Female Intuition

Women definitely think in a different way than men. Here's an interesting (and valid!) way of looking at things.

excerpt:

So… what if I just trust my female intuition?

Here’s what I came up with…

I’m 30-something and single. I’ve had some good relationships and some really $#itty ones. What made the good ones good? The guys, of course. What about them, though? I mean, there was a great “us” but I’m trying to limit it to just the guys.

- They treated me really well and respected my opinion
- They wouldn’t keep me guessing, and I knew I could count on him
- They might not always say the right thing but his actions proved how much he loved me
- They tried to never say mean things about other people
- I knew they accepted me just the way I am and even loved my faults
- They would always stand up for me no matter who it was

And what about the losers?

- They knew the lines and knew how to charm me (and I still can’t believe I fell for that!)
- They were selfish: put themselves first, ahead of me, ahead of anyone else
- They were not really mean guys and some were nice, but they never really intended to stay around very long - they were out for themselves (sounding familiar?)
- They would tell me whatever I wanted to hear - at the moment - then I'd catch them in a lie and they'd change their story until I finally caught on months later
- When things started going bad, they were full of excuses that I wanted to believe them even though I knew better

So this is what I came up with…

Basically I already assume we’ll have chemistry or I wouldn’t even consider him. But for the long haul, I want a man who is going to love me and who will stand by me to the very end, no matter how hard it is. I want a man whom I can love madly and passionately through the good times. The difference is that only a special man will have the staying power to suffer through the really hard times. In a nutshell, I’ll know I can trust him. I’ve had a lot of heartbreaks, and I’ve had boyfriends when I always worried where he was, with whom, what he was doing…

In a husband, when I walk down the aisle, I’ll know that he’s going to stick with me until the very end.

So (deep breath!) what it boils down to, is this…

I've come to realize that I probably won't be able to tell what's the truth and what's lies, and I'm not going to rely on the news for this election. I'm going to use my heart - my female wisdom.

About Iraq… I know that today I feel safe, and I won’t ever forget what I saw on t.v. on 9/11. I do know I never want to see anything like that again for myself, my friends, my family, or my kids when I have them. I have a distant relative in the Army and a friend of an ex in the Air Force, and they tell me very different stories about Iraq from what I hear on the news, so I take everything with a grain of salt that I see on t.v. or hear on the radio.

But the real bottom line is this – we really don’t know the future. When I get married I will hope for a white picket fence, a dog in the yard, two or three kids… and in the back of my mind I know that life can be full of surprises, good and bad. I want a wonderful man beside me whom I love and respect and I know I can trust so we can make it through.

Somehow, after all that, I know that I really don’t like him that much, and he’s definitely not my type. But of the two, I trust George Bush more. I have really tried to trust John Kerry, but it just doesn’t click. I can’t really explain it. Maybe it’s an intuition thing.

George Bush is not, by any stretch, the best president I’ve seen, and actually he’s pretty darned mediocre. But you know, he doesn’t brag about himself (insecure men brag about themselves - this I know!), he’s pretty simple, and he’s basically a good guy. He seems decent, and what makes the main difference is how much he loves and respects Laura – and listens to her. He really needs her and you can tell. And it’s pretty obvious how much she admires him. If they can keep their marriage and family together, and after all those years, he still has that sparkle in his eye for his wife – then that speaks volumes. I saw it myself on t.v. No debate commentator has to tell me that. And I had a hard time with Kerry talking about marrying up and then talking about his mom (Mama's boy?! - I've seen this before, too!).

Anyway, if Bush can keep his life together after everything that’s happened - keep his marriage intact and his wife happy, that’s all I need to know. I trust the guy, even if I don’t like him that much – and he gets my vote. I hope when I'm married if my husband makes public appearances, that he'll talk about me like that.

Pretty good common sense there. Another point that most women (should!) know is that you don't marry a guy hoping he'll change. What you see is what you get. Andrew Sullivan, are you listening?

Drawing the Truth

Cox and Forkum are the best political cartoonists working today. Just ran across this image (click to zoom):

Some Very Good Ads

My ad-blocking software does not always work, and for once I'm glad. While reading the Mark Steyn article I mentioned in the last post, an AirTrans airlines ad automatically played. It was so good I played it again. When I reloaded the page, I didn't get the AirTran ad back, so I googled to find where they might be highlighting the ads on their own site. Here's what I found. So far I've watched "Client Dinner", "Fired", and "Shipping".

For all I know, folks will be saying, "Where's this guy been? I've seen these on teevee a hundred times!" That's right folks, I don't watch television!

All Quiet

Let's all be thankful for the quiet lack of news today. Not much going on. No "surprises", no terrorist attacks. A foretaste of having this election over? A couple of good items, though. First, we have, via The Corner a good quote from Tocqueville that rings as true today (I hope!) as it did more than 150 years ago.

Roger Kimball: "Modern readers who first encounter Democracy in America are almost always amazed by Tocqueville’s contemporaneity, his relevance to America now. One example: although the stability of American democracy means that elections present 'no real danger,' Tocqueville notes that one 'can still consider the election of the president as a period of national crisis.'

"'Long before the appointed moment arrives, the election becomes the greatest and so to speak sole business preoccupying minds. The factions at that time redouble their ardor; in that moment all the factitious passion that the imagination can create in a happy and tranquil country become agitated in broad daylight. . . . The entire nation falls into a feverish state; the election is then the daily text of the public papers, the subject of particular conversations, the goal of all reasoning, the object of all thoughts, the sole interest of the present.'

"And then? 'As soon as fortune has pronounced . . . this ardor is dissipated, everything becomes calm, and the river, one moment overflowed, returns peacefully to its bed.'"

Next we have a Mark Steyn column.

excerpts:

Reading the media "endorsements" of John Kerry is like having lunch with a woman who wants to tell you about her great new boyfriend. She spends seven-eighths of the time bitching about the old boyfriend -- cocky, hot-headed, insensitive, never wants to listen, never gonna change -- and in the remaining few minutes tries to come up with the new guy's good points:

"Mr. Kerry himself is not a compelling candidate. But this year he offers a --"

Yes?

"-- a respite, a pause for reappraisal."

That's The Economist, pining for a quiet night in.

"What the Republicans tar as waffling strikes us as --"

Hmm. What is le mot juste?

"-- flexibility."

That's my Sun-Times colleagues, looking for a man they -- or, at any rate, Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan -- can mold.

"According to the Almanac of American Politics, Kerry is 'more respectful of economic free markets' and more inclined to an expansionist foreign policy than --"

Than Ronald Reagan?

"-- than other liberal Democrats."

Oh, well. That's the Des Moines Register, arguing that he doesn't seem like a wimp and a loser if you put him in a room full of even bigger wimps and losers.

...

"Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a 'diversion' does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq --"

You're right, says the Washington Post, he has a commitment problem, but we'll work that out after the wedding.

...

It's only a day or so now till the chad-dangling round of Campaign 2004 begins but, when the lawsuits are over and the bloodletting begins, serious Democrats need to confront the intellectual emptiness of their party, which Kerry's campaign embodies all too well. The Dems got a full tank from FDR, a top-up in the Civil Rights era, and they've been running on fumes for 30 years. Their last star, Bill Clinton, has no legacy because, deft as he was, his Democratic Party had no purpose other than as a vehicle for promoting his own indispensability. When he left, the Democrats became a party running on personality with no personalities to run. Hence, the Kerry candidacy. Despite the best efforts of American editorialists, there's no there there.

Geraghty Has Some Thoughts

From the Kerry Spot.

[----excerpt in full----]

IT'S TIME FOR A LONG LOOK IN THE MIRROR [10/30 02:40 PM]

Okay, having had a good night (and morning) of sleep, I've gathered some more coherent thoughts on this Osama tape and the election.

First, is there any doubt that some bootleg DVD or videotape of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" made it to a remote mountain village somewhere near the Afghan-Pakistan border?

Now we hear Osama saying, "It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important."

Was the story of Bush's seven minutes in the schoolhouse really well known or a hot topic of discussion before Moore's movie came out? Is there any doubt that if not Osama, then one of his flunkies watched that movie and excitedly repeated the story to his spiritual leader, bubbling with excitement that even American filmmakers were exposing the foolishness of the Crusader Bush?

All the stuff Osama said about George H.W. Bush - (has 41 ever been mentioned in a previous Osama tape?) and the Saudis and corruption and the oil deals - does any of that sound any different from the arguments in Fahrenheit 9/11?

