L!ve From > DC

Why Kerry Lost

4. Teresa: THZ (with the emphasis almost more on 'Heinz' than on 'Kerry') came off even more aloof and cold than her husband. Many Americans could not picture this fluent French speaker as a First Lady. That she had Laura Bush to contend with did not help.

3. Opposing Iraq War: By criticizing the war, Kerry often gave the perception that he was critical of the troops when they were having a rough time. Iraq was probably the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, but it was also wrong to say this with troops on the ground battling a horrific insurgency. Indeed, according to a CNN exit poll, veterans supported Vietnam-dodger Bush over war-hero Kerry by a 16-point margin.

2. Kerry surrogates: More than any Hollywood types who fawned over Kerry, the two 'M's--Michael Moore and Moveon.org hurt Kerry. Their sensationalist commercials cast all Democrats as loonies. Bin Laden stealing the "My Pet Goat" bit from F9/11 in his pre-election video surprisingly devastated Kerry--when one might have thought that the sudden re-appearance of the man responsible for 9/11 would have been bad for Bush.

1. Kerry: Kerry lost because of Kerry. He wasn't likeable for his post Vietnam-tour actions, and that long Senate career failed to impress. Edwards, with his relatively innocuous history would have been a better choice at the head of the ticket.

Purges in new Iraq recall purges of old Iraq

Regime change has always produced purges in Iraq. "In the coups and takeovers that followed through the ’60s and ’70s, there was purge after purge, in which not only the opposition but hundreds of leading party men and their families died. Like Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union, Saddam was the purge-master."

The regime change of 2003 was no different. The new purge started last May, as Baathists and Saddam loyalists were singled out.

But it failed, however, failed to wipe out all Baathists, loyalists, and the various new groups of power seekers. Insurgents quickly gained the upper hand.

Now, 208 Iraqis are dying every week, as the great purge continues.

Was Kerry right to vote against Gulf War 1?

If you were told that going to war with Saddam Hussein in 1991 (to protect our way of life) would cost billions of dollars, kill 100,000 Iraqis, and yet leave Saddam in power, to counter which we would base troops in Saudi Arabia and impose draconian sanctions on millions of innocent Iraqis, which, in turn, could inflame the Arab and Muslim world, which could then lead to the rise in extremism which might result in a terrorist attack on American soil that could kill thousands of Americans and change our way of life, which then might compel us to go back to Iraq and spend $150 billion dollars, sacrifice thousands of American lives, kill a few more innocent Iraqis...

...would you have voted for the Gulf War?

In 1990, Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait, promising to leave only if Israel relinquishes the "occupied territories". Senator John Kerry supported President George H. W. Bush's deployment of troops to the region to thwart a possible invasion of Saudi Arabia, but argued against a full-scale military assault on Iraq.

The country was not ready for the horrors of war, Kerry said. Diplomacy and sanctions could eventually compel Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, but the US must also be ready to pursue “real peacemaking in the region,” he added, in reference to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.

Was Kerry, in hindsight, right? Was it right to undertake Gulf War 1 or would his approach have cost fewer lives--Iraqi and American?

It is probably impossible to determine how the alternative would have panned out, but we do know that the US wound up using both deadly force and even deadlier diplomacy in response to Hussein's aggression.

Gulf War 1 killed over 100,000 Iraqis throught direct bombing and 270 Americans (in all 350 coalition), another million Iraqis through subsequent sanctions, and led to the rise of anti-American sentiment and Al Qaeda type extremism.

Military action secured Saddam's retreat from Kuwait, but not a peace treaty. Gulf War 1 never ended and the flawed Powell doctrine ("After victory, the military should leave the field of engagement, rather than staying around as peacekeepers") did not provide a roadmap for the day after. The 1991 ceasefire left Saddam in power, drawing a harsh rebuke from Kerry.

“This administration, having likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler, having committed troops in the war against him, actually sided with Hussein in the aftermath of the war. That is a disgraceful chapter.”

(Incidentally, the Powell doctrine was overruled by the Bush 43 administration, which chose to stay on as peacekeepers after removing Saddam in 2003.)

Following the military victory, the Bush administration turned to "diplomacy" under the guise of the hastily contrived containment strategy which was sustained by the Clinton team. The embargo, intended to contain Saddam, devastated Iraq's economy and triggered a widespread humanitarian crisis even as the Iraqi dictator tightened his grip.

While winning the gratitude of the royalty in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, American intervention contributed to the rise of Islamist extremism in the Middle East. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia angered conservative Muslims, many of whom were drawn to an Islamist known as Osama Bin Laden.

The war that began in 1990 entered a new chapter, thirteen years later, with the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by the Bush 43 administration. The Powell Doctrine was ignored this time around.

In 1990, Kerry chastised Bush 41 for the rush to war, a theme he would stick with for Round 2.

“There is a rush to war here. [Because we think our military force can overwhelm Iraq], we are willing to act . . . with more bravado than patience.”

He has also been consistent about the "truth standard" for war:

Since Vietnam, Kerry said [in 1990], the American public had been “reaching for a set of ruling principles about when we go to war,” with the consensus arriving that “we should go to war when our vital interests are at stake in a way that the majority of Americans have identified and are agreed upon, and when we have exhausted all peaceful alternatives.”

Were our vital interests at stake in 1990? Historians, economists, and captains of industry cannot agree what was at stake but the short answer is a "maybe": Saddam would have controlled both Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, but not Saudi oil since his invasion of Kuwait was based on a territorial dispute. This was more a prestige issue--should the US allow itself to be dictated terms by a ruthless despot? Should Hussein, be allowed to get away with his brazen dare to Israel to withdraw from the territories?

In the event, Al Qaeda exploitedGulf War 1--the war revealed the hypocrisy of the Americans, Bin Laden would say. Americans will bomb an Arab land and take on a strong Arab leader when their oil interests are at stake; they will sacrifice their own lives to liberate corrupt oil-rich states, but then they turn a blind eye to the suffering of poor Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, and Chechnya.

Bin Laden and Saddam won the PR war.

Did we exhaust "all peaceful alterntives" as Kerry suggested? No, but we still wound up turning to diplomacy--sanctions--for 12 years--because we knew we didn't have the stomach for an occupation or peace-keeping mission in Iraq in 1991.

Gulf War 1, while a predictably one-sided military affair, was a spectacular debacle for the US and the UN because, well, years later, we are still fighting it.

It is an even bigger debacle if you view Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in terms of a territorial dispute, in the same context as the Iran-Iraq war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Syria's occupation of Lebanon, Kashmir, Tibet and a long list of other "occupations" to which some critics might hasten to add the American occupation of Iraq, although this last is, technically speaking, an issue of ideological real estate hegemony rather than physical land.

According to the Boston Globe, Kerry believed that the White House should "use back channels to Baghdad to signal a willingness to see Iraq’s claim on specific Kuwaiti territory adjudicated in an international forum."

