July 21, 2005
"Idiotarian": Origins, Definition & Explanation
While working to fix the Wikipedia article on the subject, I realized that no-one has really put this together. It’s an important piece of blogosphere history, so let’s begin at the beginning. Prof. Glenn Reynolds started the ball rolling when he said on Jan. 5, 2002:
“What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology.”
The term “anti-idiotarian” was coined by Charles Johnson of LGF that same day, and caught on like wildfire. Australian warblogger Tim Blair later refined the term by reading a Lyndon LaRouche interview re: 9/11 and referring in April of 2002 to:
“…the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force (suggested slogan: “United, Retarded, We’ll Never Be Defeated!”)”
This, and the original inspirations, were picked up and developed by Eric S. Raymond in his widely-linked “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” which slams both left and right as its key excerpt reads:
"Idiotarian": Origins, Definition & Explanation
While working to fix the Wikipedia article on the subject, I realized that no-one has really put this together. It’s an important piece of blogosphere history, so let’s begin at the beginning. Prof. Glenn Reynolds started the ball rolling when he said on Jan. 5, 2002:
“What bloggers are more than anything, I think, is anti-idiot. That makes life tough for Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and the Revs. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, & Sharpton, for reasons that transcend traditional partisanship and ideology.”
The term “anti-idiotarian” was coined by Charles Johnson of LGF that same day, and caught on like wildfire. Australian warblogger Tim Blair later refined the term by reading a Lyndon LaRouche interview re: 9/11 and referring in April of 2002 to:
“…the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force (suggested slogan: “United, Retarded, We’ll Never Be Defeated!”)”
This, and the original inspirations, were picked up and developed by Eric S. Raymond in his widely-linked “Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto,” which slams both left and right as its key excerpt reads:
June 24, 2005
Victory.
Armed Liberal made an excellent point recently in The Cowboy War:
“I didn’t watch much TV as a kid… so I’m not sure if the stereotype of the TV cowboy hero who always aims for his opponents gun, and manages to subdue the six or seven bad guys with his fists and a handy lasso was really a television character or just a caricature of one. But it appears that the stereotype lives, in more ways than one, as we try and judge the progress of the war.”
That’s part of it - but look deeper. In the realm of ideas, of course those who believe in central planning as the path to their ideal society will also believe you should run a perfect war. They’re two sides of the same rotten coin. Throw in their basic hostility to the military and the USA as a whole, and you get a self-reinforcing feedback loop between their delusions of central control and their hates. The one is used to justify the other, and vice-versa, and around and around it goes in a vicious, self-perpetuating circle.
Fortunately, there’s a solution.
February 22, 2005
Our Enemies, Our Allies
Cross-posted from AEBrain, the blog.
Not so long ago, the Iraqi nation was at war with Australia. But the pinacle of military achievement (pace Sun Tsu*) is not to win without fighting, it’s to convert an Enemy into an Ally.
As mentioned over at The Command Post and elsewhere, Australian PM John Howard has just boosted Australia’s military commitment to Iraq by about 50%. Why? Well, here’s one reason :
“Unless additional security could be provided to replace the Dutch, then there was a real possibility the Japanese could no longer remain there and that would be a serious blow to the coalition effort,” Mr Howard said.
It’s to help out a friend. No, not the USA, nor even the Iraqis (though I’ll get to them later), it’s to help out the Japanese, and in particular, the current interventionist Japanese Government, who have come under severe criticism at home for being far too Anti-Fascist. It’s a favour to a mate. A mate who (quite un-coincidentally) happens to run a farnarckling huge trade deficit with us, just as we run an equally huge deficit with the USA. And a mate who, like us, is deeply concerned about the Mad Regime of Pyongyang, but unlike us may actually be in range of some of their Nukes.
But it goes beyond that. Again, to quote Johnny Howard :
“The Government believes that Iraq is very much at a tilting point and it’s very important that the opportunity of democracy, not only in Iraq but also in other parts of the Middle East, be seized and consolidated,” he said.
You Break it, you Buy it. We helped break the National Socialist Dictatorship in Iraq, just as we helped break the Theocratic Fascist regime that had dominated Japan since the early 30’s, and the National Socialist Dictatorship of Germany of the same era. It therefore is our ethical responsibility to help install a new system. The Iraqis, by their magnificent performance during the election (and at considerable personal risk to themselves) have done their part, and we owe them big time to help as much as is feasible.
The circumstances have changed and it is now four-and-a-half-weeks since the Iraq election and we have to respond to those changed circumstances,” he said.“Self-evidently we would have liked the major combat to have gone differently … [but] coalition withdrawal or defeat is unimaginable.”
[…]
“It will take time and if we were to see a crumbling of coalition commitment, I think the likelihood of Iraq completing the transition to democracy would be absolutely non-existent,” he said.
The point is, the attacks on the Iraqi Government, and in fact, the Iraqi populace in general, haven’t abaited. It looks like the Nazis Ba’athists have decided that it if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, and now see their only chance of getting even a few crumbs of the political cake is to co-operate, and become just another political party. Frankly, I think they’re having themselves on. We’re in no mood to accept anything other than “Unconditional surrender”, and more to the point, neither are the Iraqis.
Yet the suicide bombings, the mortar attacks and so on continue. Why? Well, the opposition to the occupation of Iraq consists of 4 different and rather mutually antagonistic forces.
The first are Iraqi Nationalists of all political stripes, who quite understandably object to their country being occupied, no matter what the circumstances.
The second are the Sunni tribes, fearful of Shiite revenge for all the past oppression they’ve been subject to at Sunni hands, and in fear for their lives. It’s not so much a religious as a tribal thing - Iraqis in general don’t consider themselves primarily “Sunni” or “Shiite”, they consider themselves Iraqis, much as Americans consider themselves Americans first, rather than Catholic or Protestant, Mormon or Jew.
The third group are the Ba’athists, former top dogs who are desperately trying to regain their lost power. Thoroughly entangled with the second group, but still a small subset of them.
The last are mainly foreign Jihadis, who just want to Kill the Heretics, Apostates, Unbelievers, and in general, everyone on the planet who doesn’t share their eccentric beliefs, and see Iraq as being a good place to die. Or kill. It’s all the same to them. It also includes the various Iranian and Syrian Spooks sent in as the first line of defence against any US-led “regime change” in their respective countries.
The first group - with the usual few fanatical exceptions - have seen that their popular support is weak, and dwindling. They don’t represent the views of the Iraqi People as a whole, just a segment of them, and this became obvious at the time of the election. It’s they, the true “Resistance”, who are being spoken to now.
The Americans should be good at this - because a substantial minority of Americans, would be likely to do the same in their shoes**. Even that perenially clue-free zone, Michael Moore, glimpsed this truth when he said this about the Iraqi resistance
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win!
Of course, like all of Michael Moore’s work, there’s a grain of truth buried in copious quantities of great, fragrant, steaming piles of bovine excrement.
The second group now have a mountain of evidence that a Bloodbath against the Sunni tribes just isn’t going to happen. Despite repeated and extreme provocation, the Shiites have conducted no anti-Sunni pogroms. Not merely that, but the Moqtada Al-Sadr Bad Boys got their clocks cleaned by the US of A, and are now a spent force, militarily, morally, and at the ballot box, with only 2 representatives elected out of 270-odd in the governing council. These Sunni tribes - and at the risk of being repetitious, it’s a tribal thing, rather than a religious one - are fighting simply because they don’t know what else to do, they’re desperate. The Shiite forebearance is lessening the sense of desperation, and therefore removing the reason to fight.