I could be proven wrong, but I now have drastically revised my prediction of what's going to happen on election night. A Bush landslide is now exponentially more likely, as every voter walks into the voting booth with the topic of terrorism on his or her mind. It's far and away Bush's strongest issue.

There are times when America wants the eloquent, nuanced multilateral, French-speaking, consensus-building, flexible and cautious negotiator. And then there are times when the country wants the plain-spoken butt-kicking aggressive unilateralist cowboy. Guess which time this is?

A majority of Kerry Spot readers won’t like reading this, but there is a part of me that right now pities John Kerry. This election - (I think, and I could be wrong) was going to be a fairly close race and now is going to be a landslide for Bush. To lose the election because Osama bin Laden decides to pop out of his cave and play pundit, reading the talking points of Michael Moore and sounding calmer than Lawrence O’Donnell… that’s a tough way to lose an long and hard-fought election. Team Kerry gave it their best shot, and now the closing days of the campaign are overtaken by events. It just wasn’t their year.

But this tape probably ought to trigger some serious soul-searching on the left. Let me give you a sense of what I mean:

Last night, I heard secondhand that a left-of-center friend said, during a discussion about the tape, “Well, now I actually agree with bin Laden, I mean, the stuff he said about Bush.”

It was probably meant as a joke, or as a statement of irony. I wasn’t there, so I don’t want to draw conclusions about the statement’s meaning, and apparently the topic of conversation shifted so that no one could really analyze what that speaker meant.

But I have little doubt that in some other corners of our country, a statement like that was probably said and wasn’t a joke, or wasn’t ironic.

There was an old saying about politics stopping at the water’s edge. There was a reason for this, and for the concept of the “loyal opposition.” Suppose the U.S. and another country were in a trade dispute. The other country would want different policies, and thus would want the incumbent party out of power. So they would seize on any criticism from the challenging party, and use it for rhetorical purposes to strengthen their case both with their own population and in other countries. “Even the American challenging party says the incumbent leader’s policies are unfair and a failure.” No party wants to be seen as putting foreign interests ahead of their own citizens’ interests, so they have to be on guard that their arguments aren’t providing fodder for foreign powers with different interests than America.

Over the last three years or so, we have seen that concept obliterated. We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences. He is tarred as a war criminal, a fool, an idiot, a warmonger, a man who trades blood for oil, a mass murderer of innocent civilians, a stooge of sinister corporate interests, a puppet of Cheney, a terrorist himself, the anti-Christ, the second coming of Hitler, a slave to Ariel Sharon, an anti-Muslim hatemonger… and I’m sure I’ve left out plenty.

This rhetoric has been picked up by the British left, the European left, the Arab press, and anti-American interests around the globe. And — to my knowledge — not one Democrat, not one voice on the left has said, “Hey, we know you hate Bush, but stay out of it. He’s our president, leave the criticism of him to us.”

Instead of reacting to the London Guardian’s silly letter-writing campaign with laughter or dismissive criticism, the left embraced it. Why would anyone welcome a foreign power’s advice on how to vote? Next Spring, the British people will hold their election. Why should they listen to my advice or opinion on the choice between Tony Blair and Michael Howard?

The far left hates George W. Bush with a raging fury. So does al-Qaeda. Was it really so shocking that the rhetoric of the former would eventually be taken up by the latter?

No, this tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

“How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?”

UPDATE: I'm not going to go looking for too many "Well, now I agree with Osama" comments from lefties. But I had these comments by Daily Kos readers forwarded to me: "He couldn't believe that Shrub stayed in a classroom reading a book about a goat to kids while his country was being attacked. SMACKDOWN from OBL." Another one: "well I guess I have to agree with the man. Although it pains me. on a side note. Is Amazon shipping F911 to Afgan addresses?"

[----end excerpt----]

Clever, Creative, and Halloweenish

Nicely done.

Amusing Video

A good parody here. Via Daily Recycler.

Words Are Overrated

Some stick figure drawings explain it all best, I think.

Dante at Halloween

Great literary article, touching on many Catholic themes, with a strong tie-in to a Brad Pitt/Kevin Spacey movie!

El Qaeda's Strategy

Interesting article from Front Page Magazine.

Excerpt:

It is a universally understood matter, for a variety of reasons, that al Qaida seeks a political defeat of President Bush, particularly because of his aggressive policy of preemption, which has so successfully undermined terrorism and its funding throughout the broader Middle East. The Jihadists do not necessarily prefer John Kerry or his Party. They want Bush out of the White House so that a transition would take place in the Administration, followed by the shaping of new policy (especially different policy in Iraq) with at least 18 months of strategic inaction.

This is al Qaida's plan. Where once they thought they could paralyze the U.S. mostly through direct attacks like the ones in New York and Washington, they now attempt to attain this objective with a much more insidious campaign. Al Qaida thus endeavors in this election to aid in decisively defeating President Bush and his policies or, at the very least, to help create high political and legal tensions within the American political system. The Bin Laden machine was embolden to choose this path because of what they perceived being a deep difference in the national security and strategic views of the two contending candidates for the Presidency. Remember, the Jihadists have their own political scientists too.

Who Among Us Does Not Love VDH?

Victor Davis Hanson is the anti-Chomsky. His latest is quite good.

excerpts:

Al Qaeda and their appendages in Iraq do not know the requisite numbers of dead or wounded Americans necessary to break the resolve of the United States, but brag that with 1,000 fatalities they are nearing their goal — and thus a few more will give them a change of administration, schedules for withdrawal, an abandoned interim Iraqi government ripe to pluck, and a Lebanon-like paradise to reconstruct the lost sanctuary of Afghanistan. In other words, they are desperate for a reprieve from their looming destruction. Al Qaeda — "the Base" — without a base is not much of a terrorist organization since its own proud appellation has become an ironic joke.

...

Meanwhile, here at home, John Kerry talks about timetables for departure and cessation of the present course. His supporters on the extreme left from George Soros to Michael Moore blame George Bush, not Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, for the current televised butchery. There is a reason why candidate Kerry now painfully insists that he would not precipitously withdraw — because everyone else worldwide, from a Chirac and Schroeder to Arafat and most of the Arab world — suspect that, in fact, he will.

An American flight would shame Tony Blair and John Howard, leave eastern Europe to the bullying of Paris and Berlin, destroy the Iraq interim government, take the heat off Arab autocracies, and send a message that American policy was back to Clintonian-like law enforcement, replete with jargon such as "sensitive" and "nuisance." It does not matter what Kerry would "really" wish to do, since the last two years of campaign rhetoric have earned him the worldwide reputation of the Bush antithesis, and thus his victory would, rightly or wrongly, be interpreted as a complete rejection of toppling Saddam and fostering a constitutional government in his place. His supporters and financial backers on the left would not tolerate anything less than a withdrawal.

...

Our parents were terrified that, should America resort to military force abroad, they would be nuked; we are even more scared that our lethality will earn us the parlor disdain of the French and Germans.

...

They suspect that those who endured Omaha and Utah or scaled Suribachi are long sleeping in their graves, and that a few thousand creeps in Fallujah scare us more than a quarter million in the Bulge did our parents.

...

The truth is that war remains the same the more it changes. For all the technological gadgetry, foreign landscapes, baffling global communications, and endemic pacifism of the present age, war is still a struggle of the human spirit.

...

[W]e simply forget the unchanging requisite of the will to win that trumps all other considerations. John Kerry has no more secret a plan than George Bush — because there is no secret way to pacify Iraq other than to kill the killers, humiliate their cause through defeat, and give the credit of the victory, along with material aid and the promise of autonomous freedom, to moderate Iraqis. Victory on the battlefield — not the mysterious diplomacy of "wise men," or German and French sanction, or Arab League support — alone will allow Iraq an opportunity for humane government.

A Heated Debate

Front Page Magazine has an excellent in-depth symposium between leftists and rightists re:Iraq. It's well worth a read. The impression I get is that the leftists have learned nothing, nothing! in the last 30 years. But then you already knew that (that that would be my impression, I mean). Man, 15 years ago I was an avid reader of Chomsky, The Nation, The Progressive, Z Magazine, etc. The lefties in the symposium are singing the identical tired song that they were regarding Nicaragua, Reagan, etc, etc. I think it was said in the 19th century of the French Bourbon dynasty: "They learn nothing. And forget nothing." Human nature is a strange thing. I don't know what it was that snapped me out of my leftist funk, but I thank God daily (I'm not kidding), that I was snapped out of it. Being a leftist is its own punishment...