This statement, when taken together with the his recommendation to pursue "real peacemaking in the region" has led Kerry's critics to argue that he meant to yield to Saddam on the matter of Israel-Palestine. But Kerry the alleged Israel sacrificer was bold to propose a more holistic approach to problem-solving in the Middle East.

When Saddam said that he would withdraw from Kuwait when Israel withdrew from the "Occupied Territories", he spoke to every Muslim out there who wishes to see a fair and just resolution to the crisis.

In the event, a "back channel" initiative on the Mideast conflict was launched and led to the Oslo Peace Accord which secured, at least on paper, an Israeli agreement to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and a Palestinian agreement to stop terrorism against Israel.

In opposing the use of force in 1990, Kerry asked his colleagues, "Are we ready for another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims”?

As the United States continues to sacrifice treasure in an Iraq that posed no imminent threat, and as Iran and North Korea move closer to the bomb, Americans might do well to question the decision making abilities of the current President that have yielded just such a generation of Americans.

Teens sound off on debates

This collection of views on the debate from people aged 13-19 far surpasses anything I have seen from the pundits. Yes, and they shame the President's (mis) speaking abilities.

Kudos to the Sun-Sentinel for doing this. My picks:

"Overall I think Bush gets a C-. At least he's consistent with his Yale grades. Kerry presented a persuasive alternative to the spiral downward that the incumbent has (mis)lead us into."

Bret Vallacher, 16, St. Andrews School

"Although this debate proved to be the most entertaining, the candidates' contentions have surpassed repetitive and reached mind-numbing. There is a significant difference between using colloquialisms to appeal to the nation and simply conveying sheer ignorance. The president crossed that line."

Anjali Sharma, 15, Pine Crest School

"Since the second debate both candidates have grown hostile toward each other. But now both of them have seemed to even out the playing field. Unfortunately for Bush, his political growth is too little, too late. Overall, these debates have turned out to be quite a debacle for Bush's campaign."

Shivam Upadhyaya, 13, Stranahan High School

Bremer flip-flops

Is Bremer setting the record straight or executing a spectacular flip-flop?

In a NY times op-ed (likely ghost-written or edited by the same group of slick scriptwriters who helped the President with his case for the Iraq invasion) he argues that he still believes that the US didn't have enough troops last year to prevent looting, noting that the military commanders ("individuals of goodwill") disagreed with him:

The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

Nice spin about why we went in with so few troops--Bremer avoids saying we planned for the best case scenario--rose petal receptions, Iraqis fighting alongside American troops, etc.

Assuming Bremer is being honest--not showing up with enough troops because you don't want to alienate Iraqis was also a misguided tactic that should have been corrected early, but clearly the military brass wasn't prepared to listen to the civilian leadership.

Contrast Bremer's "we'll never know", with his earlier, more accurate "paid a dear price" and it is evident that not having enough troops allowed insurgents to regroup and attack with impunity.

Attacks against Americans, a key indicator of stability, have only increased in 2004.

At the start of 2004, they were actually going down, from 735 last November to 410 in February this year. Since then there has been an increase to 2,700 in August and 2,400 in September.

The August 2004 figure represents a 400% increase over March 2004.

Are we any better off than last October when an alarming rise in attacks prompted USA today to note:

There were few attacks against coalition forces immediately after Baghdad fell in April. But by early summer, the Army said attacks were averaging about a dozen per day. In September, the number of attacks exceeded 20 on some days. The attacks are killing an average of three to six American troops per week.

The increase in resistance suggests that raids on rebels and their arms caches so far are failing to reduce the number of attacks against the U.S.-led occupation.

"The enemy has evolved," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, said Thursday in Baghdad. "It is a little bit more lethal, little bit more complex, little bit more sophisticated and in some cases a little bit more tenacious."

A few months later, in January 2004, Sanchez's replacement John Abizaid again predicted a rise in attacks in the runup to handover to sovereignty but did not request additional troops.

Other US commanders in Iraq have recently insisted that American forces have "turned the corner" in the fight against insurgents, and that the members of ousted President Saddam Hussein's government who were leading the resistance had been "brought to their knees".

The bottomline--all top commanders predict a rise in violence as milestones near, but then they continue to cling to this delusion that increasing violence could be combatted with fewer troops or with more Iraqis taking on the burden, a delusion since violence has not tapered off as milestones were passed--toppling of Saddam, creation of CPA, handover of sovereignty, runup to elections--each milestone has been bloodier than the previous. Iraqi forces have proved less than capable of shouldering the burden.

Given this pattern, given Bush's election year reluctance to commit the troop levels necessary to quell the violence, will the elections in Iraq usher in peace?

I suspect even Bremer knows the answer to this one.

Duelfer report weakens Bush preemptive doctrine

The Duelfer report has something for everyone, however, it endangers the Bush administration's pre-emptive doctrine and highlights the risk of basing wars on a complex, composite rationale and on less than accurate intelligence.

For example, Iran can launch strikes against American troops in Iraq and claim protection under the same principles forwarded by the White House.

Under this hypothetical scenario, Tehran does not need to provide conclusive intelligence to win the global test and UN protection. It can cite the hostile history of relations with America in general and the Bush team’s stated goals of regime change in Iran in specific—usurp the Bush doctrine—to justify an attack against American soldiers.

Terrorists like Al Qaeda have started to posit moral equivalence between those who wage War on Terror and the actions of the "resistance" and "martyrs". In fact, just last week, Ayman Zawahiri urged Muslims to launch a “preemptive” strike against Americans in Iraq and elsewhere.

Another example, the next time an Islamist suicide bomber strikes in Russia, Moscow could use that as a pretext to invade Saudi Arabia, the spiritual center for Wahabbi Islamist terrorists, and an American ally in the “War on Terror”.

A lot of bad things have stemmed from faulty intelligence used by President Bush to justify invading Iraq.

But the biggest mistake this administration has made is to adopt shifting rationales to compensate for the faulty intelligence--admitting the intelligence blunder early would have allowed Washington to regain the credibility necessary to retain the preemptive war option.

Unfortunately, as things stand, the next time America needs to strike preemptively it will find fewer takers for its position, especially if President Bush is still in charge.

This is why many advocate regime change in Washington.

Halliburton banned in Nigeria for losing radioactive materials

Speaking of bribes...Halliburton is under investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly bribing Nigerian officials.

That's the good news (seeing who runs the Justice Department): Nigeria has banned Halliburton for...losing radioactive materials that could be used to make a dirty bomb!!

The two radioactive materials, which contained caesium-137, were reported missing by Halliburton while in transit between the southern Nigerian oil cities of Warri and Port Harcourt in December 2002. Efforts by the Federal Government to recover the lost radioactive materials since 2002, which has taken government officials to Germany where the materials were transferred, have not yielded results.