These two groups are the people that we are trying to get to participate in a peaceful manner in the new Iraqi government. Participation of the second group is essential in the long term, and everyone now knows it, the Shiites included.
As for the third group, the Ba’athists - their attacks are using the IRA/Sinn Fein technique of fighting while negotiating. The more obnoxious they are, the more concessions they can wring at the bargaining table by promising to cease fighting. This is a classic strategy, and usually works. It worked for people as disparate as the Irgun and Hagganah against the British in post-war Palestine, it worked for the IRA in Northern Ireland, for a time it even worked for Arafat and Co. But it doesn’t work against people whose blood is up (as Sinn Fein is just finding out). The Kurds (for one) think that the only Good Ba’athist is a Dead Ba’athist, and the odds of National Socialist Ba’ath party ever being legalised and brought into the mainstream of Iraqi political life, even as a small splinter group, are probably even slimmer than a resurgent NSDAP getting a seat in the Bundestag in Germany.
Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
Even if the rest of the Coalition went for it, the Iraqis aren’t going to stand for it. And at the election, they earned the right for their wishes to be paramount. Not “listened to” or “consulted with”. To be obeyed, without demur.
The real trick is going to be to separate the Ba’athists from the Sunni Tribes. Tricky, as the leaders of one are often the leaders of the other. This again is no doubt the subject of current negotiations - how many designated scapegoats will be enough to satisfy the Kurds? Those so designated are unlikely to go quietly, the Sunni tribes may have to give up the bodies, rather than live war criminals.
The last group, mainly Al-Qaeda-by-any-other-name, well, considering their public “No Surrender!” attitude, rather a lot of their senior hierarchy have been surrendering recently. It’s only the small fry that fight to the death, become suicide bombers (and sometimes assisted-suicide bombers). Although they’re sometimes useful because of their intelligence value, frankly, they’re an embarressment to everybody. In the war against Al Qaeda, we don’t want them to surrender, nor to become friends and allies (unless they cease being what they are - see below). We just require them to die. It’s their children and grandchildren that we may have a hope of salvaging.
Yemen may have the right idea. After two or three years of patient theological disputation, they have a high conversion rate from Fanatical Heretical Killer to Decent Islamic Human Being. But it’s a gamble, and Westerners such as myself could be forgiven for thinking that such “redemption” is probably temporary. Personally, I’d like to see how they go with small numbers over a period of 10 years before using it more widely, but maybe I’m too cynical. It’s certainly supremely ironic that such an archetypically forgiving Christian approach should be used by rather orthodox Muslims. If they can pull it off, then they will have attained the most difficult, but worthwhile goal - that of converting Liabilities into Assets, Enemies into Friends, Monsters into Human Beings, and a Sow’s ear into a Silk Purse. I wish them the Best of British Luck.***
So,as John Howard said, the situation has changed. The “resistance” hasn’t evaporated as completely as it has in, say Afghanistan. But it has lessened so much that Australia can realistically commit over 10% of its effective ground forces in -theatre, something it was unable to promise and guarantee to deliver before. The additional troops won’t be there for some “token” or “symbolic” reason, nor to sway any election one way or another, they’ll be there for purely practical reasons. They can do good, and at relatively small risk. Australia just does not have the resources to commit to significant “peacekeeping” in Iraq, as well as the Eastern Solomons, Bougainville, Timor Leste, relief operations continuing in Aceh, and all the other commitments we have. Our total armed forces, Army, Navy, and Air Force combined number less than 50,000, and we have only 8 regular battalions. But this much we can do. We can provide local security in a small number of areas, and we can provide training. All in the cause of converting a former enemy, Iraq, into a future friend.
To see how well that can work, remember who we’re guarding, the nation whose engineers we’ll be protecting as they go about constructing bridges and rail-lines. There are still some Australians living with personal experience of Japanese construction projects. Ones where tens of thousands of prisoners were worked to death, or beheaded at a whim. There are also people like my in-laws whose brothers, fiances, husbands or sons were taken prisoner and used as “food-on-the-hoof” by starving Japanese soldiers in New Guinea - not something that’s often mentioned in history books.
These Jihadis do not have the faintest idea of the type of people they’re up against, nor the nine kinds of hell the ANZACS and USMC in particular went through in the Pacific theatre. Suicide attacks and beheadings don’t impress us overmuch, and compared with the Japanese in the 1940’s, Al Qaeda is really second-rate.
But now the sons and duaghters, grandsons and grand-daughters of the people who screamed “Tenno Banzai!” are on our side. They’re building bridges, in more ways than one, and not casually slaughtering anyone in their way. We’ve been here before.
Finally - and as something of an afterthought, I’m afraid, we’ll be supporting our mate, the USA. We’re sending in troops for our own purely selfish reasons of course, out of a sense of responsibility and for practical geopolitical considerations “in our own national interest”. But we’re not averse to receiving the many expressions of gratitude that have already come from people in the USA. Expressions that no doubt will come in handy one of these days, maybe the next time the US agribusiness lobby tries to do something that will hurt us. We might even have made a few new friends and allies in rural America, people who otherwise might not have seen things our way.
Sometimes you can do well while doing good.
Footnotes
* Sun Tsu’s “Art of War” Chapter 3, Para 2 :
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
** For example, Stephen Decatur. I myself prefer G.K.Chesterton’s take on the subject.
*** UK readers will know what I mean. For others, it’s traditionally said when someone is attempting something next-to or actually impossible. “I’m building a Moon Rocket in my backyard.” - “And the Best of British Luck!”.
Cartoon courtesy of Nicholson of “The Australian” newspaper: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au and used with permission
February 15, 2005
Soldier Effigy In Sacramento Torn Down Again; Move America Forward To Protest Tonight Outside Home
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.
Once again the effigy of a hanging soldier has been torn down from a Berkeley couples second home up here in Sacramento. The effigy which read "Bush Lied, I Died" was ripped down by a 30-year-old man. I reported on the first effigy that was torn down here and here. The person who ripped the first effigy down turned himself in to police and was released after questioning -- he faces misdemeanor vandalism charges.
A candlelight vigil is being planned for tonight by Move America Forward, a group that supports the troops and the war on terror. For more information on the vigil visit their press release.
Steve and Virginia Pearcy, who life to talk, were unavailable for comment.
"The Pearcys are going to do this, they ought to be here and not cower and run back to Berkeley", said one resident. People in the neighborhood are once again forced into the spotlight. Because today, someone again tore down and ripped off the controversial effigy portraying a U.S. soldier stapled to Steve and Virginia Pearcy's home. A sign on the display read "Bush lied... I died." The Pearcy's own the home, but don't live there.One resident said "How else are they going to get their voices heard? They could write their congressman. That would never be read."
One man who witnessed today's vandalism said a man in his 30's went across the lawn, climbed a tree, stepped on the gutter, stretched his body along the peak of the roof, tore down the display and took it with him. It's the same thing that happened last week, when a man ripped down the effigy in front of a FOX40 News camera. That man has been interviewed by Sacramento police, who have turned the case over to the District Attorney's Office.
Another resident said "It makes the situation worse because it makes the Pearcys look like victims, which they are not. The victims are anyone who puts on a uniform and goes to war for this country, and neighbors who have to put up with this garbage."
But another countered: "I feel when you opress people, you take away their rights and this is exactly what people are trying to do." The protest, displayed or not, is creating a circus-like atmosphere for those who live here. And it's not over. Tomorrow night, the group "Move America Forward" plans a candlelight vigil here on Marty Way.
