216 Comments

1. Charlie (Colorado):

Wow. First.

Now if I just had something useful to say.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:24 pm 2. Homer:

Wow is right, so CNN picked it up. Looks like the MSM dam is about to bust wide open, and Charlie, you have always had useful, and interesting stuff to say.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:31 pm 3. Rick Ballard:

Homer,

CNN?

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:36 pm 4. D Anghelone:

Now if I just had something useful to say.

Charlie, if he makes that a rule then most of us are outta here.

Now, should I diss the host over that “numberous” thing? Nah!

The Kerry Campaign, unable to deal with their candidates own “statements,” told Cameron they would be back later with an update.

Anyone want to bet on that update?

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:37 pm 5. Rick Ballard:

Charlie (C),

“Good night sweet prince” would work. If he were sweet and if he were a prince.

Time to dig out my Shakespeare, let’s see, shall I look in the Histories, the Tragedies or the Comedys? Did Bill write any actual farces?

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:40 pm 6. Terrye:

I just saw the panel on Fox and I thought Juan and Fred were going to have to be seperated by Maya of NPR. Juan finally resorted to the line “Well at least he went”, meaning to Viet Nam. I just love this. Years ago people like Juan [often as not] were either screaming hell no I won’t go I won’t fight for Exxon oil or they were hanging out at airports spitting at returning soldiers. I know, that is my generation. And now here we are decades later, well at least he went… how strange is that?

I don’t know what is worse, the fact that Kerry said that stuff in the first place or the inability of his campaign to deal with this eventuality. I think they thought no one would pay any attention to these guys. The swift boat guys aren’t real political movers and shakers like Whoopi or Michael Moore or Alec Baldwin.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:41 pm 7. RogerA:

Some of the blogs are talking about the “brown books” on Kerry enemies (is anyone surprised this came from the fevered brow of James Carville?) Do you suppose the campaign keeps a brown book on the motormouth in chief? I am amazed they were caught on this one–my guess? Bush was AWOL will be the words out of the DNC’s mouth tomorrow.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:49 pm 8. Charlie (Colorado):

Did Bill write any actual farces?

Merry Wives of Windsor

Not his best stuff, but hell, it was a wedding present.

I’d be tempted to look in Faust, though.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:49 pm 9. Roger:

“Numberous”? LOL… Several people have emailed that as the traffic to this blog has gone up, so have the typos. Arrogance? Unlike John Kerry, I will say “mea culpa.”

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:50 pm 10. so it begins:

I think Juan must be on the DNC’s s**t list and is in a serious bind, because real soon after Kerry was nominated he wrote an article about why Kerry was going to lose and said there was time for Democrats to change their mind - so he is not blind sided by what is going on with the SBVT and neither is the Kerry campaign. With their total lack of rebuttal it shows how credible their charges are. The only thing Kerry was running on is obliterated.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:50 pm 11. RogerA:

And–Alec Baldwin? I thought he moved to France after the 2000 election–do you mean he lied?

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:50 pm 12. someone:

Nice “Editorial Review” the Amazon folks put up for that book.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:51 pm 13. Charlie (Colorado):

…and Charlie, you have always had useful, and interesting stuff to say.

Wow, remind me to post glaring openings for compliments here more often.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:51 pm 14. Catherine:

I find this stuff riveting, and wish I had more comprehension of what is (likely to be) going on.

My first guess is that Mark Steyn is right: the Kerry campaign assumed they’d have a “walk” on Vietnam. They’d certainly managed to mau-mau every single conservative pundit on the planet into reflexively employing the phrase “notwithstanding Kerry’s genuinely heroic service in Vietnam” in any and all articles & op-eds, while warning the Swifties to “stay away” from Vietnam. (The most recent example being Barbara Amiel on the WSJ editorial page.)

They may have mistaken Rich Lowry for John O’Neill.

Here’s Steyn:

But, insofar as I understand the rules of Campaign 2004, every time any member of the administration says anything about the present conflict, he is accused by Democrats of shamelessly “politicizing” it. Whereas every time John Kerry waxes nostalgic about those fragrant memories of the Mekong Delta, he should be allowed to take his unending stroll down memory lane unmolested.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/

Still and all, wouldn’t you want to assign someone to vet this stuff?

I would.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:52 pm 15. lindenen:

RogerA, “brown books” what do you mean by “brown books”? Do you have any links?

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:52 pm 16. Kevin P:

Roger:

Yes they will eventually cover it. but the first thing out of their mouth will be ” this is not relevant.” If you want a preview of how the MSM will respond to it go to Fox and listen to or read Juan Williams and Mara Liason trip over themselves trying to invent excuses for Kerry. “Maybe he thought he was in Cambodia and later found out that he wasn’t.” Then Juan tried to stear it back to the funding of the commercials slant. Then Mara went with the well if it wasn’t about Kerry fishing the soldier out of the water or if it isn’t about him serving then it doesn’t mean anything.Pretty soon it will morph into “We’ll the only relevant question is did Kerry serve in Vietnam The particulars of his story’s don’t really mean anything”. When the moderator asked them if this story should be covered as hard as the National Guard story both their voices went as high as a teenage boy “Yes,Yes, sure,sure”. They won’t cover it exept as a Republican attack angle. How can the LA Times cover it when on the first day of the story the editorial page proclaimed the Kerry’s war sevice was not “Fair Game” for coverage.The facts about the story are not “relevant” to the MSM.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:54 pm 17. Charlie (Colorado):

Lindenen, this link leads you to an article about the “brown books” on crushkerry.com.

It’s probably worth at least a little grain of salt, since we’re talking about a Big Secret Conspiracy of the Vast Left-Wing Media, and I don’t ever find conspiracy theories very credible… but on the other hand, it fits with the Clintonian method of dealing with a “bimbo eruption”, so I can’t discount it completely.

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:57 pm 18. RogerA:

lindenen–mentioned on polipundit and crushkerry (the former may be more reliable than the latter). As I recall the story they came out of media workshops during the dnc convention–

Aug 9, 2004 - 4:59 pm 19. Charlie (Colorado):

You know, I get as cynical about the mainstream media as anyone, but I’ve got to go with Monica Crowley on this one (viz, this weekend’s Fox News Watch). She quoted Richard Nixon as having said, when she worked for him, that the media can ignore almost anything except a story.

If the push stays on long enough, and no major stoppers show up, this will become a Story, and even the NYT will have to cover it.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:00 pm 20. Fresh Air:

Roger–

I’m not sure about your posts, but there definitely are more typos from the peons, since we are all in a race against time to compose something before the evil Typekey Gremlin ejects us into the cold space of the blogosphere. That and the fact that Preview often accomplishes the same thing.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:02 pm 21. Charlie (Colorado):

Here’s a link to the Media Matters … umm, er… their fair and balanced coverage.

Hell, I can’t stand it.

It’s a link to their slime job.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:04 pm 22. Homer:

Sorry Rick, I was thinking Fox, but typed CNN instead. What I was thinking was that the pressure to cover the swiftvets would force CNN then the other MSM to look for a fresh angle, and that would advance the story. In any event, it’s now out of Kerry and his media allies control.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:05 pm 23. Catherine:

everyone

TimJUtah’s link to the article on leadership (previous thread) is fantastic.

I couldn’t get the link to work, but you can find it by going to The Corner (at NRO) and doing a search for “Kessler,” who has a new book out called A MATTER OF CHARACTER: INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE OF GEORGE W. BUSH.

August 09, 2004, 8:55 a.m.

W., Beyond the Caricatures

Journalist Ronald Kessler takes a look inside the Bush 43 White House.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

I’m going off-topic for a moment–

Several times, in previous threads, I’ve gone off-topic to say that I am now voting for George Bush not only because of the WOT, but because of No Child Left Behind.

George Bush is an education president. I also believe, given the achievement gap that he is a civil rights president.

Most of the interview with Kessler is about the WOT, but there is a section on education:

NRO: What was the most surprising thing you learned about President Bush in the course of writing the book?

Kessler: Besides the diversity of his friends, I was amazed at how deeply Bush personally researched why kids can’t read. Nationally, 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read a simple children’s book. Among blacks and Hispanics, the proportion is as high as 65 percent. The reason is that in the 1970’s, liberal educators decided that teaching kids to read with phonics ÔøΩ sounding out words ÔøΩ was dull. Instead, they said kids should simply be given books to read. Somehow, they will become excited by the books and guess what the words mean. In other words, under this approach, called whole language, kids are not taught to read at all.

Bush personally called experts in the field to try to figure out what was wrong and develop a program to restore phonics to reading instruction. The result in Texas was a drop in the percentage of third graders who could not read at grade from 23 percent to just two percent, including additional help when needed. Bush is trying to do the same thing through the No Child Left Behind Act, which John Kerry voted for but now says he wants to gut.

Ironically, the New York City public schools still use a form of whole language, yet I found the toniest private schools in New York all teach phonics.

“Of course we teach phonics,” Beth Tashlik, the head of the Collegiate School’s lower school, told me. “You can’t teach reading without it.”

and:

NRO: It seems you spend a lot of time on education ÔøΩ especially phonics. Why?

Kessler: I have a special interest. After I got into Bush’s reading initiative, I realized that when I had to take remedial reading in Cambridge, Mass., after the third grade, I learned to read with phonics. The New York City schools, which I had previously attended, taught reading with a form of whole language. So I know how humiliating it is to not be able to read, to think that you are a failure. I hope that parents will read this book, find out the facts, and storm their school boards to demand a return to phonics. Despite Bush’s efforts, 60 percent of public schools continue to teach whole language.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:06 pm 24. Charlie (Colorado):

Fresh Air, if you do a preview and discover you’re no longer logged in, do the following:

(0) highlight and copy your preview text.

(1) click the “sign in” link and sign in.

(2) click the “Back” button to get back to the edit page.

On netscape 7 using Windows or Linux, steps (1) and (2) will put you back to the edit page, all signed in, and with your text still in the edit window. If you haven’t got the text there, you can then paste it in from when you copied it from the preview.

(If you forget, you should be able to click the “Forward” button on the browser and go back to the preview page, capture the text, click “Back” and there you are. Voila!)

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:08 pm 25. Catherine:

Back on topic, and btw, I hate Typepad.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:08 pm 26. dr. sanity:

Kerry could instantly clear this up and prove the Swiftboat Vets are lying if he released his Vietnam medical records; the records of his nominations for his medals; and all other Navy records from the period in question. The fact that these are not likely to be forthcoming should tell you something.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:10 pm 27. Fresh Air:

Dr. Sanity–

I think the reason he won’t do so is we’ll find his own handwriting on his nominations and/or a few visits to the Navy psychiatrist.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:13 pm 28. Lapsed Randian 2:

It looks this issue is going to give Kerry a run for his wife’s money. I still have this nagging feeling about those medical records. In litigated cases, the lawyers will tell you that the medical records usually contain a gold mine. The reason? Medical records don’t lie, they don’t have biases, and they don’t have a bad memory.

What is keeping Senator Swift Boat from releasing those records? If the records even partially blunt some of the purple heart allegations, wouldn’t they have been released by now?

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:15 pm 29. D Anghelone:

My first guess is that Mark Steyn is right: the Kerry campaign assumed they’d have a “walk” on Vietnam.

If he’d now and then dropped a reference and walked on. Most of us on both sides had mostly put that behind us until he brought it front and center. Now we’re back at the barricades.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:16 pm 30. Rick Ballard:

Brava, Catherine,

It’s good to read something positive. This hacking and sawing will grow tiresome after a bit.

BTW, All, Typepad is just an example of the whimsical nature of fate. Unless of course, you’re of the Reformed persuasion, in which case the proper response is, “Well, I’m glad that’s out of the way.”

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:21 pm 31. DennisThePeasant:

…I was thinking Fox, but typed CNN instead…

This amounts to one of the great disconnects of our time.

…if you do a preview and discover you’re no longer logged in, do the following…

Actually, Charlie, the first thing to be done is swear.

…I hate Typepad…

Me too. Since initiated we have lost lil joe altogether and Stevie-Poo has posted twice (as has Cerny). Now that Tano has fled the coop…Well, I just don’t have as much to do around here as I used to.

All I want for Christmas is a stupid, verbal and persistent Leftie of my very own to play with.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:34 pm 32. Samuel:

This is why I said, “if the Democrats wanted a chance they should nominate Edwards“. I have consistently said Kerry will go down, and believe me it will get worse. The Dems better hope the Republicans play nice waiting for the media to do their job. They should thank God Lee Atwater is not around today, Kerry would be roasted, PERIOD. But Kerry can kiss it goodbye for sure, I know better, there is a hell of a lot more than this out there. Hopefully they won’t waste time on the “personal peccadillo’s” like they did with Clinton. Of course this was all while the Chinese and others soaked up every secret they could get their hands on.

I said towards the end of the “Impeachable Offense” thread that Kerry has just too many personal issues to overcome. I’ll leave it at that, the media will find what they find. There is enough.

I do believe we have all we have on Bush plus extra… you know, draft dodging, drunk driving, dyslexic, dimwitted, lying (especially about WMD’s), son of privilege, but yet all while at the same time being a red-necked closet racist (James Byrd anyone?). What else can they possibly accuse him of? Bush is fully vetted (plus some) indeed.

Kerry has a long way to go and it is going to go bad, sorry Goof. I had mentioned this to you in your former life as “Rebel” when you were posting more. I know the man and I started counting my chickens when they bypassed Edwards for Kerry. And guess what, I know Edwards too, Wichita you can believe that or not.

The Democrats blew it big-time. -JSF

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:35 pm 33. DennisThePeasant:

BTW, All, Typepad is just an example of the whimsical nature of fate.

Gag me with a spoon, Ballard!

One more post like that and you will be taking a time out in your room, Mister.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:37 pm 34. Catherine:

OK, I figured I’d just get that in there before Typepad logged me out.

ABB voters see this story as simple confirmation of the evil that is Bush, so if it were up to them, the story would be dead now.

I have a feeling, and it’s just a feeling, that this is different.

I’m wondering whether we’re finally going to have our “Great Vietnam Debate.”

People say they want to talk about Iraq, they’re sick of Vietnam, etc., etc.

Fine.

But I’m starting to think: Let’s have it out.

What exactly is the Democratic Party telling us?

I have had ABB voters tell me, and I quote: “Vietnam was a crime.”

These same people say exactly what Juan Williams said: “At least Kerry went.”

So it was a crime that John Kerry helped commit.

And the rest of us are supposed to vote for that.

I’m coming to believe that we will be best able to fight & win the WOT if a majority of the citizens of this country come to an agreement about Vietnam, that being, probably, the view John Moore put forward a few threads ago: a moral war for a moral cause; a failure of military and political leadership. (I hope that’s an accurate version of his post.)

In the best of all possible worlds I would like to see a significant portion of the Democratic Party sign on to this vision, and I’d like to see a significant portion of the Republican Party sign on, too. For conservatives that would mean abandoning the view that the Vietnam War was lost by the left, or by the media. (Remember Bob Dole talking about “Democrats’ wars?”)

I realize I’m asking for miracles, and that many here will disagree with part 2.

I also realize that I haven’t read enough history of the Vietnam War to know what’s what, although I do know enough about the media and public opinion to feel certain that the MSM does not have the monolithic power conservatives believe it to have.

In any case, Americans need to come to some kind of consensus about Vietnam, about what it was, about what it meant, about why it failed, and about what it means for our future.

It’s possible the Swifties will finally force us to have that conversation.

They are brave men.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:40 pm 35. DennisThePeasant:

Perhaps Kerry will adopt a Clintonian approach:

It all depends on what the definition of ‘in’ is.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:41 pm 36. Mr60s:

I hope that there’s someone checking newsfiles to see if the White House was reassuring the American public during the Christmas season in 1968 that there were no U.S. troops in Cambodia.

Such a comment by the President (whoever he was at that time) should be on record.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:50 pm 37. Charlie (Colorado):

This is a little off-topic, but it’s so delicious that I’ve got to share it:

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: “I’ll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.”

From this Reuter’s story.

So he’s saying that, WMD or no, he would have voted for the resolution, and used force against Saddam, only he’d have done it better. Somehow.

Personally, I’m beginning to think Kerry’s got a drinking problem or something.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:51 pm 38. Fresh Air:

Everyone–

Transcript of the interview by Michael Savage of Steve Gardner (the missing crewman, dissed by Time magazine) is here. The details are not looking good for the Thinnest-Skinned U.S. Presidential Candidate in History.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:53 pm 39. Samuel:

Catherine

You mentioned the two policies I agree with the President on (and probably the only two I give 100% support to) the WOT and “No Child Left Behind”. The Democrats playing politics with the “No Child Left Behind” is just as unforgivable to me. The fact is that Bush gave in on too much in my opinion, in truth it was a bi-partisan effort. I swear the Democrats are going to eventually lose minority votes on such issues if they aren’t careful (also school choice). These are civil right’s issues and the “Conservative Staus Quo Democrats” and that is what they are, protectors of the past. These issues are starting to cut against them, they are not behaving like progressive liberals as far as I am concerned.

Also Catherine my words towards the end of the “Impeachable Offense” thread were for you. On that post I will remind that Kerry flip flops for the benefit of John Kerry and no one else period.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:53 pm 40. Rick Ballard:

DtP,

You’ve still got Ms. Wood, from time to time. Although I do note that she seems a bit off her feed.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:54 pm 41. Charlie (Colorado):

Mr60s, it’s already been done: there was no presidential address of any sort whatsoever on Christmas Eve, and Lyndon had been in general very quiet since the election.

On the other hand, I’m pretty certain I remember at least some talk about “were we in Cambodia or weren’t we?” so I think this is going to be another point where it can’t be nailed down quite.

Plus, I’d sure hate to have to be day for day accurate on my memories of the war etc. that long ago.

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:55 pm 42. jerry:

I hate to throw this wet blanket on everbodies enthusiasm here but I remember going through this process repeatedly with Clinton. I think that it will work the same way here. The Democrats, with their allies in media, will spin this not just away but to their own advantage. Just look at how many people posting to this thread still think Clinton did not commit perjury even though the weight of judicial decision says he did. What makes you think that real DNC mastermind for the war room, John Rendon, will not be just as successful as he was when neutralizing Clinton’s problems?

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:57 pm 43. Charlie (Colorado):

Folks, didn’t we determine Hollywood was, in fact, male?

I think I started the female theory by alluding to “Holly Would” in the Ralph Bakshi movie….

