P vs. C

2005-05-29T16:19:00.000-04:00

The Answer to the Questions

So we seem to have two really big problems these days. First, our ever more lethal, high-tech, and shrinking military is having trouble meeting its recruitment goals (although it's not quite as hopeless as some would wish). Second, we have a problem with Social Security. Apparently when the thing started there were something like 17 workers to every retiree (and a life expectancy of 67 with a retirement age of 65), but we're told that by 2020 there will be 2 or 3 workers to every beneficiary (and a retirment age of 65 or 66 and a life expectancy creeping past 77).

So where am I going with this? I'm going down a very unpopular but truthful road.

If Roe vs. Wade had never happened there would right now be about 40 million additional Americans ages 0-32.

Right now the military takes volunteers out of a population of 60 million Americans age 18-35. Add 15 or 20 million to that number and guess what have you got? A lot fewer headaches for the recruiters.

Social Security will be untenable because our population growth is now coming from immigrants instead of live births. I'm in favor of an open society and free immigration into our land of opportunity, but when people are added to the population at age 20 or 30, they'll be paying into Social Security for less time. Simple math. We could have another 20-25 million Americans paying into Social Security RIGHT NOW, had it not been for Roe v. Wade.

I've always said liberalism/progressivism is dangerous and antithetical to American success. But it took me 31 years and a bad breakfast that got me a little too much free time to figure out that the liberal death blow to the American empire was struck in a court room 32 years ago.

2005-05-15T21:04:00.000-04:00

Taming the Tiger, or -
How to Keep a 4000 Year Old Dragon From Becoming a 400lb Gorilla

Well, P vs. C has watched a lot of stuff go by. And, admittedly, my own commitement to post monthly has sagged far behind. Oops.

But we're back with a bit of analysis and geo-political forecasting. I read a few interesting articles this weekend, and I think we could be approaching a fork in the road as far as history goes. The article that got me to thinking/researching was this one from the Washington Post. To sum up, if you're too lazy to click into the link, the writer makes the excellent point that it's kind of arrogant and shrot-sited of America to try to 'manage' the rise of China, since from a historical standpoint, rising nations tend to manage their own ascent to power (like the British did, and we did).

To put it mildly, I think he's right. So what kind of future do we approach? Well, it's probably the one we're already in. If you ask anyone in investing today what to do or what will happen, one word keeps popping up - China. "What about the construction market?" "Let's see what happens in China." "What about energy investments?" "That depends on what China does."

Too many of us Americans take comfort in globalization, our current military supremacy, and our economic health as proof positive that we're entering "The Second American Century". Most of the same Americans that put their faith in this unholy trinity can not conceive of a world in which global politics, global markets, and the culture of the world are not dominated by American values. Most of these Americans that try to picture this are frightened, so they retreat to the idea that it "just can't happen."

So what do we do? Well, we could try to put tariffs on Chinese imports, but with a January to April trade deficit of over $21 billion that seems alot like putting your thumb in a dam that's already broke.

I have a better idea. Why not make sure that China is our friend? Nations rise and nations fall my friends, such is life on this little spinning blue ball. China has some human rights problems, for sure. China has some personal freedoms issues, for sure. But think back in your own life. When do you change? When you're asked to by a friend, or told to by an adversary?

2005-01-02T22:38:00.000-05:00

Happy 2005!

Welcome to another year! P vs. C's been quiet for awhile, but as part of my New Years' resolution, I'm going to try to post at least twice a month.

Without fear, here are my five (remember, this is the protestant conservative here) predictions for the year ahead.

5.) Pope John Paul II will be replaced as Pope, either through death, health, or simply stepping down. The line in Vegas is too close for me to predict who, exactly will replace him.

4.) Social Security reform will fail. This stems from my belief that SS reform is another win-win scenario cooked up by the Rove Foundation. If Bush gets it, he's a big success and Wall Street is flooded with new investors and capital, generating 10-15 years of solid growth. If it turns south and the fight with the AARP and Dems gets too brutal, he'll let it die and use it as a rallying cry to mobilize the age 25-40 conservative vote in 2006 and further stack the legislative deck in the Republican's favor.

3.) Iraq stabilizes. I think this happens between July and September of 2005. The most under-reported story of 2004 is the Iraqi stock market and the implications it will have to the average Iraqi. The Iraqi stock market was founded in March, 2004 with 15 companies. It doubled in size by the end of the month, and I'm not sure how many it has now. The Iraqi Ministry of Trade is registering 1000 new businesses a month, and the Dinar is poised for a breakout this year, while the Iraqi economy is projected to grow at a 40-50% (and those are the most pesimistic forecasts). What does all this add up to? An Iraqi middle class for the first time in 30 years, that's what. I don't know if Iraqis will fight and die for democracy, but I do know that all people will fight and die to protect that which they've earned, and by the end of this year, the average Iraqi will have earned enough to want to end the fighting quickly and peacefully.

2.) Osama gets captured. Why not? It's a fun pick me up prediction that lots of pundits are making.

1.) And this is the one I haven't seen anywhere else - Saudi Arabia has an attempted coup de tat. The key term is 'attempted'. Al Qaeda opperatives in the country will tragically mis-judge their influence and try something really stupid. Some royals may be killed, but in the end, SA's special forces will pretty much wipe the floors with AQ for the rest of the year and it will serve as a nice wake-up call for a lot of terrorist supporting Arab nations.

Oh, and by the way, bonus pick - if the Saudi coup prediction happens, buy gas as soon as you see the report, because oil's going over $60 a barrel if it comes true.

Hope some of these happen, and I hope I'm really wrong on some of the others. Happy New Year!

2004-11-17T16:38:00.000-05:00

Disecting the Disection of the Election

The old P vs. C front has been quiet for awhile, so let's rekindle the debate! A final analysis of the Presidential Election of 2004 (from the Protestant/Conservative viewpoint).

1.) Red States vs. Blue States - Nothing makes less sense than this. This is not the Civil War, and there will not be a United States of Canada, or JesusLand, or anything else of the type. A closer look at the electoral map will show you something. Most of the red states have some blue, and most of the blue states have some red. So what can we tell from this? For one, looking at the map linked to above, one can determine that the Presidential difference does not occur at the State level, it is more a matter of lifestyle. Specifically, suburban/rural Americans have different needs, wants, and expectations of the President than urban Americans. If you want to dissect the vote, you have to go beyond the state level to the county-level voters.

2.) Democratic "Strategy" - So tell me why Bob Shrum gets put in charge of every Democratic Presidential campaign? Let's see - Carter: loss, Mondale: loss, Dukakis: loss, Clinton1: Shrum not invited, Clinton2: Shrum not invited, Gore: loss, Kerry: loss. That's right, 0 and 5. Putting this guy up against Karl Rove is like putting Ron Reagan's ballet troop up against a squad of Marines in a friendly game of fight to the death. What were they thinking.

3.) Attack Machines - For all of the griping by Democrats about the Republican "attack machine" and the griping by the Republicans about the Democratic mobilization efforts, there was one very nice, reassuring, positive side effect. Across the country, millions of Americans who have traditionally sat on their fat asses for the election got up, educated themselves as best they could, and went to the polls. Not a bad outcome.

4.) John Kerry's Campaign - As a conservative Christian Republican history buff, I must admit that if ever a President made enough tough decisions executed sloppily to be drummed out of office in the middle of a war, it's George W Bush. And if ever a less worthy, inept, deceitful candidate tried to do the drumming, it's John Kerry. Whether wishing our future away by talking about how he would have done things in the past differently, or telling senior citizens their social security checks would magically disappear, or telling young people that Bush II meant a new draft, he deafly (said it and I meant it) went through the campaign as if he were in Massacheusetts, where all you have to do is make sure there's a 'D' by your name and you're magically swept into office. That's not the case. By waiting until late September to come up with an Iraq policy other than "I'm not George Bush" he hamstrung himself in the political shooting gallery, and successfully became a parody of himself - endless criticism of every incident and decision in Iraq with no explanation of how things would change once he were in office, other than the fact that if he'd been in office in 2003, we wouldn't be in there. Wow.