Originally posted at Diggers Realm
January 31, 2005
Senator Kennedy, Come Home
On the day before millions of Iraqis defied snipers, bombs, and mortars to vote for their new government, Senator Edward Kennedy tossed an anchor into the brackish bay and dragged out the lifeless, waterlogged analogy of Viet Nam. How disappointed Senator Kennedy must be that Iraqis showed up to vote in higher numbers than his Boston electrical workers. How it must pain him that millions of these new voters defied death, while so many of his own voters would not defy snow. For our Massachusetts senators, every war will always be Viet Nam, and personal dishonor will always be projected onto us all.
There is, of course, a deep well of political funding in making one’s self a national figure with a national consistuency, in this case, by appealing to a tiny, monied, self-loathing minority that is forever embittered by its oppressive ease and uselessness. A small percentage of a great nation’s population can write enough checks to keep a political dowager on his throne long after his age has passed.
Even as Iraqis wondered (and still do) whether our nation has the spine to back up its declared commitments to their victory over fascism, even as our soldiers fight in deadly combat against a group that calls itself “Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” one United States senator did his utmost to submerge them—and us—in his own defeatism. Thus, for the sake of the survival of peace and freedom in our world, I appeal to the voters of Massachusetts:
Forty years ago, the Kennedy family ruled us from your distant land. We thought in those early days that they sought victory for our nation’s cause. We thought their skill, courage, looks, and impeccable taste were enough. We thought that their election would bring a new day of equality and prosperity. They lost their national purpose in Vietnam. They abandoned the truth in the deep, muddy quagmire of the coastal tidewaters near Martha’s Vineyard. They failed their ideals and sought comfort in strong drink, gluttony, and indiscriminate wenching. Their words could no longer be trusted. In the name of a misguided belief in a world where tyranny could be pacified and paid to desist—however briefly—from murder, we continued their tenure of office too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that their very presence was defeating the very goals we set out to achieve. We cannot allow that history to repeat itself in Iraq. We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Americans now believe. Ted Kennedy’s cause has become a war against the survival of our nation, a campaign to release the bonds around the wrists of those who would murder our children in their beds and make bus bombings and pandemics at shopping malls a daily feature of our lives. We have reached the point that Senator Kennedy’s prolonged political inheritance is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. Senator Kennedy’s tenure has become part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we must seek a way to withdraw that tenure with all possible dispatch. It is time for Senator Kennedy to come home.
November 30, 2004
Political Correctism Run Amok: Military Recruiters May Now Be Barred From College Campuses
Universities and Colleges may now bar military recruiters from their campuses. The New York Times is reporting that the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (in Philadelphia) has now said that these institutions of “higher learning” have a First Amendment right to keep recruiters off their property.
Ironically, the schools get to keep all the federal funding that they are now receiving.
The rationale? The Idiot Court says that because the military does not allow practicing gays (don’t ask; don’t tell) in the military, then colleges may prohibit recruitment activities in protest.
To add insult to injury, the appeals court cited a Supreme Court Decision (2000) that allowed the boy scouts to bar gay scoutmasters.
We here think that this is judicial activism at its worst.
Specifically, this despicable act can be laid at the door of several law schools, some of which did not have the courage to “go public,” with their asinine lawsuit.
Some might say that obstructing military recruiters from seeking volunteers during wartime is tantamount to treason.
Note To Academia: Has anyone told you people that our nation is at war?
Cross posted from: The Education Wonks
November 01, 2004
My Greatest Fear
It’s the job of military analysts to be on the lookout for worst-case scenarios, as well as most-probable ones. Bearing that in mind, here’s one that I’ve dreamed up. It’s purely hypothetical and speculative.
- Kerry is elected. Now I think he’s the wrong man, and a walking disaster in foreign policy. But for the purpose of the exercise, let’s assume the very best about him, that he personifies all that is good about all presidents since Lincoln, and would be the Best President Ever.
- Also assume Kerry got a discharge under terms other than honourable for giving “aid and comfort to the enemy” as has been positted by researchers, and as published in the New York Sun.
- Furthermore, again for the purposes of the exrecise, let’s assume this was a total traversty of justice, Kerry being good, wise, compassionate, a second Lincoln etc as stated above. The discharge hypothesis fits all the known facts, and Kerry’s unwillingness to sign a form 180. In any event, under Carter’s blanket amnesty, he was given another discharge (look it up, it’s on the Kerry page) that was honourable under the “blanket amnesty” regulation section.
- Someone spills the beans, thereby committing a crime. As the New York Sun says :
All officials with knowledge of what specifically happened in Mr. Kerry’s case are muzzled by the Privacy Act of 1974. The act makes it a crime for federal employees to knowingly disclose personal information or records.
- The GOP promptly challenges this wise, good, and most worthy man’s eligibility to be President, as no person who has committed the crime is eligible to hold Government Office, as I understand it.
- The Supreme Court must then rule
a) whether the point is moot, Kerry having been elected.
b) whether there is some unwritten “statute of limitations”, as by the same argument, Kerry should never have been made a Senator
c) whether the Carter honourable discharge, though cancelling the general one, also expunges the crime.
d) whether that section of the US constitution about “government office” applies to the POTUS or not
e) whether a general discharge was sufficient evidence for the crime having been committed, or not
f) if not, whether tehre exists sufficient evidence to convict him anyway, and if so, how charges should be brought
g) whether under the circumstances the issue can only be settled by a formal impeachment process
h) ..and God only knows what other issues arise! And in wartime, yet.
Of course my second greatest fear is that the whole issue is a Machiavellian smear, designed to discredit Kerry, a man who I think is unworthy of election. A smear I’d be party to by writing this article. I really, really wish Kerry would sign that Form 180. Because although I think the story - that these doubts are being raised, regardless of their truth or otherwise - is newsworthy. I think I’d not be doing my self-imposed duty by not reporting it on TCP. But I’m cowardly enough not to put it on the Election 2004 page, only in the Op-Ed section. So please don’t let the possibility that the theory is true affect your vote. Neither let the possibility that it’s a smear affect you likewise, because at this stage, I have an opinion, but no knowledge. My opinion is that it is very very probably not a smear, and may possibly be true, but not enough that anyone should take any account of it, barring further confirmation (or, about equally likely, disproof). After all, isn’t it best for the country that the 2004 Kerry be judged, not the 1972 one? (Though I think they’re the same, Godammit!)
But this is why I stated a “most probable date” for settling the election result as June next year. Cross fingers I’m totally wrong - like I was about Salam Pax’s survival chances 18 months ago.
October 29, 2004
Election s, Slander, Hijinks... & Perspective
Beldar, a notorious solicitor and participant in unpublicized horatory activities, has a tongue-in-cheek post that’s worth a read in these hyper-partisan times:
“What’s more, his daughter Alex is a self-admitted practicing thespian, and has even accepted money for public performances of such acts! Indeed, you can purchase videos of her public exhibitions of thespianism on certain internet websites, which modesty forbids me to link.”
There’s a serious subtext to this, and it sits in an historical reminder of elections and political games that my American friends might benefit from. So set a spell and let me tell you a funny story about George Smathers and the 1950 Florida Democratic Primary for the Senate, a story that Beldar links to at the end of his spoof post. Let’s get a good look at some real political hijinks… and maybe get a bit of perspective on the current election, too:
Continue Reading “Elections, Slander, Hijinks… & Perspective”
October 13, 2004
Judging Kerry: A Letter to the Undecideds
In John Kerry, Owen Wilson, and Facing Reality, I noted that:
“I even understand the impetus to look at 2 candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing….”