More here and here

Isn't this ironic--Halliburton losing radioactive components for a dirty bomb even as their former boss worried about Saddam slipping such components to terrorists?

It's official: Saddam did not have WMD

Charlie Dulfer

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam" tasked to take this up once sanctions ended.

Of course, Saddam didn't have a written WMD strategy or WMD policy making group--he feared disloyal insiders who might defect with this information. The dictator was careful not to provide the US a pretext for war.

This shows that Saddam got religion--he realized there was no risk-free path to developing WMD. Rather than seek another bloody confrontation with the US,

He hoped for improved relations with the United States and, over several years, sent proposals through intermediaries to open a dialogue with Washington.

In other words, a few more months of sabre-rattling and inspections--as John Kerry proposed--would have transformed Saddam into Gaddaffi.

People of honor admit when mistakes are made. Duelfer was brave to say, we were "almost all wrong". Unfortunately, the Bush team appears incapable of such honesty, preferring instead to deluge their base with peurile propaganda at the risk of incurring widespread global (as in including your own countrymen) ridicule.

Rumsfeld, Bremer flip-flop

The Bush administration is finally losing control of its message.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former US administrator in Iraq Paul "Jerry" Bremer straying from the White House script, are retracting their statements about mistakes committed by the Bush administration both before and following the invasion of Iraq.

This is a body blow for the Bush reelection campaign and it follows the flip-flop last month by the President when he declared that the "War on Terror" could not be won, only to correct himself a day later.

See also: White House does not dispute Bremer's statement on troops

Bremer critique raises furor

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to say whether Bremer had pleaded with Bush for more troops. "We never get into reading out all the conversations they had," McClellan said.

Bremer: More troops were needed after Saddam's ouster

First Colin, then Tenet, then Rumsfeld, and now Bremer. You get the sense that Bush's closest people are smelling defeat and have decided to go out with a clean conscience.

Coming on the heels of Rumsfeld's admission that there was no "hard evidence" of an Al-Qaeda-Saddam link and that the intelligence about Saddam's WMD was wrong, another body blow for the Bush administration, this time from Paul Bremer.

The former U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq says the United States "paid a big price" for not having enough troops on the ground after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

L. Paul Bremer, speaking Monday at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, said "horrid" looting was occurring when he arrived to head the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad on May 6, 2003.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

Bremer added that ousting Saddam was "the right thing to do."

A senior Defense Department official said that Bremer never asked for more troops and expressed annoyance the ambassador appeared to be second-guessing the advice of military officials. Bremer stepped down after the June 28 handover to an interim Iraqi government.

Iraq was a good thing--a noble mission--but poorly executed by an incompetent, cocky President who discarded caution because he wanted to prove he could do it better than Father--that he was more right than all those wimps who advised him against the undertaking.

In response to Hussein's aggression, Bush 41 sent 660,000 troops to the Persian Gulf in 1990; Rummy (who also had this thing to prove about the new agile, flexible, military) told Bush 43. we could do it with a fifth as many. And then you had a bunch of discredited neocons (rejected by Clinton) who, from the rarified atmosphere of think tanks, were stoking the President's vulnerabilities--chiefly a lack of common sense.

Rumsfeld goes "off-message"

18 months and 1000 US fighters dead, we no longer control the major cities in Iraq. The 3 weeks to Baghdad romp was a trap--the enemy encircled us--as Saddam said it would in this interview.

...if the Iraqis are subjected to aggression or humiliation they would fight bravely.

Other memorable quotes:

Saddam: If the purpose was to make sure that Iraq is free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then they can do that. These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket.

Benn: I have another which has been raised: Do you have links with al-Qaeda?

Saddam: If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it. Therefore I would like to tell you directly and also through you to anyone who is interested to know that we have no relationship with al-Qaeda.

Yesterday, Rumsfeld: No "hard evidence" of Iraq Al Qaeda link.

BBC has more on this.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

His statement was in marked contrast to what he said in September 2002 when he described the evidence of a link as "bullet-proof."

Looks like John Kerry has a friend.

Rumsfeld was courageous to go off message and say what he did. The rest of the world doesn't believe the earth is flat, saying so merely to stay on message doesn't make it so or buy us credibility.

That Bush did not challenge Kerry's assertions about WMD or Al Qaeda connection in the first debate is also revealing, coming as it did only days after that comment about the war on terror being unwinnable. (Well, duh, you can't defeat terrorists with conventional military tactics.)

This is now no longer a question of credibility but one of competence. Using wildly exaggerated WMD evidence and discredited Al Qaeda links to invade Iraq has shattered our credibility. The word of the United States is no good.

Invading an Islamic nation with 130,000 troops when most were advising double that number, not planning for
the postwar period, Abu Ghraib, etc are signs of gross incompetence.

We need to regain credibility if we are ever to have another "De Gaulle moment".

"I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."" --Kerry, first Presidential Debate.

Distrust of Muslims Common in U.S.: Poll

When respondents were asked what comes to mind when they hear the word Muslim, 32 percent responded with a negative image and 2 percent offered a positive image. The remaining 67 percent gave a neutral response, which CAIR officials called somewhat encouraging.

It's a CAIR poll, so take it with a grain of salt.

Among the poll's findings:

* People younger than 45, African Americans and people with Muslim friends or colleagues generally had more favorable views about Islam than did other Americans.

* Those with the most negative attitudes tended to be white males who had no more than a high school education and who described themselves as conservative or Republican.

Putin: Saddam planned terrorist attacks on US

In the first debate, when charged by Kerry that the nation was led to war in Iraq on discredited intelligence, Bush should have hit back with this. (More hereand here).

Putin: Preparing pre-emptive strikes

Full story

Moscow's threat to launch preemptive strikes on terror bases around the world following the school massacre in southern Russia drew support from London and Washington today but sparked misgivings in several other capitals.

...In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said today that Russia's stance was "understandable" and within international law.

"I think the reaction is an understandable one," said Straw. "The United Nations charter does give the right of self-defence and the UN itself has accepted that an imminent or likely threat of terrorism certainly entitles any state to take appropriate action."

...A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington did not oppose Russia's stance.

...Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan meanwhile took issue with Moscow's position, saying no country "no matter how powerful" can combat terrorism "with a one-sided approach, saying 'I will act and I will clear up the matter'."

So if an Arab terrorist blows up, say, a school in Moscow, would Putin invade Saudi Arabia, our ally in the "War on Terror"?

Will the UN intervene?

Meanwhile, Islamists rediscover the joys of preemptive wars, too as seen from this somewhat outrageously titled AFP story.

Dubai: Al-Qaeda’s number two leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has hijacked the US concept of a pre-emptive strike — used to try to justify the invasion of Iraq — to urge young Muslims to attack countries backing Washington and Israel, analysts said on Saturday.