So that's my final answer on the great campaign of 2004. Like to hear your thoughts, mister progressive Catholic man, or others. This blog can not be allowed to deteriorate into my own personal conservative right wing monstrosity!

2004-11-02T06:26:00.000-05:00

Closing Arguments

Today is the day that we as Americans get our say in the future course of our country. A few things to consider when you go to the polls -

SECURITY - If I had told you on September 12, 2001 that over three years later there would still not be a major terror attack in America what would you have said to me? Most people were waiting for a follow up attack that day, or on the one year anniversary, or 4th of July, or fill in the blank. Under President Bush, America has been made safer from terrorism, and that record can be plainly seen by the fact that the terrorists have killed more Iraqis and other Muslims in the last year than they have Western "infedels".

ECONMICS - On 9/11 when you watched those towers come down, you weren't watching buildings fall, you were watching over two trillion dollars of investment capital leave our economy. In the 90 days that followed, America lost over one million jobs. That's more jobs lost in a 90 day period than any other 90 days in American history, including the Great Depression. Any analysis of the economy over the last four years that doesn't include 9/11 is incomplete, but it's also convenient for the Democrats since it's the only way to blame President Bush for the current situation. Today, almost all of the jobs are back (we're still short about 750,000), and job growth shows no signs of slowing down.

QUALITY - Senator John Kerry has served in the Senate for 20 years. To this date, he has seen five bills through committee, onto the floor of the Senate, and through House Committee. They are a bill declaring Nov 12, 1992 the 10th anniversary of the Vietnam Memorial, two bills declaring days in 1989 and 1991 "Global Overpopulation Awareness Day", a bill renaming a federal building in Massacheusetts after a WWII veteran, and a bill that established a "Save the Dolphins" fund that is now bankrupt. He has also done committee work and made attachments and amendments to about 30 other bills. That is Senator Kerry's record. Please consider it when you cast your vote for President.

Please get out and vote, but make an informed vote and consider everything above before you do. Thank you, and happy voting.

2004-10-23T09:19:00.000-04:00

The Great Campaign of '04

I think that Senator Kerry's campaign is going to be remembered for its mismanagement of the situation at hand. Kerry has been blessed with overwhelmingly positive network coverage, several national platforms, and countless soundbites. And he is still in a statistical dead heat with the President or behind by 6-8 points (depending on if traditional methods of determining likely voters work or not). How can this be?

I will be borrowing from a Weekly Standard article which is quite lengthy, but I'll give the link at the end of this post.

I think the main reason the Kerry campaign can get no traction against President Bush is because the Democratic party, and the Kerry campaign, has been co-opted by the fringe elements of the Texas Democratic party. Sound far fetched? The Republicans were dumb enough to let the exact same thing happen from 1992-1998 when the Arkansas Republicans basically took over the national media machine of the Republicans. After the impeachment fiasco of 98, the Republicans got rid of the Arkansas elements (a strange combination of radicals and incompetents) and got down the the business of setting up the 2000 campaign. I think we're going to see a repeat this year.

If you look at a lot of the anti-Bush print out there, it's repeats of stuff that was first published in Texas (books like Shrub, Bushwacked, and Made in Texas). Even though I haven't seen it, I am willing to bet that Fahrenheit 9/11 is more of the same. The national level Democratic party has fallen for all of this stuff about secret back door deals, "the most secretive Presidency ever", and big conflicts of interest with no-bid contracts for Haliburton (strange how nobody cried fowl when President Clinton awarded a no-bid contract to Haliburton to rebuild the former Yugoslavia).

The fundamental problem with all of this for the Democrats is this - they cranked up their media machine back in October/November 2003 and they let themselves fall for all of this stuff. They had the opportunity to paint Bush into a corner for the duration of the election. Instead, they let themselves emulate the failed tactics and strategy of the Texas Democrats. The result? A message that saturates the media environment while making absolutely no sense at all.

It goes something like this - Bush is an idiot! But, he knows how to steal elections. Bush doesn't have any tact or negotiating skills! But he successfully co-opted our country's energy policy and successfully waged an illegal international war. Bush is a control freak that doesn't listen to anybody! But he's owned by special interests. Bush is a radical conservative! But he's abandoned conservative principles of fiscal responsibility.

You see? This is why swing voters are still swing voters this year. They hear fleeting glimpses of the truth such as "Mistakes were made in Iraq - mistakes that should have been prevented", or "Our borders have not been successfully secured since 9/11", but then those legitimate criticisms are lost in all the garbage listed above. People that believe the talking points from the previous paragraph end up looking like fools, and nobody wants to vote with the fools.

I believe President Bush has made mistakes, but that doesn't mean Senator Kerry is a better choice. In 20 years in the Senate, his record has failed to impress. Two measures to declare World Population Awareness day? A save the dolphins fund? A measure renaming a federal building? And then the list gets real murky and short. Do we want this record going up against al Qaida? I know I don't.

You can find the article I reference here.

2004-10-20T17:58:00.000-04:00

The Truth Finds President Bush

This is just too funny. Enjoy.

2004-10-09T08:58:00.000-04:00

Requiem for a Global Test

So I've been thinking about how Senator Kerry is trying to spin his way out of the "global test" for American intervention overseas. For the record, here is his exact language from the first debate -

"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

There are two thoughts on this comment - one that it means that we would get a permission slip from the UN or some other international alliance before taking military action, or two that Senator Kerry actually got lost in his own nuance and should have said "universal" instead of global in describing the test for foreign intervention. An analysis of each position -

Global = Permission Slip:
In this scenario, almost all Americans are in agreement that the US needs to be in command of its own troops and needs to able to act in order to defend itself regardless of what other governments say. It's been argued that in context, the Senator said he would never cede the right to act preemptively. BUT, in this very statement, he states that one of the criteria is that you can "prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." So how do we reconcile this? What about a situation like the one in Iraq where key members of the governing international body were being bought off to sit on their asses? It was impossible to prove anything to anybody in that situation, because they didn't want to see. They wanted to keep greasing their pockets off the oil-for-food program. What then? And how do you "prove" something to the world anyways? This needs to be laid out, and it's not on johnkerry.com.

Global = Universal:
OK, so leaving the above possiblity behind, lets assume that Senator Kerry meant to say "...universal test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." In 1991, over 90% of Americans were in favor of driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, which he had invaded. A coalition of 75 nations joined America in deploying forces or giving economic aid in the effort. Saddam Hussein was a clear aggressor who had invaded and destroyed a country. The US led coalition was ordered to liberate Kuwait by UN resolution 665. Senator Kerry voted AGAINST this action.

If ever anything passed his own "universal" test, this was it, and Senator Kerry voted against it. Would this be a "flip" or a "flop"?

Senator Kerry has no universal test either in his head or in his actions. He is an unprincipled opportunist who would be coopted by others for their own gain. This is a fine set of characteristics for a "lead from behind" Senator from Massacheusetts, but we don't need that type of person as a war time President.

2004-09-26T14:23:00.000-04:00

As Predicted, the Old Texas Two-Step Works...

Exerpts from an article on Time.com -

* The Bush camp, knowing television viewership falls off after the first debate, made sure this week's matchup would focus on foreign policy, which they feel is the President's strong suit.

* Bush's negotiators insisted on banning nearly all the stagecraft Kerry had used to devastating effect...such as roaming from the lectern and asking direct questions.

* "He's a sweater," chortles a G.O.P. official, "and women don't like sweaters." That's why Bush's team was happy to have the Kerry campaign climb down from its demand that the debate hall be chilled to below 70 degrees.

* But Cahill concedes that Kerry's chances—and those of the debate moderators—will be limited by the Bush campaign's insistence that follow-up questions and rebuttals be sharply restricted.

* ...millions of Americans watching this Thursday's first presidential debate will see the warning signal whenever George Bush or John Kerry has exceeded his allotted time to answer a question.

And why did Senator Kerry's camp agree to all of this?

"What Kerry's camp got were three debates rather than the two that Bush's campaign initially said it wanted."

Never, ever misunderestimate a Texan...