“The reason I am still undecided is simply that, as I said above, I find Bush’s strategic vision for foreign policy much more compelling than Kerry’s (if Kerry can be said to have a strategic vision). If Kerry sufficiently reassures me on foreign policy, I will vote for him.”
Which is just fine. The question is, what standards of judgment does one use to determine this - because I’m seeing bloggers weakening the standards of judgement they apply elsewhere in order to convince themselves. It strikes me as a semi-conscious attempt at self-deception, and Josh’s recent Oxblog post (via Andrew Sullivan) is is only notable for having the juxtaposition conveniently packaged in one place.
I’d urge Josh (and others) to consider the contrast between this excerpt:
October 12, 2004
'Cicero': A Rope Bridge, and a Vote of Fate
Reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog reveals a riptide of conflicts over the upcoming presidential election. Many have derided the largely conservative Mr. Sullivan for becoming weak before our odious adversaries at the fateful hour of the election. His public irreconcilability between two deficient candidates presents a prescient portrait of internal conflictions within many people who want to promote a progressive, tolerant world without feeding the Zarqawian head-eating monsters seeking its end. It is a tribute to Mr. Sullivan that he presents his struggle publicly, where so many satisfy themselves with assured positions. Heel-digging has its merits in the face of tyranny, but comes with the risk that the entire mountain of reason might collapse beneath you.
Today, Mr. Sullivan points out that American forces in Iraq failed to secure equipment and facilities that collectively can be used to create WMDs—-Missing Iraqi Nuke Material:
Here’s a report that sends chills down my spine:Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.
Where has the stuff gone? Why was it left unguarded? Another money quote:
The United States also has not publicly commented on earlier U.N. inspectors’ reports disclosing the dismantling of a range of key weapons-making sites, raising the question of whether it was unable to monitor the sites. In the absence of any U.S. or Iraqi accounting, council diplomats said the satellite images could mean the gear had been moved to new sites inside Iraq or stolen. If stolen, it could end up in the hands of a government or terrorist group seeking nuclear weapons.
“We simply don’t know, although we are trying to get the information,” said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. U.S. officials had no immediate comment on the report.
It’s about time they did, don’t you think?
Portions of the article not quoted by Mr. Sullivan also say:
A new CIA report last week by chief U.S. weapons investigator Charles Duelfer made clear, however, that Saddam had all but given up on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991.ElBaradei, whose agency dismantled Iraq’s nuclear arms program over a decade ago, drew similar conclusions to the Duelfer report well before the March 2003 invasion.
The article seems slanted towards the opinion that inspections alone will ensure that the bad stuff stays secure and watched. It underscores how the invasion was unnecessary, and undermined the job of the IAEA to safeguard the WMD materials in question. Meanwhile, next door in Iran, and further away in North Korea, the work of the IAEA has delivered poor results with each nation on the verge of being nuclear powers. Inspections without the threat of force did little to contain the production of WMDs. It is also interesting to note that the anti-war position stipulating that the invasion was unnecessary due to lack of WMDs is refuted in the article, since now related materiel is going missing, according to the IAEA themselves. So there were WMD programs in Iraq after all?
The attributed Duelfer report mentioned in the article provides much egg for all faces in the debate. It underscores how the French were supplying Saddam’s forces right up to the invasion; surely, some Americans died from French hardware in the bargain. No, France was never going to be for invasion, nor the UN who was raking in Oil For Food petrodollars. Nor the EU, under the spell of France. Cooperation and goodwill from erstwhile allies might have secured WMD sites in Iraq —- there’s plenty of blame to go around for Western intransigence.
The Duelfer report underscores failure from all sides: inspections guarantee nothing, nor does invasion.
So, like Mr. Sullivan, this blogger finds himself on a flimsy rope bridge swaying in the winds of a chasm created by two flawed popular positions for defending the Western world. It may be that our system really has met its match this time, because the enemy is not a system at all. It’s empowered anarchy, welling up from within and without. It challenges who we are, fundamentally.
This blogger has stated that he’s voting for Bush but rooting for Kerry. That’s a vote cast from the rope bridge, the logic of which could be inverted. As the chasm widens, this little bridge seems more fragile every day. How many people actually occupy this space? How many feel like the choices presented just don’t fill the bill? There’s emotional solid ground on each side of this bridge. It would be quite tidy to simply take one or the other position and receive pats on the back from either Democrats or Republicans. In this position, if either of the two cliffs representing the West gives way, so does this little bridge. The world will not be saved by either conservatives or liberals. It will be saved by a strong sense of common ground and new thinking from both sides. It will be saved by reducing the gap that this little bridge must span. Is this remotely possible?
If there’s solace to be taken from a Kerry victory, it will be the possibility that liberalism will be truly taken to task by historical forces, like conservativism has been. This time around, a liberal president will not have the political advantages afforded by the power vacuum at the end of the Cold War, concurrent with a miracle tech economy that kept eyes planted on the NASDAQ and not the Cole disaster. This time, a liberal president has the unenviable job of showing that the French can be reformed, that the UN is not utterly dysfunctional and that Carterism has workable limits. Let the sobering begin.
President Bush, who ran on a near-isolationist platform in 2000, redefined conservatism in 2001 because the world changed. That’s why he’s got my vote. Mr. Kerry, so far, seems reluctant to redefine liberalism in the context of the modern world. His heels are firmly planted on a mountain floating on magma. As President, liberalism, as we know it, will either be redefined or it will perish.
Four more years of Bush will only prolong liberalism’s promenade with fantasy; four years of Kerry will either return a functional balance within our system or consummate its disequilibrium, at the risk of chaos. It is a vote of fate.
September 30, 2004
Why A John Kerry Presidency Would Lead To Doom In Iraq
Despite the inordinate amount of time that has been spent debating foreign affairs during this election season, particularly the situation in Iraq, there is a crucial issue that hasn’t yet received the attention that it deserves. The ignored point in question is how John Kerry’s over-the-top campaign rhetoric would make it almost impossible for him to successfully deal with Iraq.
While Kerry’s position on Iraq has wildly shifted to and fro over the last couple of years, his most recent comments have been particularly outlandish and irresponsible.
Kerry has called Iraq “a profound diversion from (the war on terrorism)”, opined that the US shouldn’t have invaded in the first place, and has called it “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
Also, we must keep in mind that Kerry has said he is “proud” to have voted against funding the war and has made it clear that he’s not committed to Democracy in Iraq by saying,
“With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn’t be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here…is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that’s a full democracy.”
So in John Kerry, we would have a vacillating Commander-In-Chief who believes the invasion was a mistake, didn’t want to fund the war afterwards, and has made it plain that he’s willing to settle for less than Democracy in Iraq.
In other words, unlike George Bush, John Kerry has no stake in Iraq and he might decide to cut and run at any time. He even has a ready made excuse; he can blame it all on George Bush! You can almost hear the speech John Kerry would make as he orders our troops out,
“Pulling out of Iraq and letting it collapse into Civil War was the toughest decision I ever made in my life. However, after thinking back to my time in Vietnam, I knew what I had to do. After all, how could I look one of our soldiers in the eye and ask him to be the last man to die for George Bush’s mistake?”
Now, how do you think having someone with that attitude in the White House would affect the morale of the troops? Do you think they’d really want to risk their lives for a cause their own Commander-in-Chief doesn’t believe in and might give up on at any time?