In an audiotape broadcast on Qatar’s Al-Jazeera television on Friday, Zawahiri effectively called on Muslim youth to “take the initiative and wage a preventive war, a concept championed by the United States,” Abdelbari Atwan, editor of the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, told AFP.

Kerry: Conflicted As Usual

The most immaculately constructed rationale for removing Saddam came from none other than John Kerry, the Democratic Presidential candidate.

"I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us. It's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds, or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. ... He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups.," Kerry said in September 2002.

The short (10 min) Kerry on Iraq documentary, a devastating compilation of Kerry's hawkish and dovish statements on Iraq, reveals a man with a unique capacity to debate, often brilliantly, both sides of an issue.

It is unlikely that Kerry is bipolar--an innocent flip-flopper. He is genuinely conflicted whether America is a force of good. In the late sixties, when he saw America as a force of good, he sent himself to Vietnam for four months where he decided America was worse than the Communists it was fighting. Upon his discharge from service, Kerry faced a choice--criticize the Communists, the Soviet Union and China for arming and supporting the mass murderers in Vietnam, or lambast Americans who went to Indochina to fight Communism (or remain silent and go on with life, as many did).

Kerry chose to call his own comrades "war criminals."

This year, Kerry had a similar choice--denounce the terrorists in Iraq for attempting to derail the march to democracy, or praise American troops for overthrowing a brutal dictatorship and supporting the democratic process. Kerry chose to call the mission a failure and declared he would not have removed Saddam.

But only a few months ago, Kerry was offering a strategy for Iraq. I noted then that most of it he hadplagiarized from the Bush team (a must read!)...all the stuff about getting the UN involved was already codified six months earlier in UN resolutions authored by the US and Britain.

Today, Kerry delivered yet another shameful, disingenious tirade against the Iraq mission that will only embolden Islamist terrorists and dishearten troops.

By describing Iraq as a failure, Kerry will undoubtedly alienate military families--who wants to hear their sons and daughters are messing it up in Iraq?

Missing, of course, is Kerry's alternative to the removal of Saddam--continue the genocidal sanctions that had already killed a million Iraqis between 1991-2003, the so-called period of peace? Most Iraqis agree--the draconian embargo was more devastating than the Iran-Iraq war.

The impact of sanctions (which were imposed on Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait) was harsher than the pain caused by the war with Iran, during which we lost the flower of our youth and the best of our men.

The thing about sanctions was that they penetrated every aspect of our lives.

The middle classes and those with limited incomes were hardest hit.

The share of pain endured by women (because of sanctions) was not less than that suffered by men.

Whatever the mistakes committed by the Bush administration in Iraq over the last year, elections, the first of its kind in an Arab country, will be held in January. Thanks to Kerry's authorization, Saddam and his sons no longer have the capacity to build WMD or launch oil-driven wars.

The Arab world can no longer claim that America, which has sacrificed a thousand of its own, is not interested in democracy in the Middle East.

Muslims can no longer complain about the aid to Israel--Americans have spent over $200 billion to liberate and rehabilitate Afghanistan and Iraq.

But for those 4 months in Vietnam, little Kerry has done before or hence demands a vote of confidence.

Nowhere to flop

Krauthammer gets it right.

With Howard Dean rocketing toward the Democratic nomination, Kerry played to his deeply antiwar party by voting against the $87 billion to fund the occupation.

Two months later, with Saddam Hussein caught and the war looking better, Kerry maneuvered again, slamming Dean with: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Kerry is now back to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," a line lifted from Dean himself. So we are not better off with Hussein deposed after all.

These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue. When Kerry went off windsurfing during the Republican convention, Jay Leno noted that even Kerry's hobbies depend on wind direction. Kerry on the war has become an object not only of derision but of irreconcilable suspicion. What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?

As Iraq suffers another horrific week of bloodshed, even the most stout-hearted supporter of the Iraq mission must be wondering whether we were mistaken in our belief--Iraqis, perhaps, are incapable of accepting Americans as liberators and friends.

And Democrats must be kicking themselves that Howard Dean isn't on the ticket.

Kerry Campaign: Lying again about the Saddam-9-11 link

This marks a retreat to a tactic that has worked well for the Democrats: Distort the oppposition's statement and then charge them with misleading the American public.

Both Bush and Cheney never said Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks...despite the fact that no evidence has emerged that absolves Saddam of an involvement in that operation...despite the fact that the September 11 commission described contacts between Saddam's regime and Al Qaida.

Last September Bush said: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," adding "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Cheney displayed the right level of caution in an NBC interview that same month when he said "I don't know" when asked whether Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

So where is the "implication" that the Kerry campaign has seized upon in their latest, desperate assault?

Edwards took issue with Cheney's comments at a townhall in Cincinnati yesterday where the Vice President noted, rightly, that Saddam had "provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists for years," including al-Qaida.

"Vice President Cheney should not say the kind of things he said Friday and the president should not mislead the American people by implying there's connection between September the 11th and the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein," Edwards charged.

If Edwards doesn't become VP, he might look into joining Saddam's defense team.

Bush TANG Memo: Fake?

Anti-Bush blogs swear the memos were produced using an IBM Selectric Composer or an IBM Executive; pro-bush blogs insist the memos are not-too-clever forgeries that were likely done with Microsoft Word. Both sides have been maneuvering intensely to support their respective positions.

My take: The Memo may not be the work of Microsoft Word or a PDF conversion. It could indeed be the product of a typewriter. The question we should really be asking: was it written in 1973 by Killian, or later...by someone else?

The fact that these showed up mysteriously--that not even the White House, not even Killian's family- was aware of their existence--should raise serious doubts about their authenticity.

But who would have put these out there and what was their objective? Kerry supporters avenging the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads?

Or Bush supporters attempting to discredit CBS and the DNC?

As one DNC pollster noted, if these memos are forgeries, the Presidential race is "over".

When kerning characteristic of 70s era typewriter becomes a critical issue in a Presidential election...

The Cost of the War on Terror: 60,000 American lives; $2 trillion

A thousand Americans have died in Iraq since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, giving the mission's opponents the statistic they have impatiently been waiting for.

It is time for the President to level with the American public about the long-term costs of the War on Terror (WOT). Bush has already declared that we will be engaged in it for many decades--some experts believe we may not see its conclusion in our lifetime.

Now Bush needs to redefine the WOT and estimate how many lives we will lose fighting and winning it. Here is how he can approach it:

First, this is not just a war on terror, but a war on extremist Islam. This form of Islam takes many forms: in Iraq, Saddam practiced a form of militant Sunni Islam that sought to unite the Middle East under a Sunni Arab ruler--him. Bin Laden practiced a much more radical--Wahabbi--Islam that sought to unite the Muslim umma under a caliphate--him.

Both forms of Islam were manifestations of a fundamental breakdown in Islamic societies. The WOT seeks to repair and transform these societies.

