This thread self-destructs on 3 November 2004

[Simply Joel]

Force, my posts are meant to be informative... and besides... in a battle of wits, who fights an unarmed man?

Actually, I agree with Cheney... the democrats don't have a plan to battle terrorism... admittedly, the Repubilcans don't execute their plan well...

i would have preferred overwhelning force in Iraq unlike what Rumsfield sent... maybe 500K troops intially, then taper off.

however, as said by Brooks in another informative post of mine... the left simply chooses to look away from the difficulties and focus on something more platable, like blaming the USA for all these illls.

I am hoping that free Iraqis will soon take the side of stablilty and boot the insurgents out which willl alow Amercian forces to withdraw...

I don't see that happening soon, yet... it is pretty hard to be pro-demoncracy when any jerkoff with an AK-47 can walk over to your house and blow you away.

The long term stability of Iraq and the region, is in fact, their responsibility... and I believe, in time, the moderates will gain the uper hand.

No other nation in the world, but the USA, has the resources and the will to assist them in bringing representative government to their soil.

As for rationalizing.... a definition is required

Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·ize
Pronunciation: 'rash-n&-"lIz, 'ra-sh&-n&l-"Iz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
transitive senses
1 : to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts <rationalize a denominator>
2 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>
3 : to apply the principles of scientific management to (as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (as increased efficiency)
intransitive senses : to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct


Difference between the VP and Cheney... he has sovreignty on his side.

[Force]

Force, my posts are meant to be informative... and besides... in a battle of wits, who fights an unarmed man?

I agree with you. That's why my posts are directed more towards those who might be swayed by you than they are at changing your brainwashed mind.

In this battle, you are the child with the supersoaker who thinks he's hot stuff, and I am the adult who lounges by the pool patiently and endures your antics on a hot day, occasionally rising to toss you into the far end of the pool... and smiles knowing that I could go into the house and get the shotgun...

Actually, I agree with Cheney... the democrats don't have a plan to battle terrorism... admittedly, the Repubilcans don't execute their plan well...

I don't see that happening soon, yet... it is pretty hard to be pro-demoncracy when any jerkoff with an AK-47 can walk over to your house and blow you away.

Yes, you're right, the republican's failure to seal our borders is a mystifyingly simple step in protecting America that has not been taken. What is your rationalization for why they haven't done this, and instead have sent our sons and brothers and friends to die in a foreign land? I'm truly interested in how your brainwashed mind makes sense of this...

Difference between the VP and Cheney... he has sovreignty on his side.

I'm not sure what this means.

Let us eat cake while our sons and brothers and friends die?

Wow. Or are you just baiting me with that?

I'm assuming you meant to compare Cheney with the terrorists and not himself- your confused mind trips you up again...

[Simply Joel]

Force, my posts are meant to be informative... and besides... in a battle of wits, who fights an unarmed man?

I agree with you. That's why my posts are directed more towards those who might be swayed by you than they are at changing your brainwashed mind.

whoa dude, i am not trying to sway anyone's opinion... on the other hand, i am making the reader aware of other perspectives from pundits and journalists... of which are held in high regard by a significant number of people beyond, yet including the burning man community.

In this battle, you are the child with the supersoaker who thinks he's hot stuff, and I am the adult who lounges by the pool patiently and endures your antics on a hot day, occasionally rising to toss you into the far end of the pool... and smiles knowing that I could go into the house and get the shotgun...

uh huh.

Actually, I agree with Cheney... the democrats don't have a plan to battle terrorism... admittedly, the Repubilcans don't execute their plan well...

I don't see that happening soon, yet... it is pretty hard to be pro-demoncracy when any jerkoff with an AK-47 can walk over to your house and blow you away.

Yes, you're right, the republican's failure to seal our borders is a mystifyingly simple step in protecting America that has not been taken. What is your rationalization for why they haven't done this, and instead have sent our sons and brothers and friends to die in a foreign land? I'm truly interested in how your brainwashed mind makes sense of this...

I sincerely doubt the ACLU would allow such a liberty curtainling action like sealing our borders. Would you actually endorse such a radical step in isolating us from our neighbors? of which political philosophy would support such a radical idea? Pat Buchanan from the right I am sure.... As President Bush has stated, if you had listened... "we took the fight to them"

i really doubt your interest in me or any personality trait i possess.

Difference between the VP and Cheney... he has sovereignty on his side.

I'm not sure what this means.

It means VP Cheney represents a sovereign state while terrorists do not. Terrorists lack sovereignty, unless of couse, you are state which supports terrorism.
and to assist you, a defintion.

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Let us eat cake while our sons and brothers and friends die?

no, not at all.

Wow. Or are you just baiting me with that?

no, not at all... i think baiting you would require me to place value on your posts.

I'm assuming you meant to compare Cheney with the terrorists and not himself- your confused mind trips you up again...

actually, because you did not understand my comments about sovereignty... it is you, not me, that is confused.

[geekster]

I didn't read all the posts. I would be in favor of repeal of the 17th ammendment that made senators elected directly by the people. For the first hundred years or so we got along just fine with the senators being elected by the state legislatures. The state governments need to be a check/balance on the federal government. This also keeps down the number of federally mandated programs shoved down the throats of the states that they are forced to pay for. If the senators had to answer to their state government, they might also be able to take positions that aren't popular in the polls but are best in the long term. The congress was designed for the people to have their house and for the states to have theirs. I think it should be put back that way. Otherwise, there is really no point to having a senate at all.

As for the exectoral college, we have to have it, I think. If we didn't, we would be in a position where the candidates would campaign in New York, LA, Chicago and a few other cities and that is it. The vast heartland of the country would have no say.

The one major problem I see with the current system is with absentee ballots. Where I live in California, if there are not enough absentee ballots to make a difference in a race, they are thrown away uncounted. In California alone, I believe that 2 million absentee ballots were thrown away uncounted after the last presidential election. The truth is that nobody knows who really won the popular vote because more absentee ballots nationwide were thrown away than the difference between the candidates popular vote results but election districts only operate on a district by district basis. If there were not enough absentee ballots in a district to tip the balance, they are tossed out even if the aggregated number of absentee ballots nationwide would change the popular vote.