Would the Iraqi people trust a man like John Kerry who is now in effect saying that if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power? As if that weren’t bad enough, when Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi came to the US to give a speech to a Joint Session of Congress, John Kerry in essence called him a liar, made it clear that he doesn’t think elections will go forward in January of next year, and sent his senior adviser Joe Lockhart out to gratuitously insult Allawi by calling him a “puppet of the United States”. Were John Kerry to become President, the Iraqi people could very well become panicky and lose all confidence that the United States still intends to help them become a Democracy.
And what about the “insurgents” and their terrorist allies in Iraq? What do you think is going to give them more inspiration to keep fighting — four more years of George Bush, who has been the greatest foe of terrorism the world has ever seen — or John Kerry, a skittish candidate who might pull the troops out at any time?
Then there are our allies in the Coalition, nations like Britain, Poland, Australia, Italy, South Korea, and Japan. Many of these countries sent troops to Iraq despite tough political opposition at home and have hung in there with us through tough times, even though they’ve lost soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Are they going to be willing to stay in Iraq and fight what the new President of the United States thinks is, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time”? How many nations that are with us in Iraq today would continue to stick in there if a man who has mockingly referred to them as part of a, “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted” becomes President? John Kerry claims he can bring new allies into the Coalition, but it’s entirely possible that he would instead cost us many of the allies we already have in this crucial endeavor.
As John Kerry said during one of his pro-war phases, Iraq is, “critical to the outcome of the war on terror”. Getting rid of Saddam was a blow against terrorism and helping Iraq become a Democracy is vitally important to improving our image in the Middle-East, helping freedom spread across the region, & winning the war on terrorism.
That’s why it’s so encouraging to see that we are making a lot of progress in Iraq. As Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi said, “2500 schools…have been renovated”, they are working on “150 new health care centers”, National elections are scheduled for January, and the Iraqis are rapidly moving towards a day when they can handle their own security without American soldiers having to be put at risk,
“The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat - ready Iraqis. By January it will be some 145,000. And by the end of next year, some 250,000 Iraqis.”
In Iraq, certainly there have been mistakes made, unexpected difficulties, and tough times, but we are going in the right direction and if we give George Bush another term, he has shown that he has what it takes to get the job done. The same can’t be said of John Kerry. To the contrary, a vote for John Kerry is likely to be a vote for failure in Iraq, which would be a huge setback in the war on terrorism, a betrayal of the soldiers who gave their lives fighting there, and the breaking of America’s pledge to help the Iraqis become a free people.
So make a wise choice in November because whether we succeed or fail in Iraq will likely depend on the outcome of the election.
September 29, 2004
Bush or Kerry: He'll Be MY President
[By Armed Liberal]
Over the last few weeks, I’ve felt the pressure to get off the fence and declare for one candidate or the other. Commenters here, and people in my personal life, have pushed me to ‘fess up that I’m a Bush supporter, or admit that I’m too much of a Democrat to cross the line.
Thinking about this feels kind of like having a chipped tooth. Every time your tongue curls over and touches it, you get a flash of pain, and yet you keep going back and doing it again.
And then, as I wrestled with it - with Kerry’s opportunistic failure to be honest about where we stand in foreign policy; with Bush’s stream of failures in post-invasion Iraq and domestic security - I realized that there’s a much bigger issue afoot.
I remember the bumper stickers disclaiming responsibility for the Nixon/Humphrey election - “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for McCarthy” which in today’s discourse have been replaced by bumper stickers saying “He’s Not My President” and trying to disclaim responsibility for a whole Administration.
Well, you can’t. And yes he is. And yes he will be, whoever he is.
August 30, 2004
Cubans now MUST Vote for Bush
Video Award Shoutdown Assures Castro Cabinet Post
I don’t watch award shows. As I have explained in the past, this is partly because I am neither female nor gay. But it’s also an integral part of my policy of being completely out of the loop.
I didn’t see the MTV Video Awards this weekend. In fact, I have no idea which night they ran. But I know two things. The show was filmed in Miami, and John Kerry’s daughters got booed off the stage.
I was wondering how that happened. The Kerry girls may be wacked-out moonbats with a chin for a father, but they’re reasonably hot, and the big one, Alexandra, was kind enough to show us her boobs at the Cannes Anti-American Hate Film Festival. In fact, the phrase “Film Festival” could be used to describe her dress.
Then I realized…Miami…that means CUBANS! Yes, my guess is that a whole bunch of Cuban kids started screaming when the spawn of Lurch appeared on the stage.
Cubans are wrong Hispanics. They have never figured out that they’re an oppressed minority, entitled to lie around sucking Uncle Sam’s nipple and being patronized by liberal politicians. So they’re generally conservative, although that becomes less true every year.
It’s always funny to see frustrated liberals come up against Cubans for the first time. A friend of mine went to Harvard for an interview—or maybe it was Yale—and some nut came up to her and said, “I just want you to know I sympathize with your people’s struggle.”
What struggle? The struggle to get property re-zoned “commercial” in Hialeah so they can build more malls? The struggle against mindless leftism? This lady had no idea what she was dealing with, but as is usually the case with liberals, she didn’t care. She saw a Hispanic, therefore she saw a fellow liberal, and an oppressed one at that.
Anyway, some Cubans have drifted away from the GOP lately, but they better come back now. If Stonewall Kerry gets elected, he’ll never forget how Miami’s Cubans treated his daughters. Look for Castro to receive a Cabinet position.
Another funny thing: apparently, the desire to stifle dissent runs in the family. Some photographer shot a picture of Alexandra Kerry holding a finger to her lips, telling the crowd to shut up. It didn’t work with the Swift Vets, and it didn’t work with the Awards crowd, either.
“Shh! Don’t boo my daddy!”
But maybe George Bush should try it in New York this week. “Shh! Stop screaming obscenities! Stop throwing cat litter on the police! Stop trying to confuse the bomb dogs!”
Nahhh. Let’s stick with tear gas and fire hoses.
August 23, 2004
A Review Of Michelle Malkin's 'In Defense Of Internment'
P>There are at least two things that make it very difficult to accurately evaluate historical events. The first is that hindsight is 20/20. In other words, we tend to judge what happened in the past without taking into account all of the knowledge that we have acquired after the fact. For example, when we look back at WW2, not only do we know how everything turned out, but we have decades of extensive research to rely on that the actors on the world stage during that conflict did not have access to.
Furthermore, we as human beings often look at historical events through the prism of today’s conditions and standards. Put another way, it’s hard for those of us who live in the world’s most prosperous and powerful nation to truly imagine what life was actually like back in World War 2. We may THINK we know, but there are many things of import that we are wont to discount or shrug off simply because they’re no longer of concern.
Which brings us to the Japanese internment during WW2.
Until recently, there has scarcely even been any public debate about the issue. The Japanese Internment has been written off by most people as another sad, racist, chapter of our history that was wholly without merit.
However, Michelle Malkin argues in her new book, “In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War 2 and the War on Terror,” that things are not as black and white as we’ve been led to believe. To the contrary, Malkin argues that “the national security measures taken during World War 2 were justifiable, given what was known and not known at the time”.
In order to prove this assertion, Malkin paints a picture, quite effectively I might add, of a situation in which the Japanese internment is one of several not very pleasant options that Roosevelt had to choose between. Here’s what I consider to be the crux of the case that Malkin makes….
— The attack on Pearl Harbor severely damaged our Pacific forces and brought America into WW2 - on the side that was currently losing. And this was not like the Gulf War or Vietnam, we could not simply choose to “go home” and end the war. Losing would have likely meant — at some point — marauding Axis armies marching through the countryside raping, murdering, and pillaging everything in their path. The stakes don’t get any higher than they were in a conflict like World War 2.
