on some real pieces of shit.

US Fatwa Turns Sadr From Community Leader to Insurgent

Suffice it to say, the rest of the article paints a picture of a civic minded fellow who wants democracy, builds hospitals, staffs the police force, and just generally cleans up the mess. You know, the Iraqi Mayor Giuliani.

That is, if Mayor Giuliani had sent the NYPD into SoHo to kill everybody.

Yeah, strangely, antiwar.com failed to mention that this "community leader" had done things like this...

On the morning of March 12, a Friday, a group of about 20 militiamen went to the village "without police knowledge," Zeid said. They belonged to the Mahdi Army, a force organized last year by Moqtada Sadr, a young, militant cleric who caters to the poor and disenfranchised of Iraq's Shiite majority and has maintained a relentlessly anti-occupation stance. Zeid said a fight broke out, and residents killed one of Sadr's followers. The Mahdi Army retreated. In the late afternoon, it returned -- with more than 100 men.
...
Hours into the battle, he said, police intervened and helped evacuate the residents. Once they left, looters set upon the village and, through the night, systematically stole everything of value. Days later, the village was largely rubble.

He's also called for attacks against US troops, aligned himself with Hamas and Hezbollah and wants to set up an Islamic theocracy. So, you know....just the sort of Good Guy who passes for a "community leader" at antiwar.com.

The rest of Iraq

It's important to remember that things in Iraq are not going as badly as the headlines might lead you to believe. In areas not called "Fallujah"....

"The first few days, I think everybody was scared," said Champion, 23, of Jupiter, Fla. "But a lot of patrols are coming back and saying people are starting to be friendly again. Maybe it's because they know that we're not kidding."

Iraqi police were reportedly patrolling in areas in which they normally were not seen. Lima Company Staff Sgt. Matthew St. Pierre was so surprised that he stopped one police officer and asked to see his credentials.

"I couldn't believe it," said St. Pierre, of Vallejo, Calif. "Usually these guys are nowhere to be found. This guy had just graduated from our police academy. He was so proud that he ran home and got his diploma to show me."

And why are things going well there?

"I think the amount of force that we displayed over the past few days definitely has changed their outlook."
...
"One thing that I do know is that the Iraqi people respond to who they think is the strongest," said Neal, 29, of San Francisco. "They saw the velvet glove when we first came in, and then we took off the glove and showed them the iron fist."

I think this is a vital point. After decades, generations, under totalitarian regimes, the Iraqi people have learned to go along to get along. They may not like the regime, but they know full well that they can't fight back.....so they make the best of it.

Well, that'll be fine. Let's just make sure they "make the best of it" with us, rather than with the insurgents. Have we learned that lesson? Who knows. But we are ramping up the pressure in Fallujah, so.....

Chickenhawk

Frank Lautenberg calls Bush and Cheney "chickenhawks", because of their attacks on Kerry's military service...er, because of their attacks on Kerry's patriotism....er, because they're Republicans. Funny, I don't recall military service being a Very Important Issue to Democrats? I must have missed the large Democratic turnout for Bob Dole in 1996.

Screw it - John Cole already handled this...

So now we have Democratic leaning groups and the Chairman of the DNC saying that Cheney got his wife pregnant to avoid service, and prominent Senators are calling Cheney a 'chickenhawk' from the floor of the Senate, and re-iterating that Bush was AWOL. And just so we have the record straight, if Republicans question Kerry's voting record, they are 'attacking his patriotism.' EVEN THE UK GUARDIAN notes that Cheney has not questioned Kerry's service or patriotism.

Cole also points out that the Vietnam era draft was for males age 18-26, and....

Dick Cheney was born on 30 January 1941, making him 28 at the time of the draft. For the Democrats reading this, 28 is older than 26.

You know, for a guy who didn't think we should have been fighting the Vietnam war, John Kerry certainly does seem anxious to keep fighting it.

UPDATE: James Joyner weighs in, as well.

Just when you think it can't get any worse

Barbara Walters is a whore...

Millions of viewers across the country watched in surprise over the weekend as the network aired a sensational promo for Friday's segment, which pits five desperate couples against each other for the privilege of adopting a 16-year-old's baby.

A very personal, intimate process was made to look like a reality-show contest, with prospective parents dubbed "winners" and "losers."

ABC has since pulled that promo and replaced it with one that presents the show "more as a documentary."
...but Barbara Walters is still a callous, baby-whoring slime. Forget how utterly distasteful the concept is. Leave that aside. What effect do you think it will have on the child to know that their parents "won them on TV"?

I'm a big believer in the free market. So, I hope the market freely decides to stop watching ABC for a good long time. I will.

Link via Protein Wisdom, who is pithy, as always.

Buyer remorse

I get the impression the Democrats are less than thrilled with their presumptive nominee.

Via the Kerry Sloganator

History, apparently, started in January of 2001

Oliver Willis...

Jackboot Nation

So I guess calling the president a "doodiehead" would mean a DOJ investigation? God, things are getting out of hand.

Secret Service questions student on drawings

Secret Service agents questioned a high school student about anti-war drawings he did for an art class, one of which depicted President Bush's head on a stick.

Another pencil-and-ink drawing portrayed Bush as a devil launching a missile, with a caption reading "End the war -- on terrorism."

The 15-year-old boy's art teacher at Prosser High School turned the drawings over to school administrators, who notified police, who called the Secret Service.

Yeah, Oliver, this is just another example of the Bush administration trying to "suppress dissent". Just like that time in 1998, when....

President Clinton's Secret Service agents searched the apartment of a student columnist for Cal's Daily Californian who wrote a satirical Big Game column mentioning Chelsea Clinton that appeared in the school paper lat week.

The 22-year-old Senior student columnist, Guy Branum, said yesterday that the agents had told him the search and investigation were initiated by an angry Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If Oliver had dug a bit more deeply, he might have even discovered that - not only is this not "jackbooted thuggery" - it's a fairly normal and important part of the Secret Service duty. Something (gasp!) that's been going on for quite some time....

McCarthy, a former special agent in charge in the U.S. Secret Service, spoke to a group at the University of Nebraska at Kearney's 13th annual Regional Criminal Justice Conference.
...
McCarthy, who was involved in the protection of every president from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, said a sitting president receives 300 to 500 threats on his life per month. All the threats are investigated, and many are stopped by talking to the person, he said.

"A lot of it is stopped in its tracks just by listening," he said, referring to presidential threats and school shootings.

The Secret Service is conducting a study of 37 students who were gunmen in school shootings from the early 1970s to present day, he said.

In three-quarters of cases, the shooter told someone about his or her plans, and half told more than one person, McCarthy said.

But, as far as Oliver is concerned, it's just evidence of a "Jackboot Nation". Why does Oliver want more Columbines? ( he doesn't, but he also doesn't seem to look for an explanation that doesn't involve a chance to call the Bush administration - and only the Bush administration - a totalitarian regime)

NOTE: John Cole has more along these lines.

UPDATE: Beltway Traffic Jam.

Diplomacy and results

There's no specific agreement, but I like the way this wind is blowing....

Washington and Pyongyang have both told China they hope to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis peacefully with the ultimate goal of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Wednesday.
Wen made his comments only days after an unannounced trip by North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to China and two weeks after a visit by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney.

If the two sides worked together and pressed on with six-party talks, there was still hope for a peaceful end to the 19-month-old standoff, Wen told Reuters in an interview ahead of a visit to Europe.

"They (North Korea and the United States) both expressed their respective willingness to continue with the six-party talks and facilitate a solution to the issue. They both endorsed the ultimate objective of realizing a nuclear-free Korean peninsula," Wen said.

So, the end result is agreed upon. That was the big problem. Now, we just need to work out a process.

Frankly, I'm surprised NoKo let this happen during the Presidential campaign season. I would have thought that they'd be unwilling to give the Bush team even an appearance of progress.

UPDATE: Ironically, Kevin Drum writes....

It's comforting that George Bush's muscular attitude toward North Korean bombmaking is producing so much better results than Bill Cinton's feckless approach, isn't it?

This, due to a report that NoKo may have "at least eight working nuclear bombs". You know what the difference would be if the Agreed Framework was still in place? NoKo would still be doing what it liked, but they'd have the courtesy to not tell us about it. And we'd have the courtesy to pretend they weren't developing weapons.

And there would be no agreement on a nuclear free Korean peninsula.

Cold Fury

Cold Fury passes a million hits, and Mike navel gazes for a bit. You know, I don't care for motorcycles or music, so I doubt there'd be a great deal of common ground between us without this blog thing. But there is this blog thing, and I've discovered that Mike is a good guy. And a good blogger, too. In fact, Mike linked and blogrolled QandO fairly early on, which was a big encouragement to me. I've always appreciated that.

Yeesh, I can't even imagine a million hits. Good work, bro.

Kid-blogging

Via Marginal Revolution, I find this post at FuturePundit...

An excellent article by Erin Anderssen and Anne McIlroy in the Canadian Globe And Mail summarizes research on child development and human violence. They report that Richard Tremblay has found that 2 year old babies are more physically aggressive than teenagers or adults but fortunately too uncoordinated to do much damage to others.

Trust me, those 2 year olds make up for any lack of coordination with their enthusiasm....and a height/reach combination that results in the ability to hit Daddy in a very uncomfortable place, indeed.

You say we need a revolution....

God, but this pisses me off....

Florida’s constitution allows governments to take your land for a public purpose, such as a road or school, as long as you receive a fair price.

But legislation — which could be approved this week — would allow a city or county to take an individual’s land, with fair compensation, and sell it to a private developer for a shopping center or office building.

When the public has finally had enough of this, the whole sorry lot of Judas's that vote for this bill should be the first up against the wall. And I won't shed a tear for any of them. Bastards.

Rosie the, uh, Riveter

Via Dana, I find this sterling example of supporting the troops...

About US: 'Operation Take One For The Country' (abbreviated OTOFTC) is a movement of like-minded women (women predominantly as of right now) who have covertly organized into groups to frequent eating and drinking establishments near armed service bases where troops are preparing to ship out overseas, and take one for the country, so to speak.

Ladies, on behalf of our troops, I salute you.

Not in the face!

James Taranto catches this in today's Best of the Web....

"If George Bush wants to make national security an issue in this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he'll understand. Bring it on!"
--John Kerry, quoted in the New York Times, Feb. 1

"Call off the Republican attack dogs."
--Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, responding to Dick Cheney's speech on John Kerry's defense record, quoted by the Associated Press, April 26

Medals and jet planes

Over at TAPPED, Matthew Yglesias writes...

Readers are probably aware that during a recent John Kerry appearance on Good Morning America we all got a chance to revisit one of the odder "controversies" of American politics -- did Kerry lie about throwing his medals at a Vietnam War protest. Kerry says he threw ribbons, rather than metallic medals, but that the ribbons were commonly referred to as "medals." Indeed, a cursory glance at the US Navy's ribbons page confirms the accuracy of this account -- you've got your "distinguished service medal" ribbon, your "good conduct medal" ribbon, your "Republic of Vietnam Campaign medal" ribbon, and a whole bunch more.

Inasfar as this goes, I'd tend to agree. I'd also agree that, as far as "scandals" go, this one has a lot more tabloid to it than substance.

We part ways after that, though...

The real mystery in all this, if you ask me, is why Republicans persist in raising an issue that can't help but make their man look bad when the Bush and Kerry military records are contrasted.

Perhaps. No question, but Kerry served honorably....but I'm not so sure that "John Kerry throwing medals (his, and otherwise) over a fence" is really the image the Democrats want the American public to have of their candidate.

And if one looks a bit more in-depth - as I did here - it becomes apparent that John Kerry's "volunteered for duty in Vietnam" is not substantively different than Bush volunteering for duty in Texas. Both, after all, volunteered to a place they believed would be well away from actual combat. Both "didn't really want to get involved in the war". And, lest anybody claim I am a dolt for saying that John Kerry didn't want to get involved, let me point out that those were his words.

Of course, "in-depth" is a bit more than we can expect the electorate to look. Still, on the face of it, I just don't see that the public is going to get too overwrought about the difference between their records. In fact, I expect the real problem will be a backlash against whichever candidate tries to exploit either of these "scandals". Face it, if the last 3 Presidential elections have taught us anything, it is that the voter just doesn't care what the candidate did in Vietnam.

And stuff like this won't help....

Meanwhile, the best they can say about Bush is that he supported the war but went out of his way to avoid serving in it, choosing instead to do something that put him at no personal risk and had no beneficial impact on American security.security.

Where to start?
- - "went out of his way to avoid serving in it" - huh? Now, one might credibly say that he joined at a level that was unlikely to see service in the theatre of combat (though, the Squadron to which his unit was attached was actually flying combat missions when he joined), but the fact is that Bush DID serve. Presumably, active duty Guard service is still service, right? And Bush wasn't drafted - he joined voluntarily - so, it's hard to say that he avoided service.

- - "choosing instead to do something that put him at no personal risk" - No personal risk? Flying a F-102 fighter jet?

- - "and had no beneficial impact on American security" - Really? Then why do we even have a National Guard? Besides, wasn't it John Kerry who alleged that "nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America"? If so, then John Kerry chose to do something that had no beneficial impact on American Security.

I'm just sayin'.

We also haven't quite gotten to the bottom of how, exactly, he managed to pull this plum job in the first place...

Well gosh, Matt, I think we have gotten to the bottom of that.

However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets.

My overall impression of these dual "scandals" is that sufficient evidence for a reasonable conclusion exists....but that evidence just never seems to get through to the partisans who see political capital to be made in pushing their story.

And the voter? Any candidate who tries to push it may be in for an unexpected backlash.

God and Democrats and stuff

Kevin Drum has a very good guest post by Clinton's chief domestic policy advisor Bruce Reed. Bruce writes...

I'd feel a lot better if our side spent less time running down the religious right, and more time building a religious center-left. After all, those who fought for civil rights in the '60s saw standing up for their political convictions as a natural extension of their religious convictions.

There seems to be a widening gap between the theists and atheists on the political landscape, and it's polarizing the rhetorical landscape, too.

We've all seen and heard the "they must hate god" rhetoric from the Robertson/Falwell brigade for years now. Lately, though, that rhetorical excess is becoming more and more common on the other side. Opponents of the religious right don't just "disagree with the FCC ruling on Howard Stern". No, that would be letting them off too easy. Instead, they argue that it starts with not allowing boobies during the Super Bowl, and...boom! Suddenly, you've got a theocracy.

Now, rhetorical red meat will make for good radio...maybe even popular blogging. What it will not do, however, is win you votes among the people who haven't really ever been dragged off to be baptized by roaming lynch mobs of Christianistas. Those people tend to think of Christians as "the guy next door", or even "themselves", rather than the cartoonish images so often portrayed.

And this isn't a fringe issue. This widening gap is making itself apparent in the Democratic Party, where pundits use patronizing language like this on a regular basis...

It's no secret that George Bush intentionally laces his speeches with evangelical code phrases; expressions that don't mean much to ordinary people, but that scream "I believe in Jesus, too!" to those Christians in the know.

And that was in a post suggesting the Democrats should NOT belittle the language of religion.

The point? It's a bit surprising to me, because I thought the Republicans would have fractured over religion first - the fiscal conservatives and libertarians telling the social conservatives to get bent - but the Democratic Party is the one experiencing a fracture here. And until the atheists learn to live with the fact that some people have religious beliefs, it's going to be hard to reconcile their bitter, cynical distaste for any mention of "God" from Republicans, with the desire of many Democrats to, you know, believe in God.

Defending Wal-Mart

Ezra Klein is not a fan of Wal-Mart....

A politico friend of mine who is more dedicated to Democratic resurgence than anyone I've ever met told me the exact same thing a few months ago; within the labor community there's a sense that WalMart is so dangerous that if they could just make people see, they'd be able to win this fight. Problem is Walmart's danger comes in candy and ice cream, pounds and gallons of the stuff at absurdly low prices stocked by workers being paid disturbingly low wages. It's about as nice a package as the American consumer can find and therein lies its danger.

He goes on to say that he's criticizing Wal-Mart, not capitalism...but it's hard to see what distinction can be drawn. He cites low wages, but what is un-capitalist about setting wages at a level the market will bear? Ezra may have an opinion about the proper wage level, but he's free to act consistent with his own valuation when he looks for a job.

In the meantime, there's also the consumer which he seems to gloss over. Sure, there's "candy and ice cream, pounds and gallons of the stuff at absurdly low prices" but at what cost, man, at what cost! Well, at a cost the consumer finds acceptable, apparently. And the consumer finds Wal-Mart prices more acceptable than the alternative, quite often.

But Ezra Klein finds their valuation inappropriate, unacceptable. Why does Ezra hate poor people? (note: he doesn't, but he certainly doesn't seem terribly concerned about their value system)

We're a wage-earning society, but not we are not exclusively a wage-earning society. We are also a price-paying society, and if we pay attention to the income end of that fiscal balancing act, at the expense of our spending power, then we are simply engaging in a modern sort of mercantilism, wherein we think the consumer is wealthier if he has more money....even if that means he can't buy as much.

Ezra goes on....

Nothing wrong with economies of scale, particularly when they're better for workers, the problem lies in corporations who destroy better paying jobs and force an industry-wide, not to mention global, race to the bottom.

Note the contradiction? Nothing wrong with economies of scale....but the economic changes necessary to achieve those economies of scale? Well, those are a "problem". Now, I understand that he would prefer economies of scale to be achieved without cost to the worker, but that's simply unreasonable. In anything resembling a free market, labor cost is a variable input. If Wal-Mart doesn't use the most efficient labor cost, then somebody else will....and that somebody else will take market share from Wal-Mart.

After all, if the economy is operating at anything resembling efficiency, then labor costs don't have a high degree of demand elasticity. Employers cannot pay lower wages, without losing workers. Employees cannot demand higher wages, without losing jobs. An efficient economy will not base wage-rates on a normative and subjective definition of "fairness", but on a market defined proper allocation of resources. Price, after all, is simply a piece of information, reflecting the overall value of any given product or service.

So, is the eventual "race to the bottom" leading inevitably to lower and lower labor costs? To some extent, yes. Business will always seek to lower their costs....since, after all, consumers do the same. But it does not necessarily mean labor wages will always fall.

For one thing, that labor may simply cease to exist. I recall the early-mid 90s, when bag-boys began disappearing from grocery stores. "But who will bag the groceries", I thought. Surely, they can't just eliminate the job. Today, I know of only one grocery chain in the Richmond area that still has baggers. What's more, most grocery stores have now begun automating the job of cashier, too. If wages for that task go up to a level Ezra finds acceptable, what do you think will happen? Will cashiers finally begin living the life they deserve...or will that task be replaced?

Based on history, I'm fairly certain I can say it will be replaced.

That brings me to another point: what is the best business model for a "good" economy? Well, the hell if I know. And I'm pretty sure Ezra doesn't know, either. Nobody does.

But that's the beauty of a free market. We simply don't know how to allocate our resources - for one thing, because the proper allocation of resources changes from day to day - but a properly functioning price mechanism allows us to distribute those resources based on what value we place on them. Will Wal-Mart be around and on top forever? Of course not.

I'd remind you of who Wal-Mart replaced on the Dow Jones Industrial Average: Woolworth. A company that achieved market dominance by "undercutting the prices of local merchants". Of course, they were criticized for driving local merchants out of business at the time. And then, in 1997, they closed the remainder of their stores. Why? "Analysts at the time cited the lower prices of the big discount stores and the expansion of grocery stores to carry most of the items five-and-ten-cent stores carried as factors in the stores' lack of success in the late 20th century."

Short version: Wal-Mart, Target, grocery stores and others had found a better business model. Woolworth was a dinosaur.

In time, Wal-Mart will be replaced, too. And we'll probably hear complaints that the new business model, which almost eliminates employees altogether, is harmful. Never mind that we're getting "more for less", freeing up "more for something else".

The same argument has been made for centuries, but the fact remains: in a free market, wages are simply a piece of information defining the value of a resource. If that information is inaccurate, it will be forced to change. If the information is not accurate....well, Ezra is free to express his personal values with his own money.

But I'd really appreciate it if he keep his economic value system out of my pocket.

UPDATE: A simpler argument occurs to me: At any given moment, the cost for a action (ex: commerce) will remain the same, regardless of how we allocate our resources to achieve that action. Ezra is simply unhappy with the Wal-Mart solution to the problem of scarcity and resource distribution. That's fine. He can shop where he likes.