2004-09-25T07:48:00.000-04:00

How to Make Enemies and Influence Friends in the Information Age.

My thoughts on the Kerry campaign this past week in matters foreign. I will be borrowing heavily from William Kristol's piece in the weekly standard, but I'll be citing original sources for Senator Kerry's remarks.

On Tuesday, President Bush addressed the United Nations. His primary objective was to request aid in Iraq on the War on Terror. This is the third time the President this has done this. John Kerry says he'll start doing it if he's elected President (a revolutionary "new" policy).

Within one hour of the President's remarks, Senator Kerry hit the air to deconstruct our commander in chief's request for international support. How is this productive for America? Let's forget for second the whole question of whether or not Sen. Kerry's statements are true or false. In fact, let's assume they are all true and that President Bush lied to the UN and that Iraq is Hell on Earth etc. Why would he say this stuff publicly? Doesn't he realize that it gets played overseas? Not to mention the impact on the troops. Check out what the US Military's news service says about Senator Kerry's remarks. For the record, it's NOTHING. Thanks for the pep talk, John-John. Oh and by the way, John's buddy Chirac said within an hour of Kerry's remarks that it doesn't matter who the President is, they're not getting off their fat lazy French asses to do anything for anybody.

Even more disturbing is the response to Iyad Allawi's address to the US Congress. Again, within an hour, Senator Kerry just had to blow all sorts of holes in Allawi's speech. To be sure, there are those that agree with Senator Kerry, like al-Jazeerah for example. What Kerry fails to realize is that if Iraq fails, Allawi's head will be used for soccer practice in the streets of Baghdad. Not to mention another good dose of US casualties. Again, thanks for the pep talk, bub.

This is, at best, irresponsible and dangerous. Senator Kerry is now completely off kilter and unable to separate politics from policy. He is unable to put aside partisan differences in order to support American troops and policies and provide a unified front to the world. That is dangerous and deadly, and this past week is the surest proof yet that John Kerry is an opportunistic danger to himself, those around him, and those under his influence.

You told me once that you were voting against President Bush. You said your negative vote was based primarily on the screwed up situation in Iraq. Guess what. Senator Kerry's Iraq plan is no different from President Bush's, and the whole world knows it. So I ask you - what's the point?

Bill Kristol's article can be found here.

2004-09-23T07:20:00.000-04:00

Yes, We SHOULD Get Paid for This

For my partner in crime, I have this link advocating someone other than JFKerry being the Dem's "candidate".

For my own edification, I have this link that backs up my last post.

Stick with us kids, we're smart.

2004-09-19T22:28:00.000-04:00

As a Campaign Goes...

So goes a Presidency. My late Sunday thoughts about the Kerry Campaign (just what everyone wants to read).

I have a theory that a campaign will resemble the Presidency of the candidate. I think this plays out in some of the recent elections that we've seen. President Clinton's "It's the Economy Stupid" resulted in a ruthless 8 year program of economic maintenance at the expense of foreign policy (exactly what we thought we wanted). President Bush's campaign had a corporate aloofness to it combined with fiscal wrecklessness (he blew $60 million before he even got out of South Carolina!) that seems to follow along with his Presidential style.

So what can we tell about candidate/proto-President Kerry? Well, I think that what this campaign is starting to reveal about Senator Kerry is that he really doesn't have an understanding of how this all works. I saw it summed up best in one phrase by Oliphant at the Boston Globe when he said "Last week's sophomoric behavior makes Kerry into a passive vehicle for the ambitions of others." This is, unfortunately, true. John Kerry is a very well meaning person, mind you, but he lets himself be co-opted for the gain of others a little too easily for my tastes. Examples range from shaking Ortega's hand just hours before the dictator got on a plane to Moscow to selling out his pro-life values.

Even more disturbing is that at this point, he has failed to develop most of his policies. Example - North Korea. The link takes you to an article in the NY Times in which Kerry called a NY Times reported to berate President Bush's NK policy. The reporter diligently took notes and then offered Senator Kerry the chance to accentuate the differences between Bush's policies and the policies he would advocate as president (which any logical person would assume would be the only reason to make such a call). Senator Kerry promptly fumbled the ball, refusing to "be prescriptive". In fact the only comment he made is something about going back to the UN security council for a new resolution, which I can only imagine would have far more stern language than the ones uncle Kim is already ignoring.

If you look at Kerry's website, you will see that he advocates continuing the Bush administration's policy of multilateral talks, with the caveat that he's willing to give in an go to bilateral talks as well (the same type of Clintonian bilateral talks that got us played in the first place).

Like to hear your thoughts about this. What leadership qualities do you see in Senator Kerry (the master of the back door deal, by his own telling) that make him suitable to be "the guy"? Does a campaign's characteristics tell you anything about a potential future President?

2004-09-15T06:50:00.000-04:00

Help Is On The Way!

For President Bush. John-John & Teddy don't seem to understand that the rest of the country is NOT Massacheusetts...

In other news, CBS News has uncovered more documents proving President Bush was not in the National Guard in 1972. They include a CD-ROM burned by his commanding officer, a USB flash drive, and PDA/cell phone hybrid, all dating to 1972 with more damning documents.

2004-09-04T07:30:00.000-04:00

Why I Rarely Believe the Liberal Media

Good post, with some good points. I would argue, however, that given that W's been at it for three years and change, he doesn't really have to spell out his plan against terrorism on his web site. Senator Kerry, being the challenger, should have something a little meatier by now. Clinton, Dole, and GW all had detailed plans for their first terms by this point in their respective challenges. Given that Kerry does not, and that he STILL hasn't resigned his Senate seat, well, do the math.

Now, to the main point of my post. Check out this from the associated press. Now listen to it. Good old objective AP. Did it sound like people were booing for poor 'ole Pres. Clinton?

However, there are times I believe the liberal media, for instance when they support my predictions. It's started. Sixty-one days until the general election, and I think the separation that I talked about earlier is starting, and I think the American people are beginning to realize that Sen. Kerry probably doesn't have a plan, other than the aforementioned "I'm not George W Bush, so everything will magically fall into place for me!"

2004-08-28T22:44:00.000-04:00

Sorry to Interrupt Your Kool-Aid Break, but...

Well, I took your advice to peruse the supposed "pufflike" terrorism policy of JFK. Then I thought to check out what the President has. It can be found here. Or let me save you the needless .0001 calories expended in clicking, reading and analyzing by posting the entire contents here:

"The strategy has three pillars:

We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and
outlaw regimes.
We will preserve the peace by fostering an era of good relations among the world's great powers.
And we will extend the peace by seeking to extend the benefits of freedom and prosperity across the globe."

That's amazing. The President has iterated his plan in 54 words, compared to Sen. Kerry's 294. And in such meticulous detail, there is no reason to think this plan is a vaguely worded list of talking points that seeks to put a happy face on an otherwise inept policy.

Really, I looked on the remainder of the page for details on the President's plan to fight terrorism. I found nothing but this:

Winning the War on Terror

In 2003, coalition forces acted with skill and bravery to liberate the Iraqi
people and remove a grave and gathering danger to America and the world.
In 2001, with less than a months notice, American and British forces joined with
local anti-Taliban troops in an assault on the al Qaeda network and the Taliban
regime that gave it safe harbor in Afghanistan.
In both cases, decisive victories were achieved by integrating real time intelligence with sophisticated technologies in cooperation with indigenous forces.

That's not a plan. That's a bullet list of two different military operations that are not even completed as of yet. Hell, a lot of it is not even accurate. And I would dare not call the Iraq war a shining moment in the War on Terror. But there are also many major flaws with the trumpets that the President's reelection crew is sounding. First of all, the decisive victory in Afghanistan resulted in a good number of al Qaeda escaping, and we still haven't caught bin Laden, Zawahiri, or been able to prosecute Moussaoui. Secondly, the war in Iraq resulted in the downfall of Saddam Hussein, but its a longshot at this point to say its a decisive victory. Not in Western Iraq, not in Najaf, not in Pakistan, not in Kabul.

