This thread self-destructs on 3 November 2004

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:41 am

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 · Post by **samtzu** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 11:53 am

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 · Post by **Force** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:28 pm

Simply Joel wrote: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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:30 am

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 · Post by **Force** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:45 pm

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:36 am

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:22 am

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 3:55 am

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:19 am

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:03 am

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:57 am

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

Bob Herbert wrote: 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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:35 am

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 · Post by **samtzu** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:39 pm

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 · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:40 am

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 · Post by **buckethead alien** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:29 am

Simply Joel wrote: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.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:57 am

buckethead alien wrote: 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?

BA, i think the pundits are paid to explain the nuances... and the public then makes a choice of who to believe.

i have always considered Senator Kerry to be a liberal chicken-hawk, former anti-war protestor veteran that never saw a position he didn't like. He is the junior senator to Ted CHAPPIQUIDICK Kennedy which explains to me his voting record.

Are Americans that stupid? No, I think Americans are so overburdened with daily tasks (family, work, leisure) that they must rely on the media and pundits to chew and digest the massive amount of information out there.... (visualize the feeding of newly hatched birds)

Do i think TV is to blame... no, i think the TV watcher is to blame, but hey, that is just my opinion.

now, i must get to work.

buckethead alien · Post by **buckethead alien** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:12 am

Simply Joel wrote: BA, i think the pundits are paid to explain the nuances....

Really?

- Bucket

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:54 am

MAKING CBS PLAY FAIR

Years ago I was part of an odd panel discussion sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It was a flat-footed version of those role-playing dramas that Fred Friendly constructed so brilliantly for PBS, the ones where he would walk around the room posing hypothetical questions that often tied famous journalists up in ethical knots.
I was assigned the role of a newspaper editor who had the option of running a political expose that would have had many wondrous effects on his town but that simply did not check out as true. I said I wouldn't run the story until my reporters nailed it down.

This apparently unexpected position brought the whole poorly thought-out hypothetical to a screeching halt. No complex ethical dilemmas could be built on it. The Fred Friendly stand-in that day, assigned the role of badgering me to run the big story that didn't check out, was Dan Rather.

This brings us to a little-asked question about Rathergate: Why was CBS so determined to broadcast its alleged scoop about George Bush's National Guard service before the story was properly checked out? Four of the six documents involved had been in the possession of "60 Minutes" for only two or three days, and three of the four experts consulted by the network said they couldn't authenticate them. Why didn't CBS just wait a week and do some elementary checking? A halfway decent high school paper would have done as much.

One explanation is that the Democrats and much of the Democrat-friendly media were about to reopen the subject of Bush's Guard service as a payback for the August damage done to John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Maybe CBS feared losing its big scoop. More likely it was just reluctant to come in behind the new wave of retaliatory Bush-bashing instead of leading it.

Another factor is the familiar peril of groupthink. If your newsroom is filled with people who think and vote the same way and who are convinced that Bush is a malevolent character who must be stopped, you are more likely to run through red lights than you would be if a similar half-baked story was about to be sprung on someone you cared about.

What CBS produced was the worst press scandal of our era, revealing a depth of ineptitude and arrogance that even the network's worst critics hardly suspected. Internet bloggers shredded the "60 Minutes" story within three hours of the broadcast's end. Some bloggers were challenging the authenticity of the documents while the program was still being shown on the West Coast. Within a day, the mainstream press picked up the story and further devastated "60 Minutes."

After five days, with the CBS story totally discredited, Rather called his critics "partisan" and said they "can't deny the core truth of this story." He also said that if there was something wrong with the documents, he would like to be the one to break the story -- a story that had been broken days before but amazingly not noticed by him.

When the mistakes-were-made semi-apology finally came, Rather emitted the phrase "if I knew then what I know now." But all he had to do to know it then was to turn on his computer or pick up a copy of the Washington Post.

The network's hostility to Internet commentary was obvious. One CBS news executive referred to bloggers as people writing in their pajamas (i.e., not members of our esteemed guild). Rather associated them with rumor and propaganda. This seems to mean that many in the mainstream press still don't understand bloggers and tend to associate them with the Drudge Report on its worst day.

Bloggers make their case with hyperlinks to primary sources and other data. Arguments without authority count for nothing, and soft-headed analyses and hoaxes are quickly exposed. As RealClearPolitics said, it's a fast-moving, "very transparent, self-correcting environment ultimately based on facts."