Kerry is an Expert on 'Mistakes'

From the Kerry Spot.

[----excerpt in full----]

THE BRILLIANCE OF THIS STRATEGY ELUDES ME
[10/28 03:42 PM]
AP:

"When the Bay of Pigs went sour, John Kennedy had the courage to look America in the eye and say, `I take responsibility, it's my fault," Kerry said, referring to a bungled invasion of Cuba in 1961. "John Kennedy knew how to take responsibility for the mistakes he made and Mr. President, it's long since time for you to start taking responsibility for the mistakes you made."

"You know, mistakes like reminding the Cuban-American community of why they hate the Democratic Party, just five days before an election in which I have staked almost everything on winning in Florida. Mistakes like comparing the popular successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein to a failed coup attempt in Cuba more than forty years ago. Mistakes like that."

[----end excerpt----]

Yup, and mistakes like reminding people of the Democratic Party's foreign policy ineptitude of the last 40 years, and mistakes like reminding people of the consequences of pulling the rug out from fighters for freedom. And mistakes like comparing the U.S. military to the failed Cuba invaders.

The Choice Made Simple

Via this music video from The Daily Recycler. Original Bush video that this is based on is here. Watch 'em both! And no, Bush screwing around on camera 10 years ago is not an outrage, Kos.

Also, via The Daily Recycler, Red Sox pitcher Schilling throws in an endorsement of Bush during a Good Morning America interview, and also says he (Schilling) is not the hero, the troops in the Middle East are.

Good News: Bush Wins, Bad News: Why So Close?

From The Corner:

[----excerpt----]

SOMETHING ABOUT OUR COUNTRY TODAY
[Stanley Kurtz]

I’m afraid I have a more pessimistic take on Jim Geraghty’s good piece today. It’s not that I think America won’t ultimately reelect the president. I think we will reelect George Bush, and for just the reasons Geraghty says. But what does it say about the changes in this country that the battle is so close? It’s true that, historically, Americans don’t walk away from a fight. But if that’s so, why is this election such a nail biter? Why didn’t Joe Leiberman, or a Democrat with similar views, do better in the primaries? Why is the mainstream media backing McGovernite policies? I think the reason for all this is that conservative pessimists like Robert Bork have a point. The fact that a candidate who called America’s soldiers war criminals and threw away his metals could get this close shows that something has changed for the worse. And the reason is that even cultural leaders like the owner and publisher of The New York Times were once radical antiwar activists. Recall that after his second arrest for anti-war protests, Pinch Sulzberger was asked by his father what his son called, “the dumbest question I ever heard in my life:” “If a young American soldier comes upon a young North Vietnamese soldier, which one do you want to see get shot?” The younger Sulzberger answered, “I would want to see the American get shot. It’s the other guy’s country.” The reason John Kerry and his “global test” have even a ghost of a chance in this election is because Sulzberger and the folks who thought like him are now in charge of the media–and much of the rest of our culture. I still think Geraghty’s wise old head is right that Americans with a more traditional view will win in the end. But it would be blindness not to see that something has changed. The rise of the boomer left has put traditional American cultural views in doubt in a way that has never happened before. That what this election is all about.

Posted at 10:17 AM

Mel Gibson

From The Corner:

[----excerpt----]

BRAVEHEART VS. TERMINATOR [KJL]
Listen to Mel Gibson, with his unique flair, taking on Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supports the state's cloning bill on the ballot next Tuesday. clip 1 clip 2

Posted at 01:40 PM

Nordlinger Rules

A great Impromptus column today. It starts with:

They're beauties, the media, aren't they? Aren't they performing . . . well, just about how you'd expect, in the final days of a campaign? I'm surprised Dan Rather doesn't have to say, "I'm Dan Rather, and I approve of this message." You bet he does — approves, that is.

For years, my line has been, "Conservatives make either too much or too little of media bias." Some make too much of it, it is true. But I think the more common error is to make too little of it. It makes a huge difference. How can it not? Even with the proliferation of media, including conservative outlets, over the last few years.

Evan Thomas, the Newsweek editor, cannot be gainsaid: The advantage to Democrats of media bias is enormous. Thomas is to be applauded for his honesty.

Democrats like to dispute this, of course — dispute that media bias is prevalent, and that they are its beneficiaries. I think they should just be grateful.

My aunt said something that tickled me. She said, "I watched the news this morning, and didn't hear much about the election. I figured it meant that Bush was doing well."

Brilliant.

He finishes up with a series of e-mails from readers and their experiences with campaign buttons. Here are a few:

Friends, this is the saddest one. I almost hate to print it, but here it is. Made me sort of angry.

I used to wear a "Vietnamese-American Against Kerry" button until someone on St. Mark's stopped me and delivered a monologue on the Bush police state. When I brought up the real police state that my family lived in (including the re-education camps), he brushed that off and blathered on about Bush and the sorry state of the U.S. I decided to stop wearing the button because I couldn't take the blind idiocy.

...

"Jay, I live in the East Bay suburbs of San Francisco — Walnut Creek, to be exact. The Kerry-Edwards clipboard patrol is often soliciting donations at the local supermarket. I ignore them, except this one time. A very young, very pretty college-coed type asked as I passed by, 'Will you help defeat Bush with a donation?' I replied, 'No thanks, but I am glad to see some younger citizens getting involved in politics.' Since I'm over 50, I felt it was an okay remark, without condescension. Her reply was quick and chilling: 'Bush's concentration camps will be filled with the Jews, then the blacks!' Her eyes had become dark flint and her expression was pure malevolence. For only the third time in my life, I was left utterly speechless. [The letter-writer does not say what the other two times were.] I shook my head and walked slowly to the car. What in G*d's name had been poured into that young lady's head? Did she even know what she was saying?

"I'm voting (for Bush) like my life depends on it, and sending the NRA another donation."

...

"Jay, the Democratic party is the home of the drama queens of politics. The button-wearers — despite being surrounded by wearers of the same buttons — are showing their 'courage,' defying the henchmen of Ashcroft. It's almost sweet, in a pathetic way."

...

"Mr. Nordlinger, your irritation reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw this summer in my tony liberal neighborhood in St. Paul, Minn. The bumper sticker read, 'Another Family for Peace.' The arrogance, the vanity, the moral exhibitionism made me want to go home and make a new bumper sticker that read, 'Another Family for War.' At least that might start a few conversations, not end them.

"In turn, this calls to mind Chris Rock's take on people who give themselves credit for holding to basic principles of good behavior. 'These guys say, "I don't beat my kids." Whaddya want? A cookie? You're not supposed to beat your kids!'"

...

Friends, pay special attention to the last line of this letter:

Mr. Nordlinger,
At my place of business there are probably three of 30 who will vote for Bush. We three try not to antagonize the majority with our clear thinking, but they know where we stand. One of them asked me after one of the debates whether I was still going to vote for Bush. After answering her in the affirmative, I asked why she wouldn't vote for Bush also. She answered that she would not vote for Bush "even if [her] life depended on it." "I know," said I.

Today's Catch

Blogger has barely been working today, and I don't have much time to comment on any of these, but there have been several good items today. I'm just going to link to them in one omnibus post. We have:

A college English class being used for hardcore leftist indoctrination.

Bozell on the egregious Democrat bias of the media.

Goldberg on the egregious Democrat bias of the media.

Derbyshire speaking up for various celebrities against Bush.

A blogger on why registering an illegal alien, felon, or dog, is just as bad as disenfranchising someone through threats or intimidation. A must read!

Right Thinking comments on the Democrat who just tried to run over Katherine Harris.

Ralph Peters on how the terrorists are getting creamed in Iraq and are making a last desperate stand to sway our election.

James Lileks deconstructs Andrew Sullivan's rationale for supporting Kerry. With extreme prejudice.

Our Retreat From Iraq

John Hawkins, in response to Andrew Sullivan's well-telegraphed endorsement of Kerry (I posted about Sullivan previously here), examines the likely outcome if Kerry becomes commander-in-chief.

[----excerpt----]

I don't normally read Andrew Sullivan anymore unless I want to see what the other side is doing, but Sully has finally "officially" endorsed Kerry. Sure, once Bush came out for a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage everyone knew which way Sullivan would go and for all intents and purposes Sully endorsed Kerry back in July, but let's not quibble over small matters.

In any case, since one ludicrous part of Sully's endorsement is getting some noteworthy play, I thought it would be worth responding to Sullivan's incoherent argument about Kerry, Democrats, and the war on terror.