Second, since September 11, we have lost over 4000 American lives to the WOT. By the time a recognizable victory is achieved in this war, we may lose 60,000 Americans--more than were lost in Korea or Vietnam. This may include civilian American lives lost to acts of terror on American soil and around the world. However, casualty figures could be significantly larger should the enemy resort to WMD or other means of mass murder.

Third, we may end up spending over $2 trillion on this war. This figure includes the costs of military action, maintaining peacekeeping troops, financing moderate Muslim opposition movements in target nations, post-action reconstruction, and funding reform initiatives--schools, universities, media, etc.

By setting these expectations, Bush will have prepared the American public for the worst. The administration must also admit that the spate of Islamist attacks globally over the last few weeks are not the desperate acts of an enemy that senses defeat.

This enemy is not centralized and doesn't get its orders from a single source. Islamism is a self-directed, nihilist cult that has, over the last few decades, always managed to find volunteers. Just such a group fought and wore down the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Moderate Muslims and friendly Muslim regimes are our best and last hope if we are to minimize loss of American treasure to a war with this cult.

How to convince someone that removing Saddam was a good idea

We live in strange times, don't we, that we even have to do this?

Who would have thought that a nation that has always sought to liberate millions from tyranny would one day question its own intentions in Iraq.

How did we get this way? How did we go from selflessly sacrificing American lives to bring freedom to complete strangers to believing that we would launch a war for oil?

The next time someone tells you that Bush misled you into a war, resist the urge to bark an expletive.

Take a deep breath challenge their grasp of history--remind them of America's sacrifices in the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Confront them with facts: Why would a $11 trillion economy spend $200 billion and a thousand lives on Iraq, which can produce barely $15 billion worth of oil per year?

If they insist that the war to remove Saddam was unnecessary, educate them about the alternative.

Containment? Continue sanctions and inspections? Be prepared to receive glowing approval for this strategy then remind them that containment killed a million Iraqis between 1991 and 2003, left Saddam and his sons firmly in power, while it rewarded Bin Laden with thousands of jihadists.

Inform critics that in his 'Letter to America' a month after 9/11, Bin Laden dedicated the attacks to the suffering of the Iraqi people and to avenge the placement of infidel troops on Saudi soil--troops that were positioned there to enforce the containment of Saddam.

Lift sanctions? Allow Saddam to get out of the box to reconstruct another million-man army, acquire WMDs and invade Kuwait? Tell them that in his last court appearance, Saddam insisted that Kuwait belonged to Iraq.

Finally, explain that Bush inherited an Iraq policy that desperately needed a major overhaul. America's success in the War on Terror necessitated the winning of hearts and minds of Muslims and this was not possible as long as Washington supported the draconian sanctions against innocent Iraqis.

Admit freely that although this administration has made a mess out of marketing the war and blundered quite a bit post-Saddam, they did not mislead the American people about the consequences of not removing the dictator when he was at his weakest.

Remind them that the end goal of sanctions was...regime change--capturing or killing one of world's most evil human beings.

The Bush bounce: End of Kerry

What is the significance of the Bush bounce as reported by a LA times poll?

Nothing. Yet. National polls take a backseat to state-by-state and here, Rasmussen projects Kerry ahead, however, with many states in the toss-up column.

What this means, perhaps, is that the anti-Kerry campaign by Vietnam Swift Boats veterans has been successful in planting the seed of doubt: Is Kerry trustworthy?

Rasmussen polls on this question put Bush comfortably ahead.

And Bush would probably beat Kerry had the question been about patriotism--which is defined variously depending on which party you support. With American athletes flying high in the Olympics and the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks around the corner, the country is torn between celebration and the desire to feel more contemplative about its role in the world, but there will be felt, by most Americans, a need to unite around something common, to feel more patriotic.

Could it be Iraq which still consumes American lives? Positive opinion in the media about Iraqi gratitude and competence is in short supply, in contrast to comparisons to Vietnam which have been flung about by the Kerry campaign and top-ranking Democrats like Ted Kennedy.

Yet, such is the power of Vietnam that even those opposed to the Iraq operation do not wish a repeat of that debacle. The unfinished business in Iraq following Gulf War 1 did not provide a satisfying antidote to the "Vietnam syndrome" and Gulf War 2 must be won at all costs, some voters must be thinking.

Retreat in the face of Iranian-backed thugs and Baathist terrorists bankrolled by Saddam's vast missing fortune will be the sort of defeat no patriotic American can stomach.

However, a swift unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, as Kerry imagines, while imprudent, may save American lives, leaving Iraq to sort itself out.

Kerry, who returned from Vietnam to urge a withdrawal from the jungles of South East Asia, does not appear entirely convinced himself that Iraq is Vietnam. This is where the Democratic supporter feels let down. Kerry fans want their candidate to outline an Iraq strategy that isn't authored by Bush.

Meanwhile, despite the onslaught of negative publicity about his every move in office, Bush has managed to project an unusually stubborn optimism about the future.

That, perhaps, is Bush's greatest strength--no matter how bleak things look, he holds out the promise of a better tomorrow. And no one has ever lost an election for being more optimistic.

Kerry: What has he done for the economy?

Twenty-two states reported a drop in payroll jobs last month, double the number for June, according to new Labor Department statistics. Among them were six of the states that could decide this fall's presidential election.

The declines in most cases were slight, but they drove home the frailty of the jobs recovery and highlighted risks to President Bush's re-election strategy. The White House has been counting on consistent, robust growth by now to restore confidence in the economy and counter grim news from Iraq.

Trust the Democrats to celebrate the misfortunes of fellow Americans.

Who cares that 22 states reported a drop in payrolls as long as six of them happen to be so-called battleground states, a fact self-declared liberals cannot look beyond because they think this somehow improves the electoral chances of their candidate who has done...exactly what, again for the American economy--or for that matter security, two issues foremost on the minds of voters this election?

In his two decades in the Senate, Kerry voted to slash funding for major defense weapons systems--upto $50 billion in Pentagon spending--which would have resulted in the loss of thousands of high-tech jobs.

Worse, Kerry channeled his contempt and loathing for the CIA by proposing cuts in intelligence funding--voted against the creation of good jobs and against training and equipping good people in critical language skills, which could have helped prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11. (Now he is suddenly pro-intelligence).

Kerry also voted for NAFTA, which sent thousands of jobs overseas. (Now he assails Benedict Arnold CEOs and swears he will punish corporations that export American jobs.)

And just recently, he voted against President's tax cuts--cuts which even the most embittered Bush critic will agree have aided the recovery. Even on this issue, however, he has shifted toward Bush--threatening tax increases on those who make over $200,000--those who drive the economy--but sustaining Bush's reductions on middle-class Americans.