Aug 9, 2004 - 5:57 pm 44. Charlie (Colorado):

I dunno, Jerry. Clinton managed to save his own ass, but they lost both houses of Congress, a mess of governorships, and a presidential race that should have been theirs by 20 percent. If this just convinces some of the undecided 20 percent that he’s a schnook, it could turn the election.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:00 pm 45. Charlie (Colorado):

Tmj:

Bushliedmoron … draftdodgerdeserter

Don’t do that.

Thank you.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:02 pm 46. M. Simon:

This has legs the Clinton story didn’t have.

200+ Swifties.

80% of 3 Million Viet Vets

Witnesses. Evidence.

Its about every one’s war not Bill Clinton’s (sordid) sex life

You can cover up 5 or 50 bimbos.

Senate testimony and the verdict of history are a little harder.

BTW want to make sure the story has legs? Raise the volume. Ask questins. e-mail your friends and enemies. Let them answer.

Release the records.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:02 pm 47. jerry:

Charlie:

I hope you are right. But until I see some real signs of some MSM source break ranks and start asking the right questions that will have credibility with nonblog reading public I remain skeptical. Remmeber, we tend to think alike here and therefore have a tendency to be an anti-Kerry echo chamber.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:06 pm 48. M. Simon:

TmjUtah ,

Cute post with that super long word.

My browser no longer formats the page correctly.

Thanks for helping get the word out.

Release the records

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:06 pm 49. TmjUtah:

Oops. Sorry about that, Roger. Last time that particular cute gets used.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:09 pm 50. Catherine:

Samuel

(I just posted something to you on the other thread—–)

I swear the Democrats are going to eventually lose minority votes on such issues if they aren’t careful (also school choice). These are civil right’s issues and the “Conservative Staus Quo Democrats” and that is what they are, protectors of the past. These issues are starting to cut against them, they are not behaving like progressive liberals as far as I am concerned

I had no idea what No Child Left Behind was all about, and I was blown away when I found out.

President Bush has a whole enormous realm of accomplishment in domestic policy that is simply invisible.

(Though people on the “sensible left” say he hasn’t supported NCLB as he should have. These aren’t the “no money” critiques; I think they’re more political . . . though I haven’t read them, to be honest. Is there anything to this?)

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:16 pm 51. Old Dad:

Jerry:

I share your skepticism about the long term damage the Cambodia fiasco will do to Kerry, but I will note that the Monica story was picked up by the MSM because of sex. If Cambodia-gate gets hotter, it’s because the MSM smells blood in the water.

Moreover, the Clinton machine handled Monica with professional ruthlessness. The Kerry team otched it right out of the gate. Clinton would have stalled, lied, and bought time for much longer before lamely back tracking with a ” he meant he was near Camodia.” That’s so lame that I’ll wager Clinton might disown him. I can remember Hillary’s argument that Bubba might have been “ministering” to a young lady. That seems absolutely Solomonic by comparison.

Don’t get me wrong. I’ll never underestimate the power of the MSM to spin, but the Kerry camp needs a pro at the helm–is Carville working?

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:16 pm 52. Catherine:

Jerry & Old Man et al

BTW, “Old Man”—I think you recommended THE RIGHT NATION awhile back. If so, thank you. It’s terrific (or will be, if I ever get my Amazon Marketplace order straightened out.)

You could absolutely be right.

Normally I would say this will be ignored by the MSM, but it doesn’t “feel” that way to me (”feel” is the word). This is 200 men. Two hundred. All Vietnam veterans. Seeing as how the Kerry campaign, as well as conservative writers, have been telling us for months now that VIETNAM VETERANS ARE BEYOND REPROACH, is the Democratic Party really going to be able to attack these guys now and make it work?

I don’t have the faintest idea how and why this will play out, and Jerry is right that ABB voters will for the rest of their lives believe that Kerry was smeared by the Republican attack machine.

But ABB voters are a pretty small proportion of the population. (Does anyone know the percent?? If Samuel’s still here, he will. I’m thinking ABB types are around . . . is it 15% of the voting public? Is it even that many? I’ve forgotten.)

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:29 pm 53. david:

Will someone post the transcript from the Brit Hume Fox interviews on Cambodian Xmas?

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:29 pm 54. Rick Ballard:

jerry,

WRT Bubba’s Bimbo Brigade (AKA War Room), they were effective as slimebots only with:

1)People with minimal media exposure expeerience(especially women) or

2)Judge Star (whose hands were tied because of his position)

They were (for the most part) totally ineffective in targeting the house impeachment managers. Remember - Bubba was impeached. History certainly won’t forget that and neither should we.

If the slimebots go after Swifties other than O’Neill and Corsi the backlash is going to be quite impressive. Capt. Elliot did allow himself to be ambushed by the Globe but I’ll bet $10 that won’t happen again. Kranish may have done the Swifties a favor. I’m sure that O’Neill warned all of them of just how pernicious reporters can be. Some of the Swifties may have had some doubts concerning that proposition (most honorable men would), Kranish showed them what can be done with a few pull quotes and a little deliberate misinterpretation. He’s a marvelous example of the depths to which a Dem operative will sink. If I were a Swiftie, I’d keep a tape recorder going if I got within a hundred yards of a journo. We’ll see.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:31 pm 55. RandMan:

He who lives by the controversy shall die by the controversy… or something like that.

Let’s face it, there would be no Sen. Kerry but for John Kerry, anti-VN veteran. Vets felt betrayed, and the Swifties feel it the most as they served with the guy. That’s not something people just “get over”. There was just no way this wasn’t going to become an issue.

IMO, the Cambodia trap Kerry set himself may be the catalyst to move the story. From there I have no idea how this will play.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:35 pm 56. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

I don’t think that there is a definitive breakdown of ABB’ers. When you look at the polls the closest you can get is the percentage that consistently takes the absolute worst anti-Bush position on any given poll question. I’ve noted percentages ranging from 13% to 22% but I’m sure that they include generic Yellow Dogs - as long as they breath they won’t pull the lever for any Republican. The mouthbreathing ABB’ers are a subset that I would guess at 8% to 12% of the Dem vote. Very loud but not that big in comparision to the 35% who are simply anti-Bush.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:42 pm 57. Catherine:

RandMan

Let’s face it, there would be no Sen. Kerry but for John Kerry, anti-VN veteran. Vets felt betrayed, and the Swifties feel it the most as they served with the guy. That’s not something people just “get over”. There was just no way this wasn’t going to become an issue.

I agree, absolutely.

Even Jane Fonda apologized.

Tim Russert shows Kerry the footage where he says his fellow soldiers were war criminals and his response is Wasn’t my hair great?

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:42 pm 58. david:

Catharine, I appreciate your optimism about the Viet Nam war. Having lived through the period (didn’t serve, protestor). I can say that we DO need an air clearing. I still beleive it was right to resist that war, there was little justification and the times were such that we didn’t debate as much as we needed to. The youth (myself included) shocked their elders by taking a stance . . .against the war. It changed alot, and Watergate sealed the deal. Something awful happened in the meantime: folks like Kerry decided to take advantage of the situation and (clearly) built a creer out of riding the wave of “new” radical political thought. As a former leftist (oh . . that hurts to admit) I realize the ease with which we set Kerry and his ilk an easy target for pandering. That’s my own demon, and I’ll deal with it. But Kerry is about to answer for our sins.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:47 pm 59. richard mcenroe:

Mr. President or President-Elect, I remember being in or around Cambodia sometime around Christmas of 1968 or ‘69, being shot at by the Khmer Rouge or someone like them…” somehow, the statement just doesn’t seem to have the same oomph…

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:52 pm 60. Catherine:

Rick B

Thank you!

(I momentarily forgot you’re the poll person——!)

That coincides with everything I’ve read.

I love it that the 13% figure pops up in your comment. My boyfriend back in grad school always liked to bring up the fact that at the very end of Nixon’s term 13% of the public still believed he was a great president who hadn’t done anything wrong.

He said there is always, in every wonky situation, 13% of the public who believes something completely nuts.

That was a zillion years ago now, and I have to say: he’s right.

Every time the culture gets into a strange pass I’ll take a look at the polls, and sure enough: there they are, that same 13%. (I do wonder, sometimes, whether it actually is the same people.)

I bet if you did a poll on whether we went to war so Halliburton could make boatloads of money on oil and reconstruction contracts you’d find 13% saying yes. (Maybe the question would have to be a bit broader–”oil companies” instead of “Halliburton”–but I bet you could do it.)

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:52 pm 61. wxjames:

Story on Drudge: Book cover changed to FIT FOR COMMAND. This is a bizzar start, no ?

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:56 pm 62. Goof®:

Samuel

I’m having a great time. Hope you’re having the same.

Best.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:58 pm 63. wxjames:

Maybe 13% of the people hate polsters so much, they pull the answers outta their a**. You know 44% of the people will not even allow the questions.

Aug 9, 2004 - 6:59 pm 64. rod:

My fellows,

This story has legs to spare. Actually, as a colleague ofmine in the newsroom said tonight:”This is it for Kerry. Even if he doesnt shake this very quickly, he’s Howard Dean.”

Let me give you a few reasons, FWIW as a reporter, why this will quickly outstrip Oil For Food (which is an ultimately vastly more important story)and, perhaps, sink the Kerry campaign….

1. As all noted, JK’s entire campaign validity has been predicated on his volunterring for ‘Nam. ANything that calls that into question hurts. If it’s upgraded to structural dishonesty, that hurts exponentially.

2. Comparisons to Clinton’s fellatio follies are inept. AT best, that became he-said-she said, with some pretty sketchy characters thrown in to boot….Paula Jones and her handler, whats’her-name McMillan are rather differnt from a bunch of straight shooting Navy guys.

3. Viz Clinton’s BJ’s, much of cambodia gate can be brought to light, or put to bed if its the case, via open source research. Reporters CAn do this, and will, because unlike oil for food, this one strikes home. A colleague on the nat’l desk told me tonite: “Making crap up about your record is wrong. People want to read about this stuff.”

4. The AMerican people, I wager, care much more about this sort of stuff than oil for food, sadly. They will watch it on TV willingly and read and buy the papers that break hard news on it. War record stories gather eyeballs, period.

5. Kerry has gotten a pretty free ride so far. AT least that’s the sense that some reporters have told me.

6. If Kerry has to retract some of this–or is proved to be wrong–his entire record goes on the table. The political results would be obvious.

again, these are just the random neural firings of a scribble hack, based on conversations with the same….My guess: as Mickey Kaus would say, “this one gets out of the liberal cocoon really fast.”

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:00 pm 65. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Catherine writes:

Even Jane Fonda apologized

Yeah, when veterans were obstructing her movie.

I and many other Vietnam Vets don’t accept that apology. Hanoi Jane was a traitoress and should have been prosecuted as such (except she seems to be so stupid that she may not have understood the meaning of her actions).

I didn’t know about Kerry’s treachery until this year. I now feel that he was another one. Vets I have been in contact with almost all agree. Kerry betrayed us. Kerry helped the enemy which may have cost lives. POWs were made to signify agreement with Kerry’s statements by their captors.

Here is a statement that appeared on my blog while I was working on this reply:

I served in the Southeast Asian War Games, took my lumps and came home, went to work and raised a family. While I’m certainly no hero, I did serve with some. Each of my children is named for a young man who made the flight home in an aluminum casket, even my daughter, Stephanie. As each of my children went through school I had to deal with the myth of constant war crimes, baby killing and rape.

John Kerry is, in large part responsible for that myth I’ve had to fight my whole adult life. Now Mr. Kerry wants to wrap himself with the mantle of his service, I’m not buying. He’s been scum for as long as I can remember hearing his name.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:07 pm 66. Catherine:

David

I still beleive it was right to resist that war

I’m out on a limb, because I don’t know the history.

However, the tiny glimpse I’ve had of McMaster’s book (DERELICTION OF DUTY) makes me think that when I do I will end up on the protest side myself.

But that won’t be the John Kerry side.

Vietnam was, in the beginning, a “liberals’ war.” (Moynihan uses this phrase in his book on the U.N.)

If I had been an adult in the 1960s, I would have been one of those liberals.

I assume that I would have, at some point, turned against the war, either because I lost confidence in the political and military leadership, or because, as a “Jacksonian” I became unwilling to see young men die in a war hampered and hemmed in by too many political constraints.

But never because I rejected the cause of defeating Communism.

What I’ve learned only lately is that all of those liberals, the Cold War liberals and Scoop Jackson Democrats, became Republicans.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:10 pm 67. wxjames:

Sorry, the story has been pulled from drudge. The book cover and name had been changed on the Barnes and Nobel web site to a pix of Kerry with his smiling crew around him and the title FIT FOR COMMAND. But, all gone.

Good advertizing, I guess.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:10 pm 68. M. Simon:

Gardner: I didn’t get that diary, this was from the book that he wrote.

Savage: Oh, oh, so this is in his own words and he’s agreed … he wrote these words and he’s not denying that he wrote, that he got one Purple Heart by getting hit in the butt with a rice grain.

http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1762&sid=ee577add6c66be5ea8686dad58dcb9b0

Kerry got the Quaker Puffed Rice Wound.

And for those too young to remember the commercial went something like:

Quaker Puffed Rice, shot from guns.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:10 pm 69. mrp:

Rick -

The mouthbreathing ABB’ers are a subset that I would guess at 8% to 12% of the Dem vote. Very loud but not that big in comparision to the 35% who are simply anti-Bush.

Dunno, Rick. I think, with the possible exception of a few close relatives, I can’t think of anyone who has a personal affection for John Kerry. My perception is that the guy is ruthless with a strong work ethic, but on the charisma front - goose egg.

Neither campaign is counting on defections. They’re hoping that more of the other guy’s base will simply throw up their hands and stay home on Nov. 2.

—

The Dems won’t counter the Swifties on a factual basis. Tim Russert has already disclosed their plan: The Swifties are the puppets of “Texas Republicans” - it’s dirty politics as usual, VRWC, etc. Standard playbook stuff.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:13 pm 70. Rick Ballard:

I really love a guy who calls himself a reporter rather than a journalist. I know they exist, even in the darkest pits of W. 43rd. I always think of John Burns as a reporter and I always think of him after the desire to vaporize the building passes. I can handle a negative report as long as it is fact based. I just can’t handle the interpretative dance done by most byliners and their editors.

Thanks rod, I promise not to throw a brick when you come back with some bad news.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:13 pm 71. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I’ve been watching Fox. The Swifties are the topic. One disadvantage the Swifties seem to have is not enough spokesmen to counter some of the innuendo.

The current biggest “defense” is that the SBVT folks were not on Kerry’s boat, so they don’t know anything. That is a big red herring. Lanny Davis, Mr. Smear, said that the SBVT folks were lying because they said they served with Kerry, because they were not on his boat. That is slander.

So far no newsman has apparently noticed that the guys ( or at least some of them ) who follow Kerry around were given transfers to safe billets when Kerry boogied. Hence their motices are suspect.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:16 pm 72. rod:

Rick Ballard, the problems of the newspaper biz all BEGAN when people started calling themselves journalists….

Id rather get hit by your brick than call myself a journo….Getting to a story that matters first and then getting it as right as you can is the ultimate….

eff the spin, you dig? Its what’s killing what we do for a living….

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:18 pm 73. HA:

OK everybody. You’re hearing it hear first.

Kerry is toast!

How do I know? Because there are some things that even Democrats cannot condone. So what if Kerry lied to get his medals, lied about being in Cambodia, confessed to war crimes, negotiated with the North Vietnamese in Paris while still in the naval reserve, attended meetings where plots to assasinate senators were debated? No problem!

But some things just cannot be tolerated. And now the truth is out. While in Vietnam, Kerry slaughtered defenseless farm animals in cold blood! HOW DARE HE!

Maybe its time for the Toricelli option after all.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:19 pm 74. Catherine:

John Moore

I agree.

It was your web site, way back when, that made me ferociously anti-Kerry.

He betrayed his fellow soldiers, and he profited from his betrayal.

As each of my children went through school I had to deal with the myth of constant war crimes, baby killing and rape. John Kerry is, in large part responsible for that myth I’ve had to fight my whole adult life.

Yes.

This has always, always, always bothered me.

Why did we treat our soldiers the way we did?

Why did we create an image of our veterans as deranged & suicidal losers?

When I learned what Kerry said and did after Vietnam he became my enemy.

As to Jane Fonda, my point is only that she was forced to recognize that she needed to apologize, whether she was sincere or not.

Kerry’s still protesting the war. And still bragging about it.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:19 pm 75. Samuel:

Catherine

If my response is wrong then I would like a further explanation if you don’t mind concerning…

I’m coming to believe that we will be best able to fight & win the WOT if a majority of the citizens of this country come to an agreement about Vietnam, that being, probably, the view John Moore put forward a few threads ago: a moral war for a moral cause; a failure of military and political leadership. (I hope that’s an accurate version of his post.)

In the best of all possible worlds I would like to see a significant portion of the Democratic Party sign on to this vision, and I’d like to see a significant portion of the Republican Party sign on, too. For conservatives that would mean abandoning the view that the Vietnam War was lost by the left, or by the media. (Remember Bob Dole talking about “Democrats’ wars?”)

–

Catherine I don’t want to sound overly disagreeable but I have to it is to important, so consider myself thinking out loud…

Do you think that the “media” and the “left” do/did not have a critical and devastating effect on the Vietnam War and War today? This statement…

abandoning the view that the Vietnam War was lost by the left, or by the media

To a conservative this must be to a liberal someone suggesting…

abandon the notion that conservatives tried to kill Civil Rights!

That is to be revisionist! Did not the “Bush lied” meme paper cut this president thousands of times over and over into the low 40’s? Has not the prejudices of the WMD’s and others been chanted enough? Sure people know the media is liberal but they are still human, it does make a difference and 5% in politics is huge.

What about the MSM’s influence? It may not be as great as Brent Bozell may say it is, but it is much more than implied (in my opinion). Quite frankly this much more implicates than exonerates me. For us to talk about Vietnam is to talk about what the Left and MSM’s behavior was and is today, yes today as we speak. It is why you, I, Roger and others are voting Republican, remember? If the left could get War and Security right, why change?

Catherine, each political party needs to answer but with proper weight. Otherwise it is just a further smoothing over with “my bad is equal to your bad”. There is nothing to gain by this. In truth the left and the MSM are way more culpable than conservatives in terms of modern war failure (almost exclusively). They are as guilty of undermining ourselves and aiding the enemy as conservatives ignored and aided those that wanted to see civil rights never achieve a reality. Remember what I told you Ted Kennedy said to me back in the 80’s? That is why Republicans are rightly more trusted by the electorate on such issues, in fact it is the biggest trust gap in all of politics. Else why would a good hard core Democrat like Ed Koch say the Democrats don’t have the stomach for the fight? Because it is true! War is about fighting, killing and winning, to the left it is something else, it is about politics.