...

Did Sullivan just step out of a time machine? The Cold War ceased to be a "bipartisan effort" (if it ever truly was) about the time George McGovern ran against Nixon. Hell, John Kerry himself met with the representatives of the Vietcong, opposed Reagan's military build-up, wanted to coddle the Sandinistas, thought Reagan was wrong to invade Grenada, and called Reagan's presidency a "moral darkness". Conservatives -- like Ronald Reagan -- did whatever it took to beat the Soviets while liberals -- like John Kerry -- opposed them at every turn. On what planet is that considered "bipartisanship"? The left in this country has practically been dead weight on national security issues -- including the Cold War-- for more than 30 years now.

And that's the problem with the idea that "the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country". Their record over the last three decades or so (at least) shows they're not willing to take that responsibility seriously.

John Kerry is a dovish liberal who has worked to weaken the military and our intelligence services during his Senate career, wasn't a "Cold Warrior," didn't support the invasion of Grenada, the Gulf War, or the invasion of Iraq, and opposed funding our troops in Iraq. To expect a man like Kerry to turn into Scoop Jackson once he gets into office is nutty.

It's like taking a gazelle, putting it into a cage where the only food is small animals, and expecting it to turn into a carnivore because meat is the only thing it has to eat. Well, the gazelle is probably going to starve to death because it's not its nature to eat meat. The same principle applies to anti-war liberals like John Kerry. He's not going to turn into a hawk just because the situation requires it. Instead, we're going to get BOMBED while he twiddles his thumbs at the UN.

Furthermore, Sullivan is totally wrong about this,

"There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq."

Sure there's an alternative. It's called "cutting and running" and in one form or fashion it's what Kerry would likely do in Iraq.

Let me tell you why I say that.

For his entire campaign against President Bush, Kerry has been making grand promises about Iraq. His pitch to the American people has in essence been,

"Everything George Bush is doing in Iraq is wrong, but I can fix it! And how will I do that? My plan is to do what George Bush has been doing, but better! Just wait until I get the French, the Germans, NATO, and the UN involved. Boy howdy, everything will be great then! I'll get allies to do the fighting and dying while we bring the troops home. Yes, with John Kerry running the show, it'll be all rainbows, sugar cookies, puppy dog tails, and fluffy kittens in Iraq!"

But once Kerry gets into office, he's going to get a dose of ugly reality.

All those allies he's promising aren't going to materialize or their contributions will be minimal. Moreover, the allies we already have will start to look for a way out since they can't count on "Mr. Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" to hang in there.

The "insurgents" will probably RAMP UP their attacks as well. Everyone knows Kerry may bug out of Iraq. That's a morale builder for the enemy. It gives them hope and a reason to keep killing that they wouldn't have if George Bush were in office. Outlasting Bush? It's not going to happen. But, outlasting Kerry? That's a real possibility and everybody, including the enemy, knows it.

And after Kerry has been in office a few months, what happens when soldiers are still dying and Iraq doesn't turn into paradise? What happens when the majority of Kerry's base, which didn't support the war in the first place, starts yelling, "Get out, get out, get out!?!" I'll tell you what's going to happen. Some smart guy, some political genius is going to tell Kerry...

"Hey, this war in Iraq is thought of right now as "George Bush's War". But, if you stay there long enough, people are going to regard it as "John Kerry's war". Your base doesn't want to be there and since we haven't turned the whole country into Belgium in 6 months, it's starting to hurt you at the polls. So here's my advice: get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and just tell the American people that George Bush screwed things up so badly that you couldn't fix it. There's your ready made excuse to run for the hills."

You can say, "Oh, that wouldn't happen; it would be a disaster," but that depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? Was the way Vietnam turned out a disaster? People like me, we'd say "yes, absolutely". But for liberals, a war one of their own -- Lyndon Johnson -- hopelessly screwed up is still to this day their first line of defense when they argue against other wars,

"We can't fight this war, it'll turn into another Vietnam!"

"Sure the war is a week old, but someone got killed, just like in Vietnam!"

"War doesn't work, remember Vietnam!"

If we get John Kerry in office and he blows Iraq, that'll just give the Michael Moores, Ted Ralls, and yes, the John Kerrys of the world one more reason to argue that war doesn't work. Hey, it's exactly what they did after Vietnam.

Summing this all up: putting John Kerry in the White House isn't going to make liberals, other than the odd Christopher Hitchens type, get serious about national security. Remember that the Democrats had a credible candidate running for the nomination who was serious about national security. His name was Joe Lieberman and he got BURIED. What does that tell you, especially in the post-9/11 world we live in, folks? If 9/11 didn't wake the Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis of the world up, what makes anyone think putting John Kerry in charge of Iraq will do the trick given that Kerry can just let Iraq nosedive into the pavement and blame Bush for it? It just doesn't make any sense. That's why people who are serious about protecting America from terrorist attacks are going to be voting for Bush, not the party of Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, & John Kerry.

[----end excerpt----]

It is my belief that the retreat from Iraq would not be just a regrettable result of Kerry's dovishness, but is an intrinsic part of his plan. Kerry is a Europhile and a one-worlder. That whole ethos has taken a grievous beating over the last four years. The UN and "Old Europe" stand utterly discredited, the big kumbaya group hug of the global village is nowhere to be seen anymore, and the US is flexing its muscles militarily while trying to spread freedom rather than nihilism around the globe. Whether consciously or not, it is Kerry's motivation to neuter US power by engineering a humiliating retreat from Iraq. If he can accomplish that, it will be another generation before we'd be willing to use our military in such a way again.

Trio of Excellent Think Pieces

These three are worth reading in depth. We've got an analysis of why Arabic Islam is a failed civilization, VDH on how only victory can win Middle Eastern hearts and minds, and an essay in praise of premature war.

Here's an excerpt from the first article:

Cigarette dangling from his lips, the moneychanger squinted at me as if I were a phony dinar note. “You are American?” he asked, as a group of men behind him fixed me with unfriendly stares. “Tell me,” he continued, slapping Iraqi bills on the countertop, “why does Bush invade our land?” Seeking a quick exit from this conversation, I suggested that the U.S. sought to bring democracy to Iraq. “You are wrong, my friend,” declared the moneychanger, as his friends snorted and shook their heads. “America cares nothing about democracy—she wants only to steal our oil and make Israel more powerful. Believe me, we know this. America invaded Iraq to make Israel number one!”

I’d entered this Baghdad storefront last March to change some dollars, not talk politics. Yet while I usually ignored the opinions of the Iraqi “street,” this time something compelled me to respond. “America invaded Iraq to make Israel ‘number one?’ That’s stupid!” I scoffed, startling the Arabs. “Israel already is number one. In its military and economy”—thinking of per capita GDP here—“Israel is the strongest country in the Middle East. And do you know why? Because it is a democracy! Once Iraq becomes a democracy, who knows? Maybe you’ll be number one!” Unsure if I was criticizing Israel or supporting Iraq, the men looked confused and I left without further discussion. At last, I thought, a riposte to Arab conspiracy theories!

Mark Steyn on Guardian Assassination 'Jest'

Mark Steyn puts in his well-written two cents on the Guardian story I highlighted previously.

excerpt:

By the weekend, the Guardian had thought through the implications of Brooker's comments, and decided that it would be rather embarrassing to be flying in the lucky winners of the big Clark County competition for their US vacation only to discover, as the plane was diverted to Guantanamo, that the entire editorial staff had been placed on a Justice Department watch list. So in re Charlie Wilkes Harvey Brooker, they issued a clarification: "Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

I can't say I'm a regular reader, so the humour in the column was lost on me - the "joke" is that he wants Dick Cheney to be president, is that it?

Hey-ho. In his mea sorta culpa, he's managed to nail the defects of "the entire civilised world". If by the "civilised world" you mean Europe, Guardian editors, BBC political-discussion panellists, that nice bird from the New Zealand Green Party you met at a conference to demand something be done about something etc, this world is defined almost entirely by its passivity. Whether or not everything is an "ironic joke", hardly anything at all is a "call to action". Does the EU have a position on Darfur? And, if so, who cares?

Brooker's ironic assassination target, being famously moronic, is deluded enough to believe that, when one takes a position on something, one is expected to act on it. But in the "entire civilised world" that's no longer necessary: "Sneer globally, act fitfully" is the watchword.

If Bush Wins, He's Harry S. Truman

Tech Central Station has an article which serves as a sister piece to a piece I referenced in an earlier post, a post which was entitled "If Kerry Wins, He's LBJ". The new piece examines the many parallels between this election and the election of 1948.