Often contrasted with the entrenched big-time media, the bloggers are becoming part of the mainstream. Think of them as the outsourced post-publication checking department of the big-time news media. Dan Rather, or somebody at CBS, should surely take a look.

One good blogger, Jay Rosen of New York University's journalism school, calls the CBS fiasco "just one part of a massive institutional failure at CBS, much of it still to be uncovered." It produced "a full-fledged credibility crisis" and an opportunity for CBS's detractors to "damage beyond recognition one of the big players." Just so. But the goal should be to make CBS more honest, not to delegitimize it or drive it out of business.

The move to exclude CBS's Bob Schieffer from the presidential debates is ominous. Schieffer had nothing to do with Rathergate. Already there are calls for congressional hearings -- a bad idea. Do we want an all-out vengeful assault on CBS, or do we simply want the network to come to its senses and play stories straight?

COPYRIGHT 2004 JOHN LEO

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:26 am

One of Joel's quotes:

the Democrat-friendly media

I consider this a myth, especially in the wake of the CBS fiasco. Did this help the Demos? Nope. If I was a Republican, I would push Dan Rather to broadcast that story, and then watch it blow up. Remember, there are some very subtle people out there, playing some very subtle games. They're not playing chess, they're playing a four dimensional version of Go. On a side note, personally, I think the Republicans were allowed to pick those two Democratic candidates George McGovern and Michael Dukakis. They couldn't have picked better if they tried. Neither one of them could stand up to the Republican candidates that they had to face. Even the "Liberal Media" couldn't save those two.

And this one:

One good blogger, Jay Rosen of New York University's journalism school, calls the CBS fiasco "just one part of a massive institutional failure at CBS, much of it still to be uncovered." It produced "a full-fledged credibility crisis" and an opportunity for CBS's detractors to "damage beyond recognition one of the big players." Just so.

Yup... let's see... a liberal media giant, wounded beyond recognition... Makes me think of Sun Tzu's (a distant relative of mine) thoughts on war... somewhere along the lines of "Get the enemy to destroy himself from within". Sounds like someone's been reading Uncle Sun. I'm waiting to see who falls next... NBC? ABC?

Well, Fox is secure, anyway... since Truth is an alien concept to them anyhow.

calicowboy925 · Post by **calicowboy925** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:42 pm

Simply the Dems are lame pro tax and spend morons, Yep, just like the stop signs with a Reagan sticker under it in the 80's all the left can do is cry and stomp feet over how bad Pres. Bush is. Too bad they cant come up with a viable candidate to win and increase your taxes as if 33% of your paycheck is not enough to waste on drug addict education and entitlements! John Kerry, and HIS lies, yeah, as fucking if and single swift boat went into Cambodia..No, it would have taken an armada! and his purple hearts for scratches and bronze/silver stars for 4 months service in Vietnam?? Puhleeze! Dont get me started on the flip flopper...he votes to go into Iraq, now critisizes the Pres for it. The entire intelligence community, congress and the Exec. branch all operated on the mis information...they based decisions on what they were told. Did you know John "Herman Munster" Kerry is against assault rifles, yet, he OWNS one???? What a piece of shit fake tanned, elitest bourgeous cunt for a wife having putz!

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:07 pm

spend

uh, it's actually the other party, over it's last 4 terms holding down the POTUS position, that holds the spending increase records. As far as taxes go, next guy in office, b or k, is gonna have to raise them due to these last four years. I'll buy you a six pack of coors if I am wrong on that one.

listening to Rush, watching Fox, and swallowing everything the RNC throws at us does not equate to a political education. I recommend a little history.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:12 am

September 30, 2004
WHAT TO ASK JOHN KERRY
The Exit Strategy
By WILLIAM KRISTOL

f President Bush next week were to announce an offensive against Falluja and other terrorist strongholds in the Sunni triangle, would you support it?

•

You have said that we cannot cut and run from Iraq and that we could "realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years." But if you now consider the war to have been a mistake, how could you, as president, "ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake''?

•

You've said that it is unacceptable to allow a second African genocide in a decade, this time in Sudan. You've also said you don't propose sending American troops to Sudan. If it becomes clear that the only way to stop the killing is through armed intervention by a coalition of the willing, led by United States troops but lacking the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, would you as president take such an action?

William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:13 am

WHAT TO ASK JOHN KERRY
A Nuclear Iraq
By RUTH WEDGWOOD

Published: September 30, 2004

The new International Criminal Court has gained the support of many European nations. In a recent statement to the American Bar Association, you asserted that the Bush administration has been "ham-handed" in its approach to the court and has "needlessly alienated" allies on the issue. But you don't say much else - merely that you would "carefully consider the full range of U.S. interests at stake with respect to the court as we review our policy and fashion a more constructive approach."