Also Bob Dole’s “Democratic Wars” statement was stupid on his part but has little or nothing to do with any of it. In truth blame conservatives for their part in other failures such as lags in Civil Rights accomplishments, but blame liberals for their ridiculous losing propositions in the Cold War and the Current War. THEY HAVE LEARNED LITTLE TO NOTHING OTHER THAN MAYBE IT COULD HURT POLITICALLY, BUT I’LL TRY TO AVOID THAT WITH… POLITICS!

I agree with you the debate must be had but the left must LOSE! Civilization depends on this. As I said, the right has their own debates to lose, security and being on the losing side of modern warfare (Cold War, WOT etc.) is not one of them by a mile. Again they have much they are wrong on in my opinion, why force them to split the blame on the one issue they have been single handedly carrying for more than a generation? It would be an insult to lifelong Conservatives and properly so.

Bill Clinton balanced the budget by increasing domestic spending and cutting the military! Jimmy Carter also cut the military. Only the Republicans have consistently argued for being stronger and fighting to win (except Scoop Jackson types but most are GOP now or outcasts like Zell Miller). GOP now? I wonder why? Because if security trumps there is only one choice, the biggest gap in all of politics.

Sorry Catherine there is no holding hands on this issue, it will get ugly again and I wish it weren’t so but it seems to me the left and MSM are reverting to their form and can only get talked out of it by a great big ass kicking in November.

Oh did I forget to say that I am for Gay marraige, pro choice and wouldn’t mind a small tax increase? Security trumps all and the liberal left has been trumped! -JSF

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:21 pm 76. HA:

BTW, did anyone see Lanny Davis loosing it on Hannity and Colmes tonight? Davis has to be one of the smoothest operators out there. If he is loosing it, there must be blood in the water.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:24 pm 77. ambisinistral:

This story is considerably different then the Clinton story. First off, everybody pretty much figured Clinton was a skirt chaser, and the public really wasn’t happy when the Whitewater Investigation morphed into the 60 million dollar Blow Job Investigation. Poll after poll showed that people said they didn’t care and didn’t want that witch hunt pursued any further. The Senate dealt that nonsense the quick end it deserved.

Kerry’s story on the other hand is just plain wierd. I can see why somebody dismissed it upon first hearing. The problem for Kerry is their are just too many details in the Swift Vets story. The story has a cohesion to it when viewed in full. I don’t know where the truth lies, but the bajillion medals in four months, going home and telling your friends you’re not really anti-war, then fishing around for an issue and becoming over the top anti-war, false war crime charges, etc., etc.

Well, to paraphrase Ricky Ricado, Kerry’s got some ’splaining to do.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:28 pm 78. Fresh Air:

HA–

I don’t think there will be a Torricelli option. This is the thing Kerry has been planning for his whole life. He will not abdicate. He may be a liar, but he is a fighter, too.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:28 pm 79. Michael Ubaldi:

I’m surprised by the method in which the Kerry campaign squirted ink, insisting that John Kerry only meant he was “near” the Cambodian border. The objective is simple enough: introduce doubt as to Kerry’s use of precise language. You know, like referring to Iraqis frequently as “Arabs and “Muslims” when the population is in fact reasonably heterogenous.

There are two problems with this. First, Glenn Reynolds cites a story where John Kerry mentions a “special mission in Cambodia.” It seems unlikely that an action as specific as a special mission would make for such sloppy geography in memory. Bravado, maybe? Therein lies the second problem: Kerry’s two statements on Cambodia &#8212 in the Senate record and in the Boston Herald &#8212 rhetorically depended on his in-country participation otherwise denied by “the President.” Without the dichotomy, Kerry would not have been able to make his desired point against Reagan’s Central American intervention. In this case, the meaning of “Cambodia” had to be “Cambodia.”

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:29 pm 80. chuck:

It occurs to me that Kerry may actually believe that he *was* in Cambodia. I’ve certainly seen other folks come to believe stories about themselves. Heck, I not even sure how much of my own past actually happened; not that I worry about it much.

If this keeps growing, I could even feel sorry for Kerry. I still can’t figure how he got nominated, except that the Democratic primary season was front loaded so that a candidate would emerge early without too many negatives from a long and brutal campaign. This cute little detour around democracy may have backfired.

As to spelling, posting here makes me realize just how bad my spelling is. Keeps me in line.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:29 pm 81. Old Dad:

Catherine,

While my kids mistakenly recognize me as an “Old Man”, we all agree that I’m an “Old Dad.” For some reason lost in time, my Pop’s nickname for me was Old Dad. I admired him a lot and thought that being a Dad, old or not, was a very high ambition, and one that would be lots of fun in the pursuit. Ahem.

I still heartily recommend the “Right Nation”.

If another Old Man was intended, I apologize for my impertinence.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:30 pm 82. Samuel:

By the way Catherine, if the ABB crowd is distiguished as different from the “yellow dog” crowd, then it is probably 15% (if “hate” is part of the thinking).

As far as plain “hard” against Bush it is probably around 40%.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:31 pm 83. M. Simon:

Catharine,

Re: 13%

I worked for a computer engineer once. ‘67. Brilliant fellow. Knew the stuff from the transistor to the gate to the register to the software level. A superior designer.

He believed in flying saucers.

Any time you wanted to rib him you could bring it up. Even though you gave him a hard time he took it as an opportunity to try to convince you.

BTW you have been protected by the computers he designed for at leat 30 years. They were/are part of the aircraft routing system. In process of replacement. (they were obsolete 20 years ago - huge clunky wire wrap jobs - clocked at 8 MHz because Raytheon refused to buy better chips - what was called a “marketing” decision - the FAA bought it and it worked so who am I to complain. Any way that contract and one or two others at the time are why you may have heard of TTL but you have probably never heard of SUHL.) well I digress.

Release the records.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:36 pm 84. ambisinistral:

BTW, I doubt Kerry will be able to wiggle free by bashing the Swift Vets and wrapping himself in the flag at the same time. He’s gonna have to answer their charges and not just smear them.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:36 pm 85. Pat Curley:

I got on the show near the end–about 15 minutes to go and pointed out that the interesting thing is the Brinkley book did not have access to Stephen Gardner, the only one of Kerry’s actual shipmates on the Swift boats who does not support Kerry. Brinkley claimed in a Time story that he could not find Gardner.

But Brinkley does not mention the Cambodia incursion. He includes a very detailed discussion of Christmas eve and Christmas, with frequent references to the fact that they were “close to Cambodia” and “getting close to Cambodia” but like the Wagon Train to California they never got there. Now obviously Brinkley had heard the Cambodia story; it’s out there in several places. Why did he not write it?

The only answer is that some or perhaps all of Kerry’s crewmen denied the story, and not Gardner, who’s the only one who opposes Kerry.

That’s right, some of the men on that platform with Kerry a week and a half ago would not lie on that issue for John Kerry. Don’t you think it’s time they were asked?

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:38 pm 86. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I did watch Lanny Davis on Fox. What a slime ball! He did everything he could to smear the Swifties, to associate them with Republicans (the horror), to say that since they weren’t on Kerry’s bloat, they knew nothing (Lanny, when was the last time you were in Vietnam? On a boat?).

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:42 pm 87. richard mcenroe:

What do you mean, “We”, Catherine? I’m sure this wasn’t your intent but I for one will NOT see this foisted off as another Democratic “collective guilt” fantasy, “Of course, we are all to blame…”

My family never owned a slave.

My family never voted for a Jim Crow law.

My family torched a hamlet.

And we NEVER spat on an American soldier.

To those who believe in collective reparations: Let those who sinned, repent. Don’t expect us to assuage your guilt by assuming your punishment. That’s just a face-saving rationalization, “if we all did it, then no one is really to blame.”

If Kerry wants to repent, let him do so publicly. If he wants to position himself as a defender of his country, let him recant his allegations of bogus wartime atrocities. If the Democratic Party want to honor him for his military service, then we Democrats should formally admit it was a just war and wrongly abandoned with tragic consequences.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:44 pm 88. Samuel:

Catherine

What I’ve learned only lately is that all of those liberals, the Cold War liberals and Scoop Jackson Democrats, became Republicans.

Of course you can add me proudly to that list. When a domestic issue comes at me as big as civil rights then I might reconsider. Post Civil Rights and with a new “Hot War” to replace the “Cold War” it is a no-brainer. A Commander in Chief must not be afraid to act like one.

Also the “No Child Left Behind” was the first thing Bush did I liked. My wife is a Math Teacher and member of the NEA. Our first big political rift became greatly compounded by a divergence on Iraq. I also had always thought “School Choice” sounded progressive and liberal in the face of a failing school system.

Now I am just the typical suburban moderate/liberal Republican married to a partisan Democratic Wife, I actually feel quite normal.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:45 pm 89. richard mcenroe:

BTW, Kerry made this claim in 1986? And Apocalypse Now came out in what, 1978…

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:47 pm 90. richard mcenroe:

Crap.

Should I point out that that should have read “My family never torched a hamlet.” ?

I am NOT a first draft wirter…

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:58 pm 91. Fresh Air:

Get this, from US News & WR, May 8, 2000:

Sen. John Kerry made his first forays into Cambodia during the Vietnam War as a Navy lieutenant on clandestine missions to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces.

So, he was not only over the border, he was on a secret mission! Kerry’s looking more and more like Gilligan every minute.

Aug 9, 2004 - 7:59 pm 92. Samuel:

Everyone

After posting about Democrats being deficient on security issues I would like to further expound on this.

I was sorry true Democratic hawks like Dick Gephardt did not do better in the primaries. In truth the ìbalanceî of the Democratic Party is too anti-war and will not only disallow a Democrat to effectively campaign as a Hawk, but disallow him to govern as a Hawk.

Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo from 10,000 feet and never really confronted anything ìdirect and hardî terrorism or not. Had he done so I suppose he would have had to answer to the Nancy Pelosiís of the world. On Bushís side the Pelosi counterpart is a Tom Delay type, pro-Israel and certainly not dovish on such type issues. I distinctly remember Tom Delayís criticism of Clinton was not doing more to win (similar criticism from John McCain and Bob Dole, both Republicans that supported Clintonís actions). In the latter two cases the criticism was supportive and sincere for sure. This is what makes it tough for a naturally liberal minded Jewish person like me. Any dream candidate I can think of quickly becomes squashed by the realities of what is the Democratic Party.

Are being socially liberal and a true Hawk too counter intuitive to be normal? I donít know for sure but it does seem to be extremely rare, at least in action. Sure there are some that appreciate what Bush is doing that are socially liberal, but are they more apt to appreciate what he is willing to do while in their hearts know they would find the inner-struggle much more debilitating on their part? My instincts say that this is the case. My first time Republican vote for President like Ed Koch is just not that difficult. The more I read and listen to Ed Koch the more I think he carries my position, life and death trumps all and there is just no time for wishful thinking.

For me it isnít just to list where I say this guy is right on 5 issues, and that guy on 4 so Iíll vote for the first. This is a time to grade the gravity of the issues and letís be honest, those social ìwedge issuesî that we have been stalemated on for a generation just donít matter on one given day, especially if that is a day like 9/11 or worse. If one believes that Islamo-Fascism is a true problem then the choice is fairly simple, if one believes that it is a problem that can be politicized and played with ala ìBush lied about WMDísî then one will certainly struggle and in the end vote for a waffling nuanced Kerry. In truth Bush has made mistakes and we waste precious time and energy arguing false issues. Intelligence gathering concerning WMDís was the true problem yet some supposed Democratic Hawks like Joe Biden have lowered themselves into the dregs on some of these same issues using them to bash this President (along with the MSM of course).

A case can be made for Kerry, it is one I will never buy. People, who might justify Kerry with comparisons of Nixon going to China, spare me! We already have a Republican in the Middle East (Bush) is doing his own version of ìNixon goes to Chinaî. As Roger L. Simon asks, ìWhat message do we send if we put Bush out now?î Iíll guarantee you one thing. It isnít a hawkish one and a message of victory for the terrorists. I donít want Kerry having to prove what Bush has already proven. I have said enough about Kerry today. But for sure I believe our chance for unnecessary harder fighting goes up if Kerry is elected. I donít expect the terrorist to view Kerry as the stronger horse, and of course Europe will view this the opportunity to get us to go ìKoffi Annanî in the War on Terror. Do you think Bush is under political pressure? It isnít anything compared to what Kerry will encounter. We need to make many changes and moves in the WOT, changing horses midstream is not one of them, that is if one takes the War on Terror as a true War and not just a Foreign Policy position.

I’m with Ed Koch, we are at War and the base of voters Kerry has to appeal to doesn’t have the stomach for the fight by a longshot. Bush’s base does have the stomach, but barely. -JSF

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:04 pm 93. Wayne Moore:

Clearly John Kerry is a serial liar. What will Kerry lie about next? Maybe he’ll decide to challenge Al Gore about who invented the Internet.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:07 pm 94. Charlie (Colorado):

Whoo hah — Steve Gardner — the guy who “couldn’t be found” from Kerry’s crew — is on O’Reilly.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:08 pm 95. Kevin P:

Everyone:

I hope that I am wrong but I think all of you that think there is no way the MSM can ignore this story are expecting the MSM to act like real reporters. They are in the tank for Kerry and they will write about this story but not how you think they should.

If they were real reporters they would read the book, check the facts and then compare the two versions of the story. but they won’t. They will write about the funding, they will write about Nixon and O’Neil, they will write about McCain and South Carolina, they will write about the uncivil nature of the campaign. They will ignore the details and write about the process or the motivations.

They will find a minor error in the book and they will focus on that. They will find out a embarrasing personel fact about one of the Vets and use that to smear all of the others.If you think they are going to go after this like they went after the phoney Bush AWOL story I think you are in for a rude suprise.

They have two standards in this election. If the story is about Bush they act like prosecuting attorney.If the story is about Kerry they act like a defense attorney. They won’t press Kerry to release his records. They will ignore this story like they ignored the Oil for Food scandal.They should cover it but they won’t.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:12 pm 96. Rick Ballard:

mrp,

I would tend to agree more with your analysis if the situation were similiar to ‘98. Higher stakes now and the MSM/DNC agitpropagandists have lost a fair amount of the publics remaining trust. I wonder if they realize how much dropping to their knees for Clinton actually cost.

At any rate, after nine months of fairly relentless battering by the MSM Bush is holding on fairly well. Remember that the campaign will not actually start until Labor Day. Kerry is now campaigning across America with his pants on fire. This was supposed to be a trip to “introduce John Kerry to the American people”.

Instead, Bubba Bimbo Brigade retread Lanny Davis is frothing at the mouth attacking Vietnam war vets. That’s a sure fire winner.

I think that Kerry is too pyschologically brittle to handle 80 days of this. He may be tough but that is not the same as being resilient. He is also does not appear to be physically in great shape. I don’t think having Howdie Doody at his side is going to buck him up quite enough to carry him through. We’ll see.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:12 pm 97. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó Is Kerry starting to remind you of that bozo you guys just ran out of the Writers’ Guild?

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:13 pm 98. Terrye:

Kerry should have come clean about all of this years ago. This crap about getting back to people is silly. He was there and if it was a secret mission or whatever then he should tell people and quit bringing this stuff up and then refusing to comment on it. How many times over the years has he referenced this incident? By now he should have the details down.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:15 pm 99. Samuel:

Fresh Air

So, he was not only over the border, he was on a secret mission!

Man you had me laughing my ass off. I just kept hearing “Buzz Lightyear” from Disney’s Toy Story getting his button pressed about Buzz being on a “secret mission” by Sid’s little sister as he sat dejected in a dress drinking tea (probably green “Joe Wilson” tea), all while realizing the sham of what he was or wasn’t had come to full light.

This is of course why Bush is not panicking and never has (not that it is in his nature to do so.) He know’s what he is up against and has for a while.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:17 pm 100. Terrye:

Kevin:

The press did not want to cover Clinton’s debacle either but sooner or later they did.

They are by and large sluts. They will go where the ratings are because it could mean money.

I heard that about two thirds of journalists are Democrats and I thought “Is that all?”

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:28 pm 101. heather:

Remember, y’all, that standing in the wings is Hillary, She who was seriously ‘dissed’ during the Democratic Convention. Since she is the smartest and sanest of them all, I would think that Kerry will be left with the goofiest, weakest defenders in the Democratic Party corral.

Another thought, not a particularly nice one, even catty: have you noticed how slutty that Heinz Kerry woman looks?

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:32 pm 102. Samuel:

Terrye

Trust me John Kerry can’t help himself, his behaviour is pathological, I truly feel sorry for the guy. His record should have been vetted long ago, this is why Micky Kaus properly says the “liberal cocoon” can be debilitating to the Democrats.

The MSM hurts the Democrats for very different reasons. The Republicans are forced to keep their knives sharpened because the MSM is on them constantly. Ryan in Illinois would never have been hammered as a Democrat for such things. The Democrats are covered up for by the MSM to the point where they aren’t prepared to handle moments like Kerry is having. Bill Clinton is a rare animal indeed. It takes alot of charm to pull it off and Kerry has zilch. Democrats and MSM, grow up!

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:34 pm 103. Swopa:

Great to see that you brave patriots are parsing 30-year-old statements to see who’s moral enough to let in the Oval Office.

Looks like you’ve beaten this one to death, so here’s another one you can start on:

“”I continued flying with my unit for the next several years.”

Well, that particular whopper is only 5 years old, but it’s referring to events 30 years ago, so I’d say it’s close enough, eh?

I’m sure, given the nonpartisan, civil pursuit of truth that is the essence of this blog, there will be plenty of takers, and no one will choose to call me names instead.

LOL.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:39 pm 104. Rick Ballard:

Just makes ya wanna curl up and die, don’t it swopa?

If Kerry only had Gore’s charisma.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:42 pm 105. Charlie (Colorado):

Swopa, I’d hate to make you feel like we aren’t paying attention to you, so let me assure you we all remember you and that you’re still a moron.

Having settled that, do you suppose you could get a little more context here?

If (as I suspect) this is supposed to be another shot at the “AWOL” myth, do you suppose you could try reading some of the backstory so you’ve got something new to say about it for crying out loud?

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:45 pm 106. heather:

In fact, the Democrats knew about this Swift Boat book months ago (I did - there was a short bio of that O’Neill on National Review Online.) If all they can do now,is “get back to” reporters, and wheel out Lanny Davis, then something is seriously foetid in the swamp.