— On December 11th of 1941, the freighter SS Lahaina was sunk by a Japanese sub off of Honolulu. Another Japanese sub sank the SS Manini in Hawaiian waters 6 days later. On December 18th, another sub sank the SS Prusa near the “big island”. Several other December attacks occurred within 20 miles of the California and Oregon coastlines. On February 23rd, a Japanese sub shelled the Ellwood oil fields in Goleta, California. At least one “high ranking Japanese military official—Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi…was eager to carry the war to the U.S. mainland”.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson also wrote this in his diary on February 10, 1942
“…I think it is quite within the bounds of possibility that if the Japanese should get naval dominance in the Pacific they would try an invasion of this country; and, if they did, we would have a tough job meeting them.”
In other words, Japanese forces were close and the danger to our homeland was very real.
— Richard Kotoshirodo, a Japanese American and John Mikami, who was Japanese, gathered extensive amounts of information while they were spying that was very helpful to the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor. Japanese-Americans (Yoshio and Irene Harada) aided a Japanese pilot who landed at Niihau island, Hawaii after being shot down while attacking Pearl Harbor.
Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,
“We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials…”
That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.
A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, “‘there can be no doubt that’ most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations “continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast”.
So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.
— While we clearly couldn’t trust citizens of Japan (or other Axis nations) to run around unsupervised while we were in the middle of a fight to the finish with their home-countries (hence the 11,229 Japanese citizens, 10,905 German citizens, 3,728 Italian citizens and a few others who were rounded up and interned), American born citizens were of course a different matter. Certainly, most of them were loyal. Curtis Munson who was been sent to investigate the issue, estimated that 90-98% of Japanese-Americans could be trusted (although he had his doubts about 9000 Kibei — Japanese-Americans schooled in Japan).
However, Munson also noted that even a very small number of saboteurs could do a cataclysmic damage to the war effort,
“…The harbor at San Pedro could be razed by fire completely by four men with grenades and a little study in one night. Dams could be blown and half of lower California might actually die of thirst. One railway bridge at the exit from the mountains in some cases could tie up three or four main railroads…”
Here’s more on the damage that could be caused by saboteurs from Provost Marshal General Allen Gullion,
“If production for war is seriously delayed by sabotage in the West Coastal states, we very possibly shall lose the war….from reliable reports from military and other sources, the danger of Japanese-inspired espionage is great.”
— America and other nations traditionally interned “enemy aliens” during wars. For example, in World War 1 more than 6300 “European-born civilians” were interned. Moreover, Mexico and Canada both chose to move ethnic Japanese away from their coasts. Also, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that interning Japanese citizens was constitutional.
— Furthermore, Malkin revealed that in 1944, disturbingly “28 percent (of draft age Japanese-American evacuees) refused to swear allegiance to their country or forswear allegiance to the emperor of Japan” and when given the opportunity, 5,620 Japanese-Americans chose to abandon their U.S. citizenship.
— Last but not least, there were no easy options for dealing with the situation. Mere monitoring of suspect Japanese citizens would have likely be too difficult given the number of people involved, the consequences of failure, and the demands of a world war. Criminal prosecutions of suspected spies would have been nearly impossible because intelligence sources couldn’t be revealed and it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove someone who was say simply watching ship movements (so they could later report them) was committing a crime. Another possibility would have been some sort of “quasi-judicial military tribunal,” but there would have been constitutional questions about that and it couldn’t possibly be as effective as evacuating and/or interning Japanese-Americans along the West Coast.
In a nutshell, that’s the dilemma that Malkin is trying to put in front of people with this book. Was it worth causing great inconvenience & infringing on the civil liberties of the Japanese-Americans who were interned, most of whom were loyal, patriotic, Americans, in order to stop the potential loss of countless American lives as a result of the actions of comparatively small numbers of disloyal Japanese-American saboteurs & spies?
In today’s world, even in the context of the war on terrorism, that’s an easy question to answer and indeed Malkin specifically states that she does not support rounding up Arabs or Muslims and putting them in camps. But, given the circumstances we faced in World War 2, Malkin argues that there was justification for interning of Japanese-Americans during World War 2. After reading her book, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that she’s right.
August 01, 2004
Ethnic Profiling of Terrorist Suspects is Both Legal and Necessary
So Shut up and let it Happen
From Hog on Ice.
Today I noticed that Michelle Malkin and Dean Esmay are going at it over the issue of ethnic profiling in the war on terror.
First, I have to say that it’s a relief to see a big-time writer open a REAL blog, as contrasted with the utter phoniness of Wankette (or is it “Donkette”) who sprang fully formed from the head of a publicist. Michelle Malkin links to other bloggers and allows comments, and judging by her traffic at TruthLaidBear, she’s content to earn hits instead of buying them. And she actually writes her blog, instead of hiring flunkies (“wonkies”?) to do it.
Anyway, ethnic profiling.
A Muslim lady—Pakistani—with a South African passport crossed our border from Mexico numerous times, and she was finally caught in an airport on US soil.
Malkin says, correctly, that this shows the importance of watching our borders, and if I am not mistaken, she cites it as a case that shows ethnic profiling is justified.
Now, I hate to get into it with a friend, but Dean Esmay is totally wrong, unless I misunderstand what he wrote.
In “A Challenge for Ms. Malkin,” Dean makes several claims.
Dean says the story isn’t good evidence that our borders are a problem, because the woman was caught. Malkin slapped that effort down by reminding him that the lady in question had penetrated the border many, many times before her arrest.
Dean also argues that the arrestee, one Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed, was not easily identifiable as Muslim. Malkin obliterated that argument simply by referring to Ahmed’s name. That was a little too easy.
Dean seems to believe that since many of our enemies do not “look” Muslim, ethnic profiling is a waste of time. And as evidence, he links to a photo of a female terrorist, which you can see here, and he says the lady in the photo could pass for one of his white relatives. Her name, by the way, is Aaifia Siddiqui.
Now, take a look at the olive-skinned, dark-eyed, black-haired, Mediterranean-featured lady in the photo and tell me she looks Irish to you. Come on, Dean.
There are two arguments neither Malkin nor Dean address, which is sad, because they are central and dispositive. I’ve made both of them here, but I’ll drag them out again.
First, with regard to airplanes, ethnic profiling is essential, because it is impossible to recruit non-Muslims for suicide missions. A hijacking is a suicide mission. Our enemies are motivated by religion, and they believe they’ll be rewarded in the afterlife for dying in the fight against infidels. People outside their religion do not believe in a reward. They have to be paid right here on earth, and they are not going to get in airplanes and blow themselves up for money.
That means EVERY hijacker—and every terrorist on any type of suicidal mission—is a Muslim. If we could magically determine which passengers were Muslim and make them take trains, airline hijackings would end instantly. We can’t do that. But it’s very clear that we should be focusing on Muslims when we screen passengers. And that means looking for Mediterranean features, Arab names, passports from countries with high Muslim populations, and so on.
Dean says not all Muslims look Muslim. That’s beside the point. There are other indicia we can look at.
Right now, screeners can be fined for bothering too many people who “look” Muslims. So if you want to get a bomb on a plane, your best bet is to send twenty decoys through the line, fill the quota, and then send in the guy with the exploding shoes. Thinking like Dean’s makes that possible.
The second argument is this: ethnic profiling is legal and comports with the Constitution. It’s not only a colorable argument; it’s indisputable.