Via PoliPundit.

Military Reservist Gives Kerry What-For

Via PoliPundit. A frequent commenter named Oak Leaf resents Kerry's treatment of the bogus "missing explosives" story. Given military realities, Kerry is insulting the soldiers, not Bush. I'm excerpting Oak Leaf's open letter in full:

An Open Letter to Senator John F. Kerry

Dear Senator Kerry:

Yesterday, in response to a New York Times article on unaccounted for munitions, you specifically stated, “The unbelievable incompetence of this president and his administration has put our troops at risk.” Further, throughout the campaign, you continually denigrate “the administration” for every negative event that has occurred in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This Officer, and many of my peers, as plans officers, considers your reference to “the administration” as a direct attack on our professional and competent military judgment.

As a United States Senator you understand that this administration is not involved in the micro-management of either Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. Thirty-seven years ago, during the war in which you served, President Johnson and Secretary McNamara were deeply involved in the micro-management of the Vietnam Conflict. Today, military scholars consider that micro-management as a reason for the failure of US Forces in Vietnam. President Bush however, has chosen to leave the warfighting decisions in the Global War on Terror to the professionals of the US Military.

You would like to leave the impression with the American people, that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld developed the “war plan” for Iraq in the Oval Office. The truth is the order to carry out Operation Iraqi Freedom was a single one page letter of instruction signed by the President, and delivered to the Services through the Secretary of Defense. At that time, Operational Plans were developed by literally thousands of highly trained officers and every conceivable contingency went through a war game planning process that included force planners at all levels and the various Staff Colleges and War Colleges. These Operational Plans and Contingency Plans numbered hundreds of thousands of pages that would be made available to all levels of combat commanders in a real time network environment. These contingency plans are continuously updated and prepared to reflect changes on the ground in a real time environment.

Operation Iraqi freedom carried the “Powell Doctrine” of overwhelming raw numerical personnel force one step further. A force multiplier was developed that took into consideration technology as a force multiplier. One US Infantryman of today is equal to two Infantryman of yesterday. By all historical standards, both the combat and occupation phases of Iraqi Freedom were and continue to be a complete military success.

Today, less than twenty-four hours after your speech denigrating “the administration”, we discover through the reporting of NBC News, that the 380 tons of missing explosives were gone before US Troops arrived at the installation.

Today’s military rejects the “zero defects mentality” of years past and learns from and admits our mistakes openly and willingly. The “mistakes” and “blunders” that you are attributing to “the administration” are in fact de-facto attacks on the professionalism of every serving military officer. The Officers that you wish to command resent that. Today, you owe an apology to the Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers of the Army War College, the Navy War College, the Air War College, the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, the Air Command and Staff College, the Army Command and General Staff College, US Army Forces Command, Central Command, Special Operations Command and all the Service Elements.

— Oak Leaf

Hewitt on NYTrogate

Hugh Hewitt has some interesting thoughts and links on the bogus NYT "missing explosives" story. At the end of his post, he quotes Belmont Club who says:

"[T]he RDX explosive was already gone by the time US forces arrived. Although one may retrospectively find some fault with OIF order of battle, most of the damage had already been inflicted by the dilatory tactics of America's allies which allowed Saddam the time and space -- nearly half a year and undisturbed access to Syria -- necessary to prepare his resistance, transfer money abroad and disperse explosives (as confirmed first hand by reporters ). Although it is both desirable and necessary to criticize the mistakes attendant to OIF, much of the really "criminal" neglect may be laid on the diplomatic failure which gave the wily enemy this invaluable opportunity. The price of passing the "Global Test" was very high; and having been gypped once, there are some who are still eager to be taken to the cleaners again."

Hewitt then observes:

"The price of passing the 'Global Test' was very high." I nominate this for best blog line of 2004 because it perfectly sums up the perils of a Kerry-led American foreign policy. Throughout the run-up tot he war, Frank Gaffney would again and again warn on my radio show that the most telegraphed punch in history was having consequences we could not calculate. All because of a "food-for-oil" suckling international bureaucracy of Saddam enablers which Kerry wants to expand and strengthen as a check on American unilateralism.

Spin all you want, Josh, but whatever was spirited away by the very bad guys was spirited away because the French/German-led old Europe blocked us from moving quickly. The coalition of the bribed and circumscribed delayed the coalition of the willing, and now the would be leader of the former is campaigning for office on the platform of even more delay and denial. I don't think the American voter is going to do the sums the way Josh and the Kerry-NYTimes ticket hope they will.

Is It Time, At Long Last, To Pull CBS's License?

According to Drudge, 60 Minutes was planning on running the bogus "missing explosives" story on election eve. Unfortunately, the NYT beat them to it, but then NBC news pointed out that the explosives were missing before we even invaded. In other words a non-story! But if CBS had had its way, that would've been pointed out only after the election. A couple of thoughts quickly come to mind. First, if two non-stories (the national guard memos, and the "missing explosives") are the best that the most corrupt of the MSM can come up with, then Bush must be pretty squeaky clean, indeed. Therefore he deserves re-election. Secondly, trying to throw an election during wartime on trumped up charges, and throwing it in favor of the candidate whom the enemy obviously favors (and what serious observer could possibly deny that?) is sedition. Pure and simple. Maybe CBS stands for Clearly Bidding at Sedition.

Definitely read the Drudge item. It concludes with:

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.

"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.

Update: Brian Tiemann is also eloquently, well, Peeved about all of this.

Partial Transcript

Of the O'Donnell meltdown (via Opinion Journal).

excerpt:

It's one of the many lies that the book advances. To me the most interesting lie, John O'Neill, that I would submit to you that you should answer, is, you make a lying claim that John Kerry's antiwar activity prolonged the amount of time that prisoners of war were held in Vietnam. . . . That's a lie, John O'Neill! Keep lying, it's all you do! . . . Lies! . . . Which is not in John O'Neill's book, 'cause it's a lie! . . . That's a lie! It's another lie! That's a lie! Absolute lie! You lie in that book endlessly! . . . You lie about documents endlessly! . . . You're just lying about it! And you lied about Thurlow's Bronze Star! You lied about it as long as you could until the New York Times found the wording of what was on the citation that you as a lying writer refused to put in your pack of lies! . . . Disgusting, lying book! . . . You have no standards, John O'Neill, as an author, and you know it! It's a pack of lies! You are unfit to publish! . . . He just lied to you! He spews out this filth! Point to his name on the report, you liar! Point to his name, you liar! . . . You just spew lies! . . .

I just hate the lies of John O'Neill. I hate lies. It's not an argument; they're proven lies. . . . O'Neill's a liar, he's been a liar for 35 years about this, and he's found other liars [unintelligible]. . . . They lied! . . . They're lying somewhere! . . . Lies! Just tell me the initials, you liar! Creepy liar! . . . You are a liar who makes things up! . . . You want the lies! That's how you make your living, on lies!

Well, that settles it, then. I read Unfit For Command, and I thought it was a very credible case made by dozens upon dozens of decorated veterans. But now it's refuted! I'M VOTING FOR KERRY!!! Well, okay, I'm lying.

Nordlinger is Good Today

In his regular Impromptus column.

excerpt:

Let me begin with something apocalyptic. (Since when do you have a choice?) I think Nov. 2 will tell us a lot about the American people — and what it tells us may not be pretty. We are in a war, or at least we Bush supporters think we're in a war. It is an exceptionally difficult war, of a new type. What will it say about the Americans if, at this moment, they turn to John Kerry of Massachusetts?

...

Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Michael Moore are not supporting Kerry because they think he'll continue the War on Terror — certainly not because they think he'll do a better job of it. They are supporting him because they think he doesn't mean it. I bet they're right.

In my view, this election is not a contest to determine how we'll fight the War on Terror; it's a contest to determine whether we will fight it at all. And the decision made by the Americans will be fateful.

...

As I have said before, I wish this election weren't so important. But I'm afraid it is. If the Americans elected John Kerry in, oh, 1992 or 1996, that would be one thing. If they elect him in 2004 — that will tell us something disheartening.

A little story: Some time ago, England had what was called "the Metric Martyr." This was a fellow — a grocer or a butcher, I forget which — who sold his goods in imperial measures: pounds, ounces, etc. But because England is now beholden to Brussels, he was prosecuted for not using the metric system (hence, Metric Martyr).