I seem to remember absentee ballots for the presidential race being counted in only a few places, Florida and New Mexico come to mind, maybe a couple of other places. The simple truth is that nobody knows who really won the popular vote last election because not all the votes were counted and more votes were thrown away than the difference. COUNT ALL ABSENTEE BALLOTS every time, please.

[geekster]

Force, my posts are meant to be informative... and besides... in a battle of wits, who fights an unarmed man?

Actually, I agree with Cheney... the democrats don't have a plan to battle terrorism... admittedly, the Repubilcans don't execute their plan well...

i would have preferred overwhelning force in Iraq unlike what Rumsfield sent... maybe 500K troops intially, then taper off.

Well, if 5 years ago ... or even after the end of the 1st Gulf War ... anyone that said you could take the entire country of Iraq and hold it for nearly 2 years and loose only 1000 in the process, would have been told that they were nuts, that you would loose more than that in one day in Baghdad alone. Forgetting emotion and applying only logic here, it has been a brilliant millitary success if not a political one. As for overwhelming force, sure, if the 4th Infantry had been able to stage in Turkey as the original plan called for, things might have been way different. Having a huge force in the north and west of the contry might have made it difficult for the insurgents and foreign elements to get organized.

As for a lot of the current fighting, one has to follow the money. A lot of it has to do with power and control among the Shi'a clerics. It kind of goes like this ... when people go to the mosque, they often give offerings of money or other valuables. This might not be much different than people see with the passing of the collection plate in American Christian churches. Najaf is special in that people from all over make pilgrimages to that mosque. Whoever controls that mosque makes a LOT of dough. Whichever faction controls the most number of mosques gets a lot of resources with which to do a lot of things and whichever holds the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf holds the mother lode.

There are several things going on at the same time. There are foreign elements there that just want to disrupt things and make sure that there is chaos and disorder and to see that the US is unsuccessful in pretty much anything. There is a fight for dominance by the various factions in the Shi'a community. There is a fight for dominance by the overall Shi'a population to have a greater role in the government that they have been denied for decades. There is a general criminal element that is well armed and taking advantage of the situation to take hostages for ransom, extort businesses, steal supplies and raw materials for profit, etc.

The people there are, I believe, so used to being powerless that it just hasn't dawned on them yet that they can simply say "enough is enough" and stop putting up with the crap. The Iraqi security forces have to get strong enough so that 1. they are confident in their own ability and 2. the people are confident enough in them that they start to come forward and help them clean up the mess. Corruption is another issue. The recent arrest of a police chief for corruption opened some eyes. I think if the people see an honest effort to clean up corruption and crime being delt with by Iraqis and not foreigners, trust will develop and things will get better. Overall, I believe that the recent creation of the 100 member council was a good sign. The fact that it went on in spite of the fighting in Najaf was a great tribute to the Iraqis that took part in it. It showed that there are people there seriously interested in buildding a country and less interested in simply making a political point at the expense of the welfare of the population or in being intimidated by thugs.

One problem I have is people that try to draw parallels with Viet Nam. Viet Nam is a different country with a different story and with different people with a different history. In Viet Nam we were proping up an unpopular government. In Iraq we took down an unpopular government and are trying to hold things together long enough for the people themselves to build a new one.

As for WMD ... after the 1st Gulf War we inventoried a bunch of shit. We KNEW it was there, we saw it, touched it, counted it. Iraq prevented the inspectors from keeping track of it so they left. After 9/11, the inspectors returned under pressure on Iraq from the UN. World security demanded that that much WMD could not simply go unaccounted for. When the inspectors returned they are told that it is all gone but not given any records of its disposition. What happened to it all? Nobody could get a straight answer. So now you have a few tons of anthrax gone missing and nobody knows where it went AND you have your Director of Central Intelligence telling you that it is still there ... that it is a "slam dunk" in his words. A president would be irresponsible NOT to do something under those circumstances. The CIA totally and completely fucked up. It seems like they got lead down the garden path somehow. We operated with UNANAMOUS consent of the security council. Leading up to combat, there were several resolutions passed. The last one giving member states the right to take action. A joint Spain/US resolution SPECIFICALLY authorizing the invasion was never voted on.

In my opinion, what happened was probably right in a logical sense. The people of Iraq will probably be much better off in 5 years than they would have been otherwise. But the fact remains that George Tenat fucked up bigtime and, thankfully, has resigned. In my opinion a special seat should be constructed in the temple next year so that he may witness the burn from the inside.

Now ... having said all that ... I am no Bush fan and I am damned sure not a Kerry fan. I would say my leanings are more Libertarian and I would vote that way if they ever ran a non-nut for office. If you ever get the chance you might want to dig around a bit at http://www.cato.org for some interesting reading here and there.

[samtzu]

geekster wrote:

Well, if 5 years ago ... or even after the end of the 1st Gulf War ... anyone that said you could take the entire country of Iraq and hold it for nearly 2 years and loose only 1000 in the process, would have been told that they were nuts, that you would loose more than that in one day in Baghdad alone. Forgetting emotion and applying only logic here, it has been a brilliant millitary success if not a political one.

I understand your sentiments, and, logically, you are correct. However, as someone who almost wound up amongst the 58,000 names on the Vietnam Memorial, the price we have paid in Iraq (and continue to pay) is too high.

Numbers are easy... individuals are hard... very hard. To lose one is to lose a world of imagination, love, life itself. I refuse to look at the numbers as 'reasonable'. Each one is a person, just like each of us, who will no longer be able to enjoy the limited freedoms that we enjoy. If this was a true battle for our own nation, then the cost would be looked at in a different light, and I would even be willing to put my own aged ass on the line... but it is not a battle for our nation. It is a political battle in which oil and power are the prizes, and real human lives are lost. REAL human lives, not numbers.

Yes, I know that that is a very emotional approach to the situation, but it is an approach I have locked myself into willingly. I can accept no other. Perhaps it is a good thing that I am not President, because I would pull the whole circus out today; lock, stock, and smoking barrel. One life lost in this assinine war is one life too many.