Do you intend to ask the Senate to ratify the treaty and join the court? How would you ensure that the court respects good-faith differences in war-fighting doctrine? How, in the meantime, would you prevent the court from asserting criminal jurisdiction, without American consent, over members of the United States military deployed abroad?

•

After the 1998 bombings of American Embassies in East Africa, President Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes against Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. Should we have responded more vigorously then, and to the bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in 2000? Was there any additional military option before 9/11 that would have made sense?

•

The former head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear centrifuge program, Mahdi Obeidi, says that Iraq's nuclear program "could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers." Now in the United States, Mr. Obeidi says that Mr. Hussein continued to back a long-range missile project and harbored "the illusion in his mind that he had a nuclear program," constrained only by economic sanctions.

But economic sanctions against Iraq would almost certainly have been lifted by the United Nations once arms inspections were completed. How then could we have guarded against Mr. Hussein's reckless intentions? If you were president, would you have judged regime change a bad policy, assuming that legal requirements were met?

Ruth Wedgwood is a professor of international law and diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:16 am

September 30, 2004
WHAT TO ASK JOHN KERRY
Spread Democracy
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

How might you explain the apparent abrupt change in policy of Libya; the unexpected removal of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb; and the about-face in Saudi Arabia - and what precise plans do you have to induce similar such positive changes in attitude in Iran, Lebanon and Syria?

•

In January, you promised to be a president who "reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe - and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world." More recently, however, you have chastised President Bush for saying that he will do precisely that, suggesting that his "hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers." As president, would you send those departing American troops back into Germany and on the Korean Peninsula to restore previous levels? And if not, why?

•

President Bush was the first American president to isolate Yasir Arafat. Do you agree with the president's radical step of ostracizing Mr. Arafat? If so, would you also ensure that he is no longer a party to the Middle East peace negotiations?

Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:18 am

Politics - washingtonpost.com

The Media, Losing Their Way

Sun Sep 26, 1:00 AM ET
By David S. Broder

We don't yet know who will win the 2004 election, but we know who has lost it. The American news media have been clobbered.

In a year when war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism and looming problems with the federal budget and the nation's health care system cry out for serious debate, the news organizations on which people should be able to depend have been diverted into chasing sham events: a scurrilous and largely inaccurate attack on the Vietnam service of John Kerry and a forged document charging President Bush with disobeying an order for an Air National Guard physical.

With these events coming after the editors of two respected national newspapers, the New York Times and USA Today, were forced to resign because their organizations were duped by lying staff reporters, it is hard to overcome the sense that the professional practices and code of responsibility in journalism have suffered a body blow.

After almost a half-century in this business, I certainly feel a sense of shame and embarrassment at our performance. The feeling is not relieved by the awareness that others in journalism not only did fine work on other stories but took the lead in exposing these instances of gross malpractice.

The common feature -- and the disturbing fact -- is that none of these damaging failures would have occurred had senior journalists not been blind to the fact that the standards in their organizations were being fatally compromised.

We need to be asking why this collapse has taken place.

My suspicion is that it stems from a widespread loss of confidence in both the values of journalism and the economic viability of the news business.

The first symptom of wavering confidence that I spotted came when news organizations -- television particularly, but print as well -- began offering their most prestigious and visible jobs not to people deeply imbued with the culture and values of newsrooms, but to stars imported from the political world. Journalists learn to be skeptical -- of sources and of their own biases as well. If they are any good, they are tough on themselves. Politicians learn something very different -- how to please the public. They try to satisfy others, not themselves.

As the path from the White House and political campaigns to the slots as TV anchor or interviewer or op-ed columnist or editor was trod by more and more people, the message to aspiring young journalists was clear.

The way to the top of journalism was no longer to test yourself on police beats and city hall assignments, under the skeptical gaze of editors who demanded precision in writing and careful weighing of evidence. It was to make a reputation as a clever wordsmith, a feisty advocate, a belligerent or beguiling political personality, and then market yourself to the media.

These hires were made by executives who themselves had little commitment to the solid and steady journalistic values that come from working a beat for a sustained period of time. They were looking for quick fixes for their circulation or ratings -- and they thought the star system or the "big story" would save them.

But to their dismay, TV news show ratings continued to decline, newspaper circulations slumped and the fickle public -- whose wishes editors now took as their command -- switched to even more sensational outlets: the cable talk shows and infotainment formats that put argument, gossip and amusement at the top.