I asked our senior editor David Pryce-Jones (a Brit), "How could the British people permit this? I mean, it's their system — the imperial system, or the English system — to begin with." David answered, "The British people wouldn't permit it. The question is whether they remain the British people."

I have thought about that story in the last few weeks.

After discussing several other topics, Nordlinger ends the column with this thought:

In last Thursday's Impromptus, I published a letter containing the old wisdom, "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life." Another reader wrote, "I think the more appropriate line about fishing is, 'Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll try to replace you with someone who'll give him fish every day.'"

Ideologically Incapable of National Defense?

An anaysis of the three main strains of leftism and how they cannot be counted on when America needs defending. Fantastical thinking, appeasement, or outright enmity. Three to choose from!

exerpt:

Let us begin by recognizing that today's left-liberals are, at best, uncomfortable with any war fought in the name of national defense. Let us also recognize that left-liberals don't, at bottom, believe much in the nation either, except as a guilty party that owes an endless debt to all the racial and sexual minorities it has allegedly mistreated over the centuries, and as the Santa Claus-like guarantor of the happiness of all its citizens (and non-citizens as well).

...

And this is where, as I said, liberal politicians and spokesmen find themselves in a quandary. As members of the political class, they are expected to contribute something to the national debate about the war. But, given their liberal beliefs,—in human solidarity and world peace, in the power of negotiation to solve all conflicts, in progress toward global governance, in the transcendence of national identities, and in the equal worth of all cultures and religions—nothing they have to say is remotely useful in planning and conducting a war against enemies who are followers of the most unappeasable religion on earth. From time to time, Democrats have put forward various formulae for opposing our Islamist adversaries, but these proposals tend to be knee-jerk liberal reactions that have little to do with the real world problems they are purported to solve. Reflecting the spectrum of liberal-to-hard-left opinion, sometimes these ideas are simply ludicrous; sometimes they are well-meant but counter-productive; and sometimes they are consciously intended to harm our national interests. The liberals' very contributions to the war debate prove how hopelessly alien to them the project of civilizational defense really is, and reveal the terminal crisis in which liberalism finds itself.

Nancy Pelosi, shortly after she assumed the post of House Democratic leader in November 2002, appeared on the Charlie Rose program and criticized President Bush's approach to the war on terrorism. Asked what she thought America should do to defeat the terrorists, Pelosi initially sidestepped the question, but Rose (most uncharacteristically) kept pushing her for an answer until she finally said that the way to fight Muslim terrorism was through (yes, she really said this) "education."

Pelosi's risible proposal is a perfect illustration of my point. Liberals have always regarded education as the panacea for all social ills, and as the gateway to all human progress. So, when pressed on the question of how to cope with a uniquely dangerous adversary, Pelosi reached into her storehouse of liberal bromides, and "education" was all she could come up with. And this is the top Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Hi-Jinks Across the Pond

Brought to us by The Guardian, Britain's premier left-wing rag. First the anti-Bush letter writing campaign to voters in Clark County, Ohio. When that backfired badly, a more to-the-point call for assassination. More details here.

[----excerpt----]

On Saturday, columnist Charlie Brooker told the readers of the far-Left British newspaper Guardian:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that we need you?

So his bloodlust would not be missed, earlier in the column Brooker (who can be e-mailed at charlie.brooker@zeppotron.com) advocated the Most Powerful Man in the Free World be “tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts.” He also compared our president to “a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement,” then deemed Bush “a lying, sniggering, drink-driving [sic.], selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat.” (You can view the entire hate screed here.)

The Guardian has since has since pulled the incitement to murder and tendered a hollow apology “for any offense caused.” Although the newspaper calls Brooker’s incitements “flippant” and “tasteless,” it assures concerned readers, “his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action.”

England has not heard such a lethal aspiration since Henry II bellowed, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

This counsel issues from the same peaceniks who carried signs spouting such loving slogans as, “Bush is the disease. Death is the cure”; and “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot their Officers.” These fanatics regularly call Bush the new Hitler – and their more insightful followers may have deduced that no one would have shed a tear if Hitler had been assassinated in 1933. Yet it appears no one on the Left has denounced this call-to-arms.

[----end excerpt----]

50 Reasons: A Photo Essay

Don't miss this one! 50 reasons to vote for Bush, presented as a photo essay.

A Really Good Discussion

I'm not going to say what the subject matter is, but it is very very rare to see such a discussion happen at all. Quite fascinating, very interesting reasoning, and humility from all the participants. Warning: A few four-letter words and frank sexual references. But it is a fascinating, civilized political discussion about an extremely polarizing topic.

It's Not What You'll Do To Us, It's What We Might Have To Do To You

Found this item via InstaPundit. It is a comment by someone name Will Allen which says:

I'm not the one to convince you of anything, since I may still sit this one out (the virulent ugliness of the anti-Bush crowd drives me to cast a vote more than anything), but I think you are off base in a couple of areas. First, everything is hard, very hard, in war, including determining what the current state of affairs is. What if it had been fully understood in the summer of 1968 that the Viet Cong had in fact been completely decimated? True enough, there are more than a few members of the Bush Administration that likely have failed to grasp how difficult every single thing is in the conduct of war, but since I think this war needed to be fought, I still prefer those who were willing to wage it to those who likely would have refrained.

Why do I think it needed to be waged? I agree with you that the Islamic world does not pose an existential threat to the U.S.. However, if the Islamic world does not rapidly change, we pose an existential threat to them, and although being among a few hundred million slaughtered is about as bad as things get, being among those who do the slaughtering of a few hundred million is pretty damned awful as well, and it is worth taking great, great, risks to avoid such action.

In fact, this prospect is so grim, and in my view, so likely, absent rapid revolutionary change in the Persian Gulf , I see no way that Kerry, who is essentially a reactionary, can be worthy of a vote. A politically, militarily, and economically, and technologically backward people who sit atop of the natural resource greatly desired by far more militarily, economically, and economically powerful people, are going to meet an extraordinarily violent end if they exhibit any proficiency for hostile action against the more powerful people. Obtaining and using the technology of the more powerful people for hostile action merely seals their doom. Neither Bush or Kerry is likely to be the 21st century Andrew Jackson or Phil Sheridan, but he will be found in short order absent the people of the Persian Gulf modernizing rapidly.

Exactly!

It is true that the Islamic world does not pose an existential threat to us. That is, they do not have the power to destroy us. However, they do have the power to end our open society as we have known it. If any American city is nuked (say by a ship carrying a bomb, or maybe a truck bomb coming across the border), then we can (and will) certainly close the ports, close the border, round up everyone with an Arabic surname and deport or jail them, require stringent documentation and identification of all citizens, etc. This would be economically devastating and a huge blow to our freedoms, but it would not be an existential threat.

However!

What the peaceniks utterly fail to understand, is that if we do not take care of turning the Islamic and Arab world around through the relatively peaceful means of pacifying and democratizing Iraq, and using it as our Middle East beachead for transforming the other terrorist-breeding countries and cultures that threaten us, and if we sustain further attacks on our own soil, then we will be faced with having to make a vastly more devastating response, compared to which the clean and gentle war we have been fighting so far will seem like a [child's birthday party/picnic/stroll in the park/fraternity prank/your cliche here].

If 9/11 changed everything, what would a mushroom cloud on U.S. soil do? The Arab/Islamic world really, really shouldn't want to find out, nor should we. Hence our need to thread the needle and try to get the Middle East fixed the relatively painless way. There is no peaceful kumbaya solution to all of this. It seems the height of foolishness to sabotage and thwart the efforts we are now making. The U.S. really has been nice guys about all this so far, and it is galling to be hated, despised, and mocked by the world (and half the country) for what we are trying to accomplish. The alternatives are much, much worse.

Liberal Thuggery

Power Line has several must-read links (including pictures) on the widespread outbreaks of liberal brown-shirt behavior.

Update: John Hawkins has done a nice round-up of his own. He also says:

In the interest of fairness I went looking to put together a similar list of shameful incidents involving Republicans. But aside from the currently disputed and unproven allegations of some Democratic registrations being ripped up and thrown in the trash out in Nevada, I couldn't find anything comparable. In fact, using the exact same search criteria that turned up pages of stories involving the vandalism of Bush offices, etc. around the country yielded surprisingly few results when applied to John Kerry. If you know of any incidents of Republicans targeting Kerry offices or supporters with vandalism or thuggish behavior, please send them through so I can post them.