The truth is the President has less of a strategy to fight terrorism than the Senator from Massachusetts. Please explain to me what the next objective is for the President? Iran? Hmm, well that's interesting, because it seems that certain people in the Defense Department can't help but cozy up to Iranian cronies. Syria? Well, we were planning to put sanctions on them, but it seems the President cannot multitask in foreign policy matters. North Korea? Nothing but flip-flopping there.

The truth is that the President has never had a coherent policy to combat terrorism. And the end result of that is the current situation in Iraq, because we seriously underestimated the resources in manpower, time, and money to reach the appropriate means of success. We insulted and alienated our traditional allies and now we wonder why they will not cooperate with us. Even the 'Coalition of the Willing' seems to be in a precarious position. And that is what worries me and what should worry the hell out of you. The fact of the matter is that because of the President's inability to understand the implications of the ill-conceived occupation of Iraq, we are stuck there for at least 10-15 years waiting and hoping that the political situation will get better. That is of course, if we are not drawn in to a wider conflict. But you never know with the folks running the Pentagon and the company they keep.

And now to conclude the argument on being proactive versus waging preemptive wars. The best historical allegory to this in recent date is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, you and I know that Iraq is not the Soviet Union, but we were told as much by the Administration. Anyways, in the planning of response to the missile deployment Kennedy was hectored by his national security team to bomb the sites and then confront the Soviets. This was anathema to Kennedy for two reasons. First, a preemptive strike was counter to american values would seriously hinder the broader support of European allies and Central/South American Countries. Secondly, Kennedy understood that airstrikes would certainly mean that Soviet soldiers would die, prompting Kruschev to retaliate inkind on Turkey or Berlin or both. This would prompt further escalation and probable nuclear war between the two parties. You should also look in to Mr. Nitze's contribution to the Missile Crisis.

Our current President, was warned repeatedly that the United States did not have the adaquate amount of military and like resources to successfully prosecute the war and administer an effective occupation. As a result of this group think that occured in planning the war: the critics were fired, diplomats ignored, nearly 1,000 servicemen have died, and over 6,000 have been wounded. Without a doubt, Iraq has become/remained (depending on your view) a hotbed of Terrorism, more so than it was under Saddam Hussein. And Osama bin Laden is still not caught, and al Qaeda remains a potent force, and so on.

Oh, and by the way. Here's Kerry's plan for fighting terrorism and Mid-East diplomacy. I'm sure it will be the subject of our next confrontation.

You can go back to drinking the Kool-Aid.

2004-08-28T09:14:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the Postcard from Quotesville

One of the most dangerous forms of human error is forgetting what one is trying to achieve. --Paule Nitze

How do any of these quotes invalidate my criticism that John Kerry's position is illogical and inconsistent? While yes, many great people have used the word "sensitive" in talking about military matters, and others from the age of flint-lock muskets have criticized the idea of pre-emptive warfare, if you re-read my post, you will see that most of the criticism is about the inconsistency of Sen. Kerry's positions. He says he will be more proactive (but not do preemptive wars), that preemptive wars are historical anomalies that are against American values (even though we've historically done it all the time, AND THAT HE VOTED FOR THE ONE IN IRAQ THAT HE'S CRITICIZING), and that he will bring us more allies (while consistently bad mouthing the ones that disagree with him).

I barely mentioned the fact that he used the word sensitive, because once I read the whole quote, it became clear to me that John Kerry doesn't have a plan or policy. That's why his anti-terror policy boils down to "I'm John Kerry - not George W Bush." That's not good enough! It worries me and it should worry you, too.

By the way, if you think Kerry's policy is anything other that the fact that he's not W, check out his anti-terror policy page. Go through the bullet points and tell me what exciting new direction he's taking us...

2004-08-26T23:15:00.000-04:00

Sensitivity Tiger Pit #2

"In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that."
--Guess Who??

2004-08-26T23:06:00.000-04:00

Sensitivity Tiger Pit #1

"Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals; we will listen to others; we want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength. "

--Guess Who??

2004-08-26T21:42:00.000-04:00

Were they too sensitive???

"...(the war was) "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally . . . begun by the President."
Abraham "Spotty" Lincoln

"In taking military possession of Texas after annexation, the army of occupation, under General Taylor, was directed to occupy the disputed territory. The army did not stop at the Nueces and offer to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary question, but went beyond, apparently in order to force Mexico to initiate war. ...The Southern rebellion [American Civil War] was largely an outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguiny and expensive war of modern times."
-That Barbaric Drunk from Illinois

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."
- General William Tecumseh Sherman the "Nut"

“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility. I don’t believe there is such a thing, and frankly I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.”

“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”

"I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone."

"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace. "

and finally...
"People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters. "
-A Guy Who Studied Theatrics for 12 Years

2004-08-16T06:51:00.000-04:00

The More Sensitive Terrorist Killer...

Just for the record, here is the complete Senator Kerry quote re: terrorism -

"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

OK, so walk me through this, Mr. Progressive Man. During his convention speech Sen. Kerry talked big about taking out the Saudi Royal family, which SINCE 9/11 has become a terror target and a significant ally (funny how that happened once they were the target). He also decried that "America will go to war because have to, not because we want to." BUT, here, this guy is going on about how he's going to be MORE proactive, BRING allies to us, be sensitive (to WHAT?!) and stay in the historical context of American values.

OK fellow history bug, how many times has America gone to war because we had to? Hmmm. Let's think. How about the Mexican War? The Plains Indian Wars? Oh, I know, the Spanish-American War! World War I? Uh, Korea? Vietnam? Desert Storm? Hmmm.... Maybe your candidate should remember just which country he's running for the Presidency of...

2004-08-11T22:04:00.000-04:00

Unfit to Report for Duty?

Sure, fine, the NK's got some old rusty tubs from 1958. Big fat hairy deal. What's that? Oh, this all happened during the Clinton administration. OK... Next order of business?

Back here in America, I have to believe that there are thunderheads about to fall on indecision 2004. Specifically, the book Unfit for Command is due to hit bookshelves on August 15. The book is written by members of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The group is financed by a major Republican financier, but I don't think that's enough to discredit the book, web site, or various testimonies of these men, who include a hundred purple hearts, a couple Medals of Honor, and enough bronze and silver stars to fill a swiftboat...and an admiral.

I wasn't quite sure what to make of this stuff until I read this from Tony Blankley. Also, the anticipated Democratic response is pecular in its ferocity and intencity.

Also, watching the news today, imagine my shock to see Senator Kerry suggesting that we allow Canadian drug companies to sell to the Medicaid system's new percription drug program. Wasn't Kerry AGAINST outsourcing and having US workers/industries compete unfairly? Maybe just when it's convenient...I was going to link AGAINST to the Kerry website page that cries about how he will keep American jobs/business from unfair competition, but they pulled it, interestingly enough...

2004-08-04T22:07:00.000-04:00

I Wonder if This Will Be On the Washington Time's Front Page....

Ok, so while we're suffering the jitters from the newly recycled terror threat, here's a new one: North Korea bought old Soviet Nuclear Attack subs. And I'm not referring to sandwhiches either. Real ones that can strike the United States. But why worry about that, when al-Qaeda is doing whatever it is that we have been warned it will do.

Anyways, I could go on, but its just best that you go to http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/ and read on. Got to give Mr. Gorenfeld his props anyways.

Oh, and as much as you hate Bill Moyers...read the interchange with Kevin Phillips, who is a very conservative Republican. Do you think that Bill O'Reilly will cover this?

2004-07-29T23:53:00.000-04:00

Playa Haters Ball Part I - An Analysis

So I caught the entire specticle tonight and all in all, I thought it wasn't bad. I was certainly relieved he didn't end up like Herman Munster, and although he was sweatin like Nixon, the Botox really looked good.

What really got me and hooked me as well was the line about not depending on foreign oil---the House of Saud. Essentially, what he was talking about is that he is going to do some major investing in alternative fuel sources (i.e. gasahol) and upgrades to domestic automobile production. If he is able to get the message across, the midwest may all be blue states on Nov. 2. It, in my opinion, is a long shot at this point-but very good politics. But what really got me--HAVEN'T WE BEEN SAYING THE SAME DAMN THING FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS NOW? I watched MSNBC (for Chris Matthews, who is an equal opportunity hater) and they were just astounded that Kerry had the audacity to raise such an idea. Like its never been uttered before. Jesus, give me a break.