However, his opinion on the proper form of resource distribution is not an objective preference, but a subjective one. His preference would not lower the cost to society...it would merely shift the costs around. Society, obviously, does not share Ezra's values on resource allocation. So, who gets to make that decision.....the consumer? Or Ezra?

It doesn't get any better than this...

John Podhoretz articulates one of the reasons I continue to say "Kerry has peaked". He's just a bad candidate:

THE conventional wisdom is that the presidential election will be close. It's a 50-50 country, so the CW goes, just as it was in the year 2000.

The problem is that the conventional wisdom hasn't taken a proper accounting of John Kerry. Here's the truth that Democrats don't want to admit and that Republicans are fearful of speaking openly because they don't want to jinx things:

Kerry is a terrible, terrible, terrible candidate.

It's not so much the policies he proposes, although they don't add up to all that much. The problem is Kerry himself. He no sooner opens his mouth than he sticks first one foot and then the other right in there.

He just doesn't have what it takes for a national campaign. Sure he's been reelected in Mass. But so has Teddy Kennedy, who probably wouldn't have a snow-ball's chance in hell outside the north east. Same with Kerry.

Couple that with a message which is essentially "I'm not Bush" (much like Dole's "I'm not Clinton" message) and the whole campaign doesn't add up to much.

Now add this tendency and you've got a candidate who, at some point, will complete his own self-destruction:

And that is Kerry's great weakness as a candidate - a weakness that will be hard for him to overcome, because it appears to be a character trait. The man who said "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is a man filled with the conviction that he can talk himself out of a tough situation.

Sometimes, it's better just to be silent, take the hit and move on. But Kerry seems constitutionally incapable of doing that.

The example in question has to do with his appearance on ABC yesterday concerning his medals. Instead of just blowing it off, he became "Clintonesqe" in his answer. Ribbons, medals, yatta, yatta, Bush, Guard. Instead of just moving on he let himself literally be baited into not looking very good. It doesn't matter that the subject was essentially irrelevant, it was how he HANDLED it which was telling.

And I don't see it getting any better. As Podhoretz points out he seems incapable of knowing when to shut up and supremely confident that he can talk his way out of anything. That's when you see the arrogance come through, and its also when you hear such gems as "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."

Expect more of that because despite evidence to the contrary he hasn't learned to keep quiet. He still arrogantly believes he can talk his way out of things.

Which brings me to agree with Podhoretz. My gut tells me its not going to be close at all come November.

No Free lunch

The nut of the problem of liberalism in general and Kerry's program to "fund" college tuitions out of taxes is well articulated in William Dennis's statement in an article about that program:

Last week John Kerry was off on a cross-country ballot-buying trip, stopping at a number of college campuses. Vote for me, he said to students, and I will reward you with a new government program that will provide — in exchange for a period of national service — a $4,000 tuition subsidy to each program participant, to be raised through the tax system, and therefore from others' financial resources.

One of the worst aspects of any political system in which politicians essentially have unlimited access to the funds of others is this sort of blatant coercion disguised as a "benefit" for voting for the pol.

"Vote for me and I'll take funds from others and give them to you". Sure, its specifically aimed at "college" in this case, but the principle is the same.

As for "national service", Dennis again hits the nail on the head:

In a free society, "national service" is what most adults do on a daily basis. The Left would like us all to believe that government work is the only true labor for the common good, but such thought further demonstrates the poverty of the collectivist imagination.

You can't do any better for your nation than to get up every morning, go to work and contribute to the whole of the national economy. Its that productivity contributed by each worker that is responsible for the standard of living we enjoy. Not government. Not government programs. And certainly not robbing Peter to pay Paul (just to get Paul's vote).

And of course, the expected effect of this subsidy (and any subsidy program)?

Kerry fails to understand that tuition subsidies do not exist in a vacuum: As government subsidies grow, colleges seek to put the entire increase to improving their own bottom lines, leaving the student with just as much, or more, to pay.

"There is no free lunch", although for the left and the gullible, this is a lesson never learned.

Bush fact-checked

It strikes me that, while Kerry hasn't exactly been a military hawk over the years, the Bush campaigns criticisms of his record on defense are quite a bit less than accurate. Factcheck.org seems to agree...

Analysis

On April 26 the Bush campaign released a total of 10 ads, all repeating claims that Kerry opposed a list of mainstream military hardware "vital to winning the war on terror."

Misleading Claims

The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

Here, we have the same problem as we see in Kerry's recent $87b "no" vote. He has a choice, and it's not a terribly good one: vote for a flawed bill he doesn't wholly support, or vote against a flawed bill whose aims he generally supports.

The problem - if he votes for it, his criticism will be dismissed with "but you voted for it". Reference: Kerry's "Yes" vote on the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. He voted for a bill, though he was not altogether in agreement with the language and implications.....and ever since, his criticisms have been dismissed and derided as "flip-flopping". After all, if he's not completely for it, he should have voted against it, right?

Well, apparently not. If he stands on principle and votes against a bill - for any reason - he will be accused of being against (the troops, national security, health care for veterans, etc). Bit of a difficult choice, isn't it?

It's one thing to complain about obfuscatory rhetoric, but you know what? Sometimes a bit of nuance is absolutely necessary. And the Bush campaign's attempt to define complex issues downward is insulting.

Plus, they're not exactly immune to that criticism...

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter. What the ad lacks is the historic context: the Cold War was ending and the Apache was designed principally as a weapon to be used against Soviet tanks. And in fact, even Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did.
...
Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

It's a complicated world, and it's hard to convey that fact in campaign ads. Still, the Bush campaign could stand an infusion of that dreaded "nuance" now and then.

UPDATE: Captain Ed and mnkurmudge weigh in on this, as well. Both assert that there is a material difference between a budget reduction/elimination in 1985 and 1990-92. (due to the end of the Cold War) While they have a debatable and interesting point there - even the Bradley, F-14 and F-16? - I maintain that MnKurmudge goes awry when he claims the Kerry "No" vote on the $87b appropriation was genuinely a vote against the body armor. Clearly, the body armor WOULD have been approved just in a different bill, had Kerry had his way. One can agree with one part of a bill, but not another.

It's exactly this sort of nonsense that gets candidates accused of wanting to "starve children" or similar nonsense, when the candidate votes against a bloated appropriations bill that does contain a legitimate funding measure.

Look, I'll concede that John Kerry voted against the $87b appropriation bill, if you'll concede that he was still in favor of approving the $87b to fund the troops. And since he was in favor of funding the troops, I think that makes my point very nicely.

Their point about the 1985/90-92 disparity is worth considering, though.

Protectionism's Siren Song

Daniel Drezner in "Foreign Affairs" has this to say about "outsourcing":

Should Americans be concerned about the economic effects of outsourcing? Not particularly. Most of the numbers thrown around are vague, overhyped estimates. What hard data exist suggest that gross job losses due to offshore outsourcing have been minimal when compared to the size of the entire U.S. economy. The outsourcing phenomenon has shown that globalization can affect white-collar professions, heretofore immune to foreign competition, in the same way that it has affected manufacturing jobs for years. But Mankiw's statements on outsourcing are absolutely correct; the law of comparative advantage does not stop working just because 401(k) plans are involved. The creation of new jobs overseas will eventually lead to more jobs and higher incomes in the United States. Because the economy -- and especially job growth -- is sluggish at the moment, commentators are attempting to draw a connection between offshore outsourcing and high unemployment. But believing that offshore outsourcing causes unemployment is the economic equivalent of believing that the sun revolves around the earth: intuitively compelling but clearly wrong.

"Benedict Arnold" companies and "protecting American jobs" is going to sound appealing, especially in an election year with slow job growth. But its a siren's song as Drezner points out.

Protectionism would not solve the U.S. economy's employment problems, although it would succeed in providing massive subsidies to well-organized interest groups. In open markets, greater competition spurs the reallocation of labor and capital to more profitable sectors of the economy. The benefits of such free trade -- to both consumers and producers -- are significant. Cushioning this process for displaced workers makes sense. Resorting to protectionism to halt the process, however, is a recipe for decline. An open economy leads to concentrated costs (and diffuse benefits) in the short term and significant benefits in the long term. Protectionism generates pain in both the short term and the long term.

A good article, well worth the read.

More Spec Ops stuff

At the risk of boring you, I'd like to cite another article in Defense News which covers what I've been saying here about one of the ways we'll fight the war on terror ... special operations.

There is a plan to increase the troop strength of the US Special Operations Command by 3,700 between now and 2009. Now that may not sound like a lot, but in that community its a large increase.

That's because spec ops guys aren't mass produced. There's a very long training regimen involved, and I'd venture to say a special operator is 15 years into it before he's really at his peak.

So while that's all good background info, there's also another change taking place within that command that's probably more important:

“U.S. Special Operations Command is expanding to directly plan combat missions against terrorist organizations and execute those missions [as the lead command] while maintaing the role of force provider and supporter to the geographic combatant commanders,” O’Connell told lawmakers on the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee in March.

That's from Thomas O’Connell, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low intensity conflicts. What it essentially means is USSOC will be the command "directly" planning combat missions against terroist organizations. No middle man. No nonsense. They're the go-to command and they'll be executing the missions with their assets (SEAL, Ranger, SF, Delta, etc).

That's a GOOD thing.

Of course, in light of the article I mentioned on "social intel", what do these guys need most in order to "execute missions?"

Brown also said his command is closely coordinating intelligence-gathering and -sharing with other agencies in the Pentagon.

“This is an intelligence battle that we are out fighting, and it’s more akin to police in downtown New York than the traditional military operations,” Brown said. “It is developing intelligence out on the tactical level on the battlefield … and immediately turning that intelligence over because it is extremely perishable, and it’s taking maximum effectiveness of that intelligence when you get it.”

The command is working with the Pentagon’s new intelligence office, headed by Steve Cambone, Brown said. “We have stood up an interagency collaboration center that’s manned, that allows us to use intelligence from databases throughout the Department of Defense,” he said.

So its back to the quality of the information gathered and how timely it is (and how quickly it is shared). Note that he uses the phrase "extremely perishable" when discussing intelligence. Sometimes its so perishable that even if transmitted by the most efficient means, its out of date before it gets there. But the faster it gets there, the better chance the special operators have of using it to their advantage and actually destroying the terrorists before they have a chance to act or melt away.

Right now, the USSOC is not fully manned. Its retention problem isn't with the new guys ... the recruits. Its with the 20 year guys. This is a tough life and after 20 years, many guys have had enough. Many get out and do the same sort of thing for civilian contractors for much more money. But for the USSOC, these are the guys who are the best at what they do. The have the experience and the practical knowhow which makes them invaluable.

My guess is if the military wants to retain these guys its going to have to go outside the box in terms of incentives and compensation to keep them around. And, believe me, it would be worth every penny.

'Social' Intel

Good article in "Defense News" concerning the change in mind-set with regard to the focus of intelligence in a counter-insurgency/counter-terrorist atmosphere. A good explanation of why the change is necessary comes from Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander who is the deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence:

During the Cold War, “we looked at the Soviet Union as the enemy and we built our forces around that specific target set. And the problem with that symmetric approach is it also biased how we do intelligence.”

In the past, the Army could use its arsenal of communications, signals and electronics intelligence technologies to locate adversaries’ armies, Alexander said.

But “now we’re not looking for an armored division. We’re looking for people — people who want to kill us, people who want to change things in their world and see us as the enemy,” Alexander said. “That war and that problem set that we have is a far different intelligence problem set than what we had going into the Cold War with the Soviets.”

Our heavy reliance on technology was more justified in the light of our requirements during the Cold War. We didn't have the burning need for what is now being called 'social intelligence' when facing and contemplating the Soviet Union and its satellites. But we're no longer faced with that.

Now we have to gather much different sort of intelligence at a much lower level.

Finding individuals or terrorist cells demands troops on the ground as much as, if not more than, advanced technologies.

“The threat now requires that kind of collection,” Alexander said. “How do you get down to finding one person in Baghdad? How do you do that? This person doesn’t have a … radar on them that you can put the [electronic intelligence] system up there and collect them.”

Now, social intelligence is quickly becoming a trait the military wants organic to combat units. As a result, conventional forces will take on more of “special operations force-like characteristics,” Cebrowski said.

Instead of augmenting units with specialists, the military is now looking at a way to make the capability organic. Our special forces folks mix well with local communities and gather immense amounts of "social intel". The military wants to see all our units have that sort of capability already in place when they deploy.

Of course that means there has to be a shift in focus from traditional training which was heavily slanted toward fighting a conventional enemy.

”If you’re going to observe at the social level, then you have to have some skills at that level, just like with technical intelligence you need certain technical skills,” Cebrowski said. Foreign area studies, and studies that highlight culture, political systems, languages and social structure will become increasingly important to troops.

“It’s teaching people as we did on combat patrols. What are you looking for? What do you expect to see?” Alexander said. “How do you teach a policeman to say everything is OK on a street? A policeman who’s been there for 10 years can look down a road and say everything is OK. The new guy looks at everything. … How do you teach people to get to that 10-year standard quickly?”

The goal?

The ultimate goal is to turn every soldier into a battlefield sensor capable of working seamlessly within the services and across the military and civilian intelligence communities, Alexander said.

To do that, the military not only needs to train its troops, but it also must tie them together through a vast network that provides a single, joint, common operating picture updated instantly. Alexander offered the human body’s own sensors as the ideal network of human intelligence, image intelligence and signals intelligence.

“Let’s say we start to disconnect [a person’s senses] so what you know from our feeling side, call that your ‘humint,’ and what you know from your seeing side, call that ‘imint,’ and what you know from your hearing side, call that ‘sigint,’ are all disconnected and coming in at different times,” Alexander said. “Think how hard that would be to operate [and try] to figure out what’s going on.”

This is a bit of a sea-change for the intel guys. It'll be interesting to see how well they're able to implement this.

Aid and Comfort? Get Real!

Gee I wonder where these terrorists got this idea:

Al Arabiya TV broadcast a tape Monday it said showed three Italian captives in Iraq and said their captors would kill them if Italians did not protest their country's military presence in Iraq.

"A group calling itself the Green Brigade said it would release them if demonstrations are organized in Italy to protest against the government's policy in Iraq," the Arabic TV channel reported, quoting a message it said it received from the kidnappers.

"The group gave Italians five days to hold the protests or it will kill the hostages."

Well let's see they were able to sway an election in Spain.

Seems demonstrations on demand are the very least they can effect now.

And they wonder why they're called 'useful idiots'.

Offensive Gas bags

And we're not talking about Ted Kennedy here:

High-flying technology is going back to the blimp.

Engineers are developing a new breed of buoyant airships to follow hurricanes, act as mobile cell phone towers, spy over hostile territory and track incoming missiles.

Unlike blimps that hover above football stadiums, the High Altitude Airship flies without a pilot and can soar literally out of sight - so high it can't be seen by the naked eye.

``The prototype is expected to fly in 2006,'' says Cary Dell, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Corp., the ship's builder. ``And, yes, it will be large.''

Five hundred feet long and 150 feet wide, the craft is more than twice the size of the 200- foot-long Winstar Airship, the largest blimp in the air today. At 5.2 million cubic feet, it will be 25 times larger in volume than the Goodyear blimps.

Cool.

Militarily it may have a number of uses, but for intelligence gathering, it may be without peer as a platform:

The military has big plans for the high-flying blimp, one reason officials expect it to see extensive funding. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency awarded a $40 million contract to Lockheed Martin to design and test the prototype.

The craft could be used as a surveillance platform over hostile territory, although its size and sluggishness - a top speed of 80 mph - might make it seem a vulnerable target. But parked 12 miles up, about 65,000 feet, the blimp would be ``immune to most ground-launched missiles,'' according to Lockheed Martin.

Onboard sensors will be able to detect missiles for 350 miles in any direction, allowing it to identify incoming threats. A fleet of 10 could provide an early-warning curtain for the continental United States, say officials with the Missile Defense Agency.

A squadron of airships would provide ``overlapping radar coverage of all maritime and southern border approaches to the continental United States,'' according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

A big advantage of the blimp over unmanned aerial vehicles is its ability to linger over an area for days, weeks or months. This makes it a valuable option to expensive orbiting spy satellites, which must take pictures of a target or region as they pass overhead.

``The whole point of the thing is it's superior to satellites for some applications,'' says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia- based nonprofit group that focuses on defense and security issues. ``The advantage is you can have persistent surveillance with it over a certain area. Surveillance satellites, on the other hand, spend most of their time in the wrong place.''

One can only imagine the possibilities of a platform that can linger in a hostile area for months might mean in the war on terror.

Thanks for Kosovo ... Now Buzz Off!

Seems now that the US has helped NATO redefine itself and its relevance in the world, not to mention doing the lion's share of the heavy lifting in the Balkans that NATO is less that grateful:

NATO will only consider a wider role in Iraq if a string of conditions are met including a U.S. handover to a "credible" government in Baghdad, Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said Monday.

Does everyone remember when Europe and NATO were whining about how Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo would be the flame that would turn into a conflagration in Europe, etc., etc? How the US managed to help a hapless Europe in the Balkans and how it helped a DEFENSIVE treaty organization redefine itself into one who took on a larger worldwide role?

Yeah, well apparently that "worldwide" role doesn't include Iraq, you see. Well, unless "certain conditions" are met.

Wonder what these a**holes would have said had we had the same attitude with they were so concerned about Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia?

Chances that NATO will ever go to Iraq? Well you read it and tell me:

"If there is a sovereign, legitimate Iraqi government with full powers after June 30, and that government would direct a request to NATO, and if that request would be made on the basis of a new (U.N.) Security Council resolution, giving a specific mandate to a stabilization force, then I think NATO allies could enter in that discussion," he said.

"But I say sovereign, legitimate and credible Iraqi government and a new U.N. Security Council resolution. Those are the all-important yardsticks," he added. Anti-war allies France and Germany have led opposition to a NATO role in stabilizing Iraq despite U.S. calls for help.

BTW, NATO .... what was the UN resolution which authorized YOU to intervene in the Balkans?

Oh yeah ... there wasn't one, was there?

But other than that ....

Where do we get boobs like this. Ted Rall, in his usual uninformed noxiousness, thinks he's on to something by using an anecdotal example from a friend of his as to how lame our 'air defenses' are (all leading to the inevitable "9/11 was George Bush's fault" conclusion:

On a flight from Bishkek to Tehran on dilapidated Kyrgyzstan Airlines a few years ago, the pilot announced that the landing gear on my friend's Tupolev 154 wouldn't deploy. Tehran refused permission to crash-land the Soviet-era plane at its newly renovated airport. Five minutes later, my pal recalls, fighter jets appeared on each side of the crippled plane to escort it out of Iranian airspace. (It landed safely back in Bishkek.) Why didn't we respond to our crisis in the air on 9/11 with the same efficiency as Iran, a third world country hobbled by international trade sanctions?

Well let's see, Ted.

First, they knew the disabled plane was coming since he had ANNOUNCED it.

Second, they, like us probably had aircraft on strip alert and had them head out to intercept the aircraft and escort it out of Iranian airspace. We could have done that too had the highjackers been so kind as to announce their intentions in advance. But more importantly, we'd NEVER intercepted a highjacked plane in the past since they had never been used as a suicide bomb.

Third, Iran is the size of ALASKA.

Fourth its a theocratic dictatorship which tightly controls entrance and egress from its country.

And fifth, it has about as many fights a day as a state in the US, not the UNITED STATES as a whole.

But other than that, you nimrod, you make an excellent point.

The draft and politics

Perusing a Richard Reeves column I came upon the quote of Sen. Chuck Hagel concerning the draft:

"There is not an American who doesn't understand what we are engaged in and what the prospects are for the future. ... Those who are serving today and dying today are the children of the middle and lower middle class. Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"

Well, sir, to answer your question, why not have your son or daughter enlist if this is such a concern to you. My guess is you wouldn't dream of that. How about your grand children, if you have any? Take them down and sign them up.

Yeah, right ... like Ted Kennedy who'll bus your children from one side of Boston to another in the name of fairness and equality, but would never, ever see one of HIS children in a public school to save his life.

Spare me the rhetoric Senator and open your eyes.

For years and years and years, this has been the lament of the egalitarian elite. They begin with the assumption somehow "serving" in the miltary is a) a distasteful "duty' and b) in the name of equality and fairness, a 'duty' which should be shared.