This is where being a lawyer helps.
In this country, the government can discriminate on an ethnic basis if certain criteria are satisfied. First, the discrimination has to be intended to further a “compelling state interest.” Second, the discriminatory practice (such as ethnic profiling) has to be “narrowly tailored” so it achieves the state’s goal with as little collateral damage as possible. You can look this up in any Constitutional Law text.
Thanks to our Supreme Court, there is no doubt whatsoever that keeping terrorists out of the country is a compelling interest. That is beyond dispute. Why? Because in a couple of idiotic opinions issued recently, the Court said diversity in college student bodies was a compelling state interest. Remember Gratz and Grutter? Unbelievably stupid opinions, but they’re the law of the land. Now, if making sure Harvard Law School has enough Samoans is a compelling state interest, there can be no doubt whatsoever that our interest in keeping terrorists out of the country is compelling, too.
As for “narrowly tailored,” what could be more narrowly tailored than keeping lists of Muslims with suspicious contacts and inconveniencing them a little?
What’s a greater imposition? Being denied admission to medical school because you’re white, or having to take off your shoes in an airport?
So with all due respect to Dean, I can’t agree with his argument.
We need ethnic profiling. Our enemies select themselves on the basis of religion and ethnicity, and we need to use those same factors when we try to identify them.
But that won’t happen until enough Americans die. We’ve had three years of freedom from domestic terrorism, and complacency has set in. But sooner or later, we’ll turn on our TV’s and see other American buildings burning or other American airliners smoldering in pieces, and then ethnic profiling will suddenly seem like an okay idea.
When life is easy, wacky liberal notions take root and flower, like ticks on a fat dog. When the going gets tough, however, you do what works.
We’re going to have sensible anti-terror policies eventually. The trick is to stay alive until we get them, and not all of us are going to make it.
July 23, 2004
John Kerry Didn't Support The Troops In His Post-Vietnam Days
The most underreported and unexplored story of the entire presidential campaign has been John Kerry’s time as an anti-war protester. Here’s a guy who is selling himself to the American public as Sgt. York reincarnated and yet the same press which spent weeks hyperventilating over the unsupported & insubstantial “George Bush AWOL” story has shown scant interest in digging into Kerry’s Post-Vietnam days.
However, there are a plethora of great angles for front-page stories out there. Kerry spoke from the back of the same pick-up truck as hated anti-war protester Jane Fonda, Kerry was present at a VVAW meeting where they “discussed and voted (against) an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators”, Kerry’s first Purple Heart turned out to be an accidentally self-inflicted scratch that was fixed with a band-aid which is particularly significant since his three purple hearts got him out of Vietnam and into the anti-war movement well before his tour of duty should have ended, all of Kerry’s former commanding officers think he’s unfit to be President, Kerry claimed that he committed atrocities in Vietnam, etc, etc, etc.
If Kerry were a Republican instead of a Democrat — which would mean that the press would really go after him on this stuff instead of burying it — all the baggage from his time as a Vietnam War protester would be enough to torpedo his campaign.
Think I’m exaggerating?
Well, imagine what would happen if Kerry’s war record got the scrutiny it deserved. Think about what a month of articles featuring devastating quotes, like the ones compiled by groups like Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, would do to the Kerry campaign if they regularly appeared on the front pages of the “A list” papers like the New York Times, the WAPO, USA Today, & the Chicago Tribune…
“In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States’ efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness.” — Richard O’Mara
“I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I’m here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is when I leave here today, I’m going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it’s not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best.” — Robert Brant
“In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn’t see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid… collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family — my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors — he told everyone I knew and everyone I’d ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities.” — David Wallace
“I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry. In 1971, ‘72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains — there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it.” — Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
“(Kerry) encouraged our enemies to rebuild and hang on when they were near defeat, as they were after the tet offensive in 1968. Did you know our POWs had John Kerry’s words quoted to them by their interrogators?” — Retired U.S. Navy SEAL captain with service in Vietnam, John Bailey
“John Kerry’s recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?” — John O’Neil in May, 2004
The fact that John Kerry, a man who trashed the military so badly in his testimony before Congress that the Vietnamese played Kerry’s words to our POWs in an effort to break their will, is now portraying himself as a champion of the military who can be trusted to lead America because of his Vietnam war experience, is practically beyond belief. As Mark Steyn once said of Kerry, “He spent the Seventies playing Jane Fonda and he now wants to run as John Wayne.”
If Kerry wants to play up his combat time and his medals, I have no complaints. He did put his life in danger, he did win medals, and he deserves credit for that. But, there were a lot of soldiers who fought in the Vietnam war who fit that description and Kerry smeared their good names, trashed their reputations, and stood shoulder to shoulder with anti-war protesters who thought our soldiers were human garbage. As far as I’m concerned that in and of itself makes John Kerry unfit to be the President of the United States.
July 20, 2004
Kerry Suspected in Pants Scandal?
I’m Almost Like a Journalist Today
From Hog on Ice.
I have been cleared to reveal the following info. I’m not allowed to say where I got it.
I have a reader who is involved with the government’s efforts to fight terror, and he has connections who tell him the big suspicion is that Berger took things he thought would help Kerry in the Presidential campaign. Also, the grapevine says not all of the documents taken were copies. Furthermore, I am told that an FBI agent described Berger as “a total asshole” who is not as cooperative as he claims.
Also, I am told that an effort is being made—either by the press or the Kerry/Berger camp; it’s not very clear—to mount a sound bite campaign to put the matter to rest. The idea is to make it look like sloppiness, because the truth is that it was deliberate. And I am told that this scandal is much more serious than we have heard so far.
Supposedly, Berger may have absconded with documents containing information on our efforts to keep our ports and airports safe. Let me remind you, one of our biggest fears is that a nuclear weapon will be smuggled in on a ship and detonated in a harbor. Such as New York Harbor. It’s my understanding that we use certain types of technology to try to detect radioactive materials in ships and vehicles. All we need is for terrorists to find out what the technology is and how to beat it.
Worse, the documents may reveal areas in which we are still vulnerable. A roadmap for terrorists.
Finally, I am told that Fox’s version of the story, while not quite right, is closest to the truth.
Knock me over with a feather.
It’s a very bad thing if a former NSA and a Senator conspired to violate our national security in order to win an election. Much, much worse than wiretapping DNC headquarters, where no information of any importance has ever been known to exist. In other words, much, much worse than Watergate, in terms of the danger it poses to the U.S.
But very good for George Bush.
Picture the situation. Kerry and his handlers and interns and PR goons, zipping around doing all the things you have to do to keep a campaign going, and all the while, there are documents lying around which may contain crucial information about our efforts to guard our ports and airports.
That’s just great.
Now if we can just get Teresa to punch a nun in the face.
July 05, 2004
Is John Kerry About To Pick Dick Gephardt For Veep?
Speculation continues to mount over who John Kerry will pick for Vice President. And the speculation-game clock is running down — since Kerry will announce his Veep choice before the Democratic convention later this month.
If Kerry intends to pick a Vice President who will add a new-blood image to his ticket, the two names being floated could not be more contradictory. And he seems to like the word “former.” The two biggest names floated are soon-to-be-former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and former Speaker of the House Dick Gephardt. Really.
Edwards may have his downside, but he was a fresh face and during the primaries seemed to have “it” — that rare quality that only a few policos have, where voters truly seem to LIKE them and are turned on by them. And Gephardt may have his upside, but he has that frequent characteristic many politicos have, where he served in Washington so long his name is not only synonomous with the name of the capitol but he has a political face so old it needs a consultant’s face-lift.