[Simply Joel]

I don't consider this war asinine, yet I do believe the manner by which it has been wages is... and I am really amazed the legislature hasn't been present and accounted for in its oversight responsibilities.

Main Entry: as·i·nine
Pronunciation: 'a-s&n-"In
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin asininus, from asinus ass
1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment <an asinine excuse>
2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass
synonym see SIMPLE
- as·i·nine·ly adverb
- as·i·nin·i·ty /"a-s&-'ni-n&-tE/ noun

[samtzu]

Joel Wrote:

Etymology:Latin asininus, from asinus ass
1 : marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment <an asinine excuse>
2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass
synonym see SIMPLE

I LIKE IT!!!!! And I still think it is an assinine war... per the definition.

You, on the other hand, are not assinine and I hope you continue to post whatever the fuck you feel like posting, whether it is your material or someone else's!!

Some attacks made on this thread are like a dog peeing on your leg: embarassing, annoying, but not really dangerous. Keeping on keeping on, Joel! (Like you need me to tell you that!)

[Simply Joel]

i just remember that sometimes the dog pees on the electric fence....

shocking news to the dog, don't you know!

[samtzu]

Doesn't this go on the 'dick joke' thread?

Oh, that's right... this is the Dick joke thread!

God, I love politics!!

[geekster]

Numbers are easy... individuals are hard... very hard. To lose one is to lose a world of imagination, love, life itself. I refuse to look at the numbers as 'reasonable'. Each one is a person, just like each of us, who will no longer be able to enjoy the limited freedoms that we enjoy.

Well, here is the problem with that logic (sorry to have to go back to the logic thing again): If what you are REALLY getting at is senseless killing, then there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than the war in Iraq. Since that war started probably somewhere near 70,000 Americans have been killed in automobile accidents. In 2002 alone 1.2 million world-wide were killed in traffic accidents and 85-90% were low and middle income. Where is the outrage? These are in many cases innocent children, babies, mothers and fathers, grandparents and a few assholes sprinkled in just to make it not completely terrible.

Nobody in Iraq was drafted. Every single one of them, inclucing the called up IRR troops knew that when they joined the Armed Forces that they might be called upon to gift a little lead and might get some in return. It isn't like people were just rounded up without their consent and shoved into harm's way.

While I will agree that it is certainly a damned shame when any of them are killed and it is a great loss to their family, friends, and loved ones; the fact that people in the military are often commanded to engage in activites that can result in death should not have been a complete surprise to them. This as opposed to the sleeping kid in the van broadsided by the drunk. Yes, every single life is precious beyond calculation. I believe that with all my heart.

But if you are really interested in stopping senseless killing, start at the big causes and work your way down the list. More Americans are gunned down in California cities every year than in Iraq. Just keep things in perspective.

If you are politically opposed to the war, GREAT. Just be honest and say so. I have a problem with people that seem to be using a peripheral issue such as death and disfigurement as their issue of opposition when that is a pretty weak angle in this case. Give us the REAL reason you are opposed even if it is as simple as "a group of people I really like are all opposed to it so I want to join them in their opposition too" ... whatever the reason just be honest. Going on the "because war kills people" angle is pretty high up there in the duh! department. Oppose the war on political grounds with reason. Tell us what could have been done instead. Tell us why things would have been better if things had been done your way, I am genuinely interested in hearing it. THAT should be the debate. War is a tool used to solve a problem. It should be the tool of last resort. I am not convinced it was the last resort in this case but I don't know that more than 1000 Americans wouldn't be dead now if we didn't go in there ... or at least I didn't know that at the time they went in (hindsight is always 20/20). Actually there is also a bigger issue. There is not a single Arab democracy that I know of in the Middle East. Maybe now there will be one.

If it is senseless killing you want to stop, there are some bigger fish to be fried, brother.

[Force]

Actually, I agree with Cheney... the democrats don't have a plan to battle terrorism... admittedly, the Repubilcans don't execute their plan well...

I don't see that happening soon, yet... it is pretty hard to be pro-demoncracy when any jerkoff with an AK-47 can walk over to your house and blow you away.

Yes, you're right, the republican's failure to seal our borders is a mystifyingly simple step in protecting America that has not been taken. What is your rationalization for why they haven't done this, and instead have sent our sons and brothers and friends to die in a foreign land? I'm truly interested in how your brainwashed mind makes sense of this...

I sincerely doubt the ACLU would allow such a liberty curtainling action like sealing our borders. Would you actually endorse such a radical step in isolating us from our neighbors? of which political philosophy would support such a radical idea? Pat Buchanan from the right I am sure.... As President Bush has stated, if you had listened... "we took the fight to them

And left our flank (America) undefended. Why? Why are our borders neglected while at the airports people have to take off their shoes, endure rigorous screening, etc.?

I'll tell you why- the only explanation that makes sense is that the power elite, or the military/industrial complex, or whatever you want to call it, WANTS us to be hit again, so they can have an excuse to send our sons and brothers and friends to die so that they can control an oil-producing country.

Difference between the VP and Cheney... he has sovereignty on his side.

It means VP Cheney represents a sovereign state while terrorists do not. Terrorists lack sovereignty, unless of couse, you are state which supports terrorism.

Ah, so what you're saying is that because he was elected to office by the people (supposedly anyway, that's a whole different issue there) it's ok for him to act like a terrorist and tell people to vote for him or die?

Nobody in Iraq was drafted. Every single one of them, inclucing the called up IRR troops knew that when they joined the Armed Forces that they might be called upon to gift a little lead and might get some in return. It isn't like people were just rounded up without their consent and shoved into harm's way.

Actually it's a lot like that, since the armed forces' job is SUPPOSED to be defending America, not taking over oil countries for Bush and Haliburton.

[Force]

Oh, and I wasn't talking about sealing our borders so that no one gets in or out, I'm just pointing out that if they really were so concerned about the citizenry being protected, there wouldn't be thousands of miles of completely undefended borders.

Oh, wait, to be fair, I guess at least some of the roads from Canada to the US have orange cones blocking them at night when there's no one on duty at the checkpoints, so technically that counts as a defense.