"What he's saying is that even though I'm criticizing Bush, I've got the same goal he does," notes Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan Washington group that focuses on deficit reduction. "Kerry does a good job explaining why deficits matter, but I think the actual numbers he's putting out don't necessarily match the rhetoric."

Troop Redeployment

The inimitable Charles Krauthammer doles it out lavishly.

Democrats accuse the administration of politicizing the redeployment by bringing it up as a campaign issue. This truly is precious. The Democrats turned their convention into a four-day teach-in celebrating the Swift boats of the Mekong River circa 1968 -- and then question the legitimacy of raising as a campaign issue for the consideration of the nation the most significant redeployment of U.S. troops abroad since the Korean War.

And yes, a New York times editorial actually tried to defend the status quo arguing, "the military will also lose the advantage that comes with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in other cultures."

As Krauthammer notes: "Seventy-thousand GIs parked in Stuttgart, practicing their German and listening to Wagner. Finally, a military deployment the New York Times can support."

Possible candidates for future US redeployments--Bulgaria, Poland, and Uzbekistan--the other "other cultures" have a right to feel insulted by the Times.

Bush to withdraw troops from Europe, Asia

Bush haters are desperately spinning conspiracies about this move (election year ploy, etc), but it is both smart and long overdue.

However, it may take up to 10 years to complete the withdrawal, which is disappointing.

Nearly 14 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US will open bases in the territories and satellites of the old Evil Empire: Poland, Bulgaria, and Uzbekistan, to name three. Now that's progress.

Yes, the German economy may suffer and they may dislike us more.

But it is what it is.

Bush's Albatrosses

David Broder today:

The factors that make President Bush a vulnerable incumbent have almost nothing to do with his opponent, John F. Kerry. They stem directly from two closely linked, high-stakes policy gambles that Bush chose on his own. Neither has worked out as he hoped.

The first gamble was the decision to attack Iraq; the second, to avoid paying for the war. The rationale for the first decision was to remove the threat of a hostile dictator armed with weapons of mass destruction. The weapons were never found. The rationale for the second decision -- the determination to keep cutting taxes in the face of far higher spending for Iraq and the war on terrorism -- was to stimulate the American economy and end the drought of jobs. The deficits have accumulated, but the jobs have still not come back.

"The weapons were never found."

And they will never, ever be sought after, developed and deployed against unsuspecting humans by Saddam or his sons or his extended family. The Hussein mafia is the albatross.

In his recent court appearance, Saddam announced defiantly that Kuwait belonged to Iraq. A few minutes later he was led away in chains. Quite a stunning change in fortune from 1990 when a similar statement preceded a possibly drug-induced invasion and annexation of Kuwait. America was forced to deploy 660,000 troops--42% of the US military--to the Persian Gulf to confront this nuiscance. Nearly 200 Americans never made it back from the desert war.

Bush 43 wasn't the one who made the mistake--repeat a thousand times David Broder: it was a ghastly, costly mistake--of sparing Saddam in 1991. Nearly a million Iraqis died from the subsequent sanctions while American tax payers footed the bill ($10 billion annually) of stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, angering Bin Laden who later attacked America. A lot of very bad things radiated from Saddam.

"The deficits have accumulated, but the jobs have still not come back."

Wrong. Good jobs are here for the taking. Technology, especially, is the place to be again. IT spending has gone up across both commercial and government sectors.

The real bad news is that we have a shortage of qualified labor, not good paying jobs.

A recent study by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) reported that as many as 425,000 high-tech jobs would go unfilled in coming years.

Corporate America will do whatever it needs to ensure that the work that needs to be done gets done. In the nineties, the Y2K scare and the Internet boom (or mirage) forced the US to recruit foreign labor--H1-B visas were thrown about like confetti.

When the recession hit, many of these workers were laid off and sent back home. Some stayed and waited it out. When the economy rebounded, these foreign workers were well-positioned for a more competitive technology environment, and some did, it could be argued, take jobs away from Americans.

Shortage of qualified labor at home, advances in communication technology, abundance of high-skilled, cheap technologists overseas (China, India)--these are the real reasons why outsourcing became big.

The antiquated public education system Bush inherited is the albatross.

Enter Bush's technology agenda: "Promoting Innovation and Competitiveness":

# Improved Math and Science Education. President Bush signed into law legislation that provides $160 million in 2002 for a new math and science partnership program. These funds are a down payment on an ambitious, five-year $1 billion initiative. This program will link elementary and secondary schools with technology-savvy colleges and universities, strengthening math and science teaching and education at all levels.

# Strengthened Corporate Research and Development. The Administration has proposed broadening access to the research and experimentation tax credit to make it easier for companies to deduct many costs associated with developing new technologies and drugs. This reform will take effect by mid-2002, and the Administration continues to strongly support making the tax credit permanent.

# Strengthened Federal and University Research and Development. To encourage increased innovation, President Bush helped push federal R&D funding over $100 billion for the first time in history. The President signed into law funding increases for science and technology at the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce and Transportation.

Would Kerry vote for the Iraq War Today?

Challenged by President Bush to explain whether he would he have supported the removal of Saddam knowing what we now know, John Kerry unloaded another nuanced cop-out:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Bush supporters perceive this as a victory for the President. It is--because it proves once again that Kerry is incapable of a straight answer.

The Senator's statements over the last few years reveal his position on Iraq to be this: He considered Saddam to be extremely untrustworthy, dangerous, prone to deadly miscalculation, and addicted to WMD. But Kerry would have preferred to sustain the sneaky, low-intensity war of containment--sanctions and inspections--collective punishment of millions of Iraqis in violation of the spirit of the Geneva Conventions--than embark upon a politically risky full-fledged military action to bring about regime change in Baghdad. Kerry would have used force only after exhausting the inspections path and only if it could be accomplished with a broadercoalition of allies acting with UN Security Council authorization. And even if the UNSC had balked, approval of the use of force and participation by France and Germany would have satisfied Kerry's criteria for "broader coalition".

Kerry ignores--perhaps he doesn't know better, but most likely he does and he is feigning ignorance--the geopolitical factors that led to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

One of his chief complaints is that Bush alienated allies and the UN. However, truth is that UN Permanent Security Council Members Russia and China are staunch allies of Saddam (from the Cold War era) and would have never approved the Iraqi dictator's removal. Even if France (a Permanent SC member) could somehow have been persuaded to align itself with the US and UK (also Permanent SC members), a single veto by either Russia or China would have scuttled any resolution authorizing force against Saddam. In fact, over the course of 12 years leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Russia and China had demonstrated opposition to all US and British proposals for a tougher tone with Saddam.

Just two months ago, Russian President Putin revealed that Russian intelligence sources had gathered information that suggested Saddam had planned terrorist attacks on American soil "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets".

"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," Putin revealed. Despite this, Putin maintained his opposition to the US-led operation.