Anyhoo, the other thing I liked about his speech was the reference to faith at the end. I'm sure there will be alot of chatter about it be disingenuous. But I think he made his point. Now if he would only come around about abortion......

And last but not least, dulce bellum in expertis.

More to come and don't forget Playa Haters Ball II in September.

And it would be a blog if we didn't include a link to I know will be a topic of a future post:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040802fa_fact

Excellent reading. Until then my friend. Until then.

2004-07-29T12:51:00.000-04:00

Conventional Wisdom...

Well the Dems' convention is about as exciting to watch as when my wife and I just painted our house and watched the paint dry. Fun stuff! I know, the Republican convention will be every bit as exciting. Just need to take issue with a couple of things though (as you knew I would)...

1.) President Clinton's speech on opening night. Actually pretty good. A very likeable guy and a great orator. However, there was one point in his speech where I just had to laugh...

"Now, how do they pay for that deficit? First, by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to pay for the tax cuts. But it's not enough. So then they have to go borrow money. Most of it they borrow from the Chinese and the Japanese government. Sure, these countries are competing with us for good jobs, but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? I mean, come on."

Well, well, well, President Clinton. Using social security funds to pay for something other than social security. Scandalous! Scandalous I tell you! Where could they have ever gotten such a misguided idea? And the idea that we are selling United States bonds to China. When did this start happening? Surely President Clinton would not be bought off by such means, he would enforce trade laws and condemn human rights violations. Right?

2.) Ted Kennedy... Ah it's just too easy. What would John-John and Bobby say if they could see their little brother now? I especially liked Teddy quoting JFK as talking about nuclear weapons when the quote he took was actually to a group of African American civil rights workers. I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

Anyway, can't wait to see Sen. Kerry's speech tonight. More analysis tomorrow.

2004-07-27T20:54:00.000-04:00

Nothing less than the fate of our country

At first I started to read your post and I was convinced that I my eyes would gaze upon an impassioned indictment of the Democrats after you initial signal of displeasure with the commission. While I cannot say that I agree wholeheartedly with your position, I must relate that I am surprised by your candor and willingness to see the issue through and without the rancor of partisan gamesmanship.

I think the real suprise here is that the commission has not recommended anything new. In fact, someone should really look back at the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission on Homeland Security from 2001, just before the terrorist attacks. The real crime is that once again, the same recommendations have been made and no one seems willing to implement the change.

Perhaps the feuding factions in our beloved republic could conjure up the spirit of our greatest president, and "disenthrall" themselves to save our country.
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility... We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.

2004-07-27T07:46:00.000-04:00

Celsius 9/11

Well, the 9/11 comission report is complete. And now, for my next amazing trick, I will summarize their findings using 560 fewer pages and 10 billion fewer taxpayer dollars -

The 9/11 attacks surprised us because they happened at an unexpected time, place, and way. In the future we should do more to anticipate surprise attacks and prevent more surprise attacks.

Thank you very much!

What a waste of time and money. Instead of really knowing what went wrong, we got an over-bloated political show trial where life-time policy wonks (Richard Clarke) and former has-beens played an immense game of "Not My Fault" in front of the whole world. Against this backdrop politically active 9/11 families brought all the dignity of a professional wrestling event complete with signboards, whooping, hollaring, and chanting.

And who got interviewed? NOBODY!!! Did this comission send anyone to interview even a single Guantanamo detainee? No. Did they interview anyone from the Saudi Royal family? No. Did they interview anyone from Pakistani intelligence? No.

Did their final report mention the Clinton administration's decision to pass multiple times on capturing Bin Ladin? No. Did their final report give a reason for the Bush administration's decision to let Saudi Royal family members and Bin Ladin family members fly out of the country while everything else in America had to move on wheels? No.

Did the American people get the truth? No. Are we safer today because of the comission's findings? No. Should we be upset that the Congress and President went on vacation the day after this "informative report" came out? No.

In the final analysis, I'm pissed. This comission failed me, and you, and every American out there that wanted answers.

2004-07-13T06:35:00.000-04:00

Why No One Should Vote for Sen. Kerry

Well, my friend, the less than 1% chance of me voting for Senator Kerry just dropped below 0. This is from a transcript of his interview with Larry King last Thursday...

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.

From the lips of the man himself. You can't blame this one on Mylorie, or Posner, or anyone else. John F. Kerry does not have any clue how to fight the War on Terror and has no desire to figure it out. I will never vote for him, and no one else should either.

BTW - I would gladly vote for a Catholic candidate, so long as he/she has the courage to uphold the values of the Catholic Church, which Mr. Kerry admitted he does not. I would gladly vote for that candidate whether he/she was under the D or R next to their name. However, like you've said in the past, the Dems have crawled into bed with the 'pro-choice' bunch and seem to have no interest whatsoever lighting a cigarette, leaving their money on the dresser, and getting on with their lives...

2004-07-06T14:34:00.000-04:00

Still Waiting For the First Catholic President...

Nice prediction there Nostradamus. Too bad the Hilary Wet Dream scenario didn't pan out for the rest of the Vast Conspiracy.

That being said, this is one of those rare times when I agree with you in principle. I've always thought that the "official" Democratic stance on abortion has been disingenuous. Like I've been telling you for the last year and a half the Democratic Party did sell out in the 1970's and 80's to the Pro-Choice lobby, and now they cannot extricate themselves from the relationship. Kerry with the twisted logic you alluded to in the link, has not proven anything other than he is emulating JFK. But as this link* makes a good point to those that “think that Kennedy made it possible for a Catholic to become president, when he only made it possible for a Catholic who behaves like a modern Episcopalian to become president.”

But as a Catholic, outside of abortion, I don't see either party as truly valuing or protecting human life. Until there is a party that makes it clear that life is truly valued and not just paying lip service to one funding source over another we will still have this argument. I guess for that to happen that party will not only have to oppose abortion, but also oppose euthanasia. It will also not only have to embrace adoption over abortion, but assist pregnant women and children regardless of the circumstance they find themselves in. It must adopt economic polices that do not place an undue burden on families. It must embrace social policies that support the poor and the vulnerable regardless of an affinity for the free market. It will be obliged to use military force with restraint and without hubris, and only as a last resort. It must also cease to allow the death penalty to be handed out like candy at Halloween.

Until something like this happens, you and I will have to continue to make the decision of the lesser of two evils. I can vote for a candidate that uses finds abortion “abhorrent” but nevertheless supports it. Or I can vote for a candidate who pays lip service to the right to life, but whose social, economic and foreign policies actually embrace the darker elements of our nature.

So C-Biscuit, when we finally get a Catholic candidate, would you consider voting for him?

*OK, before you start your tangent-- while I can’t agree with every point in this link, I do think it makes some reasonably good points. I personally like this one as well.

2004-07-06T07:56:00.000-04:00

OK, Maybe Gephardt's not the man...

But John Kerry still doesn't have a moral center in my book. This kind of a lack of ability to simply vote his conscience is disturbing to me, and should be to you, too.

2004-07-02T23:47:00.000-04:00

Taxachusetts Two-Step

That's pretty good, J-diddy. You found three opinion pieces and a news analysis piece that say GW panders. Impressive.

Pandering isn't so much the issue for me as much as it is just plain selling out for the moment. John Kerry has shown he is more than capable of this (note the source - Associated Press via The Guardian, not some cheapshot artist like Jacob Weisberg)

Need more? How about this exchange during a December 3, 2003 Conference on Foreign Relations Q & A -

Emily Altman from Morgan Stanley. Just to move back on shore for a minute, or off shore. Domestic employment - what's the best American policy with respect to outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, increasingly service jobs?
KERRY: Well, any candidate for president who stands up and tells people, as some are, that they're going to just stop it by getting tough on trade or whatever, is lying to the American people. Outsourcing is particularly painful at this moment because we haven't been creating jobs, and we haven't been creating jobs to some measure because of the overhang of the 1990s, the excess capacity that we were left with and the need to sort of burn it up.