[Simply Joel]

Force, i am glad you have it all figured out.

[samtzu]

Geekster:

One of us here doesn't get it.

You are treating this war as if it were an academic exercise played with moving numbers and concepts. You see it as a legitimate human enterprise. I do not. I find very few human enterprises to be 'legitimate'. War is a very real occurance with very real humans losing their very real lives, while their very real family and loved ones grieve. It is not comparable to automobile statistics, unless all the drivers are pairing off in teams, trying to take control of the roads by killing off all the other drivers not on their team.

I find politics to be repulsive. It is the struggle for power, in which manipulation of others is the primary goal. Power for Power's sake. Politics has never made a better world for anyone, the United States of America not withstanding. (It didn't do the native population any good)

I do not look at the world situation as simply a struggle between different people. It is a situation that involves the people, the animals, the plants, the water, and the very air above us. In short, the entire planetary ecosystem. Any 'solution' to 'make the world a better place in which to live' (which is needed simply because of the primate manipulation over the eons, resulting in a ecological mess and a bad place for most life forms) that doesn't encompass the entire range of existence on this planet is vastly short sighted.

By the way, the only solution I can come up with (after studying this 'situation' over and over, for years) is the biblical one: massive destruction of the human race. It would give the planet enough time to cleanse itself and get going again. This is not the same as war. War is Us doing it; this cleansing would have to be a huge natural catastrophe for it to be effective: a huge caldera, a raging virus, a big assed meteorite.

And finally, I do not debate. Although debate might be thought of as two primates trying to draw each other into the other's way of thinking, it is, in actuality, simply two primates screaming at each other until one of them walks away defeated. I don't know of anyone that I have brought over to my point of view... EVER!, and I actually don't want to be with anyone who has my point of view. They would be one scary motherfucker.

Debate? Debate?? Fuck that... I hereby walk away... defeated. Your logic has won. Enjoy

[cowboyangel]

ok ok ok ...never been on this thread until now so here's 2 cents for the power of love.....remember when Sam Kineson died? His passing was so sweet and the person who cradled him felt only love, and Sam said something like, "it's really ok".....love has the final answer to everything

[samtzu]

CA wrote:

ok ok ok ...never been on this thread until now so here's 2 cents for the power of love.....remember when Sam Kineson died? His passing was so sweet and the person who cradled him felt only love, and Sam said something like, "it's really ok".....love has the final answer to everything

Now, THAT is something I can agree with. Thanks, CA... I needed to wipe the foam off of my mouth (once again!) and chill.

Yeah... another Sam... and a Viet Vet, too. Broke my heart when I heard about it, but, like he said... "It's really okay"

[Force]

Force, i am glad you have it all figured out.

And I'm glad your responses to my points have consistently stayed non-sequitors, or snide remarks.

If you ever actually tried to back up any of what you spout, well, now then we'd have a discussion on our hands, an exchange of ideas, and we all know how dangerous that can be.

[Simply Joel]

Froce, if i believed you had a workable idea, plan or porgram, i would listen...

what i post is in fact happening for the most part... in most ways, actual history being written.

so, if you have some workable idea, plan or program, put it forth...

as for snide remarks... i believe you have put for enough of your own... and i don't feel compelled to defend what doesn't requiring defending...

you don't have to fix what isn't broken...

conservatively speaking of course.

joel, simply ornery at times.

[Force]

Well, once again, you refuse to answer to any weak points that you're questioned on, such as the very simple observation that thousands of miles of our borders are far less defended than the airport.

You cheerfully wave away the threatening remarks of Cheney without so much as an attempt at an explanation to simple old me of why I should not see them as every bit as threatening if only they had been uttered by a terrorist.

You try to appear to have a conversation with me by speaking to me directly even while sidestepping every question, preferring instead to throw witless barbs at me to try and paint me a fool, and have succeded only in showing yourself to be one.

I think I've shown you're a knee-jerk republican and can therefore be safely dismissed or at least taken with a large boulder of salt, and I grow tired of trying to talk simple common sense to the willfully senseless.

I have a beautiful wife that I should be spending this time with instead of trying to talk sense into those who shut their eyes to the simple truth that to me is as obvious as the sky or the moon.

So I quit.

Congratulations, you've put the last nail in the coffin of my altruism.

You and all the other non-thinking jingoistic, sound-bite regurgitating fools.

You fat portion of the bell-shaped curvers will be the ruin of our country and possibly our world, but at least you can feel good that you "won" this argument with Force. Congratulations.

[Simply Joel]

Have a nice day. FORCE.

onward to something else....

September 13, 2004

Those Discredited Memos
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington — Alert bloggers who knew the difference between the product of old typewriters and new word processors immediately suspected a hoax: the "documents" presented by CBS News suggesting preferential treatment in Lt. George W. Bush's National Guard service have all the earmarks of forgeries.

The copies of copies of copies that formed the basis for the latest charges were supposedly typed by Guard officer Jerry Killian three decades ago and placed in his "personal" file. But it is the default typeface of Microsoft Word, highly unlikely to have been used by that Texas colonel, who died in 1984. His widow says he could hardly type and his son warned CBS that the memos were not real.

When the mainstream press checked the sources mentioned or ignored by "60 Minutes II," the story came apart.

The Los Angeles Times checked with Killian's former commander, the retired Guard general whom a CBS executive had said would be the "trump card" in corroborating its charges. But it turns out CBS had only read Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges the purported memos on the phone, and did not trouble to show them to him. Hodges now says he was "misled" - he thought the memos were handwritten - and believes the machine-produced "documents" to be forgeries. (CBS accuses the officer of changing his story.)

The L.A. Times also checked out a handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley (of Vincent Foster suicide-note fame), who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos. It turns out he vouches for only one signature, and no scribbled initials, and has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.

The Dallas Morning News looked into the charge in one of the possible forgeries dated Aug. 18, 1973, that a commander of a Texas Air Guard squadron was trying to "sugar coat" Bush's service record. It found that the commander had retired from the Guard 18 months before that.

The Associated Press focused on the suspicion first voiced by a blogger on the Web site Freerepublic.com about modern "superscripts" that include a raised th after a number. CBS, on the defense, claimed that "some models" of typewriters of the 70's could do that trick, and some Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House included it.