I think that John Kerry is a seriously weird person, who is not very bright. He has gotten away with both sides of the Vietnam Vet issue for years: being a War Hero and a Protester, all at the same time is not a bad scam. But now he is in the big time, running for President, outside the cocoon of the Massachusetts Kennedy machine.

But then, this is what political campaigns are all about, are they not?

And as has been said in this thread: demand that his “war” records be opened up to the voter’s scrutiny. The Republican Party is going to stay very far away from this. But there are excellent War Veteran organizations that will very probably carry the water on this one.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:52 pm 107. Terrye:

Swopa:

After all the crap we have had to listen to about Bush and the Air Guard and God knows else it is really pathetic to watch you guys talk about fair now.

After Moore and his cinematic masterpiece I would say those who live by the sword…

In other words this could not happen to a nicer bunch of guys. But cheer up, maybe our unbiased press will come running to the rescue to cover your boy’s ass once again. Would not be the first time.

Aug 9, 2004 - 8:53 pm 108. Rick Ballard:

Roger,

My hat is off to you and Glenn and Hugh. I think that you guys have committed history over the past few days. I’m not sure how it will all work out but you guys have made the MSM look like clowns. Great reporting by Maguire, Morissey, Duff, et al with some wonderful preliminary work by John Moore, Pat Curley and all the folks at the Swiftvets. Plus hundreds of “stringers” diligently working to dig up more facts from the public record.

Just straight digging and reporting. I imagine the sound of heads banging on desks is echoing through newsrooms across the country while reporters are beginning to refuse to speak to the editors. And the circulation goes down and the pink slips go out and Pinch reaches for a bottle. All for a wonderful cause. Covering for another notorious liar.

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:02 pm 109. PeterUK:

People,please leave Swopa alone he is Dennis’s Christmas Troll come early.

Ladies a Gentlemen a catchweight contest…..

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:05 pm 110. M. Simon:

Kerry admitted before Congress in ‘71 that he comitted war crimes.

Do you really want to support an admitted war criminal vs an alledged one?

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:06 pm 111. holdfast:

You know, I’m about as anti-organized labor as you can get - it’s both genetic and learned, yet I always like(d) Gephardt. He strikes me as reprenting what used to the the basically conservative, blue collar wing of the Dems. Bil O’Reilly is sort of a caricature of this demographic, but ou know what I mean. I liked the fact that Gephardt was willing to work with the President to when they agreed and oppose him when they didn’t. He did go a bit off the railsduring the primaries with the “miserable failure” bit, but I always chalked it up to MAd How disease. If he were the Dem candidate I would still oppose him, but I would respect him and I would not be so frightened of a Bush loss. Of course, Lieberman was even more of a hawk, but get real. Even if he won he’d probably have to stab Israel in the back just to prove he wasn;t beholden. That would be way too high a price just for the novelty of the first Jewish President.

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:08 pm 112. richard mcenroe:

Hey, has anyone noticed with all the lawyer talk flying back and forth, we haven’t heard word one out of Edwards yet, have we? Not even a word of defense for his huggy buddy who gave him the big shot he couldn’t win for himself?

If I thought he knew enough history to get the reference, I’d ask him if he knows now how Custer’s guidon-bearer felt…

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:17 pm 113. M. Simon:

SWOPA,

It is one thing to tell stories about stuff you didn’t do.

It is a whole nuther thing to ask for medals for same.

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:19 pm 114. richard mcenroe:

Ah-HAH! I knew it! Thanks to Instapundit!

Christmas Eve I was up getting shot at somewhere near Cambodia. …So now he’s only near-Cambodia. Cambodia, ‘Nam, Mekong, Youkong, whatever… Stupid Vietnamese were celebrating Christmas by shooting tracers, fifty-caliber, right up into the air, and the goddamned things were coming right over our head. …proving that not only can Kerry not read a map or follow a river (maybe he had his Boston fog-blinders on), but he is the only man in the US Navy who can fly a Swift boat… That was a wild night. That was a night like right out of Apocalypse Now. It was just surreal. Mortars going off. Tracers piercing the sky. People crazy. Flares.”

It’s the freaking bridge scene, people! “Hey, sailor, do you know who’s in charge here?” “Yeah… me, in 2004…”

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:33 pm 115. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

O’Neill is going to be on FOX tomorrow, I think at 9PM EDT.

He is a respected business trial attorney, so it should be interesting.

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:43 pm 116. richard mcenroe:

Charlie (Colorado) ó Hollywood ain’t a male. Metrosexual at best.

You Know You’re a Metrosexual If…

You watch more than one episode of Will and Grace for anything except Karen’s cleavage and Grace’s posterior…

You can pronounce “nuance” with a broad “a” like one of them swave yurpeens…

You believe competitive divers really do shave their bodies to move through the water better…

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:49 pm 117. Katherine:

Rod,

Thank you for your enlightening post. I cannot tell you how sorry I am I dissed you on Tim Blairís blog over the food-for-oil scandal. I developed this very automatic negative reaction toward anybody associated with todayís pressroom. It is not my habit to judge individuals by the group they belong to, but journalists crossed the threshold for me. Please accept my apology.

David,

I can offer a view from behind the Iron Curtinon the subject of Vietnam War. Though I was a young kid at the time I understood, as many of my compatriots, that Vietnam War was a noble American effort against the Soviet expansion. Noble, because Americans were fighting for somebody elseís freedom, no mater how this fight was in the strategic interest of the US. . (My old country should have been so lucky ñ FDR is not exactly beloved figure back in Poland because of his betrayal in Yalta). Few people living in Communist countries had any illusions about aggressive nature of Soviet regime. At least the US managed to slow down the expansion; you can easily find out from the Vietnamese who managed to escape what they think about the wining side.

Chuck ñ

ìIt occurs to me that Kerry may actually believe that he *was* in Cambodia.î

Oh great, so when the next attack comes and Kerry the President emerges from the secure and undisclosed location claiming that he took ìswift decisive responseî while actually he will have done nothing other than freeze like a deer in a headlights and cried for Teresa, will the electorate be required to believe in the pretend action that he supposedly have taken?

This is rapidly moving from the ìbelieving-into-your-own-press-releaseî category into mental health issue.

Samuel-

ìAre being socially liberal and a true Hawk too counter intuitive to be normal?î

No, it is a default position of any pragmatic liberal in the classic sense. But in todayís political climate we are called conservatives. Fine with me, labels mean nothing, principles mean eveything.

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:49 pm 118. Barry Dauphin:

Well Nightiline did its bit for the cause. A pathetic exercise in “journalism.” The TV journalists sure love to hear themselves talk and tell us what it “means.” Where would we be without their expert “interpetations” of events? Well tonight ABC covered the swift boat vets taking a page right out of the Monica playbook. This time it’s he said, he said. Instead of covering the specifics of the charges, we are presented with David “the pontificator” Halberstam who wants us to get over Vietnam (after it brought him a healthy income).

The journalist from the Christian Science Monitor was trying to speak to the issues, but it’s tough to do in 30 seconds. I still stand by my assertion that MSM will move on. ABC will say, “see, we covered it. Nothing much here. Instead let’s spend several hours educating people on what this election is all about.” Well the public is getting an education in 21st century television journalsim, and it ain’t pretty.

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:55 pm 119. richard mcenroe:

Katherine ó Men like Robert Gould Shaw and Joshua Chamberlain lived that position. It’s nice to look at the men and women in Iraq today and realize this nation can still produce such when needed…

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:57 pm 120. richard mcenroe:

Barry ó Did they actually have any of the Swifties on?

Aug 9, 2004 - 9:59 pm 121. Samuel:

Swopa

Probably shouldn’t waste my time but I don’t hate Kerry in the least. However he is certainly not fit for the Presidency, especially during War time, for sure.

Of course one must believe we are truly at War for my above statement to have much meaning and my former Democratic Party never really felt we were at War with the Soviet Union either. To them war has always been a political issue. This is why they assume it is also political for Republicans and our current President, of course it is not.

To those that understand why we fight it is about survival, not revenge, whether Al Queda had ties to Sadaam Hussein (which of course implies police action), war is viewed for what it is, a time to kill enemies period. Swopa, you are why Security and even issues of War and Peace are trusted to the Republicans. As I said earlier, this is the greatest of all party gaps in politics. Swopa you and others have worked good and hard to help many lifelong Democrats like myself obtain complete lack of trust in the Democratic Party (especially the liberal left).

Yes a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, tax hike accepting, Liberal Jew like myself is forced to find solace with those that understand the biggest political issue of the day concerning true freedom in this world and civilization that benefits all. The narrow disease of politicization disease is your own, not mine I assure you.

Take Bush’s statements and parse them in ways that any person can see is silly, but don’t ever attempt to address those big “elephants in the room” that are the actual lies and stories Kerry has told for years. They won’t go away and there will not be enough Bush zingers too match or come close.

Of course lying isn’t really the issue but an excuse to attack Bush for if lying mattered to you then you would be sickened by Kerry to the point of disgust or in my case at least sadness. But lying like War to you is a political issue, it runs on two different tracks and standards. For me it means more. A lie is a lie and the bigger liar is Kerry, if that is not obvious to you than lies don’t matter and I don’t care much what you think about Bush’s lies because it isn’t about lies it is about politics. For those who think this way they are at best empty vessels or at worse carriers of the worse kind of politics because it is self interested and blind to the needs of others. What about all those probably millions of lives Bush has saved, and those we didn’t but should have. He lied about WMD’s right?

Swopa, you are like that spoiled child that will point other people’s lies, feign sorrow at their culpability. You will rat out those you hate all for the supposed “good” of man. But in truth you will give a pass for those guilty of worse because they are on “your team”.

To everyone, I would like to introduce you to the great holder of empty vessels, double standards, political holier than thou (political correctness), talks about “loving those that are different”, “multiculturalism” and “free speech”. Yet this is all done while they seek to do in those that they should apply these standard the most to. A member of one American political party should have more in common with another American political party then some Frenchman in yonder lands. But alas this is not just any Party but the Democratic Party! Yes the Party I left. A party that treats this President like he were a greater enemy then Sadaam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. A party of good will to all but those that are different from them politically. Take it if you want it my chair is probably still open. Good Luck!

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:01 pm 122. WichitaBoy:

Catherine wrote: It’s possible the Swifties will finally force us to have that conversation. They are brave men.

Yes, they are. They are also outraged, and for what is apparently good reason.

There is another brave man I want to laud, one who deserves our sincere praise because his actions may very well lead to significant social and economic penalties but who has apparently chosen the path he follows because of his dedication to the truth as he sees it. I refer of course to our gracious host, Roger L. Simon. We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

If we’re still continuing our Book Club here, two books–well worth reading–which are relevant to the ongoing Vietnam War Revisited theme are More Like Us and Why We Were In Vietnam.

Samuel

Let me be clear: I believe you. I apologize for any aspersions I may have inadvertently cast on your honor. I had no intention of impugning your integrity. In certain places I have lived, such as Utah and the South, honor is still taken seriously, and I understand you have some South in you. I personally find the stories you have told us about Washington rather devastating to the Democratic party.

If the Democratic candidate had been strong on the War on Jihadism (and not an apparent sociopath), by the way, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat, for various reasons.

I was trying to make the broader point that we know very little of what we think we know. Most of what we think we know is simply a story we have heard. Most of what we think we know is somebody’s narrative. Since people lie and can be misled this leads us to certain difficulties.

By the way, do you know Dan Glickman? He is one person who may be a mutual acquaintance.

heather

My position on Kerry has changed. I used to think he was just an empty shell. I’ve started to agree with you and Catherine that there’s something worse going on. Running as an honored vet who fought bravely for his country while at the same time running as an anti-war man of honor is really starting to bother me. The Cambodia thing is just adding serious fuel to the fire. It took a while, but it’s starting to sink in how wacko the entire Democratic convention was. I’m starting to get the distinct feeling that we’ve got a really disturbed individual on our hands here. I guess I was thinking it was a joke or something for a while, but it’s not. This is serious cloud cuckoo land stuff. Not to be blithely ignored.

Today’s Boulder Bumper Sticker was: “Defend America! Defeat Bush!”. There is very little support for Kerry, but what little there is is dribbling away. That scarcely matters though because Kerry isn’t the candidate, it continues to be ABB. But even ABB is starting to feel the heat.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:01 pm 123. Barry Dauphin:

Richard-

Yes they had some swifties on, but in sound bite fashion, interviewed earlier. This was intermixed with vets supporting Kerry. It was the usual cut and splice by TV, so that the product can say wahtever they want it to say. Someone who has not been following the story closely could easily think that this is the usual political BS and change channels.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:04 pm 124. chuck:

Katherine,

This is rapidly moving from the ìbelieving-into-your-own-press-releaseî category into mental health issue.

We’re talking Kerry, it *is* all about mental health issues. Speaking of which, I took your quote a bit out of context, and it was fun. Scary. No wonder the jounalists do this all the time.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:08 pm 125. westtexasjew:

Stick a fork in ol’ Gigolo John; he’s done.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:21 pm 126. Katherine:

Richard -

Robert Gould Shaw and Joshua Chamberlain ñ they were wonderful men, werenít they?

America is a great nation because of people like them.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:22 pm 127. penwil:

“It took a while, but it’s starting to sink in how wacko the entire Democratic convention was. I’m starting to get the distinct feeling that we’ve got a really disturbed individual on our hands here.”

I’m right there with you, WitchitaBoy. Up until the convention I’d pretty much had Kerry classified as a typical Boston liberal politician who was trying to fool the voters into buying three big lies: that he wouldn’t raise taxes, that he would be “tough” on terror, and that he wouldn’t cut and run from Iraq. But, like you, I have now decided that he is indeed a seriously disturbed individual, who could quite literally lose his mind should he ever actually find himself in the White House and faced with something on the order of another 9-11. God knows what he would do and I sure don’t want to find out.

Whether the media can succeed in either killing or discrediting the swiftboat vet story remains to be seen. But, regardless, I wonder whether Kerry can make it through the next three months, without saying or doing something so wacko that even the MSM won’t be able to cover for him. The debates alone–where he will have to stand metaphorically naked before the TV cameras–could very well do him in.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:27 pm 128. Katherine:

Chuck ñ youíre welcome. My lawyer will not be contacting you - this time

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:28 pm 129. Barry Dauphin:

Below is a copy of my e-mail to Nightline:

Your coverage of the swift boat veterens’ concerns about Kerry was pathetic. This continues the trend toward editorial journalism. The specifics of what these vets have to say are basically ignored in favor of journalistic pontification and interpretation.

Folks are daring you to present all the evidence pro and con in the case. Dig into it and show us what is and isn’t true. Then stand back and trust the viewers. I’m not holding my breath that you’ll take us up on that.

TV journalists are always complainging about loss of viewership. Small wonder when you can’t trust people with a presentation of the facts, and instead have to invite David Halberstam on to commit sociology. From his interview it sounded as if he had not studied the current issue about the vets charges whatsoever. What did he add to understanding what they are saying?

You failed to speak at all to the question of whether Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 (as he said on the Senate floor-the event seered into his memory) being shot at by the Khmer Rouge (who had barely existed in ‘68) while using it as a point about Presidential lying (when he may have been lying).

Slowly but surely, more and more people are tuning out Nightline and other forms of TV journalism. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:30 pm 130. Sandy P:

Catherine - NCLB

Start reading some education sites like #2 Pencil and Joanne Jacobs.

And somewhere in Diotima’s archives someone wrote about funding. It was this year from Feb on. I have a friend who’s an ABB and a former ESL teacher.

The union says it’s underfunded by $8 billion, but I sent her that guy’s breakdown.

Somewhat underfunded, about $1.7 for all 50 states en toto(?).

Even better, SES(?) was buried in the bill, pays for tutors. The schools aren’t accessing that money. And her sister is setting up a tutoring business. She’s ABB, too.

Ahh, Youth! They’re in their 30s and children of boomers.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:36 pm 131. richard mcenroe:

Penwil ó Do you think we might see another scream? Or maybe some Muskie-esque tears?

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:37 pm 132. chuck:

“It took a while, but it’s starting to sink in how wacko the entire Democratic convention was. I’m starting to get the distinct feeling that we’ve got a really disturbed individual on our hands here.”

Sort of a down at the heels 1933 Nuremberg, you think? Reporting for duty!

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:38 pm 133. Sandy P:

–The reason is that in the 1970’s, liberal educators decided that teaching kids to read with phonics ÔøΩ sounding out words ÔøΩ was dull. –

HAH!

Kessler should talk to my mother. The Ivory-tower Elitists took phonics out in the 40s. She became a secretary and spent the rest of her career w/a dictionary on her desk.

I don’t have that problem, I was taught phonics. I’m a product of new math, tho. But I can add 2+2 and make change, so I feel I’m still ahead of the game.

Even better, my BIL is a music teacher in IN. Last year, for his daughter’s K class, they had a phonics program they were “testing.”

IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Cosby had the guts to say it, won’t spend $200 on The Phonics game…. don’t even need to do that. Have your kids sound out the words.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:44 pm 134. Fresh Air:

Everyone–

Here’s more on Kerry’s “secret mission” to Cambodia, from the AP, 1992:

“We were told, `Just go up there and do your patrol. Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it,” Kerry said. One of the missions, which Kerry, at the time, was ordered not to discuss, involved taking CIA operatives into Cambodia to search for enemy enclaves.

Oooooh! More embellishment! Not only was he on a secret mission, it was a double-secret mission! See, he wasn’t really in Cambodia to deliver weapons to anti-Communist forces as he later told U.S. News in 2000. That was just his cover story. No he was really there to deposit secret agents of the federal government!

Naturally, this brings up two questions:

1. Did Kerry have to eat his diary entry if he fell into enemy hands?

2. Does he still have his Green Hornet decoder ring?

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:45 pm 135. Sandy P:

–All I want for Christmas is a stupid, verbal and persistent Leftie of my very own to play with.–

DtP, I’m sure we can come up w/a few other sites, have you met Tangoman yet?

He can be found at Deoinychus Antirrhopus.

And McClelland can be found at other sites like buzzmachine.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:48 pm 136. penwil:

“Penwil ó Do you think we might see another scream? Or maybe some Muskie-esque tears?”

We should be so lucky.

Probably not, though. Although he does seem to have a petulent temper, which he tends to lose when he is challenged or thwarted, or–as in the case of the SS agent who “caused” him to fall down while snowboarding–made to look less than perfect. If Bush just gently needles him, he could lose it.

More, though, I was thinking that the skeeviness vibe that was starting to ooze out during the convention will be oozing out even more during the debates because they are less scripted, and he’s not even close to be being as skilled at selling the snake oil as Clinton was. In fact he is, when all is said and done, amazingly transparent. It’s just that what we’re seeing is so bizarre that it’s taking us awhile to realize we aren’t imagining things–he really is a sick and whacko as he appears to be.