Edwards would be (for better or worse) new blood. Gephardt to all but partisans embodies a certain word that’s used in New York to describe a taxi. Actually, that word has many definitions:
” drudge..(NOT THAT ONE)…machine politician, ward-heeler, a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends….a mediocre and disdained writer….a tool as a hoe or pick or mattock….cab…. taxi, taxicab….a car driven by a person whose job is to take passengers where they want to go in exchange for money.. jade, nag, plug…an old or over-worked horse…a horse kept for hire…a saddle horse used for transportation rather than sport etc.
You guessed correctly, kids! The word is “hack.”
But, non-Democrats (including independent swing voters such as your truly) are asking, how could a campaign and candidate that have shown all the excitement of a plate of cold, unsugared oatmeal even contemplate such a thing? And how could it be considered a plus. Easily:
—Archpundit reports this:”Just got some scuttlebutt, top Gephardt aide Joyce Aboussie has been sent a private plane to join Dick Gephardt for….one can only assume the announcement that Dick Gephardt will be the next Vice President Nominee for the Democratic Party. “
—Political Wire reports this:”Update: For what it’s worth, I’ve been getting a lot of whispers in recent days that Kerry has settled on Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate. Some of the sources are fairly credible, but none of them are Kerry himself. So I guess we’ll still have to wait.”
—Oliver Willis writes this:”I’m obviously going to support the ticket, but I’ll be quite disappointed if this turns out to be true. Then again, whoever it is will be better than Cheney….And for those of you with dirty minds out there, the ticket will be ‘John & Dick’”.
—Kos writes this:
….Gephardt might not the most exciting choice, but he gives the Republicans zero ammunition. And that fits in nicely within Kerry’s strategy…Kerry’s team is operating under the C.W. assumption (correctly, IMHO) that a reelection battle is a referendum on the incumbent. Hence, they are fully expecting Bush to do himself in, leaving Kerry as the only alternative by the time November runs around. It may not be an exciting strategy, but a sound one nevertheless. Gephardt as veep would be a natural extension of that strategy.
—QandO points to yet another Gephardt-is-it-indicator, this time in The Note, and writes:”For the life of me, I just don’t get it. Whatever credibility Gephardt may have after a career in the House, most Americans will never know it. Hell, most American’t can’t name the Secretary of State at any given time, so they’re certainly not familiar with Dick Gephardt’s long history of……well, whatever Dick Gephardt has done….I can’t imagine a less charismatic character on the bottom of Kerry’s ticket. I haven’t even seen a Democrat who can muster up an ounce of excitement over the prospect of Dick Gephardt in the White House.”
If this is a continuation of the apparent anti-Bush strategy — which is more like Thomas E. Dewey running against Harry Truman and taking bland stands counting on anti-incumbancy to win the election — then Kerry is making a huge mistake.
NOTHING can be taken for granted, and if Gephardt is indeed chosen it would make the phrase “uninspiring choice” a classic understatement.
UPDATE:
— Talon News reports that Kerry will make a “surprise” announcement within a few days. Then it speculates on Edwards but hedges its bet by mentioning a slew of candidates including Gephard and, of course at the bottom of the piece, Hillary Clinton. At this point there has been so much speculation on all of the Vice Presidential candidates that the only surprise would be if Kerry picked The Moderate Voice (and he is booked through the summer).
—Archpundit gives a thoughtful argument here on why Gephardt could be a good pick. Even so, we firmly believe it would be a mistake; a Kerry-Gephardt ticket would be The Sleep Eze ticket.
—CNN quotes a Democratic source saying Kerry has made his decision and will announce it shortly.
—Ezra Klein also makes an excellent case for Gephardt. Some excerpts:
There’s a lot of speculation around that Gephardt is the choice. I, honestly, am kind of expecting him to be the guy, if only because Kerry and him genuinely like each other and political egos are big enough that few nominees recognize they need help. Now, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Gephardt is not my first, second, or even fifth choice. He’s too much of a protectionist, has too long a House record and really upset me by undercutting opposition to the Iraq War. That said, I think Gephardt’s got a few things to recommend him.
He then outlines them extensively and, from a political standpoint, convincingly. So we use the dreaded phrase: Read the whole thing. He concludes:
Do I love Gephardt? No. But he’s been a loyal Democrat and a fighter for progressive values for decades. He represents a wing of this party all too often forgotten post-Clinton, we could do worse than showing them that the Democratic Party still believes in their interests.
—Pejmanesque also believes it’s going to be Gephardt (she signed up for the Gephardt email notification and nothing came. I did too and all I got was an “enlargement” spam…)
—Max Stoller: “The despair among progressives at the potential choice of Gephardt is interesting, mostly because of what it suggests about progressives. Why is Kerry the only candidate that matters? Why does any agenda have to be pushed by the President?” (Of course, we don’t belong to a party: our fear is that Gephardt on the ticket will mean we’ll have to spend a lot more money at Starbucks buying double shots of expresso).
July 01, 2004
Take the Enhanced Political Quiz
You may be surprised with the results.
The latest ranking of your humble blogger
Wow - I must be getting more libertarian with age. Or something.
Take the Enhanced Political Quiz - the results are somtimes surprising. (I think most people are more libertarian than they realize).
This version of the quiz was designed by the evil libertarian madman seen here (who also happens to be my old college roomate - a good friend).
This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.
June 27, 2004
When Zell Miller Speaks Before The GOP Convention
(Note: The author originally posted this on Dean’s World where he was Guest Blogger.)
Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the Republicans’ favorite Democrat, will be speaking at the GOP convention. And it’s being described in news stories (and on web logs) as something of a coup.
Miller has assumed a role in recent months akin to the late Governor John Connelly of Texas, who switched from being a Democrat to a Republican under President Richard Nixon. Only in this case Miller, who is retiring from the Senate, is not actually switching parties. In a larger sense, his status reflects the exodus over the years of many conservative Democrats to the GOP fold. Only in this case he hasn’t formally left.
According to news reports, Miller will give his speech on Wednesday night of the four-day August convention in NYC. The Bush campaign’s proud annoucement is expected Monday.
Needless to say, Democrats aren’t exactly pleased:
- Bobby Kahn, the chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party, said he wasn’t surprised.
“Maybe I’ll switch to the Republican Party so I can speak at the Democratic Convention and bash Bush,” Kahn said. “It makes about as much sense.”
Kahn was a top aide to Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, who appointed Miller to the Senate following the death of Miller’s predecessor, Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell.
“I advocated his appointment,” Kahn said of Miller. “He said he would be independent and he was for a while, but he hasn’t been lately. He’s been in lockstep with the Republicans and I don’t know what’s happened to him. It’s really kind of sad.”
Actually, the Republicans needn’t be so elated and the Democrats needn’t fret so much.
Miller isn’t going to change significant poll numbers on this race, nor will any of his comments lambasting his party be a big revelation (but they will liven the convention up). He has had a high profile for a while now with his criticism of his party and various Democrats via his lively book, plus appearances on radio and cable talk shows.
HOWEVER, his appearance will underscrore how the Democratic party’s center has shifted over the years. That Joe Lieberman is considered by many to be a conservative Democrat shows how greatly the party’s center of gravity has changed.
More than anything, his speech will be a way for him and the GOP to irk the Democrats…but it won’t change whatever poll results are prevailing at the time, and won’t change the Bush-Kerry-Nader dynamics.
And, in the end, he’ll be overshadowed by the Convention’s real star — California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.