"That superscript, however," countered The A.P., "is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos." It consulted the document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and reported "she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."

After leading with that response, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz noted that the handwriting expert Matley said that CBS had asked him not to give interviews, and that an unidentified CBS staff member who had examined the documents saw potential problems with them: "There's a lot of sentiment that we should do an internal investigation."

Newsweek (which likes the word "discredited") has apparently begun an external investigation: it names "a disgruntled former Guard officer" as a principal source for CBS, noting "he suffered two nervous breakdowns" and "unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses."

It may be that CBS is the victim of a whopping journalistic hoax, besmearing a president to bring him down. What should a responsible news organization do?

To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything.

Years ago, Kurdish friends slipped me amateur film taken of Saddam's poison-gas attack that killed thousands in Halabja. I gave it to Dan Rather, who trusted my word on sources. Despite objections from queasy colleagues, he put it on the air.

Hey, Dan: On this, recognize the preponderance of doubt. Call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers. Courage.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

Powell Defends Cheney's Remarks on Attack

Mon Sep 13, 7:44 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday defended Vice President Dick Cheney for saying last week that terrorists will hit the United States again "if we make the wrong choice" on Election Day.

Two days after uttering the explosive comments, Cheney tried to stem the fallout and subsequent criticism from Democrats. He told a newspaper that he did not say terrorists will strike if Democrat John Kerry is elected. Cheney said he was trying to say that "whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks."

Questioned about the comment, Powell said the vice president was trying to convey that voters know President Bush and the strategy he is pursuing to win the fight against terrorism.

"Both candidates, I'm sure, will do everything they can to defend the United States of America, whichever one becomes president," Powell said on ABC's "This Week."

"But what the vice president was saying is, you know the strategies that we are following, you know the aggressiveness with which we have gone after this war against terror.

"And the American people will make their judgment in due course," Powell said.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice echoed Powell's view.

"The vice president has said several times now what he meant by those comments," she said on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "But it is very much the case that the American people will see different strategies for dealing with the war on terrorism. And they know what this president has done."

Cheney was in Des Moines, Iowa, on Tuesday when he told supporters: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

Kerry called Cheney's comment "outrageous and shameful." Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, said it was "wrong and un-American" and "intended to divide us."

Cheney sought to clarify himself Thursday in an interview with The Cincinnati Enquirer.

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," he told the newspaper. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry."

[Simply Joel]

September 18, 2004
Kerry's Cast of Thousands
By DAVID BROOKS

Across the wine-dark sea they come, honing Kerry's message. They come from Harvard, K Street and the studios of CNN. "Once more into the breach!" they cry, as they join the conference call of thousands.

Look at them, these great, unhuddled masses, yearning to wear White House badges. They are consultants, flacks, spinners, strategists, Knights of the Palm lunch table. And yet they come as one, from all corners of the Democratic world, to figure out what John Kerry, age 60, should believe and say.

Into the valley of hope ride the 600, the inner ring of Kerry confidants. A year ago, there was just a small and hearty band. There was the campaign manager Jim Jordan. There was Gibbs, Cherny and Mellman. But under their reign, the message was not honed. The candidate did flounder. The quest for a Kerry conviction was not fulfilled.

And so the great accretion began. The call went out to pollsters, wonks and wandering wordsmiths to come gather and fill the void of Kerry's core. Brave souls emerged from the Land of Ted - the Kennedy brigades led by Cahill and Cutter are now abetting the mighty Shrum.

Boldly they rode and well, into the morass of Kerry's mind. Through the thicket of equivocations they ventured, across the paradoxical plains of Kerry's prose - all in the quest for a conviction.

Policy committees gathered. Of domestic policy councils there were 37. Of foreign policy councils, 27.

And in each of these councils resided faculties and think-tankers by the score. On the justice policy task force there were 195 members, lawyers brave and strong. On the economic council, more than 200 economists did search for a conclusion. When these groups did meet, so long was the line of approaching Volvos that it was visible from outer space.

Yet still the message was not honed. King Kerry still did equivocate, hedge and reverse. Of flip-flops there were more than a few. He still did Velcro his principles upon the cathedral door, and change them by the hour.

The apparatus grew again. Elmendorf from the Land of Gephardt was hired, along with Lackey from the House of Edwards. Teams of de-equivocators gathered. And still the fog spread.

And so the age of nymphomottomania did begin. Suddenly it was realized what was missing. A theme! A slogan! The muses were mobilized to find that motto, which would give shape and precision to the cause. Over the weeks "A Better Set of Choices" begat "Safer, Stronger and More Secure," which begat "The Real Deal," which begat "Change Starts Here," which begat "Let America Be America Again," which begat "Hope Is on the Way."

Night and day the serial sloganators did work. And the seasons did turn and the conventions did come and go. Kerry's speeches were shortened, and parts of his life were edited out of his story (adulthood, for example). And yet there was still wailing in the House of Kerry for the message was still unhoned.

Kerry himself pinpointed the problem. Of advisers, there were not enough! So this month yet more were brought in, mostly from the camp of Clinton. There is McCurry, Lockhart, Carville and Begala. There is Greenberg and Wolfson.

And so it came to pass there are no swing voters left, because they've all been hired by campaign Kerry. They form a great and mighty leviathan, dedicated to the proposition that John Kerry should believe in something. The flow chart is as clear as can be. Sasso reports to Lockhart, Devine, Sosnick, Cutter and Cahill, while Cutter reports to Devine, Mellman, McCurry, Shrum and herself - except on weekends, when Devine reports to Mellman and Sosnick and Cahill reports to McCurry and Sasso. Lockhart handles strategic response, McCurry daily response, Cutter tactical response and Cahill metaresponse.

Vast is the empire crafting Kerry's creed. Immense is the army of Michelangelos trying to sculpture the melted marshmallow of Kerry's core. And the seasons do turn and the polls do shift and the rending of garments gives way to the sunshine of hope and back again.