Now, I figure, given that we haven't seen any examples of this kind of Republican thuggery filling the evening newscasts, or yielding banner NYT, WaPo, and BoGlo headlines, or leading to endless speeches by Democratic hacks and politicians, that they must not be happening. This is one case where egregious liberal bias does us all a service. The dog ain't barking.

Liberal Rage: A Portrait

I've always liked this photoshopped picture (via Little Green Footballs). Gore is going to Florida to campaign for Kerry. I'm sure it will help a lot.

This Speaks Volumes

John Hawkins points something out:

You need proof that liberalism has lost the war on ideas with conservatism? Consider that John Kerry, one of the most liberal members of the Senate, is doing hunting photo-ops and speeches on his "faith". You don't see George Bush visiting abortion clinics, visiting the NAACP, or hanging out with anti-war protestors do you?

Nice Manners

Via Daily Recycler. Lawrence O'Donnell is MSNBC's senior political analyst. He's pro-Kerry, and armed with all kinds of counter-arguments against John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Veterans, counter-arguments that are so good that he's confident enough to deliver them in a civilized tone. NOT! Apparently all he's got is screaming "LIAR!!" at the top of his lungs. See it here.

Michelle Malkin has a nice post about O'Donnell's meltdown, with lots of links to the interesting things O'Donnell has had to say about Bush's religion, a count of how many times he shouted "Liar!" in 10 minutes (46!), and also how he doesn't give a damn if the troops are demoralized by Kerry and the MSM.

Undecided Voters

A humorous take.

VDH Can Weave a Paragraph

I was really struck by the concise yet expressive language that Victor Davis Hanson used in this paragraph which takes down Michael Moore. It appears in a larger essay which is worth reading in full. I imagine VDH belted this out without having to polish it much. Picture Dan Aykroyd saying these words in a fast, clipped Joe Friday way:

Nor was it wise to piggyback on Michael Moore's transient infamy, whose buffoonery is even more tiresome than Soros's machinations. He cannot finish a simple sentence without a barely audible grunt, obscenity, or "ya know" — even while he caricatures George Bush's diction as inelegant. His movies are increasingly discredited as crude propaganda, his books simple big-print screaming, full of factual errors and teenager logic. Moore also talks of populism, but gouges college students for $30,000 a rant — recently offering nothing more than foul language and aimless rambling, before kicking out C-Span cameras in worry that they might have captured his embarrassing nonperformance for millions of viewers. That he has figured prominently in the campaigns of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, was highlighted at the Democratic convention, and jets around for Kerry are all embarrassments — not support that any sane operative would wish. Everyone Michael Moore has ever endorsed has lost, and he should have been avoided like the kiss of political death he is. His supporters find him useful but only mildly amusing, while his detractors are vehement in their dislike and impart guilt by association to any who come within his toxic orbit. That his lecture fees, lifestyle, and gratuitous slurs are at odds with the old Democratic image of a Happy Warrior only accents the mistake of welcoming him into the fold.

Pure Deception on Every Issue

David Limbaugh has John Kerry's number.

excerpt:

Here we are less than two weeks from the election and John Kerry is still playing "hide the ball." The last thing he wants most of us -- excluding his loony, militant base -- to know is who he really is.

Kerry knows that if he releases his military records or is forthright about his true beliefs on the issues, he won't stand a ghost of a chance. His entire campaign, therefore, has been little more than an extended "wink and a nod."

He is locked in an unspoken conspiracy with his wild-eyed Michael Moore/George Soros/Whoopi Goldberg base to feint just enough toward sanity to fool the Ward Cleaver voter. After "winking" behind his shades to the America-haters, he turns toward middle Americans, and with a "nod" fraudulently affirms to them his allegiance to traditionalism.

What is Kerry so afraid of? Why doesn't he want you to find out the identity of that man behind the curtain? Why doesn't he want you to read his book "The New Soldier"? Why doesn't he want you to see "Stolen Honor"? Why won't he release his medical records? Why won't he talk about his Senate record? Why won't he address specific charges about his Vietnam tour?

The answer is that without convincing millions of voters he is someone that he is not, he would suffer the biggest landslide defeat in American history -- bar none. What a sad state American liberalism finds itself in when it can't tout its own candidate as a true believer. And what a sad commentary on the candidate himself that he would willingly participate in such a fundamental deception about his very essence as a human being.

All winking and nodding aside, do you think Kerry could seriously compete for popular or electoral votes if he leveled with the American people? And do you think for a second that his extremist base doesn't know exactly who he is?

Limbaugh then goes on to detail Kerry's "mainstream positions" and how the lunatic left doesn't behave as if they believe that he really holds them.

Warning: A geek-out follows. Yes, Limbaugh has got Kerry's number. Looks like Kerry's number is the square root of -1. The square root of -1 is called i, a purely imaginary number. Hmmm...i...I! Every sentence Kerry speaks begins with 'I'! Coincidence? Or a clever code to his extremist base? You be the judge...

Economic Clarity

Served up by Thomas Sowell. He addresses the 'tax cuts for the rich' canard. Also, if you haven't read his book Basic Economics, you should! It's like kryptonite to left-wing economic foolishness.

Rome Went from Republic to Empire for a Reason

Oh, it all started innocently enough. Scamming elections, demagoguery, legal chicanery. Later on were political assassinations, mob violence, the law followed if useful, discarded otherwise. Eventually civil wars. Finally the iron fist of Augustus, and peace of a sort. The Senate and People of Rome replaced by the Emperor. The Republic destroyed by folks much like the Democrats. Opinion Journal has a good analysis of the legal assault the Democrats are fixin' to make on this election. Looking through the reader responses, I especially liked this one (nice use of the 'Rubicon' concept):

[----excerpt----]

Hail to the Thief
Philip McDaniel - Cooper City, Fla.

The major media may not want to say it, and certainly the Democratic Party wants to cover it up, but the fact remains that the Gore Campaign tried to steal the election in 2000. Only a rigorous defense by the Republican Party and honest Florida election officials kept that from happening.

Since then, the techniques used by Democratic radicals have only been refined and embraced by the Party as a whole rather than rejected as potentially imperiling our republic. Now in 2004, we may very well be witnessing the crumbling of our government's foundation as legions of lawyers and their commanders set out to halt imagined "conspiracies" and defend the "populace" from perceived foes.

Is there indeed a Rubicon in our future?

[----end excerpt----]

He Who 'Declares Victory' Wins?

I've been wanting to post something in response to this news item:

Sen. John Kerry, bracing for a potential fight over election results, will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency.

In short, the Democratic presidential candidate has a simple strategy for Nov. 3 and beyond: Do not repeat Al Gore's mistakes.

The Democratic vice president prematurely conceded the 2000 race to George W. Bush in a telephone call, then had to retract his concession after aides said Florida wasn't lost. He never declared victory, an omission Kerry's advisers - many of whom worked for Gore - now believe created a sense of inevitability in voters' minds about Bush's presidency.

Chrenkoff has created a nice post which jibes with my own reaction to this. We have something called a legal process in this country, which operates independently of anyone's "sense of inevitability". It was patently obvious to me back in 2000 that Gore's gambit was to get one, just one, even if temporary, even if only due to intermediate totals, even if it had zero to do with actual election law and due process, but just one news headline that said he was ahead. Then of course the MSM would have their factoid that he really won, creating the very sense of inevitability that he was after. He even said that he and Bush should sit down man-to-man to hash it out. Legal procedure, the rules of the game, etc, meant then (and often mean now) absolutely nothing to That Party, which along with their utter lack of seriousness when it comes to national security is what makes them the threat to our republic that they are.

The only thing I would add to Chrenkoff's piece is that this whole strategy of declaring (election) victory when you haven't, in fact, achieved it, is probably a pretty good omen of how Kerry will handle Iraq.

Update: Jonah Goldberg is also on the case.

I Compliment You Because You're Fair Game

Tammy Bruce gives John Kerry what for in a column entitled "Mary Cheney Outs John Kerry".

excerpt:

Mary Cheney is hated by the Gay Elite. There are discussions about direct efforts to make life uncomfortable for her. Why? Because she dares to be different. She has made the same mistake as I—she refuses to have her sexuality be the singular defining aspect of her identity, and she has had the gall to be her own person and not bow down to the leftist agenda. Yes, she commits the fatal mistake of not conforming to the conformist Gay agenda.

...