Of course it isn't a "distasteful duty". As with many things we all do, it has some times which are better than other, but it is a PROUD duty. Yes its dangerous, but then so is police work. But we don't hear anyone crying about most policemen and women coming from the lower and middle class or about "sharing" that duty.

Granted, the military has provided a "way out" for many from the so-called lower class. I can't tell you how many kids from poverty joined the army and made it a career and BENEFITED from it tremendously. Had families, raised them, earned a good living and were young enough when they retired to start a second career. And most of them were successes in them as well.

Because the military taught them how to succeed through training and hard work.

Now Hagel is concerned that we're not "sharing" this "duty" in an egalitarian manner.

This is a liberal canard of the worst stripe.

Militiaries don't exist to be social experiments. At least they shouldn't exist for such a purpose.

They exist to defend the country. And they should be staffed by the best of those that WANT to be there.

Anyone, such as myself, who served in both a draft military and a volunteer military will tell you, you don't want ANY PART of a draft military if you can help it.

To be crude about it: It SUCKS.

So why this call for the draft? Any idea of the REAL reason its again raising its ugly head?

Well I think Reeves gives us a good hint as to the left's thinking as to why a draft would be a "good thing" right now. The cover is Hagel's "were fighting a 25 year war on terrorism and "it cannot possibly meet with today's all-volunteer military".

Because of that, and the "fairness" issue, we must consider the draft.

Sorry .... it doesn't make sense unless we think we have to take out every country that even hints of having ties to terror. I don't think anyone in their right mind believes that to be true or that it is the strategy we've embarked upon. The draft proponents are applying cold war thinking to a religious extremist insurgency. I think we'll find Iraq to be an exception and not the rule. I think the war on terror is going to be fought with special operators and special forces troops ... and believe me, you don't DRAFT them.

The real reason ... back to Reeves:

Why not indeed? Ending the draft was Richard Nixon's biggest dirty trick. He managed to pull it off in 1973 as a way to stop student demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. It worked; most students went back to studying after they did not have to face the risk of being sent out to die for the mistakes of their elders.

One result of all that was to give the White House the opportunity to plan wars in secret and execute them without the consent of the governed. War has become a spectator sport for most of us. To be more specific: If there had been a draft, we would not be in Iraq, because President Bush and his gang would have had to persuade the Congress and country that we were in grave danger from the inhabitants of that particular rats' nest.

Now translate that.

If we have the draft, then we have upset college students. If we have upset college students, we have anti-war protests (ala Vietnam). If we have huge anti-war protests, then we can control these "secretly planned and executed wars" guys like Bush are prone to get us into "without the consent of the governed" (never mind the fact that the representatives of the governed voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the OK to use force against Iraq).

Of course with an all-volunteer force, they go and do what they're told. No protests. Little grumbling. They are pros.

With a draft army, they'd be more prone to protest those things they didn't like. Lots of grumbling and whining. And guys like Reeves would be more than happy to help them out in their endeavors with a column or two.

IOW, this moonbat would like to see conditions like we saw during the Vietnam conflict recreated by the draft in the here and now.

Its not about egalitarian ideals. Its not about fairness.

Its about politics ... and how to hurt your political enemies. Who cares if it would snatch kids out of private life and put them in a uniform they don't want? So what if it would seriously degrade morale, efficiency and the power of our military.

There's only one question to be answered: Would it hurt George Bush?

Kerry needs to keep up

Kerry blasts Bush on trade:

A report released Monday by the Kerry campaign says Bush has presided over a "dramatic deterioration in our trade position," according to a summary.

"Year after year, he has consistently failed to represent U.S. interests in the global economy," the summary says.

With China, for example, the report says the administration has taken limited action on software piracy from China and the country's unfair trade policies for cotton, poultry, soybeans, wheat and high-tech products. It also says Bush has not provided relief to American workers and companies hurt by increased imports from China.

Wait a minute didn't I just read [shuffle, shuffle, unfold], yeah .... that's what I thought:

In the agreement, China agreed to allow US firms to distribute their goods to Chinese stores without going through state-run enterprises. It also promised to launch a new crackdown on copyright pirates, who cost the US industry in CDs, movies, and software more than $2 billion a year. (China is the world's largest copyright scofflaw.)

China also will reduce more barriers to food exports while US express-delivery firms will have more freedom to operate in China. And US exporters of computers and mobile phones won't face a potential trade barrier that China had proposed for June 1.

All this is a blow to protectionists who prefer to limit China's imports rather than further opening the huge Chinese market to competitive US exports. Last fall, Beijing promised to "basically balance" trade with the US - the trade deficit with China hit a record $124 billion last year - and step by step it's making its companies more vulnerable to market forces.

You don't suppose the "gang who couldn't shoot straight" missed this do you?

Would you take Fallujah already and quit screwing around?

Maybe its just me, but the time for negotiating has passed and the cease fire is a joke .... so can we get on with this?

U.S. Marines patrolling a section of northwest Fallujah on Monday engaged in a raging firefight with insurgents that left 10 Marines injured, four of them seriously, according to Marines on site.

...

A Marine commander said he believed his forces were vastly outnumbered and credited them with fighting "like lions" in confronting their attackers.

I can't imagine Marines fighting any other way.

A note to those concerned about the 'vastly outnumbered' statement. There's "vastly outnumbered" and then there's vastly outnumbered. Think of the first as you standing alone on a plain with 2,000 (name the foe of your choice) charging at you while you're armed with a stick.

Yikes ...

Now imagine you on a bluff, dug in with a machine gun, a flight of F-15 Strike Eagles and a Spectre gun ship orbiting above, Apache helicopters hovering to your left and a battalion of 155 howitzers (not to mention mortars, etc) at your beck and call.

That's how "vastly outnumbered" the Marines were. All the above are what are known as "combat multipliers" and they even out the rough numbers very quickly.

But I digress.

"We will continue to talk and continue the political process as it starts to bear fruit and as it bears fruit," Kimmitt said.

But he also leveled a warning.

"If we don't start seeing delivery (of weapons), we will cease the discussions and start other options," said Kimmitt, referring to the offensive by U.S. Marines that was halted for the discussions.

"As long as there is promise and demonstrated performance and delivery on the part of the side in Fallujah, I think we are going to show some combat patience and see if we can deliver this through a political track," Kimmitt said.

Yeah, well I don't see it. Haven't we always acknowledged "you can't negotiate with people who are willing to blow themselves up?"

So why in the WORLD are we trying to do so?

All this allows the insurgents to do is fortify and organize. What that means, quite simply, is the lives of Marines.

We've also said that before we attack we'll allow families to leave. Gee, why don't we just send them an announcement with the time and date of the attack?

Look, I don't want to sit here and second guess military commanders on the ground, but this is just basic rules of war stuff. Why not say anyone who wants out needs to be out by a certain date (like 3 days from now), and if the negotiations bear fruit, we'll be glad to let you back in .... but if you stay you do so of your own choice and the results of such a choice are your responsiblity.

A 33 year old lie?

The leader of the "gang who couldn't shoot straight" is at it again.

Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam.

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Of course this is a direct contradition of Kerry's claims during the campaign that he didn't throw his medals away.

Calling it a "phony controversy" instigated by the Republican party, Kerry said on Good Morning America today that he has always accurately said what took place. "I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals. It is very simple."

He also said he — and the military — didn't make a distinction between medals and ribbons. "We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through," he said.

Kerry is saying he believes medals and ribbons to be the same thing. This is a way trying to change the story by pretending he can use the words (ribbon and medal) interchangably. That's nonsense. Words mean things and medals are a specific item as are ribbons (not to mention the fact that part of a medal is comprised of a ribbon whereas a ribbon only represents the medal).

In his VIEWPOINTS interview [see above] Kerry said he had thrown his MEDALS away. He used that specific word. Additionally he said:

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said "they decided to give them back to their country."

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. "Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others," he said.

Now being fairly conversant in the English language, I understand, by those admissions that:

A)Kerry knew the difference between medals and ribbons but has now decided there is no difference.

B)Kerry 'gave back', a euphemism for tossing over the White Hous fence, "six, seven, eight, nine medals". His word for what he did ... "medals"

Ok, fine.

But now he wants to pretend he never said all of that:

The statement directly contradicts Kerry's most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. "I never ever implied that I did it, " Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

"I'm proud of my medals. I always was proud of them," he told Jennings in December, adding that he had only thrown away his "ribbons" and the medals of two other veterans who could not attend the protest.

Uh, yes, Mr. Kerry, you did indeed imply that you "did it". In fact you SAID you did it.

But, taking your assumption, if the ribbons are, in yours and the military's eyes, indistiguishable one from the other, then you did indeed throw them away ... which hardly speaks of "pride" in those medals.

In fact, speaking of the Nixon administration in days of yore, you were quite specific as to what you'd done:

Many veterans were seen throwing their medals and ribbons over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. The Boston Globe and other newspapers reported that Kerry was among these veterans.

"In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives," Kerry said the following day.

So again you mention throwing your medals back (whether 'ribbons' or the actual medal").

Why do I even bother to bring this up? Its simply another arrogant dismissal by Kerry in the face of overwhelming evidence. And that dismissal (or new version of events) which makes one of the versions a "LIE".

Yes, the "L" word.

When there is audio and video evidence of someone saying something and they're confronted with it, dismissing it as not true makes them either a liar now or a liar then. It really doesn't matter which episode is true, the fact is the person lied in one of them.

Kerry says its "very simple". I agree.

Simply tell us which of the interviews contained the lie.

Privacy and the dead

A letter to the Editor in the New York Times has been brought to my attention. The writer makes an important point...

You are missing the point in the Pentagon's policy of not allowing news photographers at Dover Air Force Base ("The Real War," editorial, April 23).

Dover is the East Coast receiving center for the military's mortuary affairs office. Your paper doesn't station photographers at a morgue in New York when it receives bodies. Why would you treat the remains of these service members or the feelings of their families differently?

If your paper wants to "bear witness to the sacrifice" of these service members, attend the services for each one of them. While you're attending the funeral, ask the mother if she'd mind if you got some pictures of the coffin. Then you might understand why the policy exists.

Photographs of flag-draped coffins, "reverent" or not, are an invasion of the family's privacy and should be taken only with its permission.

DAN EDWARDS
Leesburg, Ga., April 23, 2004
The writer is a staff sergeant, United States Marine Corps.

I agree with this, but I have to ask one question: if the military subscribes to this view, why were they taking photographs of the coffins? Clearly, they were, else they wouldn't have been able to release them.

One might draw a distinction between taking pictures for media distribution and taking them for other purposes, but I think it's worth asking for what purposes the military took their pictures.

UPDATE: Read this WSJ editorial (registration required) written by a father who lost his son. Key graf....

If it is truly the intention of those who support the lifting of the ban to honor these gallant individuals while giving the American public the opportunity to grieve with them -- and if it is truly the intention to bear witness to sacrifice and view at first hand the cost of this war -- then let them visit the
families of those who freely chose to join the military family. Let them visit the grave sites, let them journey to Fort Bragg or Fort Campbell or Fort Hood and speak to those who have returned or who might soon be joining the fight.

Plus, we've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield

Two blog posts are mingling in my head this morning. While each, on its own, makes a good point...I think the most important point is best made by the two, together.

Billy Beck writes...

This man has a grip on the essence of the thing.

"Politics is war by other means."

Fair enough. I agree, too, but now isn't the time to get into the fundamental nature of force, and the reason governments actually came into existence: to ameliorate and/or focus force.

To his point, though. If politics is, indeed, "war by other means", then does that not make non-participants essentially pacifists, unwilling to participate in the war to any meaningful degree? And is there truly any honor in that?

If the philosophy of pacifism, when it comes to war, is a "knowing enabler of evil"- "good men doing nothing writ large" - then on what principle is political pacifism substantially better?

The second blog post expands on this a bit....

I've given up on big-L Libertarianism. The people of this country have had 30 years to get to know the Libertarians, and the results have been about the same as the pimply-faced Chess Club geek asking the Homecoming Queen out for an evening of Dungeons and Dragons.

Doctrinaire Libertarians can keep slamming their foreheads against the wall if they like. Me, I choose -- like the much more successful Green Party -- to pick up allies on an issue-by-issue basis. And -- unlike the Greens -- to always have an eye on liberty and victory.

Distasteful? Oftentimes, yes. Successful? Sometimes. Which is about as often as anyone can hope for success in politics.

Philosophically, one might call that approach "utilitarian libertarianism". Politically, I call it - and my own approach - "Hobbesian libertarian". As Thomas Hobbes wrote "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man."

I would argue that the presence of a government does not eliminate that condition called "war". It simply focuses the powers fighting that war into different (hopefully, more civilized, less brutal) means.

So, what is the utility - or even principle - on which one can justify non-participation in the political system? Frankly, if one rejects pacifism as a moral philosophy, I have trouble seeing how one can bring it back to life as a political philosophy.

UPDATE: Parked at the Beltway Traffic Jam.

Holla!

(Via Pandagon) It's a bit unfair to portray Republicans as stereotypically unhip, old and white. (granted, many are - but so is John Kerry, so....) However, the GOP doesn't do themselves any favors with this essay contest.

Title: "Stand Up and Holla!".

Topic: "Why is the President's call to community service important
and how have you demonstrated it?"

Lame: Yes.

Look, if you want to make kids think you're not just a bunch of uncool, old white guys....it helps if you don't scream "hey, look at the uncool, old white guy!"

Race and double standards

This bout of point-missing has been going on for too long. Referencing the similar Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley cases of journalistic fraud, Leonard Pitts writes...

When a white person screws up, it ignites a debate on the screw up. When a black person screws up, it ignites a debate on race.

I've been reading this statement in various forms for quite some time, and the shallowness of the logic astounds me. Let me restate the question he's asking: since race was discussed in regards to the Jayson Blair scandal, shouldn't race be discussed in regards to the Jack Kelley scandal?

Ok, fair enough, let's discuss: Did race have something to do with the Jayson Blair scandal? Well, yes. But don't take my word for it. Here is Howell Raines...

"Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts he appeared to be a promising young minority reporter," Mr. Raines said. "I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities."

"Does that mean I personally favored Jayson?" he added, a moment later. "Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes."

Ok, so it's fair to say that race played a part in the promotion of Blair to a position for which he was unready. What about Jack Kelley? Did race have something to do with the Kelley scandal?

Uh. .... Anything?

Nope. At least, not so far as we know. If something comes up, I'm sure we'll hear all about it, but the fact is that race DID play a part in Blair's ascension, while we don't have any reason to believe it played a part in the career of Jack Kelley.

Conflating the two, as Pitts does, is akin to asking why we discuss the state of Scott Peterson's marriage in his trial, but we don't discuss the state of Marth Stewarts marriage in her trial. Well, brain surgeons, it might have a bit to do with relevance. Show me the relevance of Jack Kelley's race to his scandal, and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, why bring it up?

Oh. Right. Race-pimping. Kevin Drum makes the same error, when he writes...

Don't the folks who loudly insisted that affirmative action was to blame for Jayson Blair's transgressions owe us an explantion for their relative silence about the far worse journalistic fabrications of Jack Kelley? Has it given them any second thoughts at all?

I suspect the relative silence has a lot more to do with the fact that...well, jeez, it's USA Today. And it's the second story. We find WMDs in Iraq...that would be a HUGE story. We find a second set? That would be much less of a story. Bloggers have largely had their say on the topic. What's left to say? "Uh...that Jack Kelley guy sucks, too."

Most of all, in light of Pitts statement that "When a white person screws up, it ignites a debate on the screw up. When a black person screws up, it ignites a debate on race", I have to point to this story about a white writer, fired after making a racially charged comment in his column....

The newspaper's editor fired him after he wrote: "I think blacks should be more careful in deciding whom they choose to support. They need to grow beyond the automatic reaction of defending someone because he or she shares the same skin color and is in a dilemma."
....
A similar article, written just two days earlier by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts drew no such outrage. Pitts, who is black, wrote: "Blacks ought to be more thoughtful about whom they choose to rally around, ought to be less automatic in leaping to the defense."

Um. So, tell me again Mr Pitts, about how white people skate on race issues.

UPDATE: Sebastian Holsclaw adds more along these lines at the very good group blog Obsidian Wings.

Send the bill to Vincente

There are arguments in favor of more open immigration. There are arguments in favor of a generous welfare state. Combining the two, however, leads to problems that nobody seems willing to resolve.

Well, almost nobody...

A county commissioner in Idaho has billed the Mexican government more than $2 million for services provided to illegal immigrants. Robert Vasquez mailed the bill to the closest Mexican consulate, in Salt Lake City. He claims Canyon County is owed more than $1.4 million for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants over past two years, and more than $575,000 for providing medical care during that time.

"By federal law, we're required to provide them services," Vasquez said Wednesday. "So I thought ... then perhaps we ought to bill the nation of origin."

Granted, he pissing into the wind. But if you're going to waste paper, that's a pretty good way to waste it.

The FCC and Fidel

Oh good lord.

Ah, the good old FCC, proving its uselessness one more time.

A radio station that crank-called Cuban President Fidel Castro and broadcast the recording should be fined $4,000, the Federal Communications Commission said.
...
The hosts of the show on WXDJ-FM, Joe Ferrero and Enrique Santos, fed pleasantries to Castro before breaking in and calling him an assassin. The conversation ended after Castro denounced the callers with a stream of vulgarities.

The FCC concluded Friday that the station should be fined for the broadcast. It rejected the station's claim that a rule requiring people to be notified before their voices are used does not apply to people in Cuba.

Howard Stern wants to talk about tits? Unconscionable! But they'll bend over backwards to make sure that El Presidente doesn't have his rights violated, rights that he happens to deny the Cuban people.

Your government at work, ladies and gentlemen.

Pull yourselves together, guys. The FCC does a lot of stupid things, but this isn't one of them. This incident has nothing to do with Howard Stern, decency or "community standards". It has everything to do with this FCC rule...

Pursuant to this rule, before recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting such a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence, a licensee shall inform any party to the call of the licensee's intention to broadcast the conversation, except where such party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the circumstances of the conversation that it is being or likely will be broadcast. Such awareness is presumed to exist only when the other party to the call is associated with the station (such as an employee or part-time reporter), or where the other party originates the call and it is obvious that it is in connection with a program in which the station customarily broadcasts telephone conversations.

In other words, you can tape and broadcast incoming calls without expressed permission, but not outgoing calls.

This is a rule that every radio air talent knows. If they don't, they have no business being in a studio.

So, is the FCC wrong to enforce this? Of course not. The rule contains no exception for "assholes and dictators".

Is the rule itself wrong? I doubt it. Even the most adamant of libertarians would probably agree that such a misuse - or perhaps, unannounced use for commercial purposes - of a private conversation constitutes fraud.

Sure, it's funny that it happened to Fidel Castro. The guy deserves all the abuse he can get. But we still operate under the rule of law, and we can't simply dismiss that because it helps us laugh at a tyrant.

UPDATE: Lee at Right-Thinking has responded, but I think he's missing the point I made.

My main complaint was that the FCC is even regulating this at all. They are a largely useless organization, and could probably be completely eliminated, with their essential functions being delegated to other government agencies.
...
The FCC might serve some core regulatory functions, but overall it is a bloated, intrusive, constrictive organization that needs to be severely curtailed, if not eliminated entirely.

On this, we do not necessarily disagree. Frankly, due to the omnipresent nature of of radio signals, there may be "common property" issues as we recognize with air and water. However, the FCC, as it exists, engages in more protectionism than regulatory oversight. It is, as Lee writes, a "largely useless organization".

However, it's here where Lee misses the point....

I think what happened to the Florida DJs, while legal, is an affront to the libertarian ideal of limited government, much like my opinion of the treatment Howard Stern is currently receiving. We don't need the FCC regulating content in this manner. Every single radio sold in this country has a unique feature which enables listeners to instantly voice their opinion as to what they are hearing: it's called an on/off button. It is not our government's job to prevent Howard Stern from telling fart and boobie jokes, and it is sure not it's job to protect the integrity of Fidel Castro.

The FCC fine, in this case, is not analogous to the Howard Stern fines. It is not a restriction on "content", per se, so much as a restriction on already illegal behaviour.