When the Internet opened the door to scores of "journalists" who had no allegiance at all to the skeptical and self-disciplined ethic of professional news gathering, the bars were already down in many old-line media organizations. That is how it happened that old pros such as Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines got caught up in this fevered atmosphere and let their standards slip.

Time was when any outfit such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that came around peddling an ad with implausible charges would have run into a hard-nosed reporter whose first questions -- before he or she ran with the story -- would have been, "Who the hell are you guys? What's your angle? What's your proof?"

Any Texan with a grudge against George Bush and the National Guard who suddenly produced a purported photocopy of an explosive 30-year-old order signed by a dead man would have been treated with the deep distrust he deserved by the reporters to whom he offered his wares. And no professional journalist would have made a call to the Kerry campaign encouraging a flack to contact this dubious source.

We've wandered a long way from safe ground in the news business. Sometimes I wonder if we can find our way back.

[email protected]

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:48 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magaz ... &position=

5 simple words...

OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY

"When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts."

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:15 pm

Setting aside symantics of who's optimistic and who's not, does GW think he'll really be able to wipe terrorism off the face of the planet? Is that what you're saying is the preferable position?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:13 am

Alpha wrote:Setting aside symantics of who's optimistic and who's not, does GW think he'll really be able to wipe terrorism off the face of the planet? Is that what you're saying is the preferable position?

"able" might not be the word i would use... "willful" enough, yes.

and as i have stated previously.... i am making my choice on which candidate is more likely to scare the crap out of the terrorists.

having said that, a little punditry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 19, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Kerry Off the Leash
By DAVID BROOKS

ohn Kerry wasn't nominated because of his sparkling personality. He wasn't nominated because of his selfless commitment to causes larger than himself. He was nominated because he's a fighter. At the end of every campaign he comes out brawling. This was the guy who could take on Bush.

So nobody could imagine how incompetent, crude and over-the-top Kerry has been in this final phase of the campaign. At this point, smart candidates are launching attacks that play up the doubts voters already have about their opponents. Incredibly, Kerry is launching attacks that play up doubts voters have about him. Over the past few days, he has underscored the feeling that he will say or do anything to further his career.

In so doing, he has managed to squelch any momentum he may have had coming out of the first two debates. Some polls have him stagnant against Bush. More polls show Bush recovering from the debate season and now pulling slightly ahead. The blunt truth is that Kerry is losing the final phase of this campaign.

Let's review the string of heavy-handed assaults from the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

On Monday, Kerry told seniors in Florida that Bush is plotting a "January surprise" to cut their Social Security benefits by as much as 45 percent. "That's up to $500 a month less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift for a grandchild."

As Kerry knows, that's ludicrous - it's a stale and transparent canard that Democrats have brought out in election after election, to less and less effect. President Bush has not entertained and would not entertain any plan that cut benefits to seniors. Bush would sooner give up any Social Security reform than cut benefits.

Kerry's second wild attack is that Bush would reinstate the draft. The administration, which hasn't even asked for trivial public sacrifices in a time of war, does not want to bring back the draft. The Pentagon does not want to bring back the draft. The Republican Party does not want to bring back the draft. Given the nature of military technology, it doesn't make sense to bring back the draft. There may be some in the bureaucracy taking precautions, but it is hard to imagine an attack with less basis in fact.

Kerry's third attack is the whole Mary Cheney thing. That's been hashed over enough. But remarkably, Kerry has not apologized. You use somebody's daughter to attack the father and his running mate. The parents are upset. The only decent thing is to apologize. If anything, an apology would make Kerry look admirable. But Kerry, in his permanent attack dog mode, can't do the decent and politically advantageous thing.

The fourth assault is Kerry's attack on the Bush administration's supposed "ban" on stem cell research. John Edwards's ludicrous statement that if Kerry was president, people like Christopher Reeve would be able to get up and walk was only the farcical culmination of a series of exaggerations about the possibilities of finding cures for Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries.

I'm not trying to make a moral point here about sleazy campaigning. Politics ain't beanbag, and in the final days of a close campaign, exaggerations are the norm. I'm talking about competence and what this period says about Kerry and his campaign.

Bush's key vulnerability is that people fear he is in over his head. By lashing out wildly, Kerry muddles all that. Instead his blunderbuss approach suggests a candidate devoid of perspective, driven by unattractive and naked ambition.