Now consider that supposed political monolith of homosexuals. Kerry says he’s opposed to gay marriage but supports civil unions, a position identical with the president’s. I contend Kerry was in part pandering to the Gay Elite to make up for his position on marriage. The targeting of Mary Cheney by the Gay Elite is a well known effort by liberals, and Kerry’s comment was his way of saying “I’m with you,” by attempting to further their punishment of her on international television.

Of course, pundits have argued that you can’t embarrass an openly gay person by referring to her as, well, gay. While Mary Cheney is out, she has made choices to lead a quiet private life, laden with that pesky dignity thing, and oh yeah, she’s a…a…Republican!! Neither one of those ideas can get out, oh no. The Gay Gestapo looked to Kerry to slap Mary and her family and he did.

...

Secondly, and perhaps even more revealing of how disconnected the Kerry gang really is, his campaign truly feels that Christians will reject the Bush and Cheney families because of this issue. In the decade-plus of my work as a radio talk show host and writer, I have spoken with thousands of Christians from across this country. What I found from them, coming from the feminist establishment as I do, is that while they hold religious beliefs against homosexuality, they are the most tolerant, understanding, and kind people I have ever met.

Oh sure, there are fringe extremists on the right, just as there are on the left, but the hundreds of Christians and others I heard from by e-mail and on my radio program were insulted, but by Kerry’s presumption that they were as shallow as he.

...

All of this boils down to something pretty simple--the Bushs and Cheneys have something that the Kerrys and Edwards do not—dignity and class. The contrast between Laura Bush and Teresa Heinz Kerry has truly become the best illustration of those differences. The bottom line is, inheriting all the money in the world (from a wife, a husband or a jury verdict) cannot buy you the dignity and grace inherent in a certain librarian and schoolteacher from Texas and the man she married. Laura Bush has helped her husband become a better man. It seems Teresa and Elizabeth have taken a page from Hillary as they enable the worst in their men.

Don't Even Try It

I just saw this story on Drudge. Apparently Zarqawi and his jihadi ghouls have now taken a British lady hostage. Now, we've seen plenty of videos of men being beheaded by these animals (I don't mean that I personally have watched all of these snuff films; watching the first Berg video was about as much as I ever want to see of these barbarians and their demonic worship rituals). If they do to Margaret Hassan what they did to Nick Berg (and most recently to Bigley), and then publish the tape, do these subhuman curs have the slightest idea what this will do to their death-worshiping cause? Somehow folks can stomach beheadings of men, but seeing a lady getting her head sawed off by these gibbering hyenas, well, let's just say this should make even the peaceniks want to put the hammer down on these motherf------. Well, it should, right?

Who's Endorsing Whom

A very nice roundup of which candidate is getting endorsements from which foreign leaders. Turns out North Korea, Iran, Red China, the Palestinian Authority, Malaysia, Socialist Spain, France, Germany, and Vietnam are rootin' for Kerry (hmm, you'd think if Kerry were such a fearsome Swift Boat warrior and defender of the US, the Vietnamese would hate him. But they don't. Go figure. Of course I'm referring to the Vietnamese that didn't flee in boats). Russia, Israel, Japan, The Philippines, and South Korea kinda like Bush.

I Stand in Awe

Of this great post by Brian at Peeve Farm. It concerns the American character as it will be reflected by the results of this election (Brian contemplates what happens if we all choose the Blue Pill). Brian has a way of tying together a bunch of disparate threads that I become aware of in my web surfing, but don't rise to the level of posting for me as separate items. His piece contains links to some noteworthy facts (perhaps you didn't know that Arafat and Castro have endorsed Kerry, and that Jimmy Carter thinks the Revolutionary War was unnecessary?)

I won't excerpt, you should go read it!

In another post, Brian comments on how the air in the Bay Area has gotten clearer over the years (especially the South Bay). He's right, it has. When I first lived down here in the late 80's (Los Gatos, as south as you can get, up against the Santa Cruz Mountains and hence in the smoggiest part of the Bay Area), we were in the middle of drought years, and the less advanced cars back then didn't burn as clean. In the middle of summer, when we'd get a non smoggy day, I used to joke "Wow, you can see the sky today!" I used to keep a journal in which I'd bitterly complain about breathing smog. Visibility would get as low as a few miles, and you couldn't see that Silican Valley is surrounded by mountains. It is absolutely not like that any more.

Florida's Technological Solution

They've made voting foolproof via technology.

America's Tarnished Image: Are Dems Blameless?

John Derbyshire had a comment earlier today in The Corner which has sparked some good discussion.

A Fallen Star

Andrew Sullivan used to be a prime site for me (and many, many others) to visit when I first started reading blogs. But no more. I no longer read him at all if I can help it. Neither do a lot of other bloggers. He is the blogosphere's first fallen star. This well-written article explains why (but not all the reasons; it doesn't get at all into his contempt for fellow Catholics that hew to orthodox sexual morality).

American Jews Have Good Reasons to Vote Bush

Details here.

excerpt:

Where does all this leave American Jews who have traditionally voted overwhelmingly for Democrats? Some are primarily guided by one part of the Jewish sage Hillel's teaching that "If I am only for myself, what am I?" They reason that a Democratic president would better serve the interests of minorities and the little guy, and that there is something inherently wrong about thinking of their own well-being first. Others think, "I'm a minority too and we little guys need to stick together." Still others don't care about Israel, or at least not enough to make it a deciding factor; other issues, such as the state of the ozone layer and the Kyoto protocol, top their agenda.

One might think 9/11 should have been a turning point for the 1.5 million Jews in New York City, along with the rest of American Jews, even if they hadn't noticed that Israel has been on the front lines of the war against terror for a lot longer than they have. Now that America and Israel more clearly face a common enemy, American Jews might feel less guilt-ridden about the other element of Hillel's admonition: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

In a world in which the future of freedom-loving little guys everywhere depends on whether America understands the fight against terrorism to be a global war, violent Islamic fundamentalism and a nuclear Iran to be global threats, and winning European and U.N. friends by serving up Israel to be pouring fuel on the fire, one presidential candidate has a courageous and principled record. The other scores debating points.

So the question for American Jews deciding whether to vote for a Republican president, in Hillel's words, is, "If not now when?" If the answer for most American Jews is never, then make no mistake about it: No Democratic president will ever feel that protecting the state of Israel is necessary to win Jewish votes — and no future Republican president will ever take the heat as President Bush has done.

A Republican Manifesto

Heard about this on Rush Limbaugh today. A private citizen purchased an ad on page A24 of today's Washington Post. The text is here. Go read!

70 Percent and Bold Beats 100 Percent and Timid

Since 9/11, we've had to put up with an awful lot of "Chicken Little" whining and complaining pertaining to our military operations, along with a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking from all the usual suspects. As if our military is a bunch of bumbling morons who can't deal with a few thousand untrained psychotic jihadis. As if making any mistakes at all means we ought to just pack up and go home with our tail between our legs. A soldier has written a letter to Andrew Sullivan, wherein he explains that the "perfection" that Kerry is trying to sell (and that he would seem to require before taking action) is not an option:

...

I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:

It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.

But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).

There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.

Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.

Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."

BTW, We Were Soldiers is a great movie.

Logic Begets Humor

Jonah Goldberg is great at seeing the logic of things, and then doing something funny with it. Via The Corner:

[----excerpt in full----]

GEORGE BUSH WILL SET FIRE TO YOUR HOUSE....[Jonah Goldberg]

Shoot your dog, eat your best cold fried chicken, jam your Xerox machine, grope your wife, give nukes to the Crips and the Bloods, raise taxes on the poor to 110%, give Margaret Cho a two hour nightly "comedy" special, replace vegetables with sand on all high school cafeteria menus and require that all women be handcuffed to their basement radiators until they breed the requisite 3 Aryan children this countries needs. If minority women can't churn out the good stuff, they stay handcuffed. And -- oh yeah -- he'll reinstitute the draft.

Why doesn't John Kerry say all of these things instead of merely saying Bush will bring back the draft? I mean whenever he's asked "Why are you saying this when the president has denied it categorically?" He responds, "Well, he also said there were weapons of mass destruction. He has no credibility."

Never mind the asinine cynicism involved in that Kerry also said he thought there were WMDs (don't make me go through the list of others who did as well). But if you aren't bound by evidence and the President's denials don't count, why not really cut loose with some scary scenarios. The president will require that all taco meat be replaced with blue cheese. A 500 foot nude statue of Helen Thomas will replace the Washington Monument -- that towering symbol of our phallocracy. Puppies will burn, kittens will fly, diapers will chafe -- all if George W. Bush is elected.

Posted at 07:48 AM