What Stern did - a "violation" of the FCC's almost criminally undefined "community standards" rule - was not a violation of law. It was simply a matter of subjective moral interpretation - and, as it happens, it was on the far side of the FCCs interpretation. As a libertarian, I have a problem with a government agency enforcing subjective morality.

The Florida DJ's, on the other hand, did not violate a "community standard". It was not a "content" issue. (as "content" is defined in radio) What they did is a "fraud" issue. They recorded a private conversation....and they broadcast it without the expressed consent of the second party. That is not just a violation of FCC rules - it's a violation of Florida law.

"So", you might ask, "why shouldn't Florida enforce it, rather than the FCC?" Well, a couple reasons. For one, it's an interstate issue. (or, in this case, international) For another, rules vary state-by-state about the legality of recording phone conversations. The FCC simplifies this into one rule for the purpose of taped-for-broadcast issues. Otherwise, a dj could call you, hold a private conversation without disclosing his identity, then put you on the air and publicly embarrass you. That would be analogous to covertly bringing a camera into a persons home, then broadcasting the results of your visit...all without asking the permission of the person who invited you into their home.

Even a libertarian would likely agree this is an invasion of privacy.

Now, Lee may argue that the same function could be accomplished without the FCC. Perhaps so, perhaps so. But that makes the FCC extraneous. It doesn't make this particular ruling wrong. Violating a persons privacy is illegal, even if that person is a contemptable dictator.

Quick Hits

* Bill at INDCJournal takes in a John Kerry event, where he heard this...

* (Chants) "Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! Pro-choice! Pro-Kerry! (chant stops, pauses) God I wish McCain would have run ..."

I think both Parties have been saying that a lot, lately.

* Ranting Prof discusses military photographers, which have been around for a long time and asks....

Can we now finally put to rest the canard that the Pentagon filmed the rescue of Jessica Lynch for some kind of nefarious propaganda purposes? It was just not that unusual to have that mission filmed. And plenty of the people who implied otherwise damn well knew better.

Sort of like the idea that the Bush administration - an administration which propogated and encouraged the idea of "embedded reporters" - is trying to "sanitize the war" by disallowing pictures while coffins are in transit.

* Bill Hobbs....

Tillman is not a hero because of how he died. He's a hero because of how he lived, putting honor and duty and country above wealth, fame and comfort.

* Seems like everybody and their blogger are a part of some "Blog League" or other. When does the "Virginia/Georgia" blog League start up? It's gonna be awhile, isn't it?

* Dana...

You know a man loves you when he takes both kids with him to the store to buy you Monistat, so you don't have to make the drive.

..or maybe he just likes the kids? You think of that? Huh?

Or is it a bad idea to disabuse a pregnant woman of her romantic notions?

* Sick. NOW can we question their patriotism?

* Belgravia Dispatch...

"Baathists in name only" can now rejoin the Iraqi government payroll.

Smart, (if belated) move.

I agree. In a country full of people who were just going along to get along, it's probably necessary to excuse some of the people who were just going along. Some of them, anyway.

* Pejman...

After reading this post, it's hard to see how Maureen Dowd's reputation can sink any lower. I'm sure, however, that her penchant for inaccuracy and blatant dishonesty will indeed help her strike another more grievous blow against the cause of responsible journalism quite soon.

Hey, when you're on a roll...

But give Dowd credit. Very few people can turn 3rd-grade insights, 7th-grade wordplay and good spelling into a column in the New York Times. I can only guess at the pictures she must have of Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

Pat Tillman

Not much else to say today, but the death of Pat Tillman really touched me this weekend, so I want to add a couple thoughts.

The next time you hear a kid say that (sports star X) is his hero, tell them the story of Pat Tillman. It's important.

I support this idea wholeheartedly. Pat Tillman Stadium. Tillman Stadium. It has a nice ring to it....and, perhaps, a meaningful echo.

But most of all, where do we get such men?

You'd think they could get this right...

Under the heading of "well here's a surprise":

Vietnam combat records posted on John F. Kerry's campaign website for the month of January 1969 as evidence of his service aboard swift boat No. 94 describe action that occurred before Kerry was skipper of that craft, according to the officer who said he commanded the boat at the time.

You've GOT to be kidding. How in the WORLD do you let something this wrong get published as 'your' record?

On the site, the Massachusetts senator is described as the skipper of Navy boat No. 94 during several actions in late January 1969.

However, Edward Peck, who was the skipper of the 94 before Kerry took over, said combat reports posted by the campaign for January 1969 involve action when he was the skipper, not Kerry. Peck, who was seriously wounded in fighting that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, said he believes Kerry campaign aides made a mistake in claiming Kerry as skipper of the 94 at that time.

On the Kerry website, the report of the combat on that day on the 94 boat is posted as occurring during Kerry's time as skipper of the boat. Peck said Kerry replaced him after the Jan. 29, 1969, event.

"Those are definitely mine," Peck said, referring to the combat reports that the Kerry campaign posted as representing Kerry's action. "There is no doubt about it."

So NO ONE on the campaign staff vetted this material with Kerry? This is freakin' ABSURD. Its AMATEUR hour. And that's assuming the BEST about this.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, said in an e-mail that the campaign had obtained the combat reports for the 94 from the Navy. He did not directly address the question of why the campaign describes Kerry being skipper of the 94 at a time when Peck says he commanded the boat.

The reports at issue are in a 20-page batch representing Kerry's combat in January 1969. The reports include references to some dramatic action, including an ambush of Patrol Craft Fast, or PCF, 94. In addition to posting the information online, the campaign sent out an e-mail yesterday afternoon repeating the claim that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 boat throughout January and describing action the campaign said Kerry experienced while commanding the craft.

For example, in a summary of action that occurred Jan. 26, 1969, the campaign says Kerry served on boat No. 94 alongside another boat, No. 66. "PCFs 94 and 66 escorted troops up the Ong Doc River early in the morning when they were ambushed by gun and rocket fire from approximately 40 men on both sides of the river," the campaign summary says. "Two B-40 rounds hit close to Kerry's boat, while PCF 66 received 2 B-40 rocket hits. Three men on PCF66 were wounded. A junk containing South Vietnamese troops was also sunk, killing 11 South Vietnamese troops. Intelligence reports after the mission indicated that the Viet Cong troops may have planned the ambush in advance."

Peck said he was the skipper of the 94 at this time and that Kerry was not on the craft. While combat reports show several boats traveling with the 94, the campaign website says only that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 and does not try to place him on the other boats.

In another report, the campaign summarizes action that took place on Jan. 29, 1969, this way: "While Kerry's boat and another [PCF72] were probing a canal along the river, Kerry's boat came under heavy fire and was hit by a B-40 rocket in the cabin area. One member of Kerry's crew -- Forward Gunner David Alston -- suffered shrapnel wounds in his head. His injuries were not considered serious and he was sent to the 29th Evac Hospital at Binh Thuy."

Peck said he was the skipper on this day as well. Peck was also injured in the ambush and was hospitalized.

But it was listed as action Kerry was involved in? Look, folks, as important as this has become, I find it very difficult to believe a competent staff would be a party to such a gaffe. Maybe that's the problem ... competence.

How freakin' hard is it to check this stuff out before running it out on a website?

Not very. Yet here the boobs are claiming action for Kerry that Kerry never participated in.

Kerry's commanding officer, George Elliott, said in a telephone interview that he vividly recalls Peck's injury and hospitalization and Kerry's replacement of Peck. "I think somebody made a mistake who doesn't know" the timing of Kerry's service, Elliott said. Kerry was skipper of boat No. 44 in December and January before taking over command of the 94, he said.

The man who would be king can't even put out his correct service record? They seem more and more like "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight".

Amazing.

How do you define "hero"?

How do you define "hero"?

Former NFL player Pat Tillman was killed Thursday while serving as an Army Rangers soldier on a mission in southeastern Afghanistan, Pentagon officials have told CNN. He was 27.

....

Tillman was a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment, a light infantry unit out of Fort Benning, Ga. The White House put out a statement of sympathy that praised Tillman as "an inspiration both on an off the football field."

...

"Pat knew his purpose in life," McGinnis said. "He proudly walked away from a career in football to a greater calling."

Several of Tillman's friends have said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks influenced his decision to enlist.

"Patriotism is not a song in the street and a wreath on a column and a flag flying from a window.... It is a thing very holy and and can be very terrible, like life itself. It is a burden to be borne, a thing to labor for and perhaps suffer for and even to die for; a thing which gives no happiness and no pleasantness - but a hard life and an unknown grave, and the respect and bowed head of those that follow." - John Masefield

"In sports we have a tendency to overuse terms like courage and bravery and heroes," said Cardinals vice president Michael Bidwill, son of the team's owner Bill Bidwill, "and then someone like Pat Tillman comes along and reminds us what those terms really mean."

Rest in peace, Pat Tillman.

Rangers Lead The Way

Hello? Bob Dole ... ever been a VP?

The website www.JohnKerryisadouchbagbutImvotingforhimanyway.com pretty well sums up the feelings a number of Dems I know have for the presumptive nominee.

The *sigh* "well if that's what we've got, then that's what we vote for" feeling.

Even Wonkette can't seem to summon up a ringing endorsement of the man, although she'd modify it at least a bit:

We'd go with something less intimate, but "John Kerry is a douche bag but I'm voting for him anyway" is about as close as we're going to get to an endorsement ourselves.

Even Bob Dole would add fire to this lot.

The Onus to Succeed is on the Iraqis

Ralph Peters says we shouldn't be too discouraged about the fighting presently underway in Iraq, but there are some things we should be troubled about:

* We should be troubled that, in this bloody month, none of the insurgents waved an alternative constitution - unless we count their perversion of the Koran. None of those violent men is fighting for freedom - they're fighting to strangle liberty in the cradle. They are, without exception, forces of reaction, not liberation, no matter how madly al-Jazeera twists the facts.

* Nor did the general Arab population or its leaders take a public stand against those who would renew their oppression. And those who will not defend their own freedom do not deserve to be defended by others.

Ok ... so the guys we're fighting aren't 'freedom fighters'. I think we knew that from the beginning, so sorry Ralph, I'm not at all troubled by that.

However, I AM troubled by the second point. That is the most important point. IF the Iraqis won't stand up to those who would again enslave them, we can't really help them.

As Peters says:

With sufficient troops, we can force Iraq's Arabs to behave. But we can't force them to succeed.

The more I think about this transition scheduled for June 30th, the more I think it is the right thing to do. It is imperative that an IRAQI ministry of defense take charge of defense or an IRAQI ministry of security be the go-to entity for security problems. And that is true across the board ... the sooner, the better.

That doesn't mean we wash our hands of Iraq, pack up and go home. It means we still assist, but that the heavy lifting is done by an IRAQI government and IRAQI citizens, not coalition troops or government.

One can only hope, then, that when THEY have a vested interest in THIER government and its future that they'll stand up and say "that's ENOUGH!"

The questions remains, though, will they indeed do so? Or are they so battered and beaten down by their previous regime that they'll just passively let themselves become enslaved again?

June 30th will begin to give us those answers.

The Fineman Theory

Howard Fineman trots out 9 reasons he thinks Bush will be elected. Some are debatable, such as the Woodward book and his "Tony & Trump" bit (although I don't think the Woodward book has hurt Bush much at all ... I think most of "fly-over" country see it as "old news"). And he's of the opinion that Fallujah and Najaf are actually helpful (echoing the Dick Morris point I posted about earlier this week). Then of course there are the 50 million in ads and the blatant partisanship of the 9/11 commission.

But I'd like to look at the three points I consider to be the most important:

The Economy. It is improving in most places in most ways. West Virginia is a good example. Bush won it in 2000 on the strength of protectionist promises made to steelworkers there. He has since dialed back on protection, and you would think that that presented a big opening to the Democrats there. But, for other reasons (voracious demand in China, mostly) the American steel industry is booming. There are other local and national trends out there. Some of that good news is getting out, which is why Bush’s numbers—still not great—are improving for handling the economy. And, as in Iraq, Kerry’s proposals aren’t radically different. He’s even in favor of keeping most of Bush’s tax cuts in place.

Face it ... the economy is hitting on all cylinders now. Barring disaster, its going to be even better when the election rolls around. The "miserable failure" is turning into anything BUT. However the power of this turn around must be exploited politically by the Bush team to mean anything in November. If they leave it to the media, my guess is the ratio of good economic news to "bad" economic news will run much more to the negative side than the positive. As in all politics, the side that frames the debate usually wins. And it doesn't hurt if most of America is working and has additional disposable income either.

Nader. I went to see him at a breakfast with reporters the other day, and expected to see a doddering fellow ready for the retirement home. Nothing could be further from the truth. Still sharp and energetic—and still possessed of his radar-like ability to hone in on the faults of the corporate/political establishment—Nader is a dagger pointed straight at the Kerry campaign. In the Washington Post poll, for example, he draws six points in a three-way match, compared with 48 for Bush and 44 for Kerry. Nader insists that he will draw equally from Democrats and Republicans; I don’t see it. And with Kerry taking a carefully modulated line on Iraq (made necessary by his $87 billion vote), Nader is free to be the Peace Candidate and the all-out anti Big Business candidate, too.

Nader may be the difference. Apparently, based on what I've been reading, his support remains strong (at least at the percentage he had in the last election) and in some cases, pollsters are reporting he may have picked up a percentage or so. Democrats, instead of trying to woo Nader and his supporters have turned hostile. That hostility may be enough to sink any possibility of a Kerry win.

Kerry, of course. John Kerry is durable, unflappable and determined. He works to be in the right place at the right time, and often is. He has no illusions about his own star power or charisma. He is a wooden campaigner, and his 20 years in the Senate have left him unable to see that bragging about legislative maneuvers is the last thing you want to do. Kerry explained to supporters recently that he’d voted for the $87 billion before he’d voted against it. In his mind, evidently, he was merely explaining (with a mordant sense of humor) how the Senate works. But now that line is the centerpiece of a BC04 attack ad. Kerry told financial supporters in New York the other week that his objective, for now, was to “preserve my acceptability.” That’s a pretty low standard—but one he won’t meet if that is his only goal. So far, his strategy has amounted mostly to: Vote for me, I’m not Bush. That’s not enough, especially if Kerry is seen by most voters the way the BC04 ad portrays him: as a flip-flopping manipulative insider.

Kerry will turn out to be his own worst enemy. As I've said repeatedly, he's peaked. Its not going to get any better, in fact, the more the country "gets to know" John Kerry, the less they're going to like him. "Acceptability", as Fineman points out, isn't enough. Its the Dole tactic all over again, and that was a disaster for the Republicans. In fact, on many levels, the Kerry candidacy is eerily similar to the Dole campaign.

Free Trade and China

Seems our trade negotiators have done some good in the area of free trade and China according to the Christian Science Monitor:

In the agreement, China agreed to allow US firms to distribute their goods to Chinese stores without going through state-run enterprises. It also promised to launch a new crackdown on copyright pirates, who cost the US industry in CDs, movies, and software more than $2 billion a year. (China is the world's largest copyright scofflaw.)

China also will reduce more barriers to food exports while US express-delivery firms will have more freedom to operate in China. And US exporters of computers and mobile phones won't face a potential trade barrier that China had proposed for June 1.

All this is a blow to protectionists who prefer to limit China's imports rather than further opening the huge Chinese market to competitive US exports. Last fall, Beijing promised to "basically balance" trade with the US - the trade deficit with China hit a record $124 billion last year - and step by step it's making its companies more vulnerable to market forces.

It still needs to loosen the reins on its overvalued currency, for its own sake in preventing inflation but also to raise prices on exports. And Beijing needs to show more follow-through in implementing trade deals.

This is good news for US companies and is a long overdue development in terms of balance of trade. Obviously, it remains to be seen if China will actually live up to the bargain. Regardless, politically, this is something the Bush administration can tout as a "win" for the US economy.

Selective application

The Daily Kos, yesterday....

"This is like allowing Nazis into the German government immediately after World War Two," said Chalabi, who heads a council committee purging the administration of the upper ranks of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Someone needs to tell Chalabi about Godwin's Law.

Godwins Law, in part: "...whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress". Without getting into the (questionable) validity or applicability of Godwin's law, let's just point this out....

Daily Kos, Jan 9th, 2004...

...moveon sponsored ads comparing awol to hitler. (as we ourselves have often said, this is a totally invalid comparison. hitler could speak in public).
...
but we'd like to take issue with moveon, and with mr. boyd. in our humble opinion, while the hitler ads were in poor taste, and badly done, and rightly voted down, we don't think they were anything to apologize for.

I'm just sayin'.

The UN is no "magic wand"

What has the UN's involvement in past conflicts and countries brought us? That's essentially the question Alan Philips asks in his opinion piece in The Telegraph. His assessment is none to assuring.

In pre-war Iraq:

The UN would authorise sales of oil, and the money would be spent on imports of food and medicine. This humanitarian gesture has now been exposed as perhaps the biggest financial scam of all time.

Meanwhile in Africa:

It is worth examining the UN record. At the level of emergency aid, the UN keeps millions alive in Africa. The World Food Programme, a UN agency, is the largest humanitarian organisation on the planet. All over Africa, it is the UN that has the lorries, the planes, the 4x4s and the know-how to get food to the starving.

But, once again, the question has to be asked, where does all this effort and dedication lead? Ultimately, the effect is to prop up corrupt regimes and stifle economic reform. In gloomy moments, staff complain that they are just a sticking plaster on a patient who needs stronger medicine - political reform at home and a fairer economic system globally.

Instead of being the MEANS of FIXING the problem, they are simply the means of EXTENDING the problem.

Militarily? The UN is a complete disaster:

On the military level, there is not enough space on this page to detail all the failures of blue-helmet operations around the world. Starting with the Congo in the 1960s, they have been vessels of wishful thinking that have foundered on harsh diplomatic realities. In Rwanda, the UN force in place was actually reduced on the eve of the genocide 10 years ago. In Sierre Leone, a 17,000-strong multinational force collapsed in the face of some drunken gunmen, only to be rescued by a task force of 800 British soldiers who restored the situation. In Bosnia in 1995, the UN-enforced "safe haven" of Srebrenica turned into a death camp for 8,000 Bosnian Muslims. It was the worst massacre in Europe since 1945.

...

At best, the UN can freeze a conflict - as in Cyprus or between Israel and Syria, provided both sides agree. It can do old-fashioned nation-building - as happened in Cambodia - provided there is no significant armed opposition.

And their primary function? Diplomacy? The UN doesn't fare much better:

On the diplomatic front, the outlook is not much brighter. The hours spent by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, knocking heads together in Cyprus seem destined to end in failure.

So Philips then asks the salient question: "So why is everyone talking about the UN as the panacea for Iraq?"

The very same question that's been bothering me. His answer:

If we think this ship of fools will carry us to safety, we are wrong. The Spanish have blown apart the pretence that the world is just waiting to pour troops into Iraq if the operation is conducted under a UN flag. The new government in Madrid said it would wait to see if the UN was going to take over by June 30, but in fact has already started to pull its forces out. Nor is the rest of the world in any rush to send troops to Iraq. The fact that the UN headquarters in Baghdad was blown up by a suicide bomber shows that no foreign soldier - even in a blue helmet - is safe.

The UN special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, can help broker a political settlement. The UN Security Council can help legimitise it. But Iraq is too tough a problem for the UN to play a leading role on the ground. The US and Britain will have to deal with it. To place all our hopes in the UN is wishful thinking.

I have to agree. And John Kerry's claim that he'll involve the UN is nothing more than political rhetoric designed to placate and garner the vote from those who have disregarded the reality of past UN failure and still, for whatever reason, see it as a viable entity.

But as Philips points out, in the REAL world, there is only one REAL solution:

There is only one solid basis to work on: that the Iraqis can find common ground among themselves to restore their state and let the foreign troops depart in time. Everything that helps to that end is to be welcomed, but Annan has no magic wand.

That common ground has to be found when THEY stand up THEIR government on June 30. When the Iraqi army and security forces work for the IRAQI government and not some temporary and foreign coalition government. The UN, even if it WERE effective, can't make that happen.

Iraqis have to say 'enough' and take control of their country.

Bringing out our dead

To be honest, I'm a bit mystified by the demand for pictures of coffins. Seems a bit morbid to me, and for no real purpose. After all, it's not like the media is prohibited from publicizing the names, data and circumstances for the deaths in Iraq. The Pentagon simply restricts photo's of coffins en route.