And tumultuous is the cry of the strategists, and loud are the furies of the campaign, but in the center there is a silence. For in the beginning all was vacuum and a void, and while all the king's horses and all the king's men do build this grand and mighty structure, the sound of their hammers echoes limitlessly in the hollow within.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

September 20, 2004

Reading Kerry's Mind
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

I am John Kerry, falling further behind in the polls with only six weeks to go.

I've already shaken up my staff again; Cahill, Shrum and the whole Kennedy crowd were fine for the late primaries, but their war-hero strategy was all wrong for the general election. Now I've got Sasso and the Clinton heavy-hitters calling the shots. What can we do to stop the erosion in the polls and turn this campaign around?

1. Change the strategic target. It's not the swing voter who counts - I'm told there aren't that many of them. It's the Democratic base that has to be whipped up and turned out.

2. Ignore my peripheral messages that show no traction. Unemployment keeps drifting down and the stock market is going up, so the economy doesn't help me. Deficits don't scare people, taxing the rich shows no traction, and Bush has muddied up the health and education issues. Scaring the old folks about privatization of Social Security only drives younger voters to the G.O.P.

3. Stop wasting time magnifying the fury of the Bush-haters. Halliburton is not the Manchurian Candidate. And our supporters are no good at dirty tricks - that fiasco with CBS, which I pray that the D.N.C. had nothing to do with, will keep backfiring on us for weeks. The "fortunate son" business hasn't hurt Bush - and I wasn't exactly born in a log cabin.

4. Recognize that the war is the switcher issue and take a stand that I can stick with for at least six weeks. Blazing away at his past mistakes falls flat. When I hit Bush on misleading us, he hits me back for voting both ways, and it's at best a wash. So I have to focus now on the bloody present under him versus the bright future under me. Simple: "Bush is losing the war and Kerry will win it." That would give me a leg up in the debates, on which a turnaround depends.

5. Don't let Bush get away with being "misunderestimated" again as a debater. He's a master at the "better than expected" game. He has Bill Weld telling all and sundry what a great debater I am. We have to remind everybody that Bush, with his phony aw-shucks personality, has won every debate he's been in. Then, after I whip him or he makes some massive blunder - and I'll set him up for at least one - I'll slam him for being afraid to face me a third time.

6. Get a slogan that fits on a bumper sticker. My "W stand for Wrong" isn't working because too many hear "wrong" as beginning with an R. Instead, be ready when Bush's people trot out Lincoln's wartime "Don't Change Horses in Midstream." Come back with F.D.R.'s blast at Herbert Hoover after the crash: "Change Horses or Drown!"

7. Duck all the gotcha! news conferences. I'll get away with Imus and Oprah and Larry King and let the hard-news media holler about softballs.

8. Lower the opposition's beltline. It makes me sick at heart to have to claim that $200 billion for the war could be better spent at home. That isolationist knee to the groin sounds as if it came from Dean or even McGovern, but as Bush likes to say - "Whatever it takes."

9. Hit hard the monopoly-of-power horror. A G.O.P. White House and Congress means a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. We must convince women that a vote for Bush means a return to back-alley abortions. Edwards should be going for the jugular on this, but he's showing only an instinct for the capillaries. And that takes me to the 10th commandment of the new, improved Kerry campaign:

10. Above all, win back the women who used to be with the Democrats. Bush has them believing that the fighting in Iraq is for the security of their families. Too many women can't get it through their heads that Iraq is just a distraction from the global terror war. And Bush's pitch about "better fighting over there than here" - tying Iraq to Al Qaeda - closes what used to be our huge gender gap. So I have to move on to "while he's spinning, we're losing" - and never mind that it makes me dependent on escalation by Zarqawi and pessimism from C.I.A. flip-floppers who were wrong before but who now want jobs in my administration.

Yes, scared women are the key, so enough with my sensitive nuances. They want Mr. Tough Guy - from now to November, that's what they'll get.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Simply Joel]

THE INFLUENCE BEHIND W.

By William F. Buckley Jr.

The charge of scandalous behavior by Lt. George W. Bush in the National Guard evolves, on reflection, into scandalous behavior by CBS and Dan Rather. Mr. Rather is standing by his story, but hanging on by his fingernails. The focus had been on whether CBS had relied on forgeries. In his second "60 Minutes" broadcast, Rather had the courage to bring onstage the 86-year-old secretary, Mrs. Marian Carr Knox, who said flat-out that the document suggesting inattentive duty was a forgery -- this was not a document typed by her or in her office.

But even though the document was fake, Mrs. Knox went on, its sentiments weren't fake. Namely, that Lt. Bush was happy-go-lucky in the Texas National Guard, more interested in other things than Guard duty.

At that point Dan Rather looked sternly at his guest, and indeed at life itself, and said, Well, then, George Bush defied direct orders!

Yes, said Mrs. Knox.

The concrete issue had to do with his failure to take a physical examination on the appointed day. These physicals, "60 Minutes" viewers were told, were routine annual requirements. An officer was supposed to undergo a physical on his birthday, a reasonable arrangement designed to allocate medical resources. But Bush didn't take the exam that day.

An awful, irreverent thought enters impious minds. Namely: So what?

So he missed the physical. What did the postponement of it have to do with anything of current interest? No one has charged that he missed the physical in order to conceal something. Conceal what? That he had syphilis, and didn't want to show up with the medics until his antibiotics had dispelled all traces of it? That he had taken to defying military authority to express his iconoclasm?

It was stressed that he had sought leave, and been given it, to move to the Air Guard unit in Alabama, which would permit him a role in the Senate campaign of Winton Blount.

Giving him leave didn't affect pressing military concerns. "In 1972," according to retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971, "there was an enormous glut of pilots. The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

And then the theme is advanced that Bush got into the Guard because of influence. Service in the Guard was coveted, because homeland duty is clearly preferable to overseas duty in combat zones. But Guard units were hardly cloistered. Air Guard pilots flew 24,124 sorties and 38,614 combat hours in Southeast Asia during the months after Bush started his service. The scholar Charles Gross records that "85 percent of the personnel in the Vietnam-based 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron ... were Air Guardsmen."