Why is he doing this? First, because in the insular Democratic world, George Bush is presumed to be guilty of everything, so the more vicious you can be about him, the better everybody feels.

But there is a deeper assumption, which has marred Democratic politics for years. Some Democrats have been unable to face the reality that people have been voting for Republicans because they agree with them. So these Democrats have invented the comforting theory that they've been losing because they are too virtuous for the country.

According to this theory, Republicans - or usually some omniscient, omnipotent and malevolent strategists, like Lee Atwater or Karl Rove - have been tricking the American people into voting against their true interests. This year, many Democrats decided, we'll be vicious in return.

The truth, however, is that voters are not idiots. They are capable of independent thought. If you attack your opponent wildly, ruthlessly, they will come to their own conclusions.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:33 am

Here's news to ya: no pasty American living like the hogs that we are, is going to "scare the hell out of" Islamist extremists. Which is exactly why I'm going to vote against GW -- the key to restoring our safety lies in building a mutual respect (or at least, indifference) with those who have attacked us. If that seems equally improbably to killing every last terrorist on the planet, well then at least a pacifist stance will improve America in the world view. Nobody loves a unilateral war-monger.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:55 am

Alpha wrote:Nobody loves a unilateral war-monger.

Saddam Hussien?

Saddam's Brain
From the November 11, 2002 issue: The ideology behind the thuggery.
by David Brooks
11/11/2002, Volume 008, Issue 09

WHEN FACULTY MEMBERS at the Sorbonne gather to discuss who should get the prize for most evil alumnus, they probably rehash all the familiar names--Pol Pot, mastermind of the Cambodian genocide; Abimael Guzman, leader of Peru's Shining Path guerrilla movement; and Ali Shariat, the intellectual godfather of the Iranian revolution. But they really should give serious consideration to Michel Aflaq.

It was Aflaq, a Syrian intellectual and political organizer, who founded the Syrian and Iraqi Baath parties. It was Aflaq, too, who in 1963 elevated Saddam Hussein to the Regional Command in Iraq's Baath party, and so set him on his course to dictatorship. And it was Aflaq who laid down the ideology that continues to dominate Saddam's thinking today. Saddam Hussein, after all, isn't a general who took over a government by means of a military coup. He's not only a thug, a ruthless tribal leader, a Don Corleone-style Godfather, a power-mad dictator. He is first and foremost a political activist, a party man.

Saddam grew up as a cadre in the highly ideological and dogmatic Baath party structure. His speeches, from the time he entered government in 1968 until today, have had a consistent ideological, pseudo-intellectual character, even if in the past decade a layer of Islamist rhetoric has been added. From his first declarations to his last, he has always presented the Arabs as the master race, whose history and accomplishments are glorious. He has always had a mystical belief in self-purification through violence, the notion that the soul is
elevated through warfare and killing. And most important, he has always been committed to the life of relentless struggle, of ever-widening wars and confrontations, of perpetual revolution, which undermines all objective truth, all stability, all possibility of rest and peace. He has believed all this in the name of some final and transcendent conquest for himself and the Arab nation.

These beliefs and habits of mind he absorbed from the Baath party, and ultimately from its founder-leader. "It is Michel Aflaq who created the party and not I," Saddam told an interviewer in 1980. "How can I forget what Michel Aflaq has done for me? Had it not been for him, I would not be in this position." It was Aflaq whom Saddam installed in a top party post once he became dictator. It is Aflaq whom Saddam cites when he insists, as he does frequently, that the Baath party is not like other parties. Instead, he says, it is a believer's creed, similar in faith and purpose to early Islam, which offers "spiritual ascendance in the process of the nation's uplift" through "great deeds in conquest, liberation, justice, altruism, and flexibility."

In their statements, the Iraqi opposition forces refer to the government of Iraq as the "Aflaqite regime," emphasizing that the regime is not just one evil man; it is a party structure organized around a transcendent ideology, an ideology that produced the monster Saddam, but that is bigger than any individual.

MICHEL AFLAQ was born in Damascus in 1910, a Greek Orthodox Christian. He won a scholarship to study philosophy at the Sorbonne sometime between 1928 and 1930 (biographies differ), and there he studied Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Mazzini, and a range of German nationalists and proto-Nazis. Aflaq became active in Arab student politics with his countryman Salah Bitar, a Sunni Muslim. Together, they were thrilled by the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, but they also came to admire the organizational structure Lenin had created within the Russian Communist party.

This thread self-destructs on 3 November 2004

This opinion may set your follicles afire....

and this is from a liberal pundit...