Aug 9, 2004 - 10:58 pm 137. WichitaBoy:

OT - Sandy P

The problem with education, as indeed with any organization, is the difficulty of aligning the interests of the agents (teachers and principals) with the interests of the organization (teaching the kids). The main problems are that teachers get bored and that education professors are required to publish. The requirement to publish results in a plethora of new educational theories which aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, in the sense that they are verifiably wrong. But reality, i.e., science in the form of seeing-what-works, is very seldom brought to bear on the problem.

The teachers are bored and most of them are by nature “SJ”s on the Meyers-Briggs scale, which means that they are inclined to take the rules they are taught by the education professors as the Word of God and to push them as such into the classrooms and onto the students. The ubiquitous state requirement for the teachers to periodically sit at the feet of the education professors and imbibe the latest theories lends us the final piece in the puzzle.

New Math, the Sequel, is now playing in the educational theaters across the land and is nearly guaranteed to destroy yet another generation’s ability to do math with confidence. It is called “Everyday Mathematics”. It should be fought tooth and nail whereever it rears its ugly head. Ask Catherine.

Personally I was taught math by Prussians in the public schools of Kansas who wouldn’t take no for an answer and had no qualms about hurting my tender little feelings. I hated them at the time.

Aug 9, 2004 - 11:09 pm 138. hollywood:

All,

It’s amusing to see how desparately you drill down on this minor issue. OK, some of the press is talking about it. BFD. Meanwhile, here’s your man in one of his finest hours. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-sleeper9aug09,1,4760473,print.story

There’s a certain resonance between his bullyboy tactics and the kinda insults tossed about here.

Charlie(Colorado),

Don’t have much respect for Bakshi given the way he screwed over Robert Crumb, surely one of the great artists of our time. You may not like his politics, but his crosshatching is unsurpassed.

Lapsed Randian 2,

I gotta say, all politics aside, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten a hard on for something in some med records only to find out that 1) I misread them, 2) there was a logical explanation, 3) the record in question was for some other guy with the same name or a mis-entry by a low level staff member, 4) the transcriber left out a key word, 5) it was right but when all was said and done it was such a minor point it didn’t matter anyway, 6) the record was exactly what it said it was, but the jury didn’t like me picking on such small stuff against a basically nice person.

In short, don’t put all your chips on this one.

Aug 9, 2004 - 11:24 pm 139. Fresh Air:

Mr./Ms. Wood–

John Kerry appears to be either a pathological liar, a world-class braggart, or both. He has categorically made up stuff about being in Cambodia. Worse, he used his tall tales to frame a morality play about the Contra Rebels in a speech on the floor of the United States Senate. By itself, I would agree, we could chalk the whole thing up to a youthful fib that got away from him.

But here is the thing: The Cambodian Christmas story is simply part of a series of exaggerations about his conduct in Vietnam–conduct that serves as the centerpiece of his campaign. The anecdotes in the book paint a comprehensive picture of at best a collossal buffoon as a skipper.

Was he a war hero or not? I’m guessing not. Would anyone have held that against him if he hadn’t started this ridiculous “band of brothers” crap? Yeah, but the 200-odd Swiftees don’t have much electoral sway. The rest of us wouldn’t have really thought about it much. Decorated veteran? Check.

This election should not be about whether John Kerry was a war hero. (Or whether G.W. Bush got out of going to Vietnam.) It should be about plans for the future and who is most able to carry them out. Unfortunately, Kerry has no plans and he has shown very little ability in his 20 years in the Senate at carrying out anything except official inquisitions.

And now, I fear, he is going to be on the receiving end of a very uncomfortable examination. I think of anyone who more richly deserves it.

Aug 9, 2004 - 11:48 pm 140. Fresh Air:

Can’t think of anyone who more richly deserves it. Damn Typekey Gremlins!

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:03 am 141. Beldar:

Slightly off-topic:

TypeKey = authentication service, which still seems to have some kinks that need to be worked out.

TypePad = blog hosting service, which I use and like. (Great for internet novices to intermediates, but probably not practical for high-traffic blogs.)

Both run by Six Apart, which also does Moveable Type.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:06 am 142. hollywood:

Mr./Ms. Fresh,

Time to stop fighting the wars past. Time to stop the name callimg and unsubstantiated charges. As for the future, Kerry is about stability. Bush is about irresponsible recklessness, both in war and in mismanaging our economy, the environment, the educational system, the health care delivery system, etc. He’s a bullshitter, pure and simple. He’s a bad dream. Time to wake up. We get the government we deserve. We deserve better.

BTW, what are you drinking? I think I’d like some.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:14 am 143. Cain:

Folks,

I’m prepared to be the sacrificial lamb liberal, so here goes:

To me, most comments in this space view the “war on terror” in far too simple terms. I’ve met many people that defend President Bush with a “yes, but he’s strong on the war/war on terror”.

But how strong is he? In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush declared a general “War on Terror”. But what, exactly, is a “War on Terror”. How do we envision it ending?

Do we envision the complete cessation of terrorism as a tactic? I think few of the intelligent readers in this space believe this to be possible.

More specifically, then, the real objective of our foreign policy ought to be preventing the spread of organized groups that conspire to attack us. A more long-term corollary to this goal should be to combat the incentives for young men and women to devote their lives to such nihilistic, destructive goals.

I am of the opinion that the Iraq war has not addressed either objective that I cite in the preceding paragraph. Moreover, I am not convinced Iraq will be a success in its own right, though we won’t be able to assess it for a long time. The Iraqi people have certainly not been well served by the Bush administration’s incompetence in post-war planning.

I have been fortunate enough to have traveled extensively in the Middle East. Whereas the United States was once looked upon as a shining example of freedom and justice, the vast majority of ordinary citizens I spoke with expressed deep animosity about our intentions overseas.

Simply put, we’ve lost a lot of our legitimacy in the past three years. I know most of you will read that and scoff: who cares, after all, what the rest of the world thinks of us?

I do. And you should, too. Ultimately, our current war won’t end with our troops standing on a patch of land somewhere far overseas, sticking our flag into the ground. Victories will be measured by subtle signs. And even his most fervent admirers understand that subtlety is not one of Bush’s strongest suits.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:17 am 144. Charlie (Colorado):

Ladies a Gentlemen a catchweight contest…..

What?

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:25 am 145. Cain:

Now, I realize my above post deviates with the theme of Roger’s post and many of the ensuing comments.

I’m not all that confident in John Kerry’s proposals, either. His ideas (or non-ideas) on what to do about our current conflict hardly inspire much confidence in his executive abilities.

That being said, a Kerry victory will at least give the US a chance to avoid facing the repercussions of the current disastrous Bush policy.

Samuel has mentioned his security concerns trumping his social liberalism in terms of priorities this November. I can sympathize with that. But Bush’s self-proclaimed “leadership” and “decisiveness” doesn’t equate strength.

OK, I’m done. I’m ready for the barrage of “dumbass” insults you’ve heaved upon me in the past.

—–Liberal Cain

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:25 am 146. bkochba:

Maybe Kerry invented the internet while he was in Cambodia in 1968?

I’m finding the parallel with Gore creepy. I hope this doesn’t play as “the Republicans are always trying to catch the Dems in pseudo-lies,” when the reality seems to be that the Dems keep nominating serial fabulists.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:30 am 147. hollywood:

Cain,

I couldn’t agree more. But (sadly) here’s what you get on the other side. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10666

War is hell, Ann. But if you want to win the peace, you’ve at least got to spend the money that’s been budgeted for reconstruction on reconstruction, rather than sitting on it. And don’t give it all to Kellogg Brown & Root.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:35 am 148. Scott Talkington:

Roger:

Doesn’t this “Christmas in Cambodia” thing remind you a little of a kind of amalgam of scenes from Apocalypse Now? I’m thinking of that scene where the Sheen character pulls into the devastated USO party with all the Christmas lights, and then travels upriver to a Conradesque consort with a group of sad and philosophical French expatriates fighting a lonely battle against the commies. Then he finally arrives at the Kurz encampment on his “black mission.” Is it possible that, seeing these powerful scenes recounting the Sheen character’s disillusionment, that Kerry sort of merged them into his own sad drama… creating his own metaphorical journey into “the heart of darkness?”

Just a thought.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:39 am 149. chuck:

Cain opined:

That being said, a Kerry victory will at least give the US a chance to avoid facing the repercussions of the current disastrous Bush policy.

What current disastrous Bush policy? You’re just leaking words. Care to have a thought?

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:40 am 150. hollywood:

“Just a thought.”

“Care to have a thought?”

The horror. The horror.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:46 am 151. Cain:

Chuck,

Allow me to elaborate-

Any assessment of Bush’s foreign policy must begin with his dominant campaign, Iraq.

In my view, there were three compelling reasons to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq:

1) To eliminate a regime that shielded, protected, or aided our enemy, the al Qaeda organization.

2) To eliminate a regime that refused to give up its possession of weapons of mass destruction.

3) To liberate the Iraqi people from the oppressive Hussein regime, installing a democratic government that would serve as an example to the rest of the troubled region. In other words, to act as a democracy domino, in Tom Friedman’s words.

Now, let’s look at these three rationales in detail:

1) The connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were simply not there. Recent evidence suggests that Iran had a far deeper relationship with the organization than Iraq ever did, for example.

2) UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix failed to find any weapons of mass destruction, leading Bush to panic and launch his war. To his amazement, no meaningful weapons were found.

3)Here is the most complex issue of the bunch. Invading Iraq for the sole purpose of forging a liberal democracy struck me as a compassionate idea, but clearly out of left field. First of all, the US here is hypocritical. Why not then invade North Korea, which possessed a ruthless dictator AND weapons of mass destruction. Bush has chosen to negotiate with Kim Jong Il rather than invade his country. Why not Saudi Arabia, proponent of anti-Western madrassa schools and the source of 15 hijackers?

Basically, the US did not convince the world that it led the invasion of Iraq for its own security purposes. Therefore, its invasion strikes most observers in the area as a needless intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign nation that wasn’t going to harm us.

One lesson of Vietnam (that so many failed to note) is that natives of foreign countries are not fond of a major US occupation in their land, whatever our supposed intentions. The most crushingly ignorant presupposition regarding the war was Cheney’s statement that “we would be greeted as liberators”. Instead, we’re perceived to be nefarious occupiers by the majority of the Arab and Muslim world.

An unfortunate consequence of this perception is continued support for the very terrorist acts that we’re trying to prevent.

Had Iraq possessed weapons beyond a reasonable doubt, or had sheltered al Qaeda, I would have most assuredly supported Bush’s war. These are true issues of security.

I am pleased that Iraqis no longer have to live under a murderous tyrant. But I fear quite strongly that there is a huge gap between the good intentions we possess and the perception of us by the very people we need to convert to our cause.

Aug 10, 2004 - 1:25 am 152. Charlie (Colorado):

Who’s this Cain guy and what’s he doing asking sensible questions?

Cain, I think there are some fairly clear answers to this, if only people would listen to what Bush has been saying rather than what someone said about what they heard someone say about what Bush really meant.

(In fact, as an aside, there seems to me to be a pattern to this: Bush says something in a simple declarative sentence and the pundits spend thousands of words on figuring out what he “really meant” by that. Consider, for example, the relatively simple sentence that the US had to act against Iraq before it became an imminent danger, and the time spent explaining how Bush had “really” meant it was an imminent danger. But I digress.)

First off, let’s note for the moment that this isn’t the first time the US has fought a war against loosely organized Islamic brigands — in fact, Thomas Jefferson led the US to fight the Tripoli pirates — without a declaration of war, note — rather than continue the pattern of bribing them to leave us alone until some pasha wanted more money. (It’s instructive to consider this pattern in light of current events as well.) It was part of a general war against piracy, which was in fact successful, even though it was a war against a word.

The objective is twofold: first, to make the various Islamic fascist groups ineffective by preventing them from coherent action; second, to make it clear to other states that might be tempted to engage in the support of terrorism that it’s simply too expensive.

How did it work? Well, there’s a general military truism that amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics. If you eliminate an enemy’s logistical support, you pretty well emasculate the enemy.

The war against terror can be most easily understood as a war on the terrorists’ logistical base: first Afghanistan, which was their state support for training and R&R; then Iraq, which sat squarely astride the Islamic fascists’ major supply lines, as well as having provided extensive materiel support (money, medical care, training); and concurrently, diplomatic, covert, and overt attacks on their financing and lines of communication.

Do we ever expect to see a complete end of terrorism as a tactic? No, any more than piracy was completely ended by the invasion of Tripoli and the British in the West Indies. On the other hand, piracy is small in scale, and generally not a tool of national policy any longer.

With this in mind, though, it seems a lot of your other points are supremely wrong-headed. You suggest the key is to “prevent the spread” of the groups that would use terrorism to attack us, but that kind of containment is just a guarantee of continued terrorism; the only answer to terrorism is to make terrorism untenable as a tactic by, first, wiping out the current crop of terrorist, and second, eliminating the conditions that spawn them. And while I agree that part of this is to combat the incentives that lead to terrorism, that has to include the realization that terrorism doesn’t happen without a support network that includes tolerant states. Usama bin Laden without Afghanistan is just a nut — he can’t train, he can’t recruit, and he can’t maintain his funding.

Beyond that … well, I use as my email tagline “Freedom for others means safety for ourselves.” The one condition that, historically, has led to long term peace and stability among states is the appearance of liberal democracy. Conveniently, it’s also the condition that appears to maximize general welfare, as well as being, on balance, the most morally just form of government. Not only can we not afford to merely contain, prevent the spread, of terrorism, but when we look at the effect of containment, it’s to doom millions or billions of people to life under tyranny.

Containment isn’t just ineffective, it’s morally wrong.

Thus, I disagree with your notion that the war in Iraq — or, more properly, the Iraqi campaign — hasn’t served the purposes of the war on terror. Rather the opposite: we’ve seen three state sponsors of terrorism eliminated (yes, three: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya), we’re seeing the Saudis and the Pakistanis turn from neutrality (charitably) to active co-operation, and we’ve caused massive disruption of both logistics and communications for the al Qaeda, Hezbullah, and various splinter groups. As a pleasant side effect, India and Pakistan are no longer constantly on the verge of nuclear war, the Palestinian Authority has been made ineffective and is on the brink of collapse (which, I’m afraid, is the only hope the Palestinians have of ever having a decent life), and fifty million people are living in the most liberal societies they’ve ever known..

Let’s say that again: fifty million people are now free, as a result of the War on Terror.

So, while I appreciate your willingness to be reasonable, something that distinguishes you mightily from the trolls we usually get, I think your argument is just wrong. The War on Terror, and the Iraqi campaign, are turning out to be both effective — and, on balance, the most morally justifiable thing the US has done in foreign policy since Woodrow (pfui) Wilson.

Aug 10, 2004 - 1:35 am 153. Charlie (Colorado):

“Just a thought.”

“Care to have a thought?”

The horror. The horror.

Don’t worry, Hollywood. It stops hurting after a little practice. You might even come to enjoy it.

Aug 10, 2004 - 1:37 am 154. Charlie (Colorado):

Cain:

1) The connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were simply not there. Recent evidence suggests that Iran had a far deeper relationship with the organization than Iraq ever did, for example.

That’s just nonsense. Wrong. Factually incorrect. Dead. An ex-parrot. Check the 9/11 Comission report — what it really says, not what was teased in the media.

2) UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix failed to find any weapons of mass destruction, leading Bush to panic and launch his war. To his amazement, no meaningful weapons were found.

Uh, to the extent that there is a factual statement in there at all — as opposed to innuendo and fallacy — it’s incorrect. Chem,ical weapons are being discovered regularly, albeit in small amounts, but in fielded operational weapons. One class of these weapons, the Sarin binary shells, is a relatively sophisticated weapon type that Saddam was never known to have.

3)Here is the most complex issue of the bunch. Invading Iraq for the sole purpose of forging a liberal democracy struck me as a compassionate idea, but clearly out of left field. First of all, the US here is hypocritical. Why not then invade North Korea, which possessed a ruthless dictator AND weapons of mass destruction. Bush has chosen to negotiate with Kim Jong Il rather than invade his country. Why not Saudi Arabia, proponent of anti-Western madrassa schools and the source of 15 hijackers?

I’m really sort of disappointed that this silly fallacy keeps showing up. First of all, it’s stupid on its face: you’re saying that because we can’t solve all the world’s problems at once, we shouldn’t bother with solving a problem for a mere fifty millions or so. Second, keep up with the news: the Saudis are making a remarkable about face on the Wahhabi schools, have recently liberalized their laws about women holding jobs (if not drivers licenses) and are about to have local elections.

Third, and perhaps most foolish of all, is the suggestion that we should invade North Korea, which, as you rightly note, has “a ruthless dictator AND weapons of mass destruction.” Thast is, in itself, the strongest reason I can thik of for not invading North Korea: it’s run by a ruthless dictator, who has weapons of mass distruction, and who is effectively holding millions hostage in Seoul.

I mean it: this argument is what we elderly cowboys call “fucking stupid”.

Especially when we know that Il is hanging on to a system that can’t last, in a historical dialectic that pretty well ensures its own internal contradictions will destroy it.

Aug 10, 2004 - 1:55 am 155. Charlie (Colorado):

War is hell, Ann. But if you want to win the peace, you’ve at least got to spend the money that’s been budgeted for reconstruction on reconstruction, rather than sitting on it. And don’t give it all to Kellogg Brown & Root.

Hollywood, if that money had all been spent, you’d be complaining now that they hadn’t followed the normal contracting rules. Also, before you pull out that stale old Halliburton/KBR thing again, I’d like to see an explanation of how they’re losing their shirts on iraq and that proves they’re corrupt.

And who’s “Ann”?

Aug 10, 2004 - 2:01 am 156. Erik:

2) UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix failed to find any weapons of mass destruction, leading Bush to panic and launch his war. To his amazement, no meaningful weapons were found.

I wont even comment on the innuendos of “failed and “panic”, that’s already been done..

But I really wish people would stop bringing up Blix as some sort of oracle on this issue. Blix has himself gone on the record saying that the Iraqis hid information, and that they, informally, confirmed they had WMDs, but called them “Weapons of Selfdefense”.

Also, Blix used to head IAEA during the 80’s, during which time Iraq was getting really close to getting nuclear weapons, right under his nose. (They were just months away from getting one in ‘91..) Blix admits to being thoroughly fooled by them all that time, but somehow he is supposed to be believed now?