John Kerry, a senior member of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, has either seen the information the Russian President is referring to and is being deliberately tight-lipped about it or he has missed it due to his spotty attendance.

Kerry's case of campaign amnesia might prevent him from recalling that in December 1998, following a heated debate at the UN that culminated in the failure to secure the Security Council's authorization (Russia, China, and France all voted against) for a targeted military strike, President Clinton and Tony Blair launched Operation Desert Fox, a US-British--not a multilateral--effort designed to degrade Saddam's WMD capability and to punish Baghdad for rebuffing UN inspectors. Both Russia and China immediately condemned the operation. France also issued a rebuke.

Earlier that same year, Clinton's frustration with the UN led him to back the Iraq Liberation Act, officially acknowledging "regime change" as the US goal. Five years later, a month before Operation Iraqi Freedom, France threated to veto any UN resolution aimed at Saddam's removal, proving the Bush team's own public --and perhaps Kerry's private--conclusion that the UN process was a dead-end.

Second, Kerry knows that containment--sanctions and inspections--was not the answer in 1991 and more than a decade and a million dead Iraqis later, the strategy that was the result of frustration, compromise (the UN opposed Saddam's ouster in 1991), and fear (Bush Sr. was petrified about the prospect of overthrowing the Iraqi dictator and occupying Iraq) had all but lost its aim. The primary objective of (or the political end state desired by) the strategy was regime change. However, on Clinton's watch, Saddam and his allies on the UN Security Council managed to hijack the containment effort. By the late nineties, Russia, China, and France were openly lobbying the UN for a lifting of the sanctions against the tyrant!

While the US was engaged in a low-intensity war with Iraq, three other Permanent Security Council members--whom Kerry has yet to criticize--were all too determined to embrace Hussein.

And while he has frequently condemned the financial cost of the operation to remove Saddam--voted against funding troops in Iraq, in fact--Kerry has yet to admit that the military component of containment was costing American--not French or German--taxpayers between $10-20 billion every year (this included the cost of maintaining an action force and military bases in the Persian Gulf region, patrolling the 'No Fly Zones', routine airstrikes). In all, over $120 billion was spent on containment between 1991 and 2003 and yet Saddam remained firmly in power.

Continue reading "Would Kerry vote for the Iraq War Today?"

Senseless NY Times Rants

This pile of extreme left BS, titled "Tyranny in the Name of Freedom," rips into the Patriot Act for provisions that are too harsh on terrorists and their sympathizers.

A second provision, already deemed unconstitutional in one federal court, was used to prosecute Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Muslim graduate student at the University of Idaho who was charged with using the Internet to offer "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists by posting fatwahs and hyperlinks to a Hamas Web site. He was acquitted by a jury this summer, partly because the judge warned jurors that speech - even speech advocating the use of force or the breaking of laws - is constitutionally protected, unless directed toward inciting imminent lawless action.

Dahlia Lithwick (caution, this link to her bio contains her pic), fails to mention that Hamas's little helper is a Saudi. The last time I looked, Saudis are not protected by the US constitution. Which is why we have a few of them lounging around in orange jumpsuits at Gitmo.

Dahlia is going to be infesting the opinion section for a few weeks, warns the Times: "while Thomas L. Friedman is on leave until October, writing a book."

Bush-Cheney '04 Commercials

I feature in the new BC '04 commercials, titled "Home Ownership" and "Together":

"Home Ownership": Windows Media

"Together": Windows Media

No Bounce

It didn't happen--no dual-digit bounce. Kerry now trails Bush 50%-46% among likely voters.

Analysts say the lack of a bounce may reflect the intensely polarized contest.

Not really. As I noted here, Kerry's Jan-July poll numbers reflect the best he will do--the bounce was already factored in and it largely reflected anticipation of the addition of the more likeable Edwards to the Kerry ticket.

In other words, had Edwards not been at the back of most voters' minds, Kerry would not have polled as well as he has so far.

Visibility cannot possibly help Kerry-- the more the voters learn about him--as they soon will--the Bush-Cheney marketing blitz will launch shortly--the less likely they are to be enamored by his candidacy.

But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention.

Indeed.

90% of Afghan electorate now registered to vote

The UN says 8.7 million of the estimated 9.8 million eligible voters have signed up - 41% of them women. Full story here, but conspicuous by its absence in John Kerry's "all things to all people" speech in Boston earlier.

Howard Dean's deceptive morality

Day 2 of the Democratic Convention in Boston: Rich Lowry unpacks Howard Dean's speech at the DNC Convention.

Dean claimed he wanted "to see America restored as the moral leader of the world."

Was it moral to impose draconian sanctions on 22 million Iraqis--the most advanced Arab society--in order to contain their unelected leader, Saddam Hussein? Over the summer, I posed this question to numerous interns--they hail from Stanford, Harvard, Tufts, Boston College--working for Kerry's re-election.

A surprising number of them didn't even know that nearly a million Iraqis, mostly kids, perished as a result of the US-backed UN embargo.

But during the 12-year period when the sanctions were in force, most antiwar liberals like Howard Dean were assailing this low-intensity, sneaky war. In 2002, Dean's good friend, David Bonior, D-Mich, former House Majority Leader, famously described the sanctions as "infanticide masquerading as policy". Other liberals have written volumes on how the sanctions on Iraq amounted to collective punishment and were thus a violation of the Geneva Conventions, even as their leader, one Bill Clinton, slowly arrived at the conclusion that the containment strategy was a debacle.

In signing the Iraq Liberation Act (1998), Clinton boldly declared that it was time for a new, democratic Iraq to "rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member," noting that this was "in our interest and that of our allies within the region". Clinton insisted that "the evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

So when Bush 43 embraced the Iraq Liberation Act, why all this drama from the Democrats? Why now when Saddam and his sons have permanently lost their ability to build WMD or threaten their own people and neighboring countries--now that sanctions on Iraqis have been lifted?

DNC "Snowjob in the Summer" begins: Nice Set, Bland, Predictable Script, Washed up Stars

Clinton's light blue tie on a white shirt--the colors of the Israeli flag--against a light blue set background was a subliminal gesture toward Jewish voters.

Well, perhaps not. But his speech was so distressingly vacuous, it allowed for all kinds of silly thoughts. Until he said this:

"Democrats and Republicans have very different ideas on what choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our roll in the world.

"Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities¿.Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people."

So much for the rumor that the tone at this Convention will not be anti-Bush, anti-Republican.

But then, his and Hillary's were the only speeches to escape censorship by a DNC desperately trying to portray a united and positive facade to the proceedings.

Say, when was the last time you heard Clinton say something substantive? I mean, Bush decimated Al Qaeda, ended Clinton's 8-year war with Saddam (which Clinton supports to the chagrin of Kerry), wiped out his recession, disarmed Libya without a shot...and all Bill did tonight was wag an imperiously long finger at those damn Republicans?!