Really? (Make sure to click on the brave & bold "KEEP JOBS IN AMERICA" tab.

Anyway, I could go on all night, but it's getting late and I don't want to. Point is, Kerry's a chump, and he gets played like one a bit too much. The smart move is Edwards, but my bet is that Kerry won't make the smart move, he'll make the move he thinks will get him the most given the situation he's in at the time he makes the decision, as is his way. Happy 4th!

2004-07-02T11:50:00.000-04:00

No-Hold-Texas-Pandering

Congratulations Professor, on showing us that politicians pander. Or as they say in Massachusetts, pandah. Still, I don't see any further reason, based upon that silly article that Gephart is da man.

'Cause you know GWB wouldn't pander. No, not at all. Not him. Nope, he's a saint.

2004-07-01T11:21:00.000-04:00

Why Gephardt is The Man

Why is Gephardt the man for Kerry? Because Kerry is spineless and easily intimidated. That's why.

But take heart Joel, by the time 2008 rolls around, Kerry will make a great fat guy with a beard endorsing Lenin Jr. to be Pres!

Chadzilla

2004-06-14T14:50:00.000-04:00

RE: SHUT UP!...SHUT UP!...SHUT UP!

...Like I've said...who's lookin' out for you, Chad?

2004-06-14T14:26:00.000-04:00

J-Dog,

I think I finally found someone that has the EXACT same view as you on the War on Terror.
Surprised?

C-Paq

2004-06-11T10:26:00.000-04:00

A Post for The Gipper

Some of the great moments from Ronald W. Reagan. He was the last of the lions, with all due respect to Mr. Churchill

D-Day 40th Anniversary Speech
Challenger Speech
Tear Down This Wall

Back to war on Monday...

2004-05-26T21:50:00.000-04:00

On a Lighter Note...

Three things strike me as amusing -

1.) The guy you wish was President is WAY off the deep end. In your words, WOW.

2.) Clinton has moved up his book release two weeks to June 22. Dems convention will be the week of July 4. Enough time for President Clinton's hub-bub to die down?

3.) This is just funny. I wish it were the year 3000 right now and he was President again.

2004-05-26T12:47:00.000-04:00

And now, the rest of the story...

J-Funk,

To respond to the rest of your post...

1.) The existence of the countries you call Pakistan and Iran is confirmed. Iran currently does not have nuclear weapons technology or working nuclear weapons. Pakistan has both. Pakistan's President has been helping to eliminate al Qaeda cells in his country ever since that group tried to kill him several times over the last few months. Therefore, I stand by my contention that "The Islamo-Fascists do not have a nuclear option available at this point. While they would no doubt like to acquire such weapons, it is highly unlikely they will be able to do so in the near future." Your statement that I believed "...'Islamo-Facists' do not have the means nor the capacity to aquire nuclear weaponry." is not based on anything in my post.

2.) My contention that Islamo-Fascism and, more particularly, al Qaeda is a social-cultural system and not a political-economic system has its supporters.

In fact, why don't you walk through that a little slower, because I really didn't get how you were arguing that Islamo-Fascism is economic and political rather than social and cultural. You sited a piece of literature that is radical islamic in nature and stated that nation states AND groups had accepted it, and then showed that Baathism (not radical islam, but an economic political system) was embraced by Saddam and Syria, thus proving what...? I know that this tortured logic is not what you meant to put in there!

I do agree with one part of your post though - "I think there is ample evidence that Saddam did not subsribe to Islamist theories, but when it became advantageous to him, tried to co-opt them." That's the link to international terrorism and thus, al Qaeda. Very eloquently stated in YOUR post! Thanks!

2004-05-25T22:00:00.000-04:00

RE: RE: Apolgia Pro Vita Dubya...

OK, wise guy. I'm not going to split hairs over whose dictionary refers to what term by what context. Detente, in the context of the Cold War, is a term that generally describes the US policy of persuing seperate diplomatic strategies with the USSR and China, independent of each other.

The part of the War College article that references the term detente (in its Cold War context, without running to get my Oxford Dictionary), was -

One is reminded of the postulation of an international Communist monolith in the 1950s which blinded American policymakers to the influence and uniqueness of local circumstances and to key national, historical, and cultural differences and antagonisms within the “Bloc.” Communism was held to be a centrally directed international conspiracy; a Communist anywhere was a Communist everywhere, and all posed an equal threat to America’s security...

An islamo-fascist terrorist state anywhere IS an an islamo-fascist terrorist state everywhere, and none can be trusted. "Truce" in radical islamic language really means "getcha later!" There ARE no battles to be picked. A social-cultural system is in place in some parts of the world that is unified in its goals of the destruction of Israel and marginalization of Western thought. All battles must be fought at every turn. Why? Do you think the terrorists or their supporters are picking their battles? No they fight us everywhere they can by whatever means they can. We must do the same.

More to come tomorrow night. Stupid dial up connection...

2004-05-18T22:51:00.000-04:00

RE: Apologia Pro Vita Dubya II: Electric Boogaloo

Maccabeus,

Now we get to the real meat of your last post. Your observation of the importance of oil is well executed and I believe you are right. I also agree with your co-opting Huntington's Clash of Civilzations approach to the whole affair. But there are two matters in which I strongly disagree.

The first is your contention that "Islamo-Facists" do not have the means nor the capacity to aquire nuclear weaponry. Uhhhh, memo to Maccabeus....there's this country called Pakistan, its just west of India....Ummm, there's also this country called Iran....

The second is that "Islamo-Facism" is a social/cultural system and not an economic political system. I would say that this contention is erronneous. All one has to do is read the works of Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi. Iran, Al Qaeda and others had embraced these thinkers. Hussein did not. The Baath party and its political structure was created by Syrian and other Arab leftists, not islamists. In fact, the Baath party was created by Michel Aflaq, a Syrian christian. I think there is ample evidence that Saddam did not subsribe to Islamist theories, but when it became advantageous to him, tried to co-opt them. In fact there is ample evidence that he co-opted Aflaq's identity and support of his oppressive regime.

2004-05-18T22:01:00.000-04:00

RE: Apolgia Pro Vita Dubya....

Maccabeus-
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

Main Entry: dé·tente
Variant(s): or detente /dA-'tänt/
Function: noun
Etymology: French
1 : the relaxation of strained relations or tensions (as between nations); also : a policy promoting this
2 : a period of détente
(from Merriam-Webster Online)

# of times I mentioned the term or the concept of detente with terrorists: 0

# of times the term or the concept of detente with terrorists is mentioned in the War College article: 0

That being said I will leave it up to you to reread the article and let me know what you find fault with. Its main points were, in fact, reiterated in a memo by Rumsfeld last October:

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? Does the U.S. need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists?

The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions. Do we need a new organization? How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools? Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

So, read the memo, reread the concept paper and tell me again how I favor a "detente" with terrorists, when I advocate a strategic choice of battle. By the same logic, the following can be deduced:

*MacArthur favored a "detente" with the Japanese with his island hopping strategy in the Pacific.
*Eisenhower favored a "detente" with the Nazis when he refused to attack Norway, Denmark, etc. in favor of Operation Overlord.
*Sherman favored a "detente" with the Confederacy when he refused to follow John Bell Hood into Tennessee and instead concentrated on the destruction of Georgia and the Carolinas.

As the children told Augustine in his moment of anguish "Tolle lege, tolle lege.." lest ye succomb to further groupthink.

2004-05-12T21:41:00.000-04:00

The Great Link

Joel,

Very well thought out post. I will concede that the link between Saddam and al Qaeda is not a clear cut thing where you can easily connect the dots from A to B to C. However, looking at your post, it looks like you are willing to concede that Saddam was at least in the same camp as al Qaeda (common enemies in US, Israel, the West). You also used DoD documents to suggest that some sort of détente is in order similar to what we used with the good old USSR.

And there is the fundamental flaw in the argument. The template that you and your ilk would like to follow is the one we used to collapse the Soviet Union. This whole notion that “Saddam didn’t attack us, so why did we attack him?” or “What does Saddam have to do with terrorism?” is using a Cold War square peg to pound into the round War on Terror hole.