Blix was, I believe, nr 26 in line for the job as head weapons inspector, so he was hardly the top name even by UN standards…

Using Blix as some kind of oracle and expert is just silly, he is a second rate politician that went to the international scene when he couldn’t hold office nationally.

Here’s a question for those who still insist on calling Blix an expert: Excluding political appointments as head of IAEA and UNSCOM, how much expert experience with WMDs does Hans Blix have in his entire career?

answer: none (he’s a career politician)

Aug 10, 2004 - 2:29 am 157. Erik:

Sorry, a little slip there, should be “UNMOVIC” and not “UNSCOM”…
UNSCOM was replaced by UNMOVIC, and Blix was in charge of the latter.

Aug 10, 2004 - 2:58 am 158. Gerry:

Samuel,

“As far as plain “hard” against Bush it is probably around 40%.”

But that is nothing new. Even Goldwater got just under 40%.

Every election, each side pretty much starts with 40%. That 40% is hard against the other side. They may not often describe themselves that way, but the evidence shows that is how they vote. The fact that they are describing themselves as ABB this time suggests to me that they have not found a good reason to be positive for Kerry.

Aug 10, 2004 - 4:24 am 159. David Thomson:

ìSimply put, we’ve lost a lot of our legitimacy in the past three years. I know most of you will read that and scoff: who cares, after all, what the rest of the world thinks of us?î

Are you hinting that we are somehow responsible for this misperception? America is a victim of a slander campaign. The lying liberal media and intellectuals have done considerable damage. We should indeed care about what others think about us. Still, in the final analysis—we must be willing to go it alone if necessary.

Aug 10, 2004 - 5:24 am 160. bkochba:

It’s starting. They really have to make sure to distinguish the charges about Kerry’s lies about his medals, Cambodia etc. from the general opposition to his antiwar rhetoric:

http://tinyurl.com/4tokr

If they establish that he lied for his medals - document it, play up the Cambodia stuff - the antiwar stuff will take on a whole new light on its own. I think it’s a mistake for the veterens to have the stuff about Kerry besmirching their service and lying about war crimes front and center. It’s honest of them to be so upfront about their motives, but it’s a tactical mistake.

I hope the emphasis is changing to the charges about his actual war service, not the later testimony. Otherwise, everyone will just dismiss the conflicting claims as part of the whole cultural divide on Vietnam.

Aug 10, 2004 - 5:57 am 161. Syl:

Jerry

“What makes you think that real DNC mastermind for the war room, John Rendon, will not be just as successful as he was when neutralizing Clinton’s problems?”

Depends if they truly want to be successful or not. I can hear a little female voice whispering to TerryMcC: “Let’s make the campaign about Vietnam, Kerry won’t survive that” and out pops AWOL.

What the AWOL sh*t did was force Vietnam era records to be opened, now even reluctant Dems like Mara and Juan have to agree Kerry has to release records too.

And Kerry won’t survive that.

Ah. I love a good conspiracy theory in the morning. And, no, I don’t believe it every hour of every day. Only about 1% of the time.

HA

“But some things just cannot be tolerated. And now the truth is out. While in Vietnam, Kerry slaughtered defenseless farm animals in cold blood!”

Seriously, when this gets out to women it would be more than PETA who turns against him. PETA doesn’t matter….they’re probably Naderites anyway. But machine-gunning small farm animals is beyond forgiveness in our society.

Catherine

“He betrayed his fellow soldiers, and he profited from his betrayal.”

Back in those days I opposed our soldiers because I believed it a necessary part of opposition to the war they fought in. And that was because of Kerry and his testimony. He didn’t HAVE to slander the troops to oppose the war, he chose to do so. That didn’t even occur to me. He could have opposed the war and still honored the fighters.

I think on that score the Right has fought back well because today, it seems, that even the Left understands that won’t work anymore. They’re careful to claim they support the troops even though they oppose the war. They may not mean it and probably don’t, but they feel compelled to utter the words.

Of course, the REAL reason they’ve changed tactics is that their movement for a victim culture portrays the soldiers as victims rather than perpetrators of the crime of war. Note Abu ghraib. Not the soldiers’ fault, they were victims of Bush’s policies.

Charlie

“Well, there’s a general military truism that amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics.”

Excellent analysis. I’m saving your post!

Aug 10, 2004 - 6:25 am 162. DennisThePeasant:

Cain-

Please don’t flatter yourself as to your alledged sophistication and our alledged simplicity. The War On Terror has been the overriding concern of this site and its’ participants as it has developed. There are a core of roughly 20 posters here who have been discussing the War On Terror in some detail for at least the last year and a half. For those of us who form that core, we have no need to rehash those discussions in the absence of new information. What you have done is walked into the middle of an ongoing conversation, and you would do well to remember that before passing judgement.

Irrespective of our (de)merits, there is little offered on your part that could be considered rising to the level of sophistication. I will charitably assume that when you ask what actually constitutes a “War On Terror”, you are being willfully obtuse. As we simples are all too well aware, the euphemism “War On Terror” was chosen in preference to the more accurate and far more politically provacative “War On Islamic Fascism” for extremely obvious reasons. A dispassionate (and not necessarily close) reading of the Bush Administration’s explanation of its’ goals and objectives makes it quite clear that ending the ‘tactics of terror’ is not, and never has been, it’s objective in waging a “War On Terror”.

In addition, we simples understand that the first and most important component of neutralizing terrorist networks is the removal of those states which shield and support terrorist organizations. Once again, a dispassionate review of the facts suggests Al-Qaeda would have had far greater difficulty recruiting and training terrorists, setting up networks, financing operations and ultimately waging war on the U.S. without the active support of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. It makes perfect military sense, in waging a war against Islamic Fascism to remove those organizational centers that provide sanctuary, support and security to terrorist organizations.

I suppose it would not occur to you that the invasion of Iraq and destruction of the Hussein regime was simply the first phase of a larger, grander strategy involving the removal of the regimes in both Iran and Syria. Clearly we are in an undeclared war by proxy (Al-Sadr) with Iraq at this very moment. And just as clearly, we are seeing that Iraq’s Shiite community at large (as represented by Al-Sistani) has absolutely no interest in aiding their co-religionists from Iran against the U.S.. I would suggest that your inability to grasp the Bush Administration’s objective and strategies has far more to do with your own limitations than any limitations present in that administration. You seem to be desperate to frame an asymmetrical war in symmetric terms, which is your problem (in terms of intellectual limitations)…not ours.

Beyond that, your claim that there is no evidence of terrorist links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda is based on, once again, being willfully obtuse. There have been numerous facts developed (by the 9/11 Commission, as well as various other sources) that there were substantial links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq’s government. In any event, what is beyond any doubt or argument is the fact that Saddam Hussein’s regime openly provided financing and other assistence to other Islamic Fascist terrorist networks (Hamas, Hezbollah, Ansar Al-Islam) who had substantial ties to (not to mention the same objectives as) Al-Qaeda.

I would also note that you seem quite confused about the facts regarding the justification for the U.S. invading Iraq. First of all, it would be helpful if you understood that “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was not the justification for the War. The justification was a series of U.N. resolutions, culminating in Resolution 1441, giving the U.S. the right and the authority to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein in the event of his regime’s continuing refusal to comply with U.N. mandated measures to provide proof of the destruction of various Iraqi weapons programs. Iraq failed to comply, and the U.S. then invaded. The justification was the failure of Iraq to demonstrate, as it was required to do, that it was in complete compliance with all relevent U.N. mandates.

I would also note that your sophisticated analysis fails to discuss the legitimacy or correctness of the Bush Administration’s Doctrine of Preemption with regards to the War On Terror. That seems to be a bit of an oversite, don’t you think? I would have expected you to refute it and provide an alternative doctrine to supplant it…but then, I’m simple that way. Oh wait, that doctrine is O.K. now…John Kerry just endorsed it yesterday. Nevermind.

And please, stow the “war was mismanaged” and the “peace is being lost/mismanaged” bullshit (which is what it is). If John Kerry and The Cadres cannot provide a detailed, specific critique of what has been mismanaged and a detailed, specific set of proposals to rectify those weaknesses identified, I am perfectly within my rights to suspect that neither Kerry nor Cadres have an effin’ clue. If your argument is that you can provide a level of management expertise that isn’t now present, then demonstrate it by providing meaningful examples. Without them, you come across as just some fat, middle-aged, beer-drinking slob bitching about his NFL team’s quarterback. And given that he didn’t play in high school, let alone college, to take his analysis at face value probably doesn’t occur to anyone other than a few of his fat, middle-aged, beer-drinking friends.

I could go on, but you’ve got more memes that I have time. It has been a depressingly standard tactic of those who have shown up at this site to oppose the Liberation of Iraq, the War on Terror or the Bush Administration to veil the same old half-assed memes about the Liberation of Iraq and the War On Terror in cloak of psuedo-sophistication and/or thoughtfulness. It is old enough that it has come to wear on me a bit. You present absolutely nothing in the way of original thought, your opinions are (dare I say) simplistic as well as unsupported, and your ‘facts’ simply aren’t.

If you’ve been called a dumb-ass at this site before, I would suspect it is because you’ve earned the appellation. So either stop whining about it or stop being so damn simpleminded when accusing others of being simplistic.

Aug 10, 2004 - 6:31 am 163. penwil:

Kerry is starting to really scare me . . .

Polipundit.com links to a Washington Post story of June 1, 2003, that makes reference to Kerry’s Cambodian fantasy. (Please excuse my failure of proper protocol but I can’t seem to figure out how to link things.)

Here’s the relevant bit from the Post:

A close associate hints: There’s a secret compartment in Kerry’s briefcase. He carries the black attachÈ everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

“Who told you?” he demanded as he reached inside. “My friends don’t know about this.”

The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

“My good luck hat,” Kerry said, happy to see it. “Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.”

Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn’t complex after all; it was Kerry.

He smiled and aimed his finger: “Pow.”

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:13 am 164. Rick Ballard:

DtP,

Give me some help here. Cain came in and tried to change the subject - that’s trolling. He did it fairly well, so I don’t know whether to grade your response as a troll toss or just regular butt kickin’. Also, Charlie(C) appears to be very strong in the troll toss (if we count Cain as a troll). I think you better supersize your order of IRS agents at lunch.

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:16 am 165. richard mcenroe:

Hollywood ó

Kerry makes his Nam service the linchpin of his convention speech, ignoring his 20-odd years on nonexistent legislative achievement.

A roomful of people who spent the last thirty years treating Nam as an abomination give him a standing ovation and try to drop balloons on him.

Suddenly a solid wall of veterans those people spat on stands up and says, “You mean this Nam?” and pulls out all Kerry’s own speeches and press clippings.

And now Hollywood is saying, “Hey, guys, let’s not dwell on the past…”

Cain ó You know what? No other country IN HISTORY has ever even tried to practice nation-building with a defeated rival, as opposed to fine old nuanced European pillaging and colonialism, except the United States. Ever. Certainly not in the Middle East. We are trying something absolutely unprecendented; suggesting there should have been some sort of prepackaged strategy to follow is simply ludicrous. So no one has the authoritative experience base to complain about the results ó even if Kerry and our other critics had anything to offer beyond continuing to insist we need the assistance of nations who have already said that assistance will not be provided.

If you look at history, we were able to do it with Germany and Japan, and to a lesser extent Italy, while simultaneously bankrolling the recoveries of our exhausted allies. We were able to do it with three entirely different ethnic groups, cultures and physical situations. Our track record here seems pretty good so far.

If you don’t look at history, you have no business discussing politics.

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:18 am 166. Samuel:

Wichita,

The teachers are bored and most of them are by nature “SJ”s on the Meyers-Briggs scale

Since you are talking “Meyers-Briggs”, my wife is a High School Math Teacher, and is an “ESFJ” so she is at least one confirmation of your take on teachers.

As far as me needling you about your saying the other day that I might be lying, first understand that I did not take offense as you were obviously making a much larger point. I did not comment that day and just wanted you to know I read the post, which by the way I actually agreed with.

Wichita I am ENTP (Extroversive, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving/Boundary Pushing) on that Meyer Briggs scale and the “P” part is about as boundary pushing as it gets. In fact it is the “P” part of my nature that said “Samuel, go Republican and raise a ruckus”, and it did. It drove the “J” part (Judging/Scheduling) part of my wife nuts. You just got a mild dose of that. :^)

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:22 am 167. Rick Ballard:

Penwil’s WaPo link

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:23 am 168. Philip:

Cain,

I haven’t seen noted here or elsewhere, regarding the WOT, that as a result of Bush’s actions the US now has well upwards of 100,000 combat troops with full logistical support stationed in the heart of the ME. (And after all, they have to be stationed somewhere, don’t they?)

You can add the air bases, intelligience stations, and advisors along the norther border of the ME in the former Soviet republics.

And tack on the fact that Musharef is an unabashed ally (admittedly with little choice), that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is now secured to the satisfaction of the US, that the Khan nuclear swap meet has been broken up, that Pakistan is at “peace” with India, and that Pakistani forces seem to be cleaning up against AQ along the Afghan border.

And then there’s Afghanistan, of course.

For those without a map, these results have transpired along the eastern, northern, and western borders of Iran. I’m sure Bush is too dim a bulb to have noticed.

And BTW, Michael Moore’s Minutemen notwithstanding, I am confident that those Iraqis and Afghanis working to build free nations do in fact view the US as liberators.

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:45 am 169. Charlie (Colorado):

Thanks for the kinds words, folks; I’m an INTP; and by they way I vote we bestow new names on Iraq and or Iran because having two countries that close together differ by only one letter is just too confusing.

Just to quickly tag in on a couple of subthreads….

Aug 10, 2004 - 7:46 am 170. Rick Ballard:

Charlie (C),

I’ve always liked Persia. Although Texaco or Mobil work, too.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:04 am 171. Knucklehead:

Cain,

Others have addressed your specifics. There remain three items I believe you missed regarding Iraq and the WoT that have not been much touched on in this thread.

The first two items deal with how the war is being waged. The third deals with “what does success look like”.

The WoT cannot be waged as a series of discrete actions in response to specific terroist attacks. It is painful to Americans to wage this as a full-fledged war with multiple campaigns on different fronts. This is painful to us because it means our fine young military men and women must go forth and kill and die on our behalf. This pain is made all the more difficult because we cannot achieve quick victories or even have a view of some victories.

Next is the value of Iraq as a strategic target. There are ample valid reasons to have waged war against Iraq. Those have been discussed above and they represent more than sufficient justification for the Iraq war by any historical measure. In a strategic sense as a campaign in the WoT, however, the value of Iraq cannot be overestimated. Break out your favorite atlas of world maps and have a good look at Iran and the countries surrounding it. Try to think outside of the US partisan political mindset and consider geopolitics and strategic positioning. Consider Iran’s position as of 9/10/2001 wrt to those countries and the growing menace of Islamofascism and the use of terror tactics and proxy war waged by terror supporting and sponsoring states. Now consider Iran’s position wrt to 8/10/2004. In three years of rather low-grade conflict Iran’s position has gone from very strong to tenuous. The US’s ability to engage Iran has gone from weak to very strong.

The third item I would like to point out is that engaging in the WoT now is not a move that can have the narrow US political benefits that the Bush administration is so often accused of seeking. Go back and read your history of the 2 or 3 years preceeding the outbreak of WWII. Defeating the rising fascist Axis would have been a rather easy military matter even as late as 1938. If such an action had been undertaken, however, there would have been no political gain because there would have been nothing to point to as a major international success. The argument that such action was unnecessary would probably still be raging yet, unknown to us, we would have escaped the most brutal war in the world’s history. Fighting the WoT now is a bold, correct, and thankless act taken on by the current president. We should be thanking him rather than trashing him but, unfortunately, such is the nature of the action.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:04 am 172. John Lynch:

DtP

Excellent!

We’ve chatted here before, debated finer points, even dealt with a few minor trolls. But .. I’ve never seen the strength Rick Ballard refers to when he “calls in” your skills in troll-tossing.

Not unfounded.

Charlie(c)

Well written and supported.

–

I am somewhat discouraged by the coverage so far. I believe we are seeing some of the more powerful parts of MSM mechanics at work.

I believe the advertising can continue past the August deadlines for 527s based upon the recent FEC decsion that advertising for MM F9/11 can continue. It is a commercial enterprise. The promotion of the book is also a commercial enterprise.

I don’t think the SBVT 527 can do the spending, but revenues from the book can be spent on promoting the book.

I’m still looking for analysis on the veracity and clarity of the claims.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:09 am 173. hollywood:

Knucklehead, Charlie (C), Dtp,

Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. I think you can’t accept the fact that the neocons have repeatedly been wrong about the war on terror, strategically, logistically and factually as outlined by Cain. I think you are providing a very sophisticated rationalization that somewhat supports the administration’s blundering approach. Interestingly, the Bushies never offer your explanations. Rather, they try to obscure the facts about WMD, Saddam/Al Qaeda, wave the flag and hope that enough voters to give them 50.1 % of the electoral vote will buy it. If what you say is true, why don’t they make the case? Are we too dumb to appreciate it? Are they too impatient? Either way (right or wrong), they’ve been completely arrogant about their course. Again, we deserve better, but they ain’t gonna give it to us because they think they don’t have to. We don’t need this sort of hubris, particularly with what is at stake.

BTW, Charlie, Ann Coulter–try the link.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:25 am 174. Jamie Irons:

Again I want to express my thanks for Roger’s blog, which has moved to the top of my personal list, and to posters like Catherine, Rick Ballard, DtP, Katherine, and many others who have given me ammunition for my discussions with the “liberals” (I consider my own politics to be close to those of the now extinct Cold War liberals, suitably modified to fit the age of Islamic fascism), who surround me at my place of work (I’m a physician at a large northern California medical center).

But I am worried that the media are going to successfully bury evidence of Kerry’s lies. Can anyone reassure me?

Jamie Irons

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:28 am 175. TmjUtah:

Dtp, Syl, Charlie (C), Samuel -

Tremendous posts.

I’d just like to add that the disconnect between MSM and any shred of objectivity concerning the SBVT is astounding.

If they could find a waitress from a 1970’s Alabama bar that Bush stiffed for a tip, she’d get an hour on Sixty Minutes. But two hundred combat veterans rate only carefully edited dismissal.

No in depth interviews on Night Line. It was an overt effort to marginalize the men as being merely more pictures on a TV screen.

Where’s that burning journalistic urge to get at the truth? It’s been replaced entirely with the urge to win an election.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:31 am 176. Jamie Irons:

Forgot to commend Knucklehead and Charlie (Colorado)

and I’m sure there are others I’ve missed.