But he did it well.

And if you were watching it on NBC, you got to see Brokaw interview Clinton. This reunion of windbags begged for a SNL reenactment.

Hillary: She shrieked. She feigned sincerity. She projected...panic. There was no heart--she knows that a Kerry win will rule her out until 2020.

Prediction: A week after the convention, Kerry will poll five points under. Keep an eye on Rasmussen.

Voter ignorance benefiting Kerry at polls

A recent (7/20-7/22) poll conducted by Time magazine puts Senator John Kerry (46%) ahead of President Bush (44%) in a three-way race with Ralp Nader. In a two-way, Kerry gets 50%, Bush 45%.

Sounds murky for the Bush team, right?

Not quite.

The same poll shows that voters don't really know John Kerry all that well. 67% reported that they know Bush a great deal, but only 29% could say the same for Kerry.

John Kerry's lead could thus be attributed to his lack of recognition--the fact that voters don't really know much about Kerry--his flip-flops on key issues, for example--could have benefited him at the polls thus far.

But this situation could change once the Bush campaign launches their advertising blitz designed to help voters to get to know the "real" John Kerry.

Indeed a recent ABC news poll shows that John Kerry has lost critical momentum on several key issues versus President Bush--economy, terror, national defense, taxes, healthcare, Iraq, education, and the economy. Most importantly, Kerry has slipped badly on personality attributes--honesty, consistency, and leadership.

His [Kerry's] advantage over Bush as the candidate who better "understands your problems" has shrunk to a virtually insignificant four points; it was 18 points last month. Last month it was Kerry +12 as more honest; now it's Bush +6. And it was Bush +5 on leadership; it's Bush +19 now. The Bush campaign seems to have been effective at drawing Kerry in a more negative personal light.

No wonder they are saying that Kerry will have to give the speech of his lifetime at the Democratic Convention.

In the home stretch, the debates could emerge to be the final and biggest advantage in the Bush team's favor: Kerry's long and less than distinguished Senate record, his post-Vietnam war shennanigans, along with his "mother-may-I" foreign policy agenda, his wooing of Iranian mullahs, his "me-toosim" on the Iraq issue, and his faux conservatism will be ruthlessly rehashed shortly.

On a related note, one key campaign reform measure that deserves immediate introduction is the one-on-one debate between the President and the opposition candidates at the Primaries stage. This could help in reducing advertising costs--particularly on sensational ads which most voters tune out anyway.

People tend to respond to candidates who can communicate their positions in person rather than through surrogates and carefully scripted commercials. Early and frequent debates--say a debate a month beginning January of election year--could help candidates galvanize and swing voters earlier.

Obviously this requires major structural changes to the system, but the current process can only lead to a crisis situation where the undecided center decides it is best to remain quietly on the sidelines.

Moore wants regime change in Australia, UK, Italy

Michael Moore, the lardass behind that piece of fiction miscategorized as a documentary--Fahrenheit 9/11--lashed out at world leaders who disprove his assertion that President Bush is the great divider.

Moore labeled Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch supporter of the US-led mission in Iraq, 'disgraceful' and sporting "half a brain" adding that he hoped F 9/11 would convince Australians to dump Howard. (The Australian response? Fitting, one can honestly say.)

Australia wasn't the only one targeted for regime change by the esteemed Mr. Moore: democratic leaders of Japan, Italy, and Great Britain were all assailed for backing Bush's decision to remove the undemocratic dictator of Iraq and lift sanctions on the Iraqi people.

Responding to a question by a Japanese correspondent, he suggested the Japanese people were being betrayed by their Government's decision to commit 550 troops in the southern Iraqi town of Samawa until December.

"To see you involve yourselves in this way is a sad day," he said. "It's a shameful and disgraceful thing."

He also had harsh words for Mr Blair, who has been Mr Bush's most stalwart ally since the decision was made to remove Saddam Hussein by military force.

"I've been racking my brain, trying to figure out what Tony Blair, an otherwise intelligent man, would be doing hooking himself up with president Bush," he said.

"That is something for science to figure out," he joked.

"Maybe someday, someone could do some examination, put him under hypnosis."

The filmmaker was equally damning in his judgement of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi whose Government decided last month to extend the mandate of the 3,000 Italian troops deployed in Iraq until the end of the year.

"If I were an Italian citizen, leaving this film after two hours, I would be wondering, 'What the hell was (Berlusconi) doing hooking up with George W Bush?'" Moore said.

"This is an embarrassment to Italy, and the sooner that there's regime change in Rome, all the better," he added.

Moore's movie does not reveal the hidden costs of NOT going to war--over 10 years, the containment policy would have cost $150 billion--most of this toward maintaining troops in the Middle East--and upto a million Iraqi lives (through sanctions).

Bush ended, not started, the Iraq war

Bush 43 did not start a war with Saddam. In fact, he finished a disastrous, long-drawn, low-intensity war that he inherited from previous administrations--a war that began when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

In response to that aggression, Washington dispatched 600,000 US troops (42% of military personnel) to the Persian Gulf to liberate Kuwait, which, in a recent court appearance, Saddam claimed as belonging to Iraq.

In 1991, the US led coalition comprehensively routed Saddam's forces and forced his withdrawal from Kuwait. Nearly 300 Americans lost their lives to that war. Instead of overthrowing the Iraqi dictator, however, the US, under pressure from the UN, settled on his "containment".

Thus began a low-intensity war that claimed nearly a million Iraqi lives after the declaration of end of combat.

The goal of containment was to bring about a demise of the Hussein regime. Containment resulted in Iraq losing its sovereignty. The UN imposed a draconian embargo, controlled Iraq's trade, oil revenues, and territory. "No Fly Zones" intended to thwart another military advance by Saddam and to protect the Kurds and the Shiites split Iraq into three parts, two of which Saddam did not fully control.

American and British air strikes all over Iraq were a routine occurrence.

In 1998, Bush 41 wrote a piece for Time explaining his reasons for leaving Saddam in power: "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

But since defeating Saddam in January 1991, American taxpayers have unwittingly spent an estimated $10-$30 billion dollars annually (that's $120 billion-plus over a 12-year period) on securing the postwar Persian Gulf environment. This included the cost of stationing on-shore active troops, most of them in Saudi Arabia, much to the resentment of local populations. Osama Bin Laden, who opposed the presence of armed infidels on Arab soil, exploited the issues of Iraq sanctions and foreign troops to recruit thousands of jihadists.

In tabulating the costs and benefits of "containment" we cannot, in good conscience, ignore the million or so Iraqis that perished due to the sanctions regime or the 19 Americans killed when a suicide bomber struck their barracks in Al Khobar in 1996.

This (1991-2003) was no peace. This was a unique, under-the-radar, under-reported war that inadvertently hurt the majority of Iraqis and sourced widespread anti