There are similarities between the War on Terror and Cold War. They are both clashes of civilizations (Orthodox vs. West / Muslim vs. West). They are both based on fundamental differences in the way our respective civilizations engage in meeting their own interests, and they are exclusive to each other. There are, however, fundamental differences in the conflicts. These differences are many, and ignored at our own peril.

The most fundamental difference is that Islamo-Fascism is NOT Communism. Communism was a political/economic system. Islamo-Fascism is a cultural/social system. Al Qaeda is perpetuated by (or an extension of) the Islamo-Fascist system.

Another major difference is the perception of the value of human life. The USSR thought of the West as human beings with certain rights and values. Islamo-Fascists do not. To the Islamo-Fascists, we are “satans” to be stamped out and eradicated. They do not value their own lives, or ours.

The last major difference is the economic factor. This whole conflict is occurring around an “Elephant in the Kitchen”. Oil. No such counterpart existed in the Cold War. As stated at work earlier, its absence from this conflict would simplify decision making greatly.

One thing that has changed since the Cold War is the nature of military science, and the nature of the military composition of the combatants. In the Cold War, America and the USSR sat behind nuclear shields while building up conventional armies. In the War on Terror, there is no nuclear option available to either side, currently. While it’s very easy to nuke a political/economic system out of existence, it is much more difficult (short of genocide) to nuke a cultural/social system out of existence. The Islamo-Fascists do not have a nuclear option available at this point. While they would no doubt like to acquire such weapons, it is highly unlikely they will be able to do so in the near future.

Another difference in the military equation is the use of asymmetric warfare. This is different from guerilla warfare. In guerilla warfare, the guerilla force targets an enemy military or its support systems. In asymmetric warfare, the military is generally not targeted at all, but instead, civilian, political or economic systems (Israeli pizza parlors, 9/11, the African embassy bombings, etc.)

This is the fundamental nature of the War on Terror. Hapless civilians targeted by terrorists without regard for life and coordinated by the Internet, disposable cell phones, and cryptic messages. Against them are arrayed the conventional, paramilitary, and intelligence services of the West. Not at all like the equation that reigned in the Cold War.

For this very long list of reasons, détente will not work in the War on Terror. Yet there is one more major reason that détente will not work here. In the Cold War, there were different cultures and societies that embraced Communism. This produced different national interests and different “flavors” of Communism. Islamo-Fascism is universal among the people that adopt it (again, social/cultural system). Also, Islamo-Fascists have a pair of universal interests – the spread of radical Islam, and the destruction of Israel (or as they put it, “the liberation of Palestine”). Because Islamo-Fascism is a cultural and social system with universal objectives that they are unwilling to compromise on, détente is not an option.

So, where does this leave us? Islamo-Fascism is a social and cultural system. Saddam Hussein was contributing to and benefiting from that system. Al Qaeda is an extension of that system. Therefore, Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda as a beneficiary of and contributor to the system that produced it.

That is the connection. That’s why Saddam was a legitimate target. That’s why I supported the war and occupation and eventual turnover. That’s why détente is not an option. And, that’s why I am in favor of continuing the Iraqi front of the War on Terror.

2004-05-11T23:25:00.000-04:00

RE: "Also, I am still waiting to see some proof of the Iraqi involvement in the WTC bombing in '93..." - April, 29, 2004

Chaddeus Maccabeus, once again you have skirted the issue. Since I see nothing about the 1993 WTC bombing, I can assume that you will concede that the Iraqis had nothing to do with it. Qui tacet consentit.

But that being said, here is a critique of your main argument that they give each other, a conspiracy of complicity, if you please. It could be argued that all terrorists who hate the United States are complicit. In the same fashion that the Crips and the Bloods both hate the 5-0, they don't shed a tear if there's a 187 on an undercover cop, so to speak. But they ain't in the same gang either.

Disabuse yourself of the notion that they are in the same gang. First, read this excellent article, "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism", written at the Army War College. Especially this part on page 16:

Unfortunately, stapling together rogue states and terrorist organizations with different agendas and threat levels to the United States as an undifferentiated threat obscures critical differences among rogues states, among terrorist organizations, and between rogue states and terrorist groups. One is reminded of the postulation of an international Communist monolith in the 1950s which blinded American policymakers to the influence and uniqueness of local circumstances and to key national, historical, and cultural differences and antagonisms within the “Bloc.” Communism was held to be a centrally directed international conspiracy; a Communist anywhere was a Communist everywhere, and all posed an equal threat to America’s security. A result of this inability to discriminate was disastrous U.S. military intervention in Vietnam against an enemy perceived to be little more than an extension of Kremlin designs in Southeast Asia and thus by definition completely lacking an historically comprehensible political agenda of its own.

Next read this article by Peter Bergen about our favorite Iraqi-Al Qaeda conspiracist. It goes into great lengths and details about the supposed ties and how they don't fit.

Finally, for further reading. Here is an abstract of a NYT article about Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda.

But as I am sure, that none of this will meet your satisfaction. A point-by-point response to your thesis.

1. The Fatwa. Yes it does describe Iraq as a reason for his "jihad." But he also volunteered to the King of Saudi Arabia to personally lead an army in to Iraq during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. He has also made pronouncements that Hussein should be replaced by an Islamic Caliphate. I'm sure Hussein loved this. So, assuming you are right and I am wrong, why didn't Al Qaeda have an even bigger presence in Irag before the war. They do now, thanks to our sorry ass job of securing borders.

2. The links to terrorists. OK, they supported terrorists. I acknowledge that. Show me where they supported Al Qaeda.

3. The federal court ruling and 4. The Salman Pak. So its ok that judges make foreign policy? Wow. Ok, then the Bush administration must be willing to admit that Iraq was involved in 9/11? Well, not exactly...

But hey, it gets better. This quote from the Frontline interview:
That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?

I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

Osama bin Laden has no such capabilities. Why? Because this kind of attacks must be, and has to be, organized by a capable state, such as Iraq; a state where they can provide high level of training, and they can provide high level of intelligence to do such training.

How could Osama bin Laden -- who's hiding in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan in small caves and valleys -- train people and gather information and send people to do such high-level operation? We all know this is a high-level operation. This cannot be done by a person who does not even own a plane in Afghanistan, who cannot offer such training in Afghanistan. This is definitely done by a mastermind like Saddam. ...

According to this cat, Osama bin Laden didn't/couldn't do 9/11. Wow.

5. The cats out of the bag in Baghda pre-9/11. Wow.

Conspiracy talk:

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic "New York, New York."

Actual quote:

The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper ``If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so.'' It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs. This new awareness of the image that Bin Ladin has become gives shape to the resting areas and stops for every Arab revolutionary. It is the subject of our admiration here in Iraq because it shares with us in a unified manner our resisting stand, and just as he fixes his gaze on the Al Aqsa we greet him. We hail his tears as they see the planes of the Western world taking revenge against his heroic operations by bombing the cities of Iraq .....

Funny, how if you pick and choose quotes you can make it look like it said anything.

So lets end this discussion by both agreeing with the DOD in their press release of November 15, 2003.

DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, from Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the department to provide the reports from the intelligence community to which he referred in his testimony before the committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the intelligence community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

2004-05-10T21:48:00.000-04:00

The Iraq al-Qaeda Connection (at long last)...

Mr. Joel,

Finally I have assembled the case that Iraq had significant links to terrorism in general, and to al Qaeda in particular.

1.) The February 23, 1998 Fatwa issued by Bin Ladin sites the conditions in Iraq as a primary reason for his declaration of war on America. If Saddam Hussein was the mortal enemy/secularist hater of Osama that many of your political persuation claim, I would ask you to produce a public statement of Saddam's renunciation of this Fatwa.

2.) Treasury department 1994 statement in the Federal Registry listed Iraq to be in connection with at least 30 international terrorist organizations (sorry, can't link to the register). Al Qaeda was not one of the organizations, but we are engaged in a war on International terrorism, not just al Qaeda.