Jamie Irons

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:32 am 177. John Lynch:

OT

Roger,

Can you start a thread that deals with the legalism of this administration? In particular, I am ambushed by my favorite ABBs on the subject of Ashcroft’s anti-constitutional-isms. I don’t have enough facts to counter the lawyer crowd that my sister is in.

These seem to start with assertions about the “American citizens who are being held without charges and without hearings.”

I’d be interested in hearing enough about this to at least not have to shrug when it comes up.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:36 am 178. DennisThePeasant:

First of All-

A small but very important correction:

Clearly we are in an undeclared war by proxy (Al-Sadr) with Iraq at this very moment.

Should read:

Clearly we are in an undeclared war by proxy (Al-Sadr) with Iran at this very moment.

Rick Ballard-

If you have to ask, it ain’t a troll toss.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:36 am 179. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood-

With regards to your 8:25 post, that’s strictly FTLT material.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:41 am 180. Dylan:

Hollywood,

I look at Cain’s post and I find that I can not see how Cain has made observations about the WoT from a strategic, logistical or factual viewpoint.

Correct me if I am wrong Hollywood or Cain, but in Cain’s post I see a proposal for how to evaluate the WoT and then Cain’s subjective opinion (no facts to back it up) that the Bush administration has failed in those two objectives.

DtP, Charlie and Knucklehead have given you an explanation of the B Admin’s action in light of your own proposed criteria. They take into account the history of the region, the actual current events taking place in the region and a plausible strategy that fits with the known facts. As you said yourself, it is a sophisticated rationalization.

Now let’s compare it to your rebuttal of their rationalizations:

“Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so.” You then proceed to say that the neocons have repeatedly been wrong on the WoT, yet you offer no proof to back up your suggestions. Who is being intellectually dishonest here? If you want your opinions respected, then back them up with facts — generalizations and appeals to ideology are not welcome here.

With respect to Cain’s assertion that America’s image has been tarnished ever since Bush took over, that is shortsighted. As a Canadian, I say that anti-americanism was alive and well of my country for the 25 years I’ve lived here. Anti-American sentiments around the world has been around just as long and it would be foolish to presume that OBL dreamed up his attacks of the USS Cole and American Embassies during Clinton’s administration as a reponse to Bush Jr.’s administration.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:48 am 181. Knucklehead:

I have to ask, Hollywood, if you have ever even considered opening your mind up and shelving the trite bigotries you hold dear. Ever? For even just a few moments?

Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so. I think you can’t accept the fact that the neocons have repeatedly been wrong about the war on terror, strategically, logistically and factually as outlined by Cain.

Show us the strategic, logistical, and factual errors and, conversely, make some argument that there is some workable, let alone better alternative.

And please take the rest of this gibberish

…administration’s blundering approach… Bushies never offer your explanations… they try to obscure the facts about WMD, Saddam/Al Qaeda, wave the flag… why don’t they make the case… … completely arrogant… we deserve better… We don’t need this… hubris…”

and stick it somewhere. I’ll understand if Roger bans me from the site after this, but I can’t take it anymore and have say it.

Hollywood, GTFU already willya.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:50 am 182. Samuel:

penwil

Kerry is starting to really scare me …

I wouldn’t be scared, Kerry in my opinion is mostly harmless (except to himself) but unfortunately also to the military matters in both Vietnam and legislativley in the Senate. He and his supporter’s endeavoring to innoculate him from criticism by cloaking him in his farcical Vietnam record is a bad joke and very stupid politically. Look, he is not going to win so it doesn’t matter. I said several months ago that sooner or later he would be revealed for the phony jerk he was and sighed a big relief when Edwards was not nominated. Edwards is too nuanced and inexperianced but had the charm to potentially overcome this, Kerry does not. I don’t want a nuanced President, especially at this time. Edwards personal life is also much better.

Kerry Supporters

Sorry to you Kerry supporters, but Kerry’s vetting process is about to begin. The liberal, cocoon spinning, MSM has again served you poorly. It has sought to suppress Bush by putting him down every way they could while propping up Kerry, spiking many stories early on, they gave false hope. The stress of holding Bush down while propping Kerry up is about to give way to the natural post 9/11 fault lines. I still believe there was a 3-5 point political shift post 9/11 and liberal cocooning is not the way to deal with it.

Bush is fully vetted and everything, good, bad or ugly has been thrown at him. I believe like Reagan he now is coated with “Teflon”. The MSM has made him stronger, he is 100% known, but the MSM has done the Democrats a great disservice. Covering for Kerry and keeping in the dark what should have been revealed to the public and other Democrats continues to keep inferior politicians in the forefront, it is why the Democrats have such a shallow bench.

Do we really believe that Bush’s legitimate National Guard service should be treated as such a controversy while Kerry’s War record is somehow too sacred to skewer? The double standard of the MSM is so obvious to any fair-minded person, but what is most obvious is the fact this double standard bleeds over to the Democrats.

People can say what they want but if Nixon where a Democrat he would have been covered for and if Clinton were a Republican his impeachment would have been sealed by the Senate, and he would have been removed. I was against impeachment, but the difference in application of principles between the parties is astounding. There is no doubt in my mind of this fact. I am personally more liberal than conservative but the goalpost moving, rule changing, double standard ways of the Democrats so disgusts me as to make me sick. They didn’t even nominate a man out of principle, true principle has little to do with it at the National level and it becomes disheartening for us Democrats in our localities what is going on nationally.

Jesse Jackson said (and it wasn’t lost on me at the time) about Clinton. “It is the policies Clinton espouses that matter and should be the determining factor in whether President Clinton should be impeached or not and his policies are good, that is what really matters.” What? In other words if he had bad policies (or Republican policies) then it would have been a line crossing event. Other Democrats said the same, though I think the stupidity of what they were saying was lost on them. Well it wasn’t on me and it was the beginning of the end for me.

When Cain and Hollywood give their arguments they are shallow because they are really excuses to tow pre-conceived political lines and positions. Being well thought out and thorough has nothing to do with it and is not part of the process. Cain and Hollywood and others (Swopa and Steve Smith), do you really think waltzing into a cage of “neo-cons” where most people like myself, Roger, Catherine, and others have voted Democrat our whole lives, that you are going to get away with, much less positively influence us with your shallow talking points? Why do this? Is it to raise the level of disgust? What is the point? Surely you don’t feel profound in what you write, do you? It is damn insulting quite frankly, at least Roger and other Democrats here (not me I have re-registered as a Republican) have a wider perspective and come to view some things differently. We are the ones that are not partisan. Most of us have thought like you, have you ever thought like us? Your kind of shallow Democratic pap is merely an insult to those who have walked such paths. You must prove greater knowledge of why we feel the way we do and hold our positions, not piss on such views. Distorting our reasoning is just stupid. Good luck, I don’t hold high hopes.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:50 am 183. Kevin P:

Cain and Hollywood:

You say that this is a non-issue and we should be discussing the WOT and other important issues. Your point would carry more weight if Sen. Kerry hadn’t spent the last 8 months pimping his Vietnam service and spending more time in his convention on this non-issue and almost no time on his Senate record.

You say that Kerry’s plan will give the world a break from Bush’s incoherant WOT madness. But the only specifics from Kerry’s semi-secret strategy are either identical to President Bush’s or are a fantasy. Monday the LA Times, not Fox News, had a front page story that claims that Kerry’s pledge to get the UN to come in and replace our troops with theirs is a myth. They have quotes from Europeans that state what this blog has been saying for months. France and Germany have no intentions of sending any troops to Iraq. Russia and China will not donate any either. They are the only countries that have the types of forces that could reasonably be expected to take our forces place. So the cornerstone of Kerry’s secret plan is dead before he takes office.The only option Kerry has is to keep our troops in Iraq or to pull them out. But Kerry says he is not going to cut and run and he says a bulk of our troops are going to be home in a year.Please read the LA Times article and explain how Kerry will pull off his plan without the troops.

As far as the SVB story Kerry can end all this speculation by the end of this week. He can come out and tell us whether he was in Cambodia or not. He can release his complete war records as President Bush did in response to the AWOL slander. If Kerry’s side of the story is true his records would go a long way to putting this issue to rest. As long as it is a complete document dump, not an edited version.As you stated Hollwood, the Medical records may not be the smoking gun that the SVB people think they are. But you have to have a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach every day that Kerry delays a FULL document dump. Remember, Kerry can end this story tommorrow by these two simple steps.Answer questions and release the records.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:58 am 184. Charlie (Colorado):

I think you can’t accept the fact that the neocons have repeatedly been wrong about the war on terror, strategically, logistically and factually as outlined by Cain.

Hollywood, I’d be more impressed by Cain’s points if I’d noticed any of them that werne’t factually wrong, e.g., “no WMD” and “no al Qaeda connection.”

As far as Ann Coulter goes, I’ve got to admit that my only real interest in Ann Coulter is seeing her in hot girl-girl action with Katrina van den Heuvel. It’s kind og like Robert McC or Alan keyes — the information content is zero, you can always predict what they’re going to say.

Aug 10, 2004 - 8:59 am 185. hollywood:

Talk to the chart.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/10ohanlon.html

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:10 am 186. TmjUtah:

Samuel -

This is slightly OT.

The more I look at the developing Kerry meltdown, there’s just one person on the Democrat side that benefits.

If Kerry collapses as we move to November based primarily on the SBVT fiasco, his record in the Senate never becomes an issue. The Democrats can grasp the meme ‘he was a victim of dirty tricks’ without blinking because they are wired to reject any public rejection of their philosophy or policy. So we see another election cycle ala 1994…and all the ones since then…where the Dems lose critical elections yet never objectively analyze and make changes to their own leadership in order to become competitive.

I think if Kerry loses, the party remains relatively unchanged at the top. That means the checkbook still lives in the kitchen at Chappaqua, doesn’t it?

Call me paranoid if you will, but I believe that if the SBFT information doesn’t do the job the Clinton War Room has material for release to make sure Kerry doesn’t see more than forty five percent of the vote.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:13 am 187. Dylan:

Click on my name to see the Belmont Club’s take on the Bush Administration’s results during the WoT.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:20 am 188. Samuel:

Cain

I am a liberal suburban Republican now, I am officially lost to the Dems. We’ll see about 2008. I say one thing, nominate Hillary and lose me forever. An Arnold or Rudy type Republican fairs better than a Zell Miller Democrat. As far as…

But Bush’s self-proclaimed “leadership” and “decisiveness” doesn’t equate strength.

But you didn’t say how it didn’t either. Also your analysis about how we are unfavorably viewed in the Middle East is quite dismissive of history and human nature as well (the inability to properly parse of history is probably most liberals weakest trait). Reagan was absolutely hated (and by me as well), Europe went nuts against him. I have since come to believe he was right and Europe was wrong, what say you?

I put my marbles in trusting our own senses and refuse to use Europe’s and the Middle East’s sensibilities as some means of measuring our effectiveness. I predict that in the Middle East and other Muslims in this world will build a statue one day and declare G.W. Bush as the President that was good to both Muslims and Jews. If you look down the road and see differently I would like to know why.

By historical standards everything Bush has done are sparkling examples of success. If not tell me how they have not been and give me examples of why weighed against history. Explain the further failure you see and how it will that become worse post Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan being taken off the “Evil Charts”. I believe in your eyes the fixation is as through the “scope of the proctologist” you focus on the ugliness of the hemorrhoids and yet say nothing about what we should do about them. I don’t want reasons why we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq, tell me how what we have done will make us worse off for generations to come. SHOW ME VISION AND NOT NAYSAYING.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:24 am 189. Catherine:

hi Richard M

What do you mean, “We”, Catherine? I’m sure this wasn’t your intent but I for one will NOT see this foisted off as another Democratic “collective guilt” fantasy, “Of course, we are all to blame…”

Absolutely right.

I thought about that as I was writing, but couldn’t think exactly how to express what I was saying, because I believe John M. is right: there was a broad cultural tarring of Vietnam veterans.

I didn’t personally do any of the things you mention, either; nor did my family or my friends or anyone I’ve ever known . . . and yet I do feel some shared guilt over what occurred.

I don’t know why that is, exactly, but I think it has to do with “being an American”; I feel a specific responsibility towards the young men (and women) who risk their lives in service to their country, and towards their families as well. And when “our country,” or “our culture” treats them badly, I feel I have failed as well.

That may be nutty, but I think that’s why I felt the need to use the pronoun “we” when, under normal circumstances, I reject the collective guilt you’re talking about.

Anyway, I certainly don’t mean to imply that you or anyone else here did any of the things you’ve listed.

Sorry!

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:26 am 190. Fresh Air:

Samuel–

It just hit me that the MSM/liberal/coccoon metaphor is also perfectly analagous to many other left-wing shibboleths: dumbing down standards, softening army basic training, encouraging respect for people who haven’t earned it, etc.

As with what happened here in Illinois when Jack Ryan was not properly vetted (a rival’s campaign manager hinted about the divorce records and was sacked for violating the 11th Commandment), the free pass given to Kerry by the press will not serve him well. Instead of being tried by fire and being cauterized, Kerry will bleed like a stuck pick every time he gets hit with a blowdart between now and November.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:26 am 191. RogerA:

When I see the word “hubris” I always have this urge to throw up.

Hollywood and Cain’s concerns aside, I see in the Administration’s foreign policy some very clear directions: to fight a war on terror, to restrain the proliferation of WMDs, and to attempt to create in the middle east countries more favorably disposed. Not since the end of the cold war where “containment” was the strategy for 30 years until Reagon changed it, has American foreign policy been directed by such clear goals. Liberal concerns have yet, in my judgment to make any telling criticisms of the GOALS–there is concern about the coulda-wouda-shoudas–but not much informed comment about the goals.

In terms of the tactics, the Bush administration has demonstrated considerable virtuosity in employing a wide variety of tactics: the over use of force (Iraq), the use of coalition building (the war on terror), and the use of multilateral diplomacy vis a vis North Korea–The asinine criticism of the left focus only on the war in Iraq and totally miss the larger picture (see wretchards post today at the Belmont Club). I also think the Bush administration has done a great service to future Presidents by driving a stake thru the heart of the “Powell Doctrine.” Force is an instrument of diplomacy and it is the use of force and not merely the threat that resonates with some of the bad guys like Col Khadaffy (and I am sure the lesson was not lost on Iran and NK).

I would like to see some discussion of the goals of our foreign policy by the left as prelude to an informed discussion of the methods.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:29 am 192. RogerA:

gasp–”not” a freudian slip” the OVERT use of force (not over)

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:30 am 193. DennisThePeasant:

Hollywood-

Did you actually read either the article or chart you linked to? Do you understand that it in no way supports either your or Cain’s position?

Once again, you Fail The Laugh Test.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:31 am 194. Roberts:

Roger, I greatly enjoyed hearing you and Glenn on Hugh’s show yesterday afternoon.

Cain,

Frankly, I find your “analysis” very shallow. I don’t think you really do understand strategic analysis at all. By your standards, Napoleon and Alexander the Great were third-rate failures. The best example is your fallacy of equivalence between Iraq and North Korea. This fallacy has been demolished dozens of times in as many forums. Iraq was a rational move last year because of its centrality of position, the existing international regime of sanctions and UN SC resolutions and armistice agreements and the strong position we held militarily over it. By contrast, the North Korean situation had none of these and a huge allied civilian population essentially held hostage ( Seoul S.K. ).

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:32 am 195. Catherine:

Samuel

Do you think that the “media” and the “left” do/did not have a critical and devastating effect on the Vietnam War and War today?

I have to get to work—–so can’t read the rest of the thread at the moment, but the answer to this question is that I no longer feel that the media, or the left, for that matter, had a critical and devastating effect on the Vietnam War.

I’m too close to the Iraq War to say, but there, too, when you look at what mainstream Americans believe vs. what the NYTIMES believes, the gap is shocking. My husband and I both came to this conclusion on the same day, when we were arguing about whether or not “everyone knows” there were no WMD in Iraq. I Googled up some survey data for him showing that a majority of the country believed that Iraq did have WMD and had either hidden it or moved it to Syria. My husband was stunned. He had no idea anyone on the planet, apart from his wife, held this view. At that moment both of us realized that the NYTIMES is not determining reality for the majority of Americans. Since then I’ve seen many, many examples of the fact that “average Americans” simply do not think the way the TIMES thinks.

If the MSM were as powerful as many Americans believe, the average American would think exactly the way the NYTIMES thinks. (BTW, I mentioned on another thread a story in the FT in which the reporter went all over America trying to find out how come so many Americans support George Bush when the NYTIMES doesn’t. He round out no one reads the NYTIMES.)

Back to Vietnam, this could be a long post, but basically, until I’ve had a chance to read more, I am taking McMaster’s word, in his book Dereliction of Duty : Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam

by H. R. McMaster

This is the book the Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to regard as their “official” history of Vietnam and what went wrong. (The book was written by a West Point graduate and the Joint Chiefs have required people to read it.)

I haven’t read it yet myself, but here is what I take to be McMaster’s thesis:

“The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C.”

- H. R. McMaster (from the Conclusion)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060929081/qid=1092155344/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-2050998-3780836?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I believe him.

I do not believe the NYTIMES, or college protesters, lost the Vietnam War.

I believe the people responsible were our political and military leadership.

It’s important to realize that the Vietnam War was, at the start, a liberal war, and liberals at newspapers like the TIMES supported it. (I’m talking about liberals, not leftists.)

Later on at least two distinct groups turned against it, these same liberals as well as conservatives who, I believe, objected to the fact that the war was not being fought to victory (there is a comment about this in another thread, in case you’re interested).

What I think is probably true is that the media and the left have had a devastating effect on the way in which the country “processed,” or failed to process, Vietnam.

But I don’t know.

I don’t think anyone understands the relationship of the MSM to the “ordinary American.”

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:45 am 196. Rick Ballard:

Jamie Irons,

Re reassurance,

The closest corollary to how this story is breaking is the week following Drudge’s Monica piece. That story sat shining and stinking like a mackerel in moonlight for about 3-5 days as I recall. Newsweak, having spiked Isikoff’s story had given some lead to other MSM/DNC organs on how to play it. I can’t remember how, exactly, the dam broke but at 10 days in Bubba pulled his “I did not have sex” blooper and the race was on. We’re seeing the same thing today. Even the DNC shill bloggers - Atrios, Drum, Marshall et al haven’t got their “talking points” together yet. Unleashing Bubba’s Bimbo Brigade retreads is, in my opinion a very bad idea - as were Hunt’s column and Rassman’s op-ed in the WSJ. Now the WSJ editorial board can cut loose at will.