And besides, the administration can hardly be said to be "sanitizing the war" when they allowed, even encouraged, the practice of "embedded reporters".

However, I must bring up one point in response to the hysterical wags complaining about the "Bush administration suppression of photo's in an attempt to sanitize the war!". I would draw your attention to this....

The debate over privacy, secrecy, and the public's right to know has again flared up at the Pentagon - this time over a very sensitive subject: the photographing of soldiers' coffins as they are shipped home.

Under a policy adopted in 1991, the Pentagon bars news organizations from photographing caskets being returned to the United States, saying publication of such photos would be insensitive to bereaved families.[emphasis added]

The rule has been in effect for 13 years. So, can we quit pretending like this is a George W Bush tactic to "Suppress The Truth"?

Dignity in death

Roy and Georgette Frank lost their son, a marine, in Iraq. When asked if his life had been lost in a vain effort, Roy Franks responded:

"The only circumstance I could ever imagine where I could say that I believe my son died in vain is if the United States turned around from that country and did not complete the mission to free those people and to make that government independent."

This is the human side and human cost of any war. And when the worst happens, some families handle the loss with dignity, such as the Franks. But they understand the principles involved and support the right of other families to react differently. In fact they undestand that their right to do so was something their son defended:

"I can't fault those people," she said. "That's their opinion--that's what America is all about. That's what my son went to bring over there, so that somebody in Iraq could stand up and say, `I don't agree with the way you're doing this,' without ending up in a torture chamber or watching his daughter get raped.

"That's why my son was there. And what more could a parent ask? What more could I ask of my son than that he have that kind of ideal?"

Indeed.

There's principle, and then there's life

From The Onion....

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.

Back to Poli-Sci class for John Kerry

In the future, it may be best to take any of John Kerry's pronoucements on political theory with a grain dose fairly large canister of salt. This is what he said about the Bush administration last summer....

“The Bush Administration agenda isn’t conservative Republicanism, and it’s not radical Republicanism—it’s extreme libertarianism.”

Whatever the Bush administration may be - and there are quite a lot of descriptive terms, most of them unflattering - it is not libertarian. It does not resemble libertarian, except in the sense that both the Bush administration officials and libertarians are carbon-based life-forms.

If that quote truly reflects John Kerry's opinion, then he either hasn't paid attention to the Bush administration, or he didn't pay attention in Political Science class.

I guess Ralph Nader won't be on the ticket

John Kerry sets them up....

"I don't own an SUV," said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies.
...
Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M.
...
Kerry said it's important for his family to buy American cars and pledged to keep car manufacturing jobs in the country if elected.
...
"I want cars to be made in Michigan, made in America, made" by the United Auto Workers, Kerry said.

...and I knock 'em down. Kerry (who, you remember, is a big advocate of fuel efficiency) says he recently bought a Chrysler 300M. Well....

- The Chrysler 300M gets an "EPA estimated mpg: 17 city/ 25 highway". That's SUV mileage.

- The Chrysler 300M is "made in Brampton, Ontario". Plant details can be found here. The 300M has been made there since 1998.

So, it's important to Kerry to buy cars "made in Michigan, made in America, made" by the United Auto Workers".....but he buys a car made in Canada, by Canadians.

Oh, and in that article, Kerry claims...

"I don't own an SUV," said Kerry, ...

Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. ... "The family has it. I don't have it," he said.

Uh huh. Well, he didn't earn that 'flip-flop" reputation for nothing. Here's what John Kerry said when he talked to the Detroit News...

Q: What kind of vehicles does your family drive?

A: We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban.

Note that he claims multiple SUVs.

Hm. An automative discrepancy? It's minor stuff, to be sure, but it's exactly the sort of stupid minutiae politicians do lie about.

And catching them at it? Well, that is its own reward.

I still question the Purple Hearts

Jon and I have a bit of a difference on the Kerry 'war hero' issue, so I thought I'd at least take the time to clarify my stance on the issue. Jon grants him the benefit of the doubt based on the record available. I can't fault or argue with him on that.

Let me make two quick points before I go into my major point:

A) It appears that Kerry did his duty in Vietnam, however short his tour. I'm not arguing that. He was there, he didn't shirk, he went out and did what he was ordered to do. You can't ask much more of any person in the military.

B) My problem stems not from his citations for bravery (although the article I cite later does discuss some discrepencies) so much as his Purple Hearts.

Opinion Alert: I think they were a device calculatingly used to remove himself from a combat zone in the shortest time possible.

THAT is my major problem with the issue.

Why do I have that opinion? Because, as I've pointed out in an earlier post, and Jon again pointed out today, Kerry admits he didn't really want to get involved in the war.

IOW, in reality, he wanted the 'record' of being in VN, without the danger of being in VN. Why? His idol was JFK. JFK (the other one) was a PT boat commander in WWII. There is and was a certain dash and panache attached to that sort of command. Kerry, in my estimation, wanted that sort of image without having to suffer through combat to get it.

When he volunteered for Swift boats, they were a pretty safe job ... coastal patrol. They were essentially the RVN Coast Guard. Not many VC or NVA out there threatening RVN or US interests. But soon after he got there, the mission was changed to riverine patrol. Much more dangerous. More dangerous than Kerry wanted.

Now, let me again make the point that all that follows is surmisal and opinion on my part leavened with a healthy dose of time in the military AND experience with some less than savory types in terms of medals and recommendations. Maybe it has made me cynical. Or maybe I'm just naturally suspicious. But something, as a result of my experience and at least to my eye, isn't right about the Purple Hearts.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

"The idea that John Kerry would have put in for three Purple Hearts during only four months in country is just ridiculous," said Mel Howell from Evansville, Ind., a retired Navy officer who flew helicopters in Vietnam. "Most of us came away with all kinds of scratches like the ones Kerry got but never accepted Purple Hearts for them."

This is precisely the point I made to Jon yesterday in a comment to his post. This is another veteran who, based on HIS experience, smells something which isn't quite right.

It was almost a point of honor for most NOT to apply for PH's for bumps, bruises and scratches. That's because most of us knew people who lost arms, legs, eyes or their lives and were awarded nothing but a Purple Heart. I'd be damned if I'd try to put myself in the same category as those so wounded unless I had a REAL wound. Not something a bandaid and Bacitracin would take care of.

So, back to my point ... what this says to cynical me is he, Kerry, was looking for any way he could find to "honorably" get the hell out of Dodge. And the 3 PH "regulation" (which was only available in the Navy and USMC ... and later stopped in the USMC) was the method. He identified that as the way out immediately and set to work to accomplish his goal. The scratch provided one PH in the bank with two to go.

As to the medic's record of the "wound":

"Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl[ied] bacitracin dressing. Ret[urned] to duty."

Another medic takes a look at this an make a very important point:

"If it only required bacitracin and a Band-Aid, it sounds like a piece of hot shrapnel that was flying around and may not have even broken the skin," said Mr. Waller, adding that he'd never heard of a shrapnel injury that didn't require a tetanus shot and time off leading to a Purple Heart.

Ray Waller was a medic with the Marines in Vietnam. The impotrant point I mentioned? That he never received a tetnus shot. I can't EVER recall a shrapnel wound of any type which wasn't treated with a tetnus shot, ESPECIALLY when you consider where they were ... Vietnam. Tetnus thrives there. So based ON THE RECORD, I have to agree with Waller ... something isn't quite right here.

And then there's the recollection of his commanding officer about the incident:

It was Mr. Kerry's first injury that already is the source of serious questions raised by his commanding officer at the time, Grant Hibbard.

Mr. Hibbard declined requests yesterday to be interviewed by The Washington Times, but he told the Boston Globe that Mr. Kerry's injuries were too minor to qualify for a Purple Heart.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," Mr. Hibbard said. "People in the office were saying, 'I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm."

But Mr. Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Mr. Hibbard told the Globe, he dropped the matter.

OK ... wait a minute. More inconsistency. Hibbard says he had a scratch on his FOREARM. The record says he was hit ABOVE THE ELBOW. More for the "this all sounds like bullshit to me" category. Did Kerry show his CO a different "wound"? One that may have seemed worse than the one "above the elbow?"

Reviewing: His own people are saying "I don't think we got any fire", his commanding officer remembers a scratched forearm and the medic recorded a 'wound' above the elbow that didn't require any more than a bandaid and Bacitracin (no tetnus shot).

There's that smell again.

But Mr. Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Mr. Hibbard told the Globe, he dropped the matter.

"I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Mr. Hibbard said. "I finally said, 'OK, if that's what happened ... do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Now, I'm sorry, but if my company commander had said, in so many words, "look, this doesn't quite measure up", I'd have been ashamed to pursue it. Apparently, as his commanding officer recalls, Kerry wasn't at all. Couple that with the fact that the recommendation for the award was submitted by Kerry and you can begin to understand why I'm so cynical about this ... why the smell just won't go away.

And because injuries warranting Purple Hearts are verified by medics — or corpsmen — it would have been a soldier inferior to Mr. Kerry who was in charge of determining the seriousness of his injuries.

"If the commander walks up to the corpsman and says, 'I'm wounded,' " said Mr. Waller, "his corpsman isn't going to say it's just a scratch, he's going to say 'OK.' "

And I have to agree. No skin off the medic's back and not worth the confrontation.

But it does add to the smell.

"I Request Duty in Vietnam"

I'm seeing a lot of this today in the blogosphere-left is this....

"I request duty in Vietnam" -- the first line in one of the documents from John Kerry's service records, now posted on the Kerry website.

Catch it bandied about here and here.

So, Kerry volunteered for Vietnam on his induction papers...and Bush didn't. Proving? Well, that Kerry had more guts, of course!

Except, not so much.

During Kerry's first tour in Vietnam...

from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat.

A normal stint for a new recruit. And then Kerry re-upped, requesting duty in Vietnam. That's where the "heroism" - the guts - comes in, right? He wanted to be right there in the middle of the action!

As it turns out...no.

"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."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous.

Let's give Kerry credit for signing up and fulfilling his service honorably. He deserves it.

But spare me the gloating over the "volunteer for Vietnam" check-mark. Bush wanted to fly fighter jets....in Texas. Kerry wanted to pilot swift boats...well away from the action.

Note: I commented on this issue here, as well.

If you want "anything but Bush", you'll probably settle for "anything"

Steven Taylor makes an important point here....

...I would like to see a description of Kerry's plan that goes beyond
1) it won't be headed by Bush and
2) we will get more international help if Kerry is President.

If one looks at the Kerry web site, it is hard to argue that the listed position paper says much more than: "Kerry will get more international help" and "Kerry will be better at Iraq policy than Bush has been" (I always love formulations like this: "Launch a Diplomatic Strategy that will Work"--as we all know that policy-makers normally launch policies that won't work on purpose).

Indeed, the four points on the Kerry Plan are:
1) He will better inform the American people,
2) He will send more troops, if needed,
3) He will be better than Bush at diplomacy,
4) He will use international help to guarantee stability and elections in Iraq, and
5) He will convince NATO to help out.

Does this really constitute a clear vision on what is arguably the most significant policy issue of this election?[reformatted for reading ease -ed.]

Awhile back, at some liberal blog (perhaps Pandagon? I forget, though. If you know, I'd appreciate a heads-up), I saw a post that sent me reeling. They argued that it was unfair to complain that the Democrats aren't offering alternatives. Roughly approximating their words, the author said it was the equivalent of driving off a cliff, then handing the wheel to the passenger and telling him "your turn".

The problem with that - to continue the analogy - is that the Democrats are continuing to criticize the way the administration is driving. You might disagree with the previous decision, but it's already been made. We're where we are, and they're criticizing current decisions. Now, either they're unhappy with the current decisions because they have a better idea....or they're just criticizing because they don't have anything else to do.

There really aren't a whole lot of other options.

As Taylor notes, we're not hearing a whole lot of substantive ideas. Sure, Kerry proposes we "internationalize" the Iraq issue....and that may make the effort easier on our troops, but that doesn't really solve the ongoing problems within Iraq, does it? Whether we have 130,000 US troops, or 130,000 troops from a variety of other nations, the number is still fungible.

Does Kerry believe German and Russian troops will be more effective than US troops? Doubtful.
Does Kerry believe the Iraqi resistance will look more fondly on non-US troops? Doubtful.

Does Kerry believe UN involvement will result in a sharp increase in troop strength within Iraq? Possible, but we've little to no evidence that an additional 30,000 troops will be anything but an additional 30,000 targets. After all, our problem is not one of being outmanned, but of being unable to stop free people from doing bad things. That's a fact of life in every free society.

Now, Kerry may believe that internationalizing the effort will lessen the immediate burden on the US - both on US soldiers and US taxpayers. He's probably right there, but at what cost? We don't know. That's not something I care to leave to the fates.

On blogging...

Robert Tagorda comments on the rather personal and subjective nature of blogging style...

Most significantly, I make no effort to earn a living from my posts, and I attract a mere fraction of the traffic that the wildly popular Wonkette does. And therein lies the beauty of blogs. We may have varying philosophies, styles, and interests, but we nonetheless occupy the same sphere. The medium itself encourages and thrives on personalization.

For a while, I wondered whether I ought to be snappier and snarkier. I considered posting more links and fewer extensive commentaries. I even questioned the wisdom of casting doubt on the Bush administration, blasting Republicans, and criticizing "my side" as much as I did, since it tended to fluster conservative readers.

I've pondered these same questions since I began blogging. Eventually, the conclusion I reached was "blog about what interests me, when it interests me, damn the torpedoes".

Like Tagorda, I've found that a criticism of the Republicans tends to draw more fire than criticism of Democrats. (and criticism of Rush Limbaugh really gets your dander up...:) No real surprise there, since most QandO readers will tend more right-of-center than otherwise.

That, too, is satisfying. I really don't want this to become an echo chamber. If I'm never challenged when I read a blog, the author is probably pandering to his audience, rather than genuinely thinking.

Tagorda hits the nail on the head here, too...

In the end, however, I just resolved to follow my instincts. No matter how hard I try, I can't construct the punchy lines that Mickey Kaus writes. Snark doesn't come naturally to me. When I read about a political strategy or a policy proposal, my inclination is to think through the problem before developing a reaction -- a process that often involves a Nexis search or a transcript check. I like challenging myself to think beyond partisan or ideological terms, and such reflection usually takes time.

It's a valuable lesson for bloggers. The blogosphere doesn't need another Glenn Reynolds. Glenn Reynolds already is Glenn Reynolds. Thoughtful, honests and original content, though....that's always worthwhile.

The Conventions

The Hill reports:

The protests are coming: The organization that put together recent large anti-war protests in New York City is orchestrating more events at both the Democratic and Republican conventions.

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 750 groups that has been around since October 2002, is planning a march and rally in New York on Aug. 29, just before the GOP gathers to renominate George W. Bush, with the theme “The World Says No to Empire, War and Greed.”

The coalition, however, is still waiting for various permits. On Monday, United for Peace and Justice officials met with a deputy commissioner of the New York Parks Department who “promised to consult their on-the-ground personnel and get back to us relatively quickly,” said Bill Dobbs, the group’s media coordinator. Dobbs said other events by various groups are in the works and promised “large protests not to be missed.” He added, “It’ll be a busy week.”

If you're interested in what "United for Peace and Justice" is all about you can go here to their website. Fairly standard left-wing red meat.

Meanwhile in Boston the city fathers must be asking "is it worth it?":

In making their pitches to host conventions, city and state officials often talk about how much revenue such large-scale events bring with them. But a study released April 13 by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute shows that Boston could actually lose $12.8 million when the Democrats come to town in July.

The institute had projected March 30 that the convention would generate $121.6 million in revenue. In amending that estimate, the study’s authors admitted they had forgotten to take into account Boston’s loss of Sail Boston 2004, estimated to bring in $85 million, and a U.S.A. Gymnastics event, expected to bring in $13.9 million. Closing Beantown’s Inner Artery and North Station will also inconvenience commuters and hurt productivity, they said.

Rock the Vote

Ralph Nader has unveiled his election strategy:

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is appealing to young voters by emphasizing his antiwar stance as he works diligently to separate himself from President Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry. Mr. Nader, who polled at 13 percent in an Associated Press/Newsweek.com survey last month of voters aged 18 to 25, has released a three-step plan to remove U.S. forces from Iraq and continues to hammer Mr. Kerry for his allegiance to the war effort.

Of course the anti-war stance has always been popular among the young and rebellious (who, of course, have a far better understanding of the world and its goings on that we old farts), especially those in college (its there kids can mix freely WITHOUT the oversight or opinion of parents being a factor).

Obviously, as stated in the article, any of this particular segment of the youth vote which would go to Nader would come out of the "potential Democrat voter" pool.

One wonders if the Dems will try to keep this crowd on its side, and if so, how.

Body Language

Today's Maureen Dowd column could be called shockingly moronic, if we didn't already expect this sort of thing from her. So, let's just call this moronic.

Not since Jane Goodall lived with chimps in Tanzania has there been such a vivid study of the nonverbal patterns of primates engaged in a dominance display.

Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," reveals that President Bush decided to go to war based mostly, believe it or not, on body language.

There follows a random collection of "body-language" mentions. Seriously. If Bob Woodward wrote that George Tenet was demonstrative...well, Maureen cites it as evidence that Bush cared more about body-language than facts.

Dear, sweet merciful crap. This takes up space on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times?

I'm reminded of this bit from a Donald Rumsfeld interview....

I ask whether Rumsfeld reads Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist who regularly makes sport of him. ...

"Do you know her?" he asks me. "No," I say, "but you've been good for her career."

He responds: "I'm not so sure about that -- that this has been good for her career."

Amen, brother.

Blog Rolling

* Dale Franks...

The Left acts as if all the UN member states share common goals and aspirations. Well, they don't. You'd think that it would be blindingly obvious that Syria, being a one-party dictatorial state has an entirely diffeent set of interests than, say, Great Britain.

You'd think that, but evidently, you'd be wrong.

Wolves and a sheep, you know....

* Arafat has forced 20 terrorists out of his headquarters. (20? Isn't that an "infestation"? - Nope - more likely, it's an "invitation") Captain Ed has details.

Credit goes to either:
1: Ariel Sharon's intense personal charm...
or:
2: The Israeli military.

Your choice.

* I really don't care much about these minor flip-flops. That's just politics, and it works both ways. Still, RealClearPolitics has an excellent example of political opportunism from John Kerry....

MR. RUSSERT: ... A year ago in March you made a commitment, and this is what you said. You "voted to authorize military action but has accused President Bush of rushing into war, [but he] said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. `It's what you owe the troops,' said a statement from Kerry. `I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it will sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert.'" Are you concerned that you're sending the wrong message to the troops by not showing solidarity in terms of the war in Iraq? And have you broken your pledge?

SEN. KERRY: No, I haven't. Because, number one, I did adhere strictly to that through the period of the success of the war, when we finally had taken control of the country.

Yeah, right. This must be a different John Kerry than the one who said on April 3, 2003 that ""what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

* Mice have been created without the help of a male, and Pejman is more concerned than Tom Daschle at a press conference.

Ladies, remember: No matter how much the science of reproduction advances, the old-fashioned way is infinitely more fun. Don't cast us aside!

And guys: It may be high time at last to pay more attention to when the trash needs to be taken out, and the position of the toilet seat. Never overlook any chance to suck up. Our futures may depend on it.

* Meryl Yourish needs a date. If that doesn't work out, she'll settle for a desert island and a few cute good bloggers.

I'm officially registering my feigned offense at being left off the Island.

* Hot commie love? Ewww.

* Sand in the Gears...

Is there some law that says a man can't pick up a box of freaking [personal female product] for his wife who really, really should have planned her weekly shopping a bit better?

There ought to be such a law. I love my wife, but not to the point of risking jail time, and that could have been my perfectly defensible cover story. But there are no laws against buying products you can't possibly use yourself, probably because the fruit cake industry would long ago have gone defunct otherwise. So there I stood, with a big ole box of humiliation in my hand.

Read the whole thing. It's funny....because it's true.

* John Rogers...

Summary: local radio providers are trying to get government to force the satellite radio providers to stop providing local weather and traffic in their biggest markets.
...
The companies that run regular terrestrial radio - which provides the horrendus, repetitive, commercial-packed radio stations I used to listen to - are going crazy about this. It's unfair!

I have news for them: competition is always unfair. If it was "fair," no one would ever win. If I were playing basketball with Michael Jordan, it would hardly be fair: he has years of practice, height, smarts and strength going for him. Fair does not mean that I have decent chance to compete. Fair means that Michael and I stay within the rules of the game, rules which specifically favor neither of us.

Remember this: the "deregulation" of radio - which really happened in 1996 - has very little to do with actual "deregulation", and a great deal to do with protectionism. True deregulation would have allowed for both increased station ownership AND more ease of access. Unfortunately, the FCC allowed owners to grab a larger portion of the pie, but kept the pie (radio stations) constant. As Rogers says.....stagnation is the result.

* Dr Galen...

I'll bet doctors around the country are reading this article and slapping their foreheads.
"Of course...it's so simple! Maybe patients don't know they're overweight!"

You know, I don't make a habit of warning all my patients not to poke their eyes out with sharp sticks. Do you know why? Because some things are self evident. Everyone who doesn't know excess weight is bad for you raise your hand. Anyone with an IQ in double digits or higher have their hand up? If I poll 100 patients, and ask them what they should do to lose weight, at least 99 of them will give me the correct answer.

The AP article is trying to tell you that obesity is NOT YOUR FAULT. You know what? They may be right. But it's not anyone else's fault,either.

* TAPPED...

It's no secret that George Bush intentionally laces his speeches with evangelical code phrases; expressions that don't mean much to ordinary people, but that scream "I believe in Jesus, too!" to those Christians in the know.

Yeah, fortunately, you'll be voting for John Kerry, who would never do a thing like that.

* On that note, liberal blogger JB Howard is none too pleased with the trend among Democrats to alienate the religious....

I'm as keen or keener on getting Bush out of office as the rest of the 50% of Americans are, but I'm also a believer, a Catholic whose devoutness waxes and wanes, but whose faith does not. And frankly, or "frankenly," it's time to turn off the signal on Air America Radio.

Kevin Drum reports on a recent idiotic trend on AAR involving the mockery of religious faith, as though it's all some sort of bizarre phenomenon like monster-truck demolition derbies (no offense, I hope) that no intelligent citizen could even fathom, much less hold dear. To hell with these people.

Imagine Rush Limbaugh mocking Muslims for believing in Allah. Wouldn't go over well, would it? Aside from the offensiveness of the mockery, it's just bad politics. You know these people vote, right?

Two Wars?

Thomas Friedman thinks were actually engaged in two wars right now ... one we're addressing and one we're not:

The bottom line: we are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and the other is a competitiveness-and-innovation struggle against India, China, Japan and their neighbors.

I've heard this argument a number of times over the decades. "We don't have enough students in science", or "We're being overwhelmed by Asian numbers in the hard sciences", etc. We all remember when Japan was going to take over the US in the '80s because they had quality and technical expertice plus government subsidizing their industries. We all were told that the big 3 would fold and we'd all be driving either Japanese or European cars in the future.

Of course none of that came true. That isn't to say we shouldn't have some concern over this. But, its my opinion that this isn't the crisis Friedman would have us believe EXCEPT in terms of making it too hard for foreign students to come here and study. That is something we have to sort out and do in fairly short fashion as it IS this "cross-pollinization" which allows us to take the best of the best and keep them here.

Another point worth mentioning concerning "outsourcing", Friedman mentions that American companies are setting up shop in other countries for good reasons:

It is because governments in these countries are so eager for employment and the transfer of technology to their young populations that they are offering huge tax holidays for U.S. manufacturers who will set up shop.

He also notes that many of them have national health care, which removes a huge cost and liability burden from the manufacturing.

I am NOT a proponent of national health care (it is NOT something the government is going to do better, faster or cheaper). But I AM a proponent of some sort of health care reform that removes health care as a responsiblity of business.

It should be a commodity which is purchased OUTSIDE business ... through large associations for instance ... which would have a large enough pool to spread cost and liablilty (that's not to say that business can't help with the cost ... an employment benefit or incentive for instance). That would dramatically reduce the cost of doing business here and eliminate portability and pre-existing conditions as problems faced by workers (keep your premiums paid and you can change jobs like you change your shirt and never have a health insurance problem).

A bad day for the goose and the gander

Kevin Drum really is a smart guy, so it's pretty amazing that he would write something this incredibly.....dumb.

George Bush, fresh out of Yale, [snip expected anti-Bush screed].

Conservative reaction: why are you impugning the patriotism of this brave man? He got an honorable discharge and that's as much as anyone needs to know.

John Kerry, fresh out of Yale, [snip expected pro-Kerry screed]

Conservative reaction: Hmmm, that first injury wasn't very serious. This is something that deserves careful and drawn-out investigation, and it would certainly be unfair to impugn "craven or partisan motives" to those doing the impugning.

Are these guys a piece of work, or what?

I am dumfounded.

I've seen some self-serving, hypocritical bullshit before, but this takes the cake. I mean, this takes a whole catering truck full of cakes.

First, let's remember that Kevin Drum was the blogger leading the Bush/AWOL charge a few months ago. (one who "helped to keep this issue simmering along") At the time, Kevin wrote...

Finally, there's really only one question here, and it's the one that everyone should be banging on: why won't Bush release his full military record? What's he afraid of?

So, Bush did release his papers. And, as it turned out, the records showed exactly what Bush said they showed. And (surprise!) the story got dropped like a losing issue in an election year, without so much as an "oops...my bad!" from Drum.

So, right off, he's lost any moral high ground from which he can criticize people who make unsubstantiated, ridiculous allegations. As far as those people are concerned, Kevin Drum is King - The High Spurious Muckraker.

And now the tables are turned. Kerry is facing unsubstantiated rumors, and partisan demands that he release his records. The only difference is that John Kerry has already established that a lack of evidence does not absolve a candidate....one must, apparently open personal records to disprove unfounded allegations.

When the hot potato was in Bush's hands, Kerry said "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not answer that question".

Of course, if you substitute "purple heart" for "honorable discharge"....well, that's just being silly and partisan.

But Kevin Drum seems to miss that entirely. Instead of saying "sheesh. Now I realize how dumb I was"....Kevin has the nerve to turn around and write "Are these guys a piece of work, or what?" when Republicans do THE SAME DAMNED THING HE WAS DOING IN FEBRUARY.

Yeah, Kevin...they're a "piece of work". And you're the Master Craftsman.

Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane."

...and, occassionally, VERY intellectually dishonest. If Kevin can't see that, god help him.

Note: No, this doesn't absolve Republicans of blame for the same political hackwork. You stuck up for Bush based on the lack of evidence against him....you don't get to criticize Kerry with the same amount of evidence used against Bush. Or rather, you do...but only so long as you admit that your principles consist of "political opportunism" and little else.

I mean, Christ....a guy with multiple decorations earned in freaking combat gets attacked because he didn't get hurt ENOUGH?!?!?! I'll take one thing back: while Bush didn't deserve the "AWOL" attacks he got, the Republicans certainly deserved it.

UPDATE: Beltway Traffic Jam.

Looking back

Tyler Cowen has an interesting mental excercise - a "before and after" of his Iraq war expectations.

Here is what I expected before the war started:

1. WMD would be found, and probably used by Iraq during fighting.
2. The whole world would come to America's side.
3. Iraqi reconstruction would be a huge mess.
4. Our administration (indeed any administration) would handle it badly.
5. In Iraq civil war would ensue. Ten to fifteen years later Iraq would end up with a (relatively) stable oligarchy, better than Saddam but hardly ideal.
6. A kind of de facto partition might arise/continue, under the U.S. guise of protecting the Kurds.
7. If we didn't fight the war something worse would happen. I never thought Iraq was a threat to the U.S., but I envisioned a wider Middle Eastern war breaking out, sooner or later. We would intervene later, but on worse terms.
8. The strike would cause some countries to accelerate their nuclear programs, but this would happen anyway. The pace would not so much matter.

Let's do a simple stocktaking. Clearly I was wrong about #1 and #2. So far I am right about #3 and #4. #5 and #6 remain to be seen. In that department things have gone as I had expected. We'll never know that much more about #7, since it is a counterfactual. I will stick with #8 as written.

It's something I think each of us should probably do more often. So, here is my approximation of his list:

1: WMDs: would either be found, but largely unused/unusable...or, more likely, WMD programs would be found, though actual WMDs would not.
- I'd say I was correct about that, though I may have been a bit optimistic about the state of the programs.

2: The world (read: UN) would remain deeply polarized - especially the Middle East - but would pitch in to help secure and rebuild Iraq.
- Right about the first, wrong about the second.

3: Iraqi (infrastructure) reconstruction would be halting, slow and messy....but progressing.
- Correct.

4: The Bush administration would neither "get it right" nor "screw it up"...but would do enough of both to give ammunition to critics and supporters.- Well, when isn't that right?

5: The Iraqi push towards democracy would be marked by friction and rivalry, but would settle down as they got closer to the handover. Once they assumed power, the "democracy" we intended would eventually morph into a somewhat theocratic "democracy" - i.e., moderate Islamism. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be far better than the previous regime.
- I still think the end result is probable, but I was wrong about the degree to which the Iraqi's would step up and take responsibility for their own governance and security.

6: Iraq would remain whole.
- It may be decades before we know if the current boundaries remain in place.

7: The "democratization of Iraq" would set off a push towards more liberalization and democratization in neighboring nations.
- Mixed results. The Iranian uprising has not manifested itself, though the reformists are agitating more and more. Saudi Arabia is instituting some democratic and liberal reforms. Syria is Syria. Some smaller neighbors are allowing a bit more freedom of information and media.

8: Military action in Iraq would spur the Palestinians to come to the table and take negotiations more seriously.
- Wrong.

9: Military action in Iraq would pressure other rogue nations to fall into line to some degree.
- Mixed results.

10: After one year, we'd have accomplished enough to call the Iraq war a success.
- Wrong. We haven't settled enough problems to call the game, yet.

An interesting excercise. If you have a blog, try it. Contrast your own expectations with reality.

Not Every VN Vet thinks Kerry's a hero

John O'Neill certainly doesn't:

"I saw some war heroes ... John Kerry is not a war hero," said John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer who joined the Navy's Coastal Division 11 two months after the future senator left Vietnam. "He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11."

Apparently most of O'Neill's criticism of Kerry stems from Kerry's anti-war activities upon his return and his conclusion is that Kerry's unfit to be commander-in-chief:

"His allegations that people committed war crimes in that unit, and throughout Vietnam, were lies. He knew they were lies when he said them, and they were very damaging lies," said O'Neill, adding that other former sailors from the same unit also plan to come forward to take on Kerry, whose Vietnam service has figured prominently in his campaign for the White House.

That's been the basis of much of my criticsm of Kerry as well. There's principled dissent and opposition and then there's unprincipled dissent and opposition. It is my opinion that Kerry was a part of unprincipled dissent which used lies in order to further its agenda. And by so doing, damaged the reputation of all those who fought honorably in Vietnam. O'Neill essentially says the same thing:

"It's really not a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of fitness to be the commander-in-chief of all U.S. forces," he told Blitzer. "The damaging lies that he told about war criminals have haunted people's entire lives. So it's just a little bit late, in the course of a presidential campaign, to say it's a bit excessive."

Apparently, this isn't the first time O'Neill has confronted Kerry on this:

After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a leader in the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In 1971, he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, accusing President Nixon of prolonging the war and charging that fellow service members had committed war crimes.

Among the charges he lodged were that troops had committed rapes; cut off ears, limbs and heads; taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals; blown up bodies; and randomly fired at civilians.

An incensed Nixon encouraged O'Neill, who was awarded two Bronze Stars in Vietnam, to challenge Kerry, which he did in a debate on the "Dick Cavett Show."

At one point during the heated exchange, O'Neill, an admiral's son, demanded Kerry explain why, if he saw war crimes taking place, "you didn't do something about them."

A question Kerry has yet to answer.

Of course the Kerry campaign is trying to downplay all this as Kerry now tries to back away from his testimony of 30 years ago:

This past weekend, Kerry said that his use of the word "atrocity" in a 1971 interview was "inappropriate," and he added that he never intended to cast a negative light on the sailors with whom he served.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," Kerry said Sunday, "The words were honest, but, on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top."

A "Fondaesque apology"? No, the were't a little "over the top" or "inappropriate", they were LIES. Despite his so-called good intentions they DID cast a negative light on everyone who served.

O'Neill says he's not the only one who's going to come forward:

"I haven't been on television in many, many years. I had very little political involvement," said O'Neill, who described himself as a political Independent in a phone interview last month with the Houston Chronicle.

But O'Neill said Tuesday that he and the others who served with Kerry -- who "would much rather have nothing to do with this" -- feel they have "no choice" but to come forward, which he said would dispel the notion that Vietnam veterans as a group are supportive of Kerry's candidacy.

"We were there, we know the truth, and we know that this guy's unfit to be commander-in-chief," said O'Neill, who took over command of Kerry's boat after he left. "I think you'll find that people are very, very angry at John Kerry. They remember his career in Vietnam as a short, controversial one, and they believe that only Hollywood could turn this guy into a war hero."

It'll be interesting to see if this has any "legs" and how the press will play it over the remainder of the campaign.

Basra Blasts

I wonder what the "senior British officer" who condesendingly trashed the American's last week as having it all wrong has to say about these blasts in Basra ... Brit 'territory' last I checked. I wonder if he feels quite as smug today.

Three car bombs exploded in front of Iraqi police stations in the southern city of Basra on Wednesday morning, killing about 20 people and wounding more than 60, according to the police and witnesses.

One of the blasts hit a school bus during the morning rush hour, when school buses are circulating and commuters are on their way to work, according to Iraqi witnesses in the streets in the central part of the city. Traffic was heavy around the police stations, situated in the center of the city.

Bodies of schoolgirls were burning inside the bus. Iraqis helped pick up bodies of victims as ambulances wailed to the scene.

Apparently, per a couple of reports I heard on the radio, 2 car bombers were caught prior to detonation of their explosives and, per that report, the mayor of Basra is now saying there is an al Queda connection.

Blog Note

You may notice, I've been tinkering with my blogroll. I'm not terribly satisfied, since I'm limited with the way I can categorize using Blogrolling.com, but I like the "updated" feature. At the top, I've created a separate category of blogs I visit most often. The VIB's, as it were.

At any rate, I think I've updated it properly. If I've left anybody off, need to update your link, or add your link....please let me know.

Negroponte

In light of remaining questions and allegations about his time as ambassador to Honduras, the timing makes this connection a bit too much to ignore...

Sunday

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the administration is expected to nominate John Negroponte to be our first ambassador to postwar Iraq, to take up residence in what will be the world's largest embassy after June 30.

Monday:

In a blow to President Bush and his coalition partners in Iraq, Honduras followed Spain on Monday in announcing it will pull its troops out of the country.

The Hondurans know.

I don't know enough to make a judgement about his past, but it certainly appears that the Hondurans believe they do.

(link via Pandagon)

The Draft...it ain't gonna happen

Seems the topic of the draft is coming up again, and wafting up the skirts of hysterics everywhere....

A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

Of course, Hagel uses the same specious arguments for a draft that Draft proponents always use. How they can say with a straight face that a voluntary service is "unfair" is beyond me.

An Oregon paper has an editorial, though, which explains quite nicely why this current draft fuss is all hooey...

Two bills are currently alive in Congress -- Senate Bill 84 and House Bill 163 -- that would institute the Universal National Service Act of 2003. The act states, in part, that "it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, unless exempted, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense." The bills also amend the Military Selective Service Act to allow females to be drafted.

The problem with worrying about such legislation is simply that both bills suffer a serious lack of support from Congress and the general public. The Senate version, introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., in 2003, lacks any co-sponsors and has been lingering in the Committee on Armed Services for more than a year. The House version, meanwhile, has accumulated 13 co-sponsors, but has also been stalled in the House Armed Services Committee for more than a year. Currently, the bill is sitting in the Subcommittee on Total Force and awaiting Executive comment from the Department of Defense.

To give some perspective on the kind of pressing political matters that the Subcommittee on Total Force deals with, and thus how seriously the House takes the bill, the subcommittee is also considering a resolution that would express "the sense of the Congress that Harriet Tubman should have been paid a pension for her service as a nurse and scout in the United States Army during the Civil War."

I'll give you another reason it won't happen. Forget Congress - they are rarely held accountable for individual votes, since their part in the bill is diffused among 535 people. No President will be able to sign and implement a draft EVER, short of an equivalent to a world war.

For purely political reasons, it just can't happen. You think politicians want to court the youth vote now? Wait until the youth are directly impacted by a mandatory draft. They'll "rock the vote" and, whichever party implements the draft, they won't vote for that party again for decades. Young people don't really care about politics, but they care a very great deal about their lifestyle. Military service tends to put a crimp in that lifestyle.

Plus, of course, there's the whole "freedom" aspect....

But we digress. The point is this: The draft is a bad idea just like involuntary servitude is a bad idea. The notion that simply being a citizen in the United States means you owe something to the government is philosophically dubious.

So, really....let's drop the whole notion that the draft is coming back. It's only still alive in the minds of the senior citizens ("it'll be good for dem damned kids!") and the terminally suspicious ("they're out to get us! I knew it!")

I'm kicking my own ass

So...uh, payback's a bitch.

The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.

I don't want to hear either side whining about this.

Democrats? You demanded Bush release his records.
Republicans? You cried foul when the Democrats made that demand.

42

I'm not sure what to make of this, but Douglas Adam's masterpiece, "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" is being made into a movie...

John Malkovich is thumbing a ride on "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," a Disney adaptation of the Douglas Adams novel.

Malkovich will play a religious cult leader called Humma Kavula, created by the late author especially for the long-gestating film.

"Galaxy" begins shooting this month in London, with Garth Jennings at the helm. Mos Def, Zooey Deschanel, Sam Rockwell and Martin Freeman also star. Mos Def plays Ford Prefect, an undercover alien who sets off on an intergalactic journey with his best friend and the film's protagonist, earthling Arthur Dent (Freeman). The duo hitch a ride through space -- with the two-headed ex-hippie Zaphod (Rockwell); his girlfriend, the beautiful scientist Trillion (Deschanel); and a robot -- to discover the meaning of life.

Pleasedon'tscrewitupPleasedon'tscrewitupPleasedon'tscrewitup.

Not sure how I feel about the cast, either. (here's the IMDB cast list) For some reason, I always pictured Arthur as sort of a Charle Grodin looking fellow. Ordinary and clueless.

As long as I'm dreamcasting, I think Jeff Goldblum would have been pretty good as Ford Prefect. And Tim Roth is a PERFECT Zaphod Beeblebrox. For that matter, he would have been a very good Ford Prefect, too. He's got that manic, slightly crazy smile that makes anybody who sees it a bit uncomfortable.

But, Mos Def? As Ford Prefect? I don't know.

The Iraq Factor

OK, let's see ... first we had O'Neil's book. Then Clarke and is book. Now Woodward. Result?

If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, would you vote for George W. Bush, the Republican, John Kerry, the Democrat, or Ralph Nader, the independent?

Bush 47%
Kerry 42%
Nader 7%
(VOL) Other 0%
(VOL) Neither 2%
(VOL) Would not vote 1%
DK/No opinion 0%

Why? Well one reason is this:

Do you support George W. Bush strongly or not strongly? (asked of Bush supporters only)

Strongly 84%
Not strongly 15%
DK/No opinion 1%

As opposed to this:

Do you support John Kerry strongly or not strongly? (asked of Kerry supporters only)

Strongly 65%
Not strongly 34%
DK/No opinion 1%

And these:

In your vote for president this year, will the situation in Iraq be one of the single most important issues, very important, somewhat important or less important than that?

One of the single most important 21%
Very important 60%
Somewhat important 13%
Less important 6%
DK/No opinion 1%

In your vote for president this year, will the US campaign against terrorism be one of the single most important issues, very important, somewhat important or less important than that?

One of the single most important 22%
Very important 63%
Somewhat important 13%
Less important 2%
DK/No opinion 0%

It seems regardless of how the voters feel about other issues, the above two seem to dominate.

And while when asked a more general questions such as:

Overall, who do you trust to do a better job coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years, George W. Bush or John Kerry?

Bush 49%
Kerry 44%
(VOL) Both 1%
(VOL) Neither 4%
DK/No opinion 2%

When it gets to specifics:

Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, George W. Bush or John Kerry?

Bush 52%
Kerry 41%
(VOL) Both 0%
(VOL) Neither 4%
DK/No opinion 2%

So, as Dick Morris says, as long as the war, terrorism and Iraq dominate the news, no matter whether one might say it's "good news" or "bad news", it is, in the long run good news for Bush ... because it pushes the issues where Bush doesn't poll as well as Kerry off the front page.

Yes, I realize this is very early polling, etc. But it goes toward proving Morris's point. One has to wonder how Kerry's crew plans on wresting that advantage from Bush.

Apparently the "Viet Nam" ploy isn't working. Heaven knows what they'll try next.

Arab Press on the Madrid bombings

MEMRI offers a compendium of quotes from various Arab press outlets concerning the Madrid bombings. They're interesting because we often are led to believe that little if any criticism of the Islamist extremist terrorism is apparent in the Arab press. It definitely exists. But there are also the 'excuse makers', which still seem to dominate. Here are some of the quotes. All emphasis is mine:

Adli Sadeq, the deputy to Palestinian Minister for Foreign Affairs Nabil Sha'ath, wrote in his daily column in the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida: "An announcement attributed to the so-called Abu Hafs Al-Masri [Brigades] stated that the explosions were aimed at settling accounts with 'Crusader Spain,' and implicitly states that the killing of innocents in Palestine and Afghanistan permits the killing of innocents in Spain. Such talk has no connection either to Islam, or to politics, human ethics, or courage, because those who kill innocents in Palestine and Afghanistan do not kill them in the name of all train passengers… Islam forbids that anyone should be held responsible for the crime of another, and strongly forbids killing anyone, except justly. If it is Al-Qa'ida, and we hope that it is not, then our comment on it is that this is neither the quality of Islam nor its ethics, and we condemn it even more strongly than the Spanish themselves."

Fairly strong and direct and not something which could be construed as anything but a condemnation.

In the Jordanian daily Al-Rai, Jordanian Islamist activist Bassam Al-'Amoush wrote: "The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York cannot possibly be a service to Islam, a deed in the name of Islam, or Jihad for the sake of Allah… The explosions in Nairobi and Dar Al-Salaam cannot be seen as an Islamic act, as a way of propagating Islam [da'wa], as an act of Jihad, as beneficial, or [as an act] whose perpetrator is a Shahid [martyr].

"Anyone who calls the explosions in Riyadh Jihad for the sake of Allah is an ignoramus. Could any Muslim mind in the world possibly be able to recognize the criminal massacre in Madrid as Jihad and martyrdom?… The peoples of the world must know that Islam is a religion of love, peace, moderation, dialogue, and coexistence, that [Islam] does not seek bloodshed or the murder of women, children, and the elderly… [True Islam] is an Islam of freedom of thought, [as the Qur'anic verse states]: 'There is no coercion in religion.' Islam [is a religion of] coexistence…"

Of course many of the people of the world consider it other than a religion of "love, peace, moderation, dialogue and coexistance", but that's mainly because moderates have largely been silent and let it be hijacked by extremists. That's why its so important that moderates condemn it but DO something about it as well.

Columnist Ahmad Al-Rab'i wrote in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "The question is not who carried out the terror operation in Spain, but how a group of human beings – no matter what its belief, religion, or political affiliation – thinks of killing 200 innocent people and wounding over 1,000. Have we gone back to the Stone Age?… What kind of new world is this, in which terror strikes the World Trade Center, Spain, Afghanistan, Algeria, Riyadh, and Bali, and kills innocents? How can the inhabitants of this planet feel safe about their children going to school? How will lovers walk freely in a public park? How will people be able to go to work when every bus, train, or plane is a target for mass killing? This is an operation against life… The entire civilized world – no matter what its ideology and belief – must declare a world war on terror as criminal behavior, against the ideology of terror, and against those who incite to it."

Amen to that. Again very forceful and clear. No dancing with vowels and adjectives. No one will take any other message from this than condemnation of the acts.

Of course there's always the "yeah, but" crowd. Here a Syrian "journalist" (I use the term advisedly since the paper is 'government owned') says that while terrorims is something to be condemned, perhaps its not just the terrorists at fault:

Columnist Muhammad Al-Khadhr wrote in the Syrian government daily Al-Ba'ath: "No matter what the identity of the perpetrators of the train crime in the Spanish capital of Madrid, the deed is worthy of political, moral, and legal condemnation. An attack on civilians is an abhorrent crime on all levels and in all societies and countries…" However, he added: "In September 2001, the U.S. launched a war on terror, and President Bush chose to divide the world into two axes – the axis of good and the axis of evil. Has the world become a safer place, as Washington declares every day? The answer does not demand much thought. It is enough to look at the daily newscasts to learn about the intensity of the tragedy and the pain suffered by the peoples, beginning in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories, and including the bereaved Spanish families… Therefore, in order to help the victims of terror in the world, there is no escape from a clear international effort in which all will participate, [in order to] advance the values of truth and justice and [in order] to implement the legitimate international resolutions that have not been implemented to date. Thus, the whole world will share in dealing with the most dangerous thing it faces in the third millennium."

One assumes the "international resolutions" this fellow is talking about are the UN resolutions against Israel (none of which, btw, is actionable). But then, after accusing Bush of dividing the world into two spheres, the Arab world, which made the first "us against them" division when speaking of Israel, seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

An Iraqi journalist takes on appeasment by noting that France too has faced terrorist activities even though it opposed the war:

Iraqi columnist 'Aziz Al-Haj wrote in the liberal online newspaper (www.elaph.com): "As an Iraqi, I was saddened by the failure of the party and government of Jose Maria Aznar, who stood with dignity and courage alongside the Iraqi people when he took part in toppling the fascism of Saddam… What hurts is that the socialists hostile to America and the war on the Iraqi Ba'th regime succeeded in misleading some of the Spanish citizens, exploiting the terrible crime as a weapon in the elections against the Aznar government. They claimed that it is the Spanish participation in Iraq that is the reason for the terrorism of the Al-Qa'ida members, who are experts in crime and in mass-murdering civilians. But France, the most sharply opposed to the war in Iraq, has also become the target of attack by Islamist extremists and of their calls for Jihad against it – because it insisted on legislation [against the veil] in its public schools and was accused of war against Islam…

Essentially the terrorist message remains "mess with any aspect of Islam, and we reserve the right to kill you for it." Aziz goes on to say:

"The war on world terror must unite the nations of the world, the democratic countries, and the international bodies. This bestial cancer is a sudden danger with which humanity and civilization is coping. Any negligence or weakness in facing it encourages the beast of prey to kill more people and spill additional rivers of innocent blood. This is a conflict between progress and light – and darkness."

Which pretty well sums up the danger of appeasment and anything but a united international front when it comes to this sort of terrorism. Another Iraqi columnist, Abd Al-Khaliq Hussein, from the same paper wrote about the UN debating club and its propensity to talk a problem to death instead of acting:

"The excuse [of the Left] is that the war against Saddam was not legitimate because the decision was not made in the [U.N.] Security Council… A U.N. resolution is more important to them than annihilation by a hangman gripped by lust for murder and genocide. We thank Allah that there is a superpower like America that took upon itself the mission of saving the peoples, without caring about Security Council resolutions. Otherwise the peoples of the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq, and East Timor would expect annihilation by hangmen gripped by lust for mass murder, such as Milosevic, Suharto, Saddam Hussein, and other hangmen…

Of course not all reaction is "positive" (surprise!).

In the Jordanian daily Al-Rai,columnist Tareq Masarawa wrote:"It is only natural that a people living like the Spanish people will stop the policy of lies and deception, and will set a clear border between war on terror and war on peoples; between the gangs of bin Laden and his fundamentalist perceptions, and the Palestinian and Iraqi peoples; between the defense of civilization and culture, and occupation, plunder, and murder…

"The Spanish Socialists and their young president constituted an example, for their country, for Europe, and for the entire world, of wise and brave policy, and they have restored to Europe its true face. We are certain that the man [i.e. Zapatero] will fight terror, but he will not serve the occupation of Iraq and the continuation of the occupation of Palestine. We are certain that he will be a good neighbor to the Arabs and Muslims of Morocco, because he believes that terror has no religion, no nation, and no race! We are certain that Spain's return to the fold of Europe will reinforce Germany's and France's moderate and determined policy…

"Terror is now coming to London and Rome, so the English and the Italians say. The punishment for the policy of lies will be similar. It is not logical that most [residents of England and Italy] oppose the wars while their politicians go to war [on pretexts] of lies, and it is not logical that [the aggressor] will not pay the price of his own aggression!"

Note that the dismissal of the atrocities as that of Islamic terrorists. That makes it easy to then focus on the so-called "lies and deceptions" of the US as "the problem". The victimization of the perpetrators ploy. And, of course, its a problem rooted in Palestine.

Also note the echoing of the Bin Laden message -- the "logic" of governments doing what the population opposses.

Then there are those who just deny reality:

In the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, columnist Salameh Ahmad Salameh wrote:"The horrific explosions that took place in Spain recently reopen the international terror portfolio, in order to prove that the American perception prevailing in the world in recent years – i.e. that terror has a single source and a single problem, the Al-Qa'ida organization, Islam, and the Muslims – was mistaken, misleading, and far from reality…

"Many violent operations and terror [operations] that took place in the U.S. and in Europe –the motives of which may have been social and political, from within the societies themselves – have been falsely attributed to Al-Qa'ida, or to some Arab immigrants and refugees so as to be rid of them and to hobble them. These [operations] have also become justification and excuses for [advancing] political and democratic reform in Arab and Muslim countries. This, while most European societies are more in need than ever of domestic reform and compromise with their separatist minorities…"

Of course when you control the media, you CAN deny reality. Maybe there is more than a single source, but to deny extreme Islam, regardless of its manifestation, isn't the "single source" is to indeed deny reality.

Then, of course, there are the usual "The Jews Did It" crowd, perpetrating the "big lie" about 9/11 (which still has a vigorous life in the Arab world):

Columnist Adnan Zayid Al-Kazimi wrote in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan: "Many investigations are not needed [to learn] who is behind the cowardly terrorist operation in Spain that took the lives of innocents, whose limbs were scattered and whose bodies were torn to pieces, men, women, children, and the elderly… The accusing finger points at the separatist ETA organization… No one has imagined that the one behind this crime is the Zionist crime organization, which has the greatest interest in fanning hatred against the Arabs and Muslims… I claim with certainty that the ones who attribute all evil to the Arabs and the Muslims are the Zionists, those who are closest to carry out such an operation, like the other operations [that they carried out]. Perhaps there will be someone who will attest that he saw the Zionists filming the events from afar, and that there were no Jewish victims [among the victims of the attack], as in September 11 in America…"

I won't bore you with more of those but there are plenty if you'd like to read them.

All about the oil

In response to Woodwards allegations that Bush arranged a deal with the Saudi government to lower gas prices close to the election, Kevin Drums writes...

Elsewhere in the conservative blogosphere this revelation seems to have merited simple silence. Maybe they just don't believe Woodward. But surely the fact that Saudi Arabia — a country that has been demonized regularly by conservatives — is now said to be actively aiding George Bush's reelection is at least worthy of comment, isn't it? What would be the reaction if Woodward reported that Jacques Chirac had agreed to hold up a new UN resolution until November, just to make Bush look bad?

That's fair. I haven't really said much about this, because the information thus far is just so spare. We've got an unsourced allegation - though, one from a credible reporter - that the Saudi's said they wanted to lower oil prices this year.

Is it a deal, for political gain? We really don't have any evidence of that. If so, why? Oil prices are already high, and if Saudi Arabia is planning to give Bush a hand, they certainly haven't evidenced it, yet. I mean, they've been cutting production at every OPEC meeting for awhile now.

Further, Woodward seems to be indicating this story isn't as it's been portrayed....

WOODWARD: What I say in the book is, according to Bandar, the Saudis hoped to control oil prices in the 10 months running up to the election because if they skyrocketed, it would hurt the American economy.
...
WOODWARD: In the book, it's one -- I'm sorry, it's two sentences, and I don't say there is a secret deal or any collaboration on this. I say that Bandar and the Saudis hoped to put prices -- now, I understand there's something on the wire from Bloomberg saying that, in fact, the Saudis have said this, that in the period before the election, they told the president directly that they wanted to keep oil prices low in a range. So...

KING: Well, that's -- that would make Kerry correct, saying they're affecting the campaign.

WOODWARD: Well, I don't know. I mean, Kerry has taken this to the next level. This always gets caught in the political crossfire, and I'm trying to stick with what my reporting showed. And if you looked at it, as the people at "60 Minutes" did, and so forth, you would see how good the sourcing is.

Finally, and most importantly to me, this story just isn't "new". Really. We've known of the Saudi intent to keep prices from going very high - even lower them later this year - for some time. From a story in early April....

Saudi Arabia will act to counter any oil shortage on the world market, Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar ibn Sultan said Thursday after meeting with US President George W. Bush at the White House.

The meeting took place as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, of which Saudi Arabia is a leading member, cut back on production by one million barrels per day for April, a move that threatened to raise already record high US gasoline prices.

“We will not allow any shortage on the world oil market,” said the envoy. “Oil prices should be between 22 and 28 dollars (a barrel). My government’s target is 25 dollars.” Current oil prices are around $35 a barrel.

Further, a great deal of the cause of higher oil prices has relatively little to do with Saudi Arabia, and a great deal to do with insecurity in the world oil markets and the devaluation of the dollar - the currency for world oil exchange.

Finally, there's one more problem with the idea that Saudi Arabia is upping output in an election year to help Bush. The problem? This has all happened before, and for the same reasons the Saudi's offer this time. During an election year. Specifically,
in 2000....

Republicans are likely to have a harder time getting political mileage out of the cost of oil after this week's decision by OPEC countries to boost production. The increase isn't as much as the Clinton Administration had initially hoped for, but should still be enough to bring prices down somewhat in time for summer.
...
The President started off this week's news conference by focusing on the OPEC news, which had been further sweetened during the day by Iran's decision to go along with the production increases. "I would like to begin by saying that yesterday's announcement that OPEC members will increase oil production, is good news for our economy and for the American consumer," said Mr. Clinton as he started his news conference, "These increases should bring lower prices, which will help to sustain economic growth here in America, and also and very importantly, throughout the world." The good news was also particularly well-timed for the President in light of more negative recent developments such as the White House email scandal and today's ruling that Kathleen Willey's privacy had been violated.

Needless to say, it didn't help Bush or the Republicans at the time. For that matter, oil prices were also depressed in 1996 by President Clinton.

America's independent oil and natural gas producers criticized President Clinton's decision yesterday to sell $227 million (or 12 million barrels of crude oil) from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to lower gasoline prices nationwide.
...
President Clinton is reacting to high gasoline prices and hopes that the flood of SPR oil into the marketplace will increase supply while lowering prices.

So, while the left-of-center side of the blogosphere is going nuts about this, I'm going to hold off on making a judgement. We've too little information, but plenty of historical precedent.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has more.

The TriLateral Commission did it!

Good Toronto Star article on the nature of Conspiracy Theories....

"Political conspiracies are sexy right now," says Robin Ramsay, publisher of a British magazine called Lobster, which devotes itself to the thorny task of separating genuine political conspiracies from the vastly more plentiful bogus ones. "I take the view that conspiracies are normal."

In these post-9/11 days, conspiracies are just about everywhere — or, at least, conspiracy theories are.
...
Why don't we just believe what we're told?

"We are skeptical because we will never trust governments to tell us the totality of what happened," says Mark Fenster, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of a book about conspiracy theories. "A certain amount of skepticism is a perfectly logical response."

There is a difference, however, between a healthy skepticism....and obstructive cynicism. The latter doesn't ask questions...it assumes conclusions. And there's a reason it's often useless to argue with many (but not all) conspiracy theorists....

"It's virtually impossible for a conspiracy theorist to admit that they're incorrect," says Fenster. "It's a commitment that is so absolute that any empirical evidence that contradicts your theory has got to be explained or it has got to be ignored."

They're committed. It justifies their cynicism, and it's hard to ask somebody to re-evaluate something so deeply ingrained in their personality.

So, why do I generally dismiss such conspiracy theories? As the author writes...

Dewdney, for one, looks askance at most such ideas, but the writer is especially critical of theorists who seem to endow governments with a nearly perfect ability to keep the people in a state of complete ignorance about certain deep, dark secrets.

"If governments were as effective as these people give them credit for," he says, "they'd be much more effective than any government I know of. We know that governments are a quagmire."

Obviously, there are conspiracies. I think, though, that it's fair to say that the larger, more important and more complex a conspiracy must be...the less likely it is to be true. Hell, Nixon couldn't even manage to keep a two-man burglary secret. What are the odds (fill in the blank) could manage a cover-up of 9/11, dozens of murders, or a "war for oil" without letting it slip?

What are the odds they'd even try such a implausible and complex undertaking? Not very likely.

Fact-Check

You recall how much of a fuss Bush supporters made when the Democrats claimed current deficits were the "biggest ever". "No they weren't....not if you adjust for inflation, or measure it as a % of GDP! Everybody knows that's how you do it!"

Of course, they were right. Current and recent deficits haven't really been close to the "biggest ever".

Anyway, the Republicans seem to have (surprise!) forgotten that lesson when it comes time to criticise the Democrats, and Fact-Check.org calls them on it...

In speeches and fundraising appeals the Bush campaign keeps making a distorted claim that Clinton 's 1993 tax increase -- supported by Kerry -- was "the biggest in history."

Republicans have been repeating this gross overstatement for more than a decade, but now there's less justification for it than ever. The GOP claim is contradicted by a study published last year by the Office of Tax Analysis of Bush's own Treasury Department.
...
Now comes a thorough study of every tax bill enacted since 1940, showing that the Clinton tax increase was indeed large, but not the largest.

The biggest? In inflation-adjusted dollars, it was a 1942 tax hike under Roosevelt. As a % of GDP, it was the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" signed by....Ronald Reagan.

Air and Government: invisible killers

David Brooks has an excellent piece on the nearly inscrutable field of environmental regulation.....

The journalist has the ultimate power, a cynic once said, the power to choose whom to be co-opted by.

That temptation is never greater than when you are writing about environmental policy. You can go to the environmental groups and get one set of facts. Or you can go to the industry groups and get an entirely different set of facts. Both sides have long histories of exaggeration and distortion, and there's no other realm of public policy in which it is so hard to find honest brokers, capable of offering a balanced perspective.

Much like economics, the environment is a field in which there is sufficient apparently contradictory data that honest people could argue for years, but never reach any firm conclusions.

In fact, that's exactly what happens.

On his way to discussing the big failure and success of the Bush environmental record, Brooks makes this important point...

The first thing to be said is that air pollution trends are unchanged under President Bush. For the past three decades, the quality of our air has steadily improved. Air pollution from the six major pollutants has decreased by 48 percent over that time, even though our economy has grown by 164 percent. If you look at the charts showing that decline, you can't tell when the Clinton era ended and the Bush era began.

It's often said that regulatory agencies tend to get captured by the industries they regulate, which act primarily to benefit the industry. While true, it is also true that those regulatory agencies can be captured by the special interests who care little for the industry, but a great deal for regulation.

That's not a good recipe for balancing the economic with the safety interests of the industry, or the general public.

All hail Rumsfeld

It's hard not to like a guy who can tell the press where to stick it. After answering a reporters question, the reporter tries to restate Rumsfeld's answer.......

Q: So at the outside, it could be extended again?

SEC. RUMSFELD: You could put it that way, if you wanted to cause people concern. On the other hand, you could take what I said and report it that way, which I would find accurate.

If only Bush could deal with the press like Rumsfeld can deal with the press.....

Bush, eh....lied?

Apparently, those neo-con agents had infiltrated foreign intelligence services. It's the only explanation for this....

Denmark has declassified intelligence reports compiled before the Iraq war which show officials thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In one report, Iraq was thought to have both chemical and biological weapons, as well as an active nuclear programme.

So. Uh. You know. Bush lied! And stuff.

Seriously, can we finally dispense with the claims that Bush "lied" about WMDs? Because, while we're trying to explain things to that crowd, there are some VERY important questions being left unanswered....and often, unasked by the people who are so quick to judge.

1: What DID happen to Saddams WMD programs?
2: Why did everybody in a position to know believe that Saddam had WMDs?

Frankly, I think the answer to the first two is simple: Saddam realized that active WMD programs and stockpiles could only be a danger to him. However, he didn't want to abandon the possibility of regaining them in the future. More importantly, he very much did not want to damage his reputation - built on his "resistance" to the US in the 91 war; yes, they thought he was a hero, because we didn't want to go to Baghdad - by allowing the world to know that he'd backed down from the US pressure. (yes, they were UN resolutions, but in the Middle East, if it's not about Israel, then it's about the US)

So, the more important questions at this point: since WMDs were a reasonable, near-universal, assumption....should we have acted as if Iraq had them? Or should we have acted as if they did not? And how do we make that decision in the future?

In the meantime, we still have the very unserious people arguing about whether Dick Cheney really claimed Iraq had "nuclear weapons". And that's a real shame.

Detainees

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein defended Ashcroft on the matter of detainment...

According to this Newsweek story, high-ranking Bush Administration officials, most prominently Cheney and Rumsfeld, have argued for stripping Americans suspected of aiding Al Qaeda of their rights and holding them indefinitely as "enemy combatants." They have met with strong resistance from SURPRISE! John Ashcroft and others in the Justice Department...

Granted, a different set of law applies, but this reminds me of the situation in Guantanamo. A couple months ago, I spoke to a former Marine who had been stationed down in Guantanamo Bay (last year, if I recall correctly). He spoke highly of the treatment recieved by the prisoners. While he conceded they had fairly limited living quarters, he pointed out that we are bending over backwards to accomodate their religious and dietary needs. In fact, he said they ate fairly well, and their religioius observances were always respected. They were even allowed to bathe prior to prayer - since, apparently, being clean is a requirement for prayer.

All in all, he said their treatment was better than that received by many prisoners in the US prison system. Oh, and aid organizations had/have frequent access to them. So, while it's not exactly the Hilton...it's also not the Hanoi Hilton.

And since tribunals are ongoing - as required by the Geneva Convention - we're operating well within the requirement of international law.

Quick Hits

* Off and on blogging today. I went to traffic court this morning, to contest the ticket I'd gotten about 5-6 weeks ago. Plead "not guilty", judge tells me he's sure Officer Bromseth is an honest fellow and wouldn't get it wrong, but at least he reduces the ticket down to $15 plus court costs. ($70, total)

It cost me more to take the day off work than to simply pay the ticket, but there's no chance I'd pay a ticket and admit guilt when I'm not guilty. I still disagree with the decision, but what am I going to do? He has a bigger army than I do.

* Dr Galen is doing something interesting on Sunday's: answering medical questions. Very cool.

* Apparently, it's Angry Day at Pandagon. I guess if I bought all the poorly fleshed out "Bush lied" premises, I'd feel the same way....but I don't. And I feel remarkably similar to how I felt in the 90s. A bit embarrassed for the party out of power.

* Re: this...

"1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 23.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions."

Here's mine: (speaking of the remarkable power held by the US during the Cold War)
"A nation in such a position is able to insist on its views and can often avoid the problem facing the statesmen of less favored societies: that their means oblige them to pursue goals less ambitious than their hopes, and that their circumstances require them to approach even those goals in stages."
("Diplomacy"; Henry Kissinger; 1994)

* There's a Caption Contest at Captain's Quarters.

* Wonkette has been getting a lot of attention lately....which mystifies me a bit. In fact, I'm fairly confused about the popularity of a number of blogs, and not just because I disagree with them. In fact, most that seem oddly popular are either close to me on the ideological spectrum, or not really very political. Perhaps I'll make a post out of that.....or, perhaps I won't. We'll see.

* I'm going to spend the day with the family. We're going to the zoo, then to the garden store to plan the landscaping project we're doing in our backyard. So, of course, it's gotten hot all of the sudden.

A Respectful Exchange

For What It's Worth, a liberal blog I mentioned last weekend, has recently concluded his first "Open Question to conservatives". He's posted the results of the question. (though I'm waiting for his final response).

He's also got another question: "What Should We Do If A New Iraqi Government Orders Us to Leave?"

To be honest, I've no answer. That's a difficult minefield. I doubt it will happen immediately, but I've also little doubt that they will be asking us to leave as soon as they feel constrained by our presence. Whether that will be helpful to democracy, or helpful to the re-establishment of tyranny, it's hard to know.

I suspect the answer may be to ensure that it doesn't happen. Somehow, we've got predicate funding, security, debt-forgiveness....something...on our continued presence. Callous and conniving? Yes...but I don't know of a better way.

At any rate, he's a thoughtful liberal, and the debate will be interesting. Frankly, I'd like to see a new question - and a thorough, two-way debate every week. So, get thee over there and answer his question.

Redact this

Justin Raimando column, or Oliver Stone movie script? It's a bit hard to tell, sometimes. In this case, though, it's a Justin Raimando column, and the conspiracies are flowing fast and furious....

The text of the PDB released by the White House is one and a half pages long. But, according to an article by intelligence expert Oliver Schröm, the original document was much longer:

"Crawford, August 6, 2001. George W. Bush is on vacation. He wanted to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. 'The Presidential Daily Brief' was part of his morning routine. In the PDB, as it's called in CIA jargon, a senior CIA official presents the President with a summary of the security situation. On this morning the CIA Director personally briefs the President. Instead of the usual two or three pages, today's briefing paper consists of eleven and a half printed pages and carries the title 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'"

"Aha! Those Bushies cut out 10 pages, and they expected us to buy it! But we got em!"

Or not.

First, let's cred-check on this Oliver Schröm fellow. He was the author of a October 2002 piece in Die Zeit magazine which claimed Israeli "art students" were really a secret Mossad spy ring, tasked with keeping track of Mohammed Atta. Damning? Not so much. For one thing, he places the the leader's apartment "on the corner of 71st St. and 21st Ave. in Hollywood, right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi." Except, as Bruce Rolston points out, no such intersection exists in Hollywood, Florida. Nitpicking? Perhaps, but it's also worth mentioning that these "art students/Israeli spies" were at those apartments two months before Mohammed Atta moved into town.

Either these kids really were art students, or Israeli intelligence is really really good. Er...and a bit psychic.

Ok, so Schröm is the author of a fairly incredible - and very dubious - story that alleges Israel either allowed, or helped, 9/11 to happen. What about the allegation that the PDB was cut from 11.5 pages down to 1.5? What was in the other 10 pages?

Well, presumably, it was the Presidents Daily Briefing. The President gets that briefing every day, you know. (...or, I hope you know that. If not, please review the title: "President's Daily Briefing") As MSNBC points out....

Length: Usually 10 to 15 pages with six to 10 headlines, each similar to the one released from Aug. 6, 2001, dealing with al-Qaida.

Do the math. 10-15 pages, divided into 6-10 headlines. That leaves, roughly, a page or so for each topic.

More? Fred Kaplan cited an intelligence officer who had written about 40 PDB's and said...

"They're usually dispassionate in tone, a mere paragraph or two. The PDB of Aug. 6 was a page and a half. "That's the intelligence-community equivalent of writing War and Peace," Johnson said.

What's more, as a former Clandestine Services CIA officer points out, a PDB is simply not used to warn the President of imminent attacks....

Not only was this particular PDB article not used to alert the President of an impending terrorist attack, no PDB is ever used that way. Never, ever.
...
Now, contrast the PDB with a genuine threat report.

Threat reports are raw intelligence, loaded with all the details available, verifiable or not — time is of the essence. A sanitized, unclassified ‘tear line’ version is typically included, so recipients can quickly pass the information to people without security clearances, like foreign governments, or airlines, or police officers.

When a threat report is sent to out to intelligence consumers, it goes at the highest precedence and to the widest possible list of recipients, including the White House Situation Room and, often, the President himself.

This is how the Intelligence Community handles a threat report. Dissemination is quick and wide, with hardly any attention paid to substantive evaluation. As you can see, it is in many respects the exact opposite of how an article for the PDB is put together and distributed.

The point is straightforward. The PDB is not used to disseminate actionable threat intelligence, whether to the President or anyone else.

If Raimando had done the bare minimum of research, he'd know this. Instead, he exploits the public ignorance of the nature and shape of the PDB to stir the pot.

What is worse, Raimando has to be aware that the 9/11 Commission has already seen the entire August 6 PDB, including the redacted portion. And have you heard any outcry from them about the redaction? No?

Now, do you really believe that Ben-Veniste and Company would stay silent if the White House had left out the most damning portion of the PDB? Justin Raimando does. But then, Justin Raimando believes a lot of very silly things.

In which I agree with Oliver Willis

Imagine if the Chinese perception of the "will of the American people" was based on, say, Atrios. Or QandO. Or, god forbid, Counterspin. I think it's fair to say that would be an unfair generalization. Oliver Willis thinks so, too...

Here's an idea that comes to mind: perhaps we should take the perspectives of Iraqi bloggers with a grain of salt. American political blogging tends not to reflect the will of America as a whole (caucasian, upper middle class, white-collar work, male) so I would in a region as impoverished as Iraq - the difference between an Iraqi who can afford a computer with an internet connection (or time in an Internet cafe) and the average Iraqi would be substantial. That doesn't mean we should discount them one way or the other, positively or negatively (for instance, there don't seem to be a lot of jihadists blogging) - just don't let their opinions be representative of "all of Iraq".

I agree with Oliver here, but I'll go a step further. Why are we so sure that all of these Iraqi bloggers are actually Iraqi bloggers?

Stop War....or whatever.

As Glenn says, they're just on the other side. Here's a statement from the antiwar (and communist) group A.N.S.W.E.R.

ACTION ALERT: DEFEND FREE SPEECH
STOP THE ATTACKS ON DR. HATEM BAZIAN!

Dr. Hatem Bazian, a highly respected lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley in the Near Eastern Studies and Ethnic Studies Departments, is being victimized by a mean-spirited national right-wing campaign.

He's just a victim, you see. Nothing more. Why, they'll prove it. Read what he did....

His just defense of the Palestinian people and his call to end war and suffering of all in Iraq are being maliciously portrayed as "incitement of violence and sedition."

He's against war and suffering! That's it! Nothing to see here. Move along.

Except, that's not quite it.

While A.N.S.W.E.R. is 100% in favor of Bazian's freedom to speak, they don't seem very interested in actually, you know, telling you what he said. Fortunately, one doesn't need to depend on A.N.S.W.E.R. for that information....

...“we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change(s) fundamentally the political dynamics in here.” He placed his opposition to U.S. forces upfront: “(Y)ou know, the occupation is a source of tremendous violence against Iraqis. I think we've got to support the resistance; we've got to say that we support attacks against the occupying forces.”

Misunderstood? Taken out of context? A misinterpretation of his words? Well, in case you're confused, he clarified...

He continued, “(W)e in this movement (should) support the resistance against American imperialism by any means necessary.” The Berkeley-trained Ph.D. concluded his call to violence with a promise of more to come: “They’re gonna say, ‘some Palestinian being too radical’ — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet!”

Ok. More radical than the suicide bombers. And he wants to bring this sort of radicalism to bear with an intifada IN the United States.

So, in their long-standing tradition of supporting any war fought against the United States, A.N.S.W.E.R. stands up for this guy. Best of all, they have the sheer, unmitigated gall to say that statements like these "are being twisted and presented as "sedition" and "treason" in a McCarthy-style purge".

Got that? Advocating the killing of US troops - or an "intifada" within the US - that's not sedition or treason. It's just "freedom of speech". But when you (gasp) criticise him for saying it....well, that's a McCarthy-style purge.

If that's not an example of treason, I'd really be curious to know how International T.R.A.I.T.O.R. A.N.S.W.E.R. defines it.

Calling the game at half-time

Matthew Yglesias seems to have declared the Iraq war a net defeat. Yes, already.

David Brooks offers the first of what I think will be many retrospective I was wrong but I was right anyway articles. The implication here is that though Bush may botch everything in Iraq, Brooks was nevertheless correct to have supported the war because he, after all, was not in favor of botching things.

Matthew is grossly distorting Brooks point, which he summed up quite clearly..."We hawks were wrong about many things. But in opening up the possibility for a slow trudge toward democracy, we were still right about the big thing."

To put it more clearly - if such is possible, or even necessary: Brooks doesn't think Bush is handling things perfectly, but he thinks Bush is going in the right direction. In fact, he even says "I still believe that in 20 years, no one will doubt that Bush did the right thing".

The difference here is very simple. Brooks adds up the positives and negatives and sees a positive marginal utility in the Iraq war. Matthew does the same thing and sees a net negative. Fair enough. I disagree with Matt on the calculation, but it's a fair point of contention.

However, the disparity between Matt's calculation and Brooks calculation discredits Matt's point. If Brooks saw a net negative, yet still said they were right to have sided with the Iraq war, then Matt would have a case. Yet, Brooks does no such thing. He believes the war was the right thing, because we ARE going to have a net positive.

Matt goes on....

The trouble, however, is this. When George W. Bush is president and is advocating a war and you, too, are advocating for war, then the fact of the matter is that you are advocating that the war be conducted by George W. Bush. That Bush would botch things was a perfectly predictable consequence of said support, based on -- among other things -- the fact that he'd botched everything else he'd ever done.

Pure ad hominem. Also, false. For example, while Bush is alleged to have been a business failure, he was actually fairly successful in his particular area of the business. (buying and selling land oil rights) He was simply the victim of bad geology - note: Bush wasn't the geologist - and a difficult time to be in the Texas oil business.

He was regarded as a very good fighter pilot by his colleagues...he graduated from an Ivy League school. Oh, and he was a fairly successful Governor of Texas. Also, that Afghan war had worked out fairly well. (again...not perfectly, but we did win, you know) Sure, he traded Sammy Sosa, but we all make mistakes, you know? Tell you what, next time we'll put George Steinbrenner in charge of national security. He's been fairly successful at everything at which Bush has "failed".

I don't mind Matt making his own calculation, and judging his opinion based on it. Don't mind that at all. But it seems a bit presumptious of Matt to apply his own calculation of Iraq to David Brooks opinion, then accuse David Brooks of failing to admit he was wrong.

Oh, and I'd also say it's too early to declare defeat just yet. I'd side with Brooks...it's dirty and painful, but I think history will judge this a necessary, positive decision.

The Kerry Budget

Bear in mind when you read this....the Brookings Institute is a fairly liberal think-tank.

Proposals from Kerry since beginning his presidential campaign, including expanding health care insurance and helping families pay for college tuition, would deepen the deficit by at least $130 billion after four years, according to Bloomberg calculations using estimates provided by the Kerry campaign and William Gale, an economist at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Bush's plan to extend the income tax cuts he pushed through Congress would widen the gap by $77.2 billion through 2009, according to Gale's analysis.

That analysis leaves out Bush's proposal to create private social security accounts, which would widen the deficit in the short term. However, that is a short term change. In the long term, that shift would likely be fairly fungible, since the revenue and benefits are not being eradicated, but instead shifted to a different system. Locked out of government hands, as it were. (hm...a "lockbox". You'd think the Democrats would like that idea)

Oh, and we can probably dispense with the criticism of the Bush administration for not including the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan military operations in budget projections...

Neither candidate includes the cost of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, for which Congress allocated an extra $87 billion last year.

Still, Kerry - unlike Bush - promises to cut back on assorted programs to be fiscally responsible...though we have yet to hear specifically what he wants to cut. Bush is sticking with "we'll slow the rate of growth".

I suspect both candidates will be wary of cuts during a campaign season, and we won't hear a great deal of spending-cut noise before November. After all, nobody was ever elected by promising a cut in bread and circuses.

This is, unfortunately, the reason a principled libertarian/conservative politician cannot sustain the Presidency. Discipline is important, but nobody likes it. And elections are popularity contests.

Hat tip to Steve Verdon, who has comments as well. (and an excellent blog)

Mission Accomplished

I never understood why it was such a big deal, but Rove is apparently regretting the "Mission Accomplished" sign....

President Bush's top political adviser said this week he regretted the use of a "Mission Accomplished" banner as a backdrop for the president's landing on an aircraft carrier last May to mark the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

"I wish the banner was not up there," said White House political strategist Karl Rove. "I'll acknowledge the fact that it has become one of those convenient symbols."

Rove, speaking at an editorial board meeting with The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio on Thursday, echoed Bush's contention that the phrase referred to the carrier's crew completing their 10-month mission, not the military completing its mission in Iraq.

More broadly than that, I'd say the sign reflected the fact that we'd deposed the Saddam regime. In that sense, the mission was accomplished.

Of course, Rove is right....it was ammunition for the critics. In that sense, it was a poor PR move. Still, the incident was just another example of the inability of the Bush campaign to defend even the most innocuous gesture against ridiculous criticisms. That has been a hallmark of this administration.

And Karl Rove.....how has he positioned Bush for this election? So far, the left hates him - granted, that's almost unavoidable - the moderates are still on the fence, and the conservatives are holding their nose. All that neo-conservative "coalition-building" on the domestic front has really been a failure.

Jesse Taylor doesn't see much political hay being made, either....

Since the beginning of the year, even from a nonpartisan standpoint, I don't think that George W. Bush has done anything good for himself politically. There is not a single thing that he's done since January 1, 2004, that has in any way significantly aided his approval ratings or his electoral fortune. Mars, marriage, Iraq, terrorism, the economy, ads, slurs, lies, holding back, lashing out - it's gotten them nothing.

I'd disagree that Bush doesn't get political advantage with his larger policies on terrorism and Iraq, but his inability to make his case, and rally the country....that's killing him. Oh, and I don't think Kerry is suffering a strategic gap on the "ads, slurs, lies and lashing out" front, either. But, so be it.

For the life of me, I just don't see how Karl Rove has acquired his reputation.

Eye Roll Alert

Some QandO readers have expressed surprise that I express a general distaste for Rush Limbaugh. Well, this comment from a recent show is one reason why I think so little of Limbaugh as a serious political analyst....

Now, if Hillary is to run in 2008, this party's got to survive, they may be thinking now they need to join this just to save the party. To hell with winning anything this year. They may just need to save the party so there's still a foundation from which and on which to run in 2008. There's also the possibility that Hillary wants to be on the VP ticket so that she dispels the notion that the Clintons are sabotaging the campaign and so that she can also go out there and really be the star. She'd be the star because she'll be the one bringing excitement to it. And, by the way, she'll get all kinds of criticism and the Republicans will launch all they've got at her, and she'll endure that. They know that they're pretty confident Kerry is going to lose and if Kerry wins there's always Fort Marcy Park. So they're rolling the dice on this.

Recognize Fort Marcy Park? Limbaugh is saying that..."hey, if Kerry wins, the Clintons will have him killed".

Limbaugh apparently either believes the Clintons had Vince Foster killed....or, worse, is willing to spread that tale in order to score political points.

Now, do tell me about how much more serious than Al Franken this Rush Limbaugh fellow is.

(hat tip: Orcinus)

Forgotten words

Some Presidential words that have been forgotten in the bitter, partisan battle over Iraq. From a speech in England...

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme.
...
What has happened in the last four years? No inspectors, a fresh opportunity to rebuild the biological and chemical weapons programme and to try and develop some sort of nuclear capacity. Because of the sanctions Saddam Hussein is much weaker militarily than he was in 1990, while we are stronger, but that probably has given him even more incentive to try and amass weapons of mass destruction.
....
We cannot walk away from [Iraq] or the proved evidence that they are capable of self-government and entitled to a decent life.

Ah, that President of ours. Always playing up the spectre of WMDs and the idea that we can set up a democracy in the perpetually despotism-ridden Middle East. Whatever are we going to do with him?

There's also this Guardian article by the President...

Unfortunately, the consensus behind 1441 has unravelled. Saddam has destroyed some missiles but beyond that he has done only what he thinks is necessary to keep the UN divided on the use of force. The really important issues relating to chemical and biological weapons remain unresolved.
...
On the other side, France, Germany and Russia are adamantly opposed to the use of force or imposing any ultimatum on Saddam as long as the inspectors are working. They believe that, at least as long as the inspectors are there, Iraq will not use or give away its chemical and biological stocks, and therefore, no matter how unhelpful Saddam is, he does not pose a threat sufficient to justify invasion. After 150,000 US forces were deployed to the Gulf, they concluded the US was not willing to give inspections a chance anyway. The problem with their position is that only the threat of force from the US and the UK got inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam will not disarm.

And this "scare tactic" by the President from the same article...

There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

I wish that Russia and France had supported [1441]. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and supprt for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441.

(sigh) Whatever are we going to do with that President.....Clinton.

And why didn't he make statements like that in the United States?