3.) In May of 2003 a Federal Judge ruled that the former Iraqi regime was linked to the run-up to the 9/11 attacks.

4.) Speaking of the Salman Pak training camp, check out what Frontline thought about that.

5.) Iraqi state press mentioned the 9/11 attacks virtually by name just a few months before they occurred.

Now, before I even see your post, let me tell you what I didn't say. I didn't say Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran are off the hook. I didn't say that Saddam & Bin Ladin were in love with eachother. I didn't say that there was a massive conspiracy between them.

Saddam's regime was at least complicitous in the 9/11 attacks, as well as al Qaeda's other operations, both pre and post. Saddam had his hands in a lot of terrorist cookie jars. To argue he had nothing to do with al Qaeda is like arguing the gas stations don't fix prices. By the letter of the law they do not. But the reality is that when you drive across town, they all charge the same price. Same thing here - no one fact in and of itself is a smoking gun, but when you look at them all as a whole, a pattern emerges that can only be described as helping al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

Later,
C-Paq

2004-04-30T22:55:00.000-04:00

J-Foz:

I like the Israeli-Roman linkage comparison to the Israeli-American linkage. Seems there's a pattern here, as the Israelis have managed to stay on the good side of Pax Romania, Pax Brittania, and now Pax Americana. No small feat. I definitely am with you, though, that really nobody has any business favoring one group over the other. All the hands in that pot are covered with blood.

I did not get to see the PBS documentary about President Bush. I did, however, go to the Pretty Bad Station web site and check out the summary of the Frontline documentary. Your softball question's answer - a little from column A, a little from column B.

The President seems to be cut from the same born again evangelical protestant mold that I am. I can say that with my understanding of the faith, the President definitely sees dividing lines between groups. I'll bet primarily he sees the boundaries as ideological and religious, with the politics and other things following along. I think the dichotomy exists.

Now - here's the stinger - what are the implications to that dichotomy? I would dare say they are not nearly so grave as non-believers might suspect. Non-believers know that in their own lives, once they separate people out, they start excluding them. But with President Bush, I believe he has a personal relationship with Jesus that leads him to not only forgive his enemies, but to reach out to them in love - following the lead of Christ. When Kerry locked down the nomination, who was first to call and congratulate him? W. When Spain's new prime minister declared they were chickening out in Iraq, who called? W.

So I would say the dichotomy exists, it's exaggerated in this report, and it has a completely unexpected set of consequences for those who oppose the President.

The connection between Saddam and terror is developing...

2004-04-29T22:50:00.000-04:00

With God on Our Side.....

First, let me respond to Sunday's post by providing you a little bit of history from the bible. OK, its the apocraphya so, you'll have to venture a bit from the standard bible you know. Anyways, little known fact that the Romans were not only considered friends of the Isrealites during the Maccabean and Hasmonean times, but they were actually allies! Knowing this gives a bit of more depth to the story of the Jews and Romans during Jesus' time. The reason why the romans were recruited as allies is quite simple-the Isrealites were surrounded by enemies. Eventually, the Jews fell into two camps: the pharisees and sadducees, and civil war broke out. By this time, the Romans had enough and their own zeal to conquer and subjugate induced Pompey to invade. The rest, they say, is history.

I would argue that this is a powerful allegory to what is happening today. Obviously, without American support, Isreal could not survive as it has. We, as Americans, have a moral and strategic obligation to Isreal: they are a democracy in a sea of tyranny, and they are our peeps in the hood of all hoods. But there lies an important lesson that we must not forget. Isreal is not a homogenous entity as some may think. It is still divided in some respects between the Pharisees (Orthodox) and Sadducees (more liberal). Most of the settlements in the West Bank, Gaza or other disputed areas are occupied by more radical elements. We also have a moral responsibility to see that all parties in the region stick to the agreements in hand that exist. I fear that we, as Americans, will be forced to assume the position of the ancient Romans as a necessary arbitrator to provide stability.

Secondly, did you watch Frontline's documentary on the religious life of GWB? Very interesting and thought provoking. I thought it was balanced (I have a feeling you will disagree) although there were a few instances in which I think that the filmakers overly simplified some aspects of the President's faith. One interesting aspect is what the what the filmakers consider evangelical's big liability: to divide the nation between saved and not saved, good and evil, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, etc. Softball question (maybe) for ya: do you think that this dichotomy exists or is it exaggerated?

Also, I am still waiting to see some proof of the Iraqi involvement in the WTC bombing in '93...

-J

2004-04-25T22:39:00.000-04:00

J-Dog,

Before we bog down into trench warfare over the US Presidential election (it's a long time til November), what do you think about the new US/Israeli initiative on the Gaza strip? Is Sharon up to something? Why are the Palestinians so mad about getting exactly what they wanted (no Israeli settlements)? What say you?

C-Dog

2004-04-23T15:01:00.000-04:00

Two Months to Declare "Mission Accomplished" OR "How the CPA goes to a CYA setting before the CF becomes FUBAR!"

C, I can't help but to agree that the CPA will "Officially" turn over power by 6/30. Don't start landing on the aircraft carrier just yet. Read the latest from Mr. Bremer: "Maybe we got it wrong"

2004-04-23T14:14:00.000-04:00

Joel,

I will stand by my theory that the Iraq mess will be cleaned up by June 30. Check out this story from MSNBC

If nothing else, the administration is ruthlessly flexible. Even a Bush hater like you MUST admit this is a good sign!

By the way, you're definitely right, Deb is a pinhead.

Chad

2004-04-21T10:25:00.000-04:00

Chad. Deb sucks and Bush is a liar.

2004-04-19T13:05:00.000-04:00

Hey Joel,

More great moments from the Kerry campaign. Just listen to John "Straight Shooter" Kerry tell it like it is on Meet the Press Sunday! (from a transcript on msnbc.com) -

MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not believe the war on terror is primarily a military operation, not a law
enfor...

SEN. KERRY: No...

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: ...not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You don't.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily.

MR. RUSSERT: You do not.

SEN. KERRY: Not primarily. Tim, Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. America really needs to stop and focus on the truth again. This administration--and we now know it from Bob Woodward's book. I mean, you can go through the series of events in August when the president was at the ranch taking the longest vacation in presidential history. During that time, the president was talking about Iraq more than he was talking about al-Qaeda. Andy Card came back and made an announcement that they didn't introduce a new product in August because that's not what you do in August. They introduced it in September. They came back and started down the Iraq road. They kept looking for a connection. George Tenet kept saying no connection. The intelligence people said no connection.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the war on terror, Senator.

SEN. KERRY: But let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: The war on terror is a law enforcement, not military...

SEN. KERRY: No. I said "primarily."...

Can there be any doubt about what Senator Kerry's belief is on this one? Ya, I thought so.

2004-04-16T11:58:00.000-04:00

The 40% President? Check this out.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04162004/nation_w/157713.asp

Looks like your article by that Commu-Nazi Fred Kaplan is all washed up, foo.

-Chad

2004-04-16T10:00:00.000-04:00

Here's your Pravda article -

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/politics/campaign/16KERR.html

The most telling part of the article - Kerry's quote that the current problem with his campaign is that "A lot of people still don't really know who I am,"

Whenever Senator Kerry runs into trouble, he resorts to "That's not really what I believe!" or "I didn't mean that", or "You're not listening". This guy is in denial! He can't understand that genuine people have genuine problems with his positions. So, rather than defend his ideas on fair grounds or try to win people over, he just tells those who disagree that they are either too dumb to understand him, or that they are "radical extremists". Welcome to the magical fun land of John F. Dukakis.

2004-04-16T09:19:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite papers, the New York Times (or as Attilla there calls it Pravda) has an interesting story about Kerry's attempts to move the center. I can almost sense he is "feeling my pain" as we speak.

Not exactly kid glove treatment, as some would suggest. Interesting notes are at the bottom where Kerry receives the "tepid" applause from an African-American group and the meeting he had with church officials. Apparently his attempts at being the "next black president" aren't going as well as planned. Maybe he should take a que from "Black Bush."

href="http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/chappellesshow">

2004-04-16T08:40:00.000-04:00

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
John F. Kennedy