The NY Post and Fox coverage yesterday and today are going to open the gates. The Cambodia angle will lead but this is going to unwind through Kerry’s whole early career - culminating in the defamatory lies in his Winter Soldier testimony.

Of note is the lack of response by Kerry’s own organization. This is a man who has been criticizing the Presidents seven minute delay after receiving word in Florida of 9/11.

Well, it’s Tuesday Senator, and this should be a minor crisis - where is the unified response? Kerry has been ‘cocooned’ by the Kennedy machine for thirty years. He just doesn’t have any political weight outside of MA and that machine. People are going to notice just how weak and vacillating this man is. I hope that they also notice (when it occurs) the absence of all but “safe seat” Dems coming to his support. No one likes standing next to a loser.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:46 am 197. TmjUtah:

I cannot recommend highly enough following Dylan’s link to Belmont Club.

Powerful stuff. And the Great Refutation concerning Cain’s and Hollywood’s talking points, above and beyond the able posts previously posted here.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:47 am 198. Catherine:

Samuel

Republicans are rightly more trusted by the electorate on such issues, in fact it is the biggest trust gap in all of politics.

This is an example of what I mean.

If the media were as powerful as people assume (people on the left as well as the right–I’m constantly hearing about the Big Bad Media from my husband) Republicans would not be more trusted on defense.

They would be far less trusted, because the left believes that conservatives create enemies around the world.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:52 am 199. Catherine:

Rick B

The Cambodia angle will lead but this is going to unwind through Kerry’s whole early career - culminating in the defamatory lies in his Winter Soldier testimony

I think it’s critically important that we get to Winter Soldier.

I want to see our country talking about this, and deciding exactly how OK it was for this man to bear false testimony against his fellow soldiers.

Everyone needs to know what happened.

Aug 10, 2004 - 9:55 am 200. Jamie Irons:

Rick Ballard (9:46 AM)

Thanks. I feel better now.

Catherine, you wrote:

I want to see our country talking about this, and deciding exactly how OK it was for this man to bear false testimony against his fellow soldiers.

I really like what you’re saying on our need to have a full public airing of the Vietnam issue. Thanks again.

Jamie Irons

Aug 10, 2004 - 10:17 am 201. Charlie (Colorado):

There’s an interesting post, er, story on the WashTimes site about US troops closing the border between Syria and Iraq. Syria is effectively isolated from the other IF nations already, and Bashir the Younger is not in a very strong position. If we’re really doing a “divide and conquer” strategy, it might be the logical next place.

Aug 10, 2004 - 11:09 am 202. Old Grouch:

OT followup to wxjames’s posts from last night:

Story re Barnes & Noble site hacking is being covered at The National Debate:

[Link]

Aug 10, 2004 - 11:26 am 203. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I wonder how much attention Winter Soldier will get. It is the behavior that has the veteran community most angry, but doesn’t have a dramatic ad and the drama of combat associated with it. The media might decide to ignore it.

Catherine

You think the press wasn’t responsible for the Vietnam failure. But Johnson decided to resign based on Cronkite’s distorted reporting. That’s a pretty big impact. Media one-sided reporting (much more common after Tet ‘68) was important in changing public opinion, which was of course felt by congress.

We ended up with the ironic situation where we had stabilized Vietnam to the point that they only needed our help in the event of major invasion (like Germany), but then Congress outlawed that help. Do you think that if the populace knew the true state of the way, that Congress would have done that?

Aug 10, 2004 - 11:30 am 204. Samuel:

Catherine

Good afternoon, first my focus is mostly based on this…

For conservatives that would mean abandoning the view that the Vietnam War was lost by the left, or by the media.

Answers to simple questions make this obvious. What would happen if the Democrats controlled congress today, or at the time of 9/11? Further, what if the makeup of congress was close to 2/3’s Democratic like it was during much of Vietnam and greater than 2/3’s Democratic in the Senate. Would we be prosecuting the War more effectively? Would the 87 billion have passed? What about the resolution to go after Iraq? Catherine ironically the point you make to counter my position helps make my point…

a majority of the country believed that Iraq did have WMD and had either hidden it or moved it to Syria. My husband was stunned. He had no idea anyone on the planet, apart from his wife, held this view. At that moment both of us realized that the NYTIMES is not determining reality for the majority of Americans. Since then I’ve seen many, many examples of the fact that “average Americans” simply do not think the way the TIMES thinks.

Catherine the liberals in congress defunded the War. The fact that McGovern received less than 40% of the vote was still after the damage was done. Sure the mistakes were many but conservatives (Republican or Democrat) were not the reason. The liberal-leftest make up of congress did this and was recognized by the public and is what started the trend towards the Republicans (Watergate temporarily slowed it down). But this is no consolation public opinion follows and does not lead, when it does it means we are way behind the eight ball, and behind the eight ball is exactly where we ended up. This is of course what got us Reagan and a more conservative congress. The whole Gays in the military did not help Clinton either. Also for all those that like to cast aspersions on the South it was Patriotism, Foreign Policy and the lessons of Vietnam and not Jim Crow that drove Southerners along with the first wave of Neo-cons to the Republican Party.

Catherine we probably would agree on most of the points but Washington was a very leftist place during Vietnam, if we brought the same group in now Iraq wouldn’t have a prayer, Sadaam stays in power, diluting that facts brings no virtue. Saying “the public knows better” doesn’t change the realities. I believe this current President and Congress could win in Vietnam. The Congress of that generation would lose the WOT. If I didn’t see the great difference why should a liberal Jew like me change and frustrate some of my own social sensibilities in the process? Why would a fine agnostic liberal Jew living in the middle of Hollywood like Roger be putting himself and staking so much in this? How about you? Catherine I will repeat this even more emphatically. The liberal-left part of society has as much chance of winning Wars as the collective South would have had at passing civil Rights on their own.

Roger had his finger busted up and bent while fighting for Civil Rights in South Carolina, yet he now he votes for the very guy this very State supports at rates as high as any State outside of Utah! Instead I would be like you husband scrathing my head trying to make heads or tails of it Just my opinion.

As far as…

“The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C.”

Of course it was. But it does affect the Jacksonian instincts of “we are not in this to win so let’s just get out.” The people became weary! Does not the press compound “Bush fatigue”? People still like Bush but they grow tired and the media piles on. Look how the story line has changed now that the “honeymoon” of post 9/11 is over.

Now concerning…

It’s important to realize that the Vietnam War was, at the start, a liberal war, and liberals at newspapers like the TIMES supported it. (I’m talking about liberals, not leftists.)

They were also supportive in the beginning of the “War on Terror”. Liberals do not understand or respect what War of Liberation is about. The “armchair warrior” mentality is most pervasive among them. They are very bad soldiers. The migration of the South to the Republicans says everything! The fact that liberals scorn at losing them and attacking them with prejudice and malice is no consolation. The south has always sacrificed the most soldiers. They didn’t become Republicans because they became doves they became Republicans because they hated losing soldiers to lost causes and they rightfully saw the liberal left as the main reason (and threat includes the MSM because they are also part of the liberal-left).

What I think is probably true is that the media and the left have had a devastating effect on the way in which the country “processed,” or failed to process, Vietnam.

Bingo! Success or failure so often hangs on very small things, the liberal-left magnify those very things. Expect me to blame them again if the WOT goes badly as well. Sorry I’m not going to join in singing Kumbaya with the left on this one. Your husband seems less clueless than most yet there he sat there clueless didn’t he? As my own father has said, “You can’t make progress and advances in areas you show no interest or little recognition of.” Splitting the blame with the left is no virtue, blame should be shared in the proportion of culpability and about 90% blame goes to the liberal-left in my opinion and that includes the liberal media. But if I didn’t feel that way I do then I wouldn’t be here would I? And that is why I like Ed Koch am so firm in my support, I know better.

Remember, Ed Koch was in Congress during Vietnam. Ed Koch was pro-War during Vietnam and was literally attacked and harassed by the left, he says the liberals have no stomach for the fight, he hasn’t changed his mind and neither have I. I suspect Roger is voting for the same guy South Carolinians are for similar reasons. Ask Ed or Roger, I know what liberal Dick Morris says about it and it isn’t any different either. Catherine in is about a state of mind and beliefs. Modern day conservatives have more what it takes, Ed knows this, I know this, Roger knows this, Dick knows this, Zell knows this and all the Scoop Jackson Democrats figured this out lond ago. What regard do the Democrats have for Richard Perle and James Woosley? They are both still Democrats! Go ahead and reason with the Nancy Pelosi type’s all you want. She and the media believes Kerry is a middle of the road Politician. The War in Vietnam is still going on and this time the hatchet must be buried through the political defeat of the left, reason won’t cut it, sorry. I wish it could, for then I might be able to talk politics with my wife again. In truth for most a retrospective view of success is our only hope. Kind of like I have of Reagan, it takes patience my dear. -JSF

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:01 pm 205. PeterUK:

Erik,

I too am sick hearing about the infallibility of th Blessed Blix as you say he is just another Uneaucrat.But because this has never been questioned he is held up as an talismen by the left,the mere mention of his name sends the warmongers skulking and cowering.

For a pox doctors clerk his credentials are impressive but I wouldn’t asked him to look over my shrapnel collection.Via BBC

Mr Blix has fine credentials. He has a doctorate in law, and has pursued his studies in Sweden, England and the US.

He joined Sweden’s foreign ministry in 1963, and became its head 15 years later. He spent 20 years on Sweden’s delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva before heading the IAEA.

Mr Blix has written several books concerning international and constitutional law.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:04 pm 206. Sandy P:

Cain - you didn’t define success.

Here’s my version - they’re as pissy and obstructionist at us as the Euros are. BUT - They’re not trying to kill us.

That is success.

If you define success as the American version of democracy - then Europe is also a failure and you will be disappointed.

Which explains a lot as to why they’re going down the tubes.

Iraq and Afghanistan will be successes. They can smell and taste it. It’s going to be up to them how badly they want it and it’s up to them what form it takes that they can live with.

As to WMD - next report is due out in September. Maybe it’ll be like Viet Nam, we really won’t find out for 30 years whether or not they had them. It’s taken us 30 years to figure out we really won Nam.

Everything was in place ready to go. Saddam spent an awful lot of money keeping that active.

Aug 10, 2004 - 12:42 pm 207. Billy Hank:

Good thread with many fine comments. A few quick comments:

Re: Media impact on Vietnam and Iraq perceptions. IMHO the negative media impact in Vietnam was greater than today. WAPO was able to bring down a President almost singlehandedly. Many decisions in both Washington and Saigon were made with an overt eye to media reaction. Those decisions almost always turned out to be halfhearted and incomplete.

Power is still there. WAPO or NYT could easily sink Kerry’s candidacy if competent reporting would affirm “Unfit for Command’s” charges. Won’t happen because the MSM realized they could pursue their own political objectives. Remember how J School enrollment spiked up after Watergate in the wake of WAPO’s and subsequent allies takedown of Nixon? “Hey, if we’ve got this kind of power, we can stop pretending.” The disaffected protestors of the Vietnam War turned to media career paths. They populate media power positions today.

American public’s media naivete was much greater in Vietnam period. “Why would our press lie to us? All those Vietnam vets must be…. It’s in the papers.” Media is still working from that playbook today. Witness Abu Ghraib, 24/7, = All Merkins Evil Torturers.

Bush would be gone already if a Vietnam-like media environment prevailed today. Key logistical differences are talk radio, Fox and the Internet. Like in the 80s Apple commercial, the media monolith has been smashed. Strategic difference is that more people are media savvy and quicker to recognize spin for what it is. One of the unintended benefits of Clinton’s Presidency is that we all got better at spotting fact parsing and lies. BDS is just at too high a volume to be believable. Higher, I think, than the Impeach Clinton VRWC. But, that was just on talk radio.

I do think a lot of decisions are still made with an eye to media impact, despite Bush’s overt reluctance to pander to media whining. Which leads to second point - At first I had a negative reaction to Bush’s decision not to flatten Fallujah or deal decisively with the gangsterism of the Baathist remnants and Jihadi infiltration. I thought it was fear of domestic media reaction. After noodling around the Internet a bit, I’m convinced that Bush is going out his way to avoid putting too heavy a footprint on Iraq. That will pay benefits in the short and long run. Iraqi’s are now in a position to deal with their problems themselves. And, for a culture that still remembers the Baron’s bloody Jerusalem massacre in the First Crusade, we have not assumed a Carthage-like guilt. Yes, I read Hanson.

Afraid I, like others, have misunderestimated Bush. He, like Reagan, is a “hedgehog.” Works great when you are faced with life and death choices. The nuanced “fox” presidents like Clinton, Carter, and Nixon eventually outsmarted themselves. Kerry is a fox.

Kerry famously asked of Vietnam, “Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?” So, who wants to be the first to die for Kerry’s efforts to treat this War as a law enforcement issue with help from staunch, but Bush aggrieved, American allies like Annan and Chirac?

Aug 10, 2004 - 1:42 pm 208. Erik:

PeterUK,

How about this article from Slate in 2002:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2074629/

It pretty much sums up the opinions of Blix when he was appointed, “a henhouse to guard the fox”…

The quoute from Per Ahlmark is really telling, Blix is “weak and easily fooled”, “easily misled”, “a wimp”, “I can think of few European officials less suitable for a showdown with Saddam”

A Swedish newspaper even has Ahlmark quouted as calling Blix “an incompetent dork”.

It should be noted that Blix was a member of the Swedish Liberal party, and was their Forreign Minister in 1978-1979. The leader of that same Liberal party was, up until 1978, Per Ahlmark…

Oh, and check out the quoutes from the New York Times editorial too…

Aug 10, 2004 - 1:44 pm 209. Knucklehead:

Erik,

You gotta love an article that starts with:

Hans Blix

Incompetent bureaucrat or cowardly diplomat?

and gets worse for the subject from there. He’s a guy who really should have just kept his mouth shut and I never understood why he didn’t.

Aug 10, 2004 - 2:07 pm 210. Scott Talkington:

3)Here is the most complex issue of the bunch. Invading Iraq for the sole purpose of forging a liberal democracy struck me as a compassionate idea, but clearly out of left field. First of all, the US here is hypocritical. Why not then invade North Korea, which possessed a ruthless dictator AND weapons of mass destruction. Bush has chosen to negotiate with Kim Jong Il rather than invade his country. Why not Saudi Arabia, proponent of anti-Western madrassa schools and the source of 15 hijackers?

Resolving this is a lot simpler than it looks. If you simply ranked the most repressive regimes on earth prior to the regime change in Iraq, according to Freedom House’s three scales for political, civil, and press freedom, there were three at the very top: Iraq, N. Korea and Burma. Since it’s reasonable to be more concerned about the Middle East than Asia, because that’s where the terrorists came from, and because N. Korea already has WMD (meaning it’s too late there) and Burma isn’t even contemplating them, the choice of Iraq is simple triage. You look at the most urgent cases and then rank them according to how amenable they are to treatment.

Saudi Arabia, by the way, is in the top ten most repressive regimes, but it’s outranked by Cuba and several others.

Aug 10, 2004 - 3:12 pm 211. hollywood:

DtP,

I thought this portion of the article was somewhat supportive of my points:

“While we know that the situation is not going to change overnight, our measures do not show much improvement in the quality of life for Iraqis since our last report on this page in May. Though the unemployment rate appears to be dropping and electricity production is rising, the economy is still not much better than it was under Saddam Hussein.”

More importantly, I thought it was clear on this thread that there are basically 2 schools of thought (It’s a good thing. No, it’s a bad thing. Sometimes approaching, Jane, you ignorant slut!). And further discussion along those lines wasn’t going to move things forward. The chart, however, at least puts some data out there that arguably could be used to gauge our “progress” in Iraq. It ain’t as rosy as Rumsfeld would have us believe, but there has been some improvement, no doubt. To the extent progress has been very slow, I think the chart supports my view that it’s time to loosen the purse strings on the money that’s budgeted so that more substantial improvement can be made and loss of life diminished. Just my opinion.

Aug 10, 2004 - 3:42 pm 212. Charlie (Colorado):

I think the chart supports my view that it’s time to loosen the purse strings on the money that’s budgeted so that more substantial improvement can be made and loss of life diminished. Just my opinion.

Hollywood, I don’t think anyone, not even Rumsfeld, disagrees with you here. The problem is that it’s hard to loosen the purse strings when you also have to follow DoD procurement rules, and when every time someone lets a contract to KBR, which is already there and on the ground, someone says “Halliburton, see, we knew it”, and when every time we let a contract to a non-US company, Chuck Schumer complains that we’re not using US workers.

If you know of a way to solve this problem, I’ll absolutely help you try to sell it.

Aug 10, 2004 - 4:40 pm 213. Terrye:

hollywood:

For the life of me I don’t understand why it was fine and dandy for Clinton to use Halliburton in Kosovo in the 90’s and a crime to use it now. Nor do I usderstand why we question why Iraq is not rebuilt but no one deals with the fact that the people of Kosovo still don’t have power more than the half the time years after that war. It is the usual double standard.

I think it will take years to rebuild Iraq. I also think that if certain politicians would spend more time trying to help Iraqis than they do trying to hang Bush and Co it would help. It seems that making trouble is more important than getting results.

Btw, in terms of historical perspective it should be remembered that when the Soivets invaded Afghanistan and killed about a million people the French and the rest of those cocnerned Europeans did not burn any flags. When the Russians went into Chechnya there was nary a peep. When the Rwandans were being slaughtered like cattle the world did nothing. Now one of the Dems talking points is that I am supposed to allow what these people think to effect my choice for president.

Only one country in history has ever gone to the UN and asked for permission to go to war and that is the US. And only one country in history has ever rebuilt their enemy’s country and that is the US. So why should I as an American care what other people think when they obviously don’t care what I think?

Aug 10, 2004 - 5:15 pm 214. DennisThePeasant:

Oy.

Spend more money faster, but not with Halliburton. Why didn’t I think of that?

FTLT. Again.

Aug 10, 2004 - 6:08 pm 215. hollywood:

DtP,

Perhaps you’d prefer Bechtel? Or Schlumberger? Or Mitsubishi?

Aug 11, 2004 - 4:07 pm 216. M. Simon:

bkochba,

The swifties campaign is being run by a trial lawyer. Experienced in uncovering lies on a schedule.

First establish that a witness is not credible.

Then destroy the major arguments.

Cambodia first. Then Winter Soldier.

========================

Did you know that John Kerry was a secret agent?

He performed a mission in Cambodia so secret that only he has ever talked about it. It is so

secret three of his crew and all his superior officers claimed it never happened.

=======================

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release the records.

Aug 12, 2004 - 12:48 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: