The Final Outrage!

Apparanently the CBS News program, Sixty Minutes, was planning to run the missing explosives story during Sixty Minutes!

Blast From the Past

My article on how the Republican/Democrat divide in this country resembles team sports, from the July Liberty, is now available on the web. As fresh as ever.

Sign of Bush incompetence # 999,436

If this Washington Times report is true, the Bush administration is even more incompetent than I thought previously. According to the Times, satellite photos show trucks leading away from Iraq weapons sites in the days shortly before we invaded last year.
So, as the Bush administration was getting ready to invade Iraq to control its "weapons of mass destruction," it may have sat by and watched the Iraqis empty out their weapons sites by the truckload. If Saddam actually possessed the fabled "WMD," they would probably be in Osama bin Laden's hands right now.

Placing Blame

According to Hugh Hewitt, John Kerry is committing a vile smear against our boys in uniform by denouncing the President for losing the 380 tons of explosives: "JOHN KERRY now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military.
. . . This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad."
Strangely, Hewitt failed to point out that Rudy Guiliani explicity blamed the troops on the Today show:"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough - didn't they search carefully enough?"
Fortunately, Joshua Micah Marshall correctly places responsibility:"The president and his advisors insisted on a warplan that had far too few troops to secure even the key facilities in Iraq that were the reason for the invasion in the first place. Remember, many of the nuclear facilities were stripped bare too. This wasn't the fault of troops streaming through on their way to Baghdad, doing a quick check for chemical and biological weapons. The error was in the planning of the war itself -- planning that came from Rumsfeld's civilians and the White House over and against the advice of the generals."

One Death is a Tragedy, a Million Deaths Are a Statistic

Dick McDonald, who is apparantly new to the English language, sets out to debunk some anti-Bush arguments; and I must admit I find it difficult to argue with his logic.
One passage stands out: "Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wow, we have conducted and won two wars and lost less than 300 soldiers in the hot portion of those wars. Apparently the hand-wringers are in a catatonic fit about it. Forget that we lost 58,000 in Vietnam, 50,000 in Korea and 300,000 in WWII. It goes to show that if the NYT has the immaterial and insignificant to blow into a worldwide controversy, they will lie, deceive and omit the issue to their anti-American end."
So these lives are nothing more than a statistic; a set of numbers on a page. The problem isn't just that U.S. troops are still dying (along with many more Iraqis and others), but that they are dying well over a year since we "won" a war to end a non-existent threat; a war in which wishful thinking substituted for serious planning.

Be Nice

William Tucker asks Republicans to be nice should George W. Bush lose next week. I won't be holding my breath.

Food For Thought

The Wander, a Catholic newspaper, gives pro-life voters something to chew on before casting their ballots--the effect of our use of depleted uranium on unborn Iraqi children: "They are newborn Iraqi babies, born without heads and limbs, sometimes they are blood red, sometimes black, sometimes covered in an unknown white film, sometimes with gaping holes in their torsos that expose their internal organs."

That's The Whole Point!

Matt Drudge notes an NBC News story that the 380 tons of explosives (registration) reported missing from Al Qaqaa ammo dump in Iraq was missing when U.S. troops arrived on April, 10 2003. Isn't that the whole point of the New York Times story from Monday?
The Bush administration had all sorts of intelligence about so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Colin Powell went to the UN to put on an elaborate display of grainy photographs of weapons facilities and artists' renderings of mobile biological-weapons labs; none of which was found.
In their zeal to find "WMD," couldn't the Bush administration paid a bit more attention to the whereabouts of these convential explosives; which UN inspectors inventoried in January, 2003 and may be reponsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis? Or am I missing something?

Voter Intimidation

Conservatives have done a lot of complaining about voter intimidation and the ugly tone of the presidential campaign. But they pretend that it all comes from the left's over-the-top hate for George Bush. Powerline blog has a post about vandalism directed against Bush signs and bumperstickers: "The most starkly sinister anti-Bush messages are the large 4-by-8 foot torched and blackened Bush/Cheney sign that still stands near Wolcott, and the two back-to-back signs with their centers sawed out, located in Avon off the I-70 exit overlooking Wal-Mart."
You would never get the impression from them that it works both ways. A Knoxville couple had it several Kerry signs piled up and blowtorched in their front yard.

Thoughts while standing around in Walgreens

The ongoing collapse of civilization manifests itself in a thousand small ways. I saw an example of it while trying to buy sinus medicine in Walgreens. Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in the white trash drug, Crystal Meth; so stores find them selves under pressure to limit and control purchases of the drug. The Walgreens I was in had the drug visable on the shelf; in a locked, lucite container.
So cold and allergy sufferers are inconvenienced in order to protect rural dope-heads. Not the end of the world, just a tiny step in that direction.

Bush Deserves it!

Jack Neely explains why Bush "deserves" another four years:

"[I]s it fair, really, to leave this mess with another president? George W. Bush would go traipsing off to a comfortable retirement of golf and smirky lectures to adoring crowds. He can always insist things woulda turned out great.

Meanwhile, whoever's elected Nov. 2 stands a strong chance of being, by 2008, the most hated man in America.

He'll likely have to raise taxes to counter a nearly unmanageable deficit. He'll have to at least consider reviving the draft. He'll have to deal with the most dangerous foreign-policy mess since the days of Khrushchev.

When people think of Vietnam, they most often blame the guy who recognized it as a mistake. They blame Nixon, the guy who got us out of Vietnam, more than they blame Johnson, the guy who got us in. You almost want Bush to be stuck with this one.

If home-style justice were how we picked presidents, our motto would be,President Bush has made his bed, now he has to lie in it. Four more years!

Bush may well deserve four more years. But maybe punishing one man with four more years in an office for which he's so poorly suited should not be our main priority."

I believe we are in deep trouble either way, which is why I have decided that I marginally prefer to see Bush reelected--preferably in another controversy-laden squeeker that leaves a cloud hanging over his head.

Iran Supports Bush

Sure Kerry has the French and Germans, but Bush has the Iranians. From the Associated Press:
TEHRAN, Iran - "The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions. . ."
It should come as no surprise since the last time the Iranians had a chance to influence an American election, the helped to defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Just Flip a Coin

The American Conservative has a special feature with endorsements of every presidential possibility, including not voting. The weakest is the endorsement of President Bush from Pat Buchanan. It is weak primarily because one must ignore the fact that Buchanan ran against Bush in the last election, and has strongly criticized the build up to the Iraq war for more than two years. I will ignore most of his positive statements about the president; except to note that a vote for Bush is a vote for higher taxes--implemented at some future date by a less dishonest politician.
However, Buchanan makes one very compelling argument:

"If Kerry wins, leading a party that detests this war, he will be forced to execute an early withdrawal. Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in America's eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view."

Buchanan is right about this. If Bush loses, the crowd that brought us the war is off the hook. It is for the best that they be forced to clean up the mess they made. They should have to decide how to maintain 130,000 troops in Iraq for the next four years; or how to increase troop strength if military commanders say it must be increased. They should have to suffer the conseqences if mutiny becomes a common occurrence.
This is intended as an endorsement of Bush--I early voted for one of the nut candidates--just my belief of what is best for the country

Sacre Bleu!

Is the typical American as witless as radio gasbag Hugh Hewitt thinks they are?:

"Kerry spoke French during a stump speech yesterday? KerrySpot has the audio. How clueless can Kerry be? Expect this clip to be played about a thousand times across America today."

Let's hope that it is only his readers and listeners who think that multilingualism is a bad thing.

K-LO Explains It All

National Review Online's editor, Kathryn Jean Lopez explains why the Cheneys are in a snit over John Kerry's reference to their daughter Mary, in the third presidential debate, but not concerned about Alan Keyes' statement that she is a "selfish hedonist" in a radio interview: "Are you serious? The Illinois Senate race is official GOP AWOL territory.
"Why would they give Keyes more publicity by responding? And even if everyone weren't just ignoring that race, you don't need a chart to explain the huge difference between a Senate candidate who has not chance of winning and the Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States, currently in a tie-like race."
In other words, the Cheney's primary concern is for the Republican party. Hey, it wasn't me who said it.

What Went Wrong?

Something occurred to me while reading Rich Lowry's lengthy article about problems in Iraq in the Oct. 25 National Review. Lowry notes an intelligence report suggesting a possible insurgency in a liberated Iraq, but notes that it "was not one of the report's key findings," and quotes an anonymous official stating that; "I don't recall anyone at State or the CIA talking about this kind of insurgency."
Did anyone actually need high level intelligence to know that the US would face a guerilla insurgency in a post-war Iraq? If I were to do the tedious research required, I could probably find dozens of articles on the web making just such a prediction. I will settle on the one that stuck in my mind. In the first issue of The American Conservative Pat Buchanan wrote:
"[T]errorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world.

With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon."
Buchanan was drawing upon his knowledge of recent history. An intelligence briefing wasn't necessary.

Baloney Mandate

Glenn Reynolds has been saying for a while that a Kerry victory based solely on Bush hatred would lead to a failed presidency "subject to Washington crosswinds and slave to his party's interest groups." Now he has linked to an article from The Economist that buttresses his point. But what Reynolds and The Economist aren't getting is that the Republicans have been bending over backwards to make this a Referendum on John Kerry. The president doesn't stand up in rallies and promise to invade Syria in his second term. He denounces his opponent.
The only mandates that the president will carry into his second term, should he get one, are negative. He will have a mandate to not "flip-flop," (though he certainly will) to not be a "Massachusetts Liberal"; and to not use the words "nuance" and "nuisance."
The quality of the president's second term accomplishments will have more to do with how the Republicans fare in the senate races.

Desparation

The Bill Hobbs post of a cartoon assuming that Senator Kerry thinks of the attack on the World Trade Center as a nuisance shows to me that Bush supporters are desparate. They need to twist every thing that Kerry says beyond recognition to spread the assumption that Kerry is a sniveling, UN and French subsurvient, weakling.
I have assumed in recent weeks that Bush is going to win a narrow victory. I still believe that, but his supporters are running scared.

My Kerry Presidency fantasy . . .

After a very close and controversial victory, the new president stands and begins giving his State of the Union speech in French; leaving hugh Hewitt, Stephen Green, the Cornerites and a mulititude of others to be committed to an insane bloggers asylum.

Sinking Conservative Flagship

National Review continues to show that it is no longer a serious publication. In the past several years it has taken to publishing fawning articles about the he-men in the Bush administration. A low point occurred in the December 31, 2001 issue which featured a cover caricture of Don Rumsfeld in a Betty Grable, come-hither pose, had an article in the inside by Jay Nordlinger that gushed about what a sexy hunk Rumsfeld is.
The October 25 issue of the magazine has an article by British historian Paul Johnson that rehearses the usual points about thee President's heroism. Johnson lauds Bush's "stoicism" and compares his plight to "the dark winter Washington jaced in 1777-78." Yeah. It's exactly like that.
The Bush-gushing is just an appetizer. The meat and potatoes consist of a series of peculiar attacks on John Kerry. One denounces the senator for falsely portraying himself of Irish origin. Minimal research casts doubt on this factoid, however. A quick Google search reveals that Kerry's grandfather changed his name to Kerry in 1902, and that the Senator told this to a reporter years ago.
From there on out, Johnson is like a drunk shooting arrows at hummingbirds while riding a merry-go-round: Kerry has married rich women. . . They Kerrys have many homes. . . Kerry is supported by George Soros. . . He is supported by "intellectuals--many of them with . . . records of supporting lost left-wing causes, from the Soviet empire . . . Mengistu in Ethiopia, Qaddafi in Lybia, Pol Pot in Cambodia . . ." No need, of course, to name anyone who replaced his Pol Pot button with a Kerry-Edwards. Johnson refers to "one left-wing columnist in Britain [who] . . . offered a large sum of money to anyone who would assasinate the president." Again, no need to name the columnist or the publication.
He closed by suggesting that radical Muslim extremists are "clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory." As I pointed out in a previous post there is evidence to the contrary. I think many terrorists and insurgents would cheer Bush's defeat in the same sense that the Iranian hostage takers enjoyed helping to defeat and humiliate Carter. There interests lie with the candidate most likely to continue to pour fuel on the fire in the Islamic world.

One Year Later

It is not fair to record the thoughts of neoconservatives and see how they hold up over time. Fortunately the October 25 issue of the American Conservative does so any way:

Site Preparation Begins?
"A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush."--Richard Perle, AEI keynote speech Sept. 22, 2003

"At least six people were killed and 54 wounded Wednesday in a suicide car bomb attack which ripped through a busy shopping area in Baghdad."--Agence France Press Sept. 22, 2004

Exposing these people for the dangerous fools that they are would be a pure joy if so many innocent people didn't have to die in the process.

Gomer Pyle v. Sgt. Schultz

Blogger and radio windbag, Hugh Hewitt invited his fellow Bush worshippers to come up with metaphoric examples of what the 04 election is about. The examples range along the lines of bulldog v. poodle, John Wayne v. Jane Fonda, etc. However, his loyal listeners missed the more obvious choices such as frying pan v. fire, rock v. hardplace, devil v. deep blue sea.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Rock-Ribbed Republicans

James Bovard publishes some intelligent reponses to The Bush Betrayal.
The idiots who believe that Bovard is some sort of Clinton lover should read Feeling Your Pain.

The Real Superman

All due respect to the late Christopher Reeve, George Reeves is the real Superman.

Playing Army

The Leftcoaster mocks the Defense Secretary for wearing a suit and combat boots during his visit to Iraq. Rummy doesn't want anybody to forget that he is a tough guy, and wearing combat boots is cheap way to show it.
Paul Fussell refers to it as an "easy claim to courage" and mocks the late Gen. Patton for wearing a six-gun and shiny metal helmet during WWII, in Uniforms. We should be thankful, I suppose, that Rummy doesn't dress like that.

Promises, promises

National Review editor, Rich Lowry, praises President Bush for pointing out (probably accurately) that Senator Kerry can't keep his promises without raising taxes on the middle class. Of course, the president's policy is to run up a huge debt and leave it for less dishonest politicians to fix at some date in the future.

Terrorists for Kerry?

Charles Krauthammerwrites that the terrorists are eager to see President Bush defeated at the polls this November. "Of course the terrorists want Bush defeated. How can anyone pretend otherwise? Why are we collectively nervous about terrorism as the election approaches? Because, as everyone knows, there are terrorists out there who would dearly love to hit us before the election. Why? To affect it. What does that mean? Do they want to affect it randomly? Of course not. . . Their obvious objective is to drive from power those governments most deeply involved in the war against them. . . The point is not only to radically alter an enemy nation's foreign policy -- as in Spain -- but to deter any other government contemplating similar support for the American-led war on terror. . . An electoral repudiation of President Bush would be seen by the world as a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy, specifically his aggressive, pre-emptive and often unilateral prosecution of the war on terror, most especially Iraq. It would be a correct interpretation because John Kerry has made clear that he is fighting this election on precisely those grounds. . .It is perfectly true, as Bush critics constantly point out, that many millions around the world -- from Jacques Chirac to the Arab street -- dislike Bush and want to see him defeated. It is ridiculous to pretend that Osama, Zarqawi and the other barbarians are not among them."
It sounds plausible, but is it true? There is a contrary argument made by terrorists themselves. In the August 2, New Yorker, Lawrence Wright(not on the web) reported that Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades sent a message to a London Arabic newspaper claiming responsility for the terror attack in Spain and implied that they would disrupt future elections, except for one. "'We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections,' the authors write. Bush's 'idiocy and religious fanaticism' are useful, the authors contend, for they stir the Islamic world to to action."
Recent American history gives an example of how terrorists might approach one of our elections. In 1980 Jimmy Carter was seen as a weakling, particularly against the terrorists holding Americans as hostages in Iran. His opponent, Ronald Reagan, was the very soul of resolute toughness (little did anyone know at the time just how irresoluteReagan would be in the face of the Iranians). If the hostage takers wanted to tilt the election to the weaker candidate, they could have given Carter a tremendous boost by releasing their captives sometime in Ocotober of that year. Instead they contiued to hold the hostages, until moments after the new president had taken the oath of office; heaping further humiliation on Carter.

You Call That A Major Policy Address?

" Bush sold, and continues to sell, the war in Iraq as a major campaign in the global war on terrorism, yet he repeatedly passed up the chance to neutralize or kill one of the most dangerous terrorists (Zarqawi has spent much of his time lately chopping off the heads of foreign contractors) for fear of weakening the case for war."--Fred Kaplan

Srdja Trifkovic on Afghan "democracy"

"In some provinces more people are registered to vote than are known to live there. In a country that issues neither birth certificates nor identity cards there will be a bare handful of international poll observers. Most of the poll monitoring will be entrusted to local police--many of whom are either former Taliban, or members of the militias fielded by warlords, or both."
Stop trying to pronounce his name and read the article.

Drive-by Dems?

Pro-gun Democrats shoot up Knoxville's Bush-Cheney headquarters.