Bush began his training in May 1968. He did six weeks of basic training, 53 weeks of flight training, and 21 weeks of fighter-interceptor training. Guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points annually to meet their yearly obligation. Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.

Was there influence accountable for his getting into the National Guard?

Here is a subject best ignored, but when raised, requiring basic sophistication. Grown-up people know that influence is everywhere used. When Bush joined the Air Guard, his father was only a representative, having failed to be elected to the Senate. So George W. could get away with -- what? His father didn't exactly own the National Guard. So he got in because his father was in Congress and his grandfather had been in the Senate?

Anybody who believes that influence isn't a factor in life was never asked to write a letter to a member of Congress asking him to endorse the application of Joey from next door to enter West Point. That's how much of life works. Influence is not to be confused with corruption. Influence can get you to the head of the line to get your driver's license; corruption is when you fail the test but get the license anyway.

Lt. Bush flew successfully, adroitly, admirably. His inclination to move on after four years to help a Republican candidate is testimony to a lively disposition, in a 25-year-old, to move on, to undertake another challenge. He did this in Alabama and, after his discharge, went on to Harvard Business School (what influence got him through the rigorous exams given at Harvard?), getting his degree. Then back to Texas into business, then politics, then the governorship, then the White House. How did he get to the White House? Influence with the voters.

[Simply Joel]

September 20, 2004

Waiting for the Candidate to Emerge
By BOB HERBERT

I had a feeling John Kerry was in trouble when, coming out of the primaries, voters kept saying they were for him because he could win. It was clear that many voters had cast primary ballots for Mr. Kerry not because they liked him, or because they felt strongly about his positions on the issues, or because they were drawn to his compelling vision of a better future for the United States and the world, but simply because they felt he was capable of beating George W. Bush.

History tells us you need more of a rationale than that to win the White House. The best candidates offer the electorate not just something, but someone, to believe in. Describing the aftermath of Harry Truman's remarkable triumph over Thomas E. Dewey in 1948, the biographer David McCullough wrote:

"To such staunch Truman loyalists as Sam Rayburn and George Marshall, to the weary White House staff workers who had been with him all the way, there was never any question as to why Truman won. He had done it by being himself, never forgetting who he was, and by getting to the people in his own fashion."

Who is John Kerry? He doesn't seem to want to let on. More than anything else, he presents himself as someone who fought in Vietnam. But that was more than 30 years ago. Who is he now?

A longtime Democratic operative recently complained, "He's not displaying a moral center, or showing us a philosophical foundation. For him, it's all about tactics."

Mr. Kerry has suffered recently in the polls primarily because of his reluctance to put his authentic self on display. He's run a cautious, soulless campaign so far, saying only the things he thinks he should, and shadow boxing instead of really mixing it up, as if he were afraid, as Bonnie Raitt once memorably sang, "to throw a punch that might land."

If Mr. Kerry has a message, he's garbled it pretty badly. If he's passionate about anything, he's kept it to himself. George Adair, a 50-year-old Democrat from Alabama who responded to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, was succinct on this point: "I don't feel I have a clear enough picture of Mr. Kerry's agenda."

There is a hunger in America for change. Doubts are rising daily about the fiasco in Iraq. There is a sense that the threat of a terrorist attack in the U.S. may be increasing rather than receding. Economic insecurity remains high.

I believe American voters would exchange George W. Bush for a first-rate Democratic candidate in a heartbeat. More than 50 percent of the poll respondents believed the country was headed in the wrong direction. But the poll also showed that regardless of how the respondents intended to vote, 61 percent believed Mr. Bush would win in November.

Mr. Kerry has only a few weeks to turn things around. Nearly everyone who thinks the Bush administration has been a disaster for the United States is rooting for him. Sort of. More precisely, they are rooting for Mr. Bush to lose. And this, I think, is Mr. Kerry's fundamental problem.

He was selected by Democratic voters because they thought he could beat the president. But he has yet to exhibit the warmth or political savvy necessary to fully energize potential supporters and achieve that victory. An overly cerebral campaign fronted by a candidate too inhibited to blow the whistle on the insanity surrounding us is a big-time recipe for defeat.

John Kerry needs to make a stronger emotional connection with voters, and he won't be able to do that without revealing more of what he truly feels and believes - in other words, more of himself.

Voters may want change, but they don't want to step into the unknown. The race is still close enough for Mr. Kerry to prevail, and there are debates coming up. But time is short.

The No. 1 issue facing the United States is the war in Iraq. Senator Kerry intends to address that issue again this week. If he tries to finesse it, if he tries to play hawk and dove at the same time, if he fails to draw convincingly a clear and distinct line between his approach to this great tragic misadventure and that of the Bush administration, he might as well fold his campaign tents and go home.

Senator Kerry said over the weekend that he was ready to step up his campaign effort, that he was in a "fighting mood.'' We'll see.

Leadership at times requires great courage. John Kerry has not yet closed the deal with voters who are dissatisfied with President Bush. He may find, in the final weeks of this campaign, that the most important quality he can draw upon is the courage to be himself.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

I believe American voters would exchange George W. Bush for a first-rate Democratic candidate in a heartbeat.

So, does this statement infer that John Kerry is not a first-rate Democratic candidate?

[Simply Joel]

September 21, 2004

Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand

By DAVID BROOKS

Yesterday John Kerry came to New York University and did something amazing. He uttered a series of clear, declarative sentences on the subject of Iraq. Many of these sentences directly contradict his past statements on Iraq, but at least you could figure out what he was trying to say.

First, Kerry argued that Iraq was never a serious threat to the United States, that the war was never justified and that Bush's focus on Iraq was a "profound diversion" from the real enemy, Osama bin Laden.

Second, Kerry argued that we are losing the war in Iraq. Casualties are mounting, the insurgency is spreading, and daily life is more miserable.

Third, Kerry argued that in times like this, brave leaders should tell the truth to the American people. Kerry reminded his audience that during Vietnam, he returned home "to offer my own personal voice of dissent," and he's decided to do the same thing now. The parallel is clear: Iraq is the new Vietnam.

Finally, Kerry declared that it is time to get out, beginning next summer. The message is that if Kerry is elected, the entire momentum of U.S. policy will be toward getting American troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible and shifting responsibility for Iraq onto other countries.

The crucial passage in the speech was this one: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden." From a U.S. responsibility, Iraq will become the world's responsibility.

Kerry said the United Nations must play a central role in supervising elections. He said other nations should come in to protect U.N. officials. He called for an international summit meeting this week in New York, where other nations could commit troops and money to Iraq. He said NATO should open training centers for new Iraqi soldiers.

He talked about what other nations could do to help address the situation in Iraq. He did not say what the U.S. should do to defeat the insurgents and stabilize and rebuild Iraq, beyond what Bush is already doing. He did not say the U.S. could fight the insurgents more effectively. He did not have any ideas on how to tame Falluja or handle Moktada al-Sadr. He did not offer any strategy for victory.

But he did, more than at any time in the past year, stake out a clear contrast with Bush.

The president's case is that the world is safer with Saddam out of power, and that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy. Kerry's case is that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam; his emphasis is on untangling the United States from Iraq and shifting attention to more serious threats.

Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?

By picking the withdrawal camp, he has assigned himself a clear task. Right now 54 percent of likely voters believe that the U.S. should stay as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq, while 39 percent believe that we should leave as soon as possible. Between now and Nov. 2, Kerry must flip those numbers.

Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.

More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.

Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn't we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?

But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[samtzu]

Joel Quoted David Brooks:

Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?

Imply? Yes. Come right out and say it? No... so I will say it: over 1,000 troops have died for nothing. Vietnam should have taught us that (and did teach some of us)
Also:

Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn't we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?

This is just Kerry-baiting. If Bush did a flip-flop and said "Let's get them out now" it would still take a year... or more!... to get the last troops out. Vietnam taught us that one, too.

I don't read as much political crap as I should, but this kind of crap only serves the elephants that are battling on the bridge of mice. The mice are getting squished no matter who wins.

my $.02 worth...

[Simply Joel]

IRAQ MILESTONE
By William F. Buckley Jr.

Well, John Kerry has now taken a position on whether we should have gone into Iraq. (No.) We must assume that that is his settled position, since he tried out all the variations of it before, so that he has now run out of options. Senator Kerry said, on Sept. 20, that knowing what we know now, we'd have done better not to have invaded.

I think he's right. If we could know that the war we are fighting would come to an end at midnight, we could do a balance sheet.

Lost, 1,100 American lives and $100 billion.

Achieved, (1) the deposition of Saddam Hussein; (2) the formal liberation of the Iraqi people from a despotic reign; (3) assurance that whatever program was fancied to build weapons of mass destruction was aborted; and (4) the respect of the world for having seen our duty and acted on it.

But the war will not be over at midnight. We do not know when it will be over and what we will then have accumulated in war dead and treasury depleted, and we do not know for sure what the scene in Iraq will be like when we are through.

A good subject for a seminar at the National War College would be: Was it a good idea to go to war in March 2003?

The affirmative will seek to carry the case by one simple, and hardly unpersuasive, proposition: If your intelligence informs you that an aggressive tyrant has in hand or prospectively in hand weapons of ultimate destructiveness, the United States has no alternative but to proceed by military intervention.

The negative would say: Unless there is reason to suspect an enemy timetable threatening action in days or weeks, one should deliberate alternatives to military intervention, including the possibility that the intelligence is defective.

That debate-seminar will be waged for decades, but not on the presidential election scene. President Bush can't acknowledge, while we are fighting day by day in Iraq, that the very reason for the military engagement is questionable. And Senator Kerry, having at last found a political roost, is not going to stray from it. So we are left with:

We shouldn't have.

We should have.

We need a program of withdrawal.

We have one. A graduated withdrawal is what we are effecting by staying the course.

Supporters of the war who don't have to engage in presidential debates with two-minute deadlines should feel free to acknowledge that if retrospective analysis is permitted, it is impossible to maintain that to have acted in March '03 was wise. But failure to justify the launching of the war does not discredit it. The French spring offensive in 1917 should never have been undertaken, but that didn't discredit the war. Field Marshal Montgomery's bridge-too-far air attack of September 1944 was disastrous, but didn't impair the Allied rationale.

President Bush is saddled with a war the evolution of which he can't retroactively reshape. His difficulty will lie in telling the public what should now be done. But this is a difficulty Kerry also has. Who has an answer to how to save the next American hostage from decapitation? The leverage Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has over U.S. thought and feeling is blindingly exploited by the simple sadism of the blindfolded hostage and the executioner's ax -- a viewer of the video reports that those screams will stay in memory forever. What is to be done about that?

Why is it taking so long to try Saddam Hussein? He was captured in December. Do they really need a thousand witnesses in order to establish his guilt? Why not schedule his beheading to coincide with the next beheading of an American hostage?

There is nothing Kerry can do in the campaign to persuade a majority of American voters that the way to compensate for mistakes of the past generated by unreliable intelligence is to abandon an enterprise to which we are morally committed. Abandoning Vietnam is a historic deed we have yet to reconcile with U.S. idealism. We handle that problem by the expedient of not thinking about it. But Iraq is a mind-filling challenge that can't be made to disappear.

[buckethead alien]

September 21, 2004

Finally, Kerry Takes a Stand

By DAVID BROOKS

Yesterday John Kerry came to New York University and did something amazing. He uttered a series of clear, declarative sentences on the subject of Iraq. Many of these sentences directly contradict his past statements on Iraq, but at least you could figure out what he was trying to say.

Excuse me for saying it, but this is basically bullshit, the party line that Kerry=confused on Iraq.

I have seen Kerry in person twice, once at a 30-person fundraiser in July, 2003, and once at a 700-person event in Aug., 2004. Both times, his position on his Iraq vote seemed clear enough to me, in sum, congress (and Kerry) voted for the use of force based on what the White House told them, Bush abused this vote/trust to initiate the attack on false pretenses. Whether you agree with him or not is a personal matter. The nuances do take a bit of explaining, which is probably why pundits can get away with claiming contradictions, etc. But come on, are Americans really that stupid or is it the fault of TV? I should point out that I attended both fundraisers as a journalist, not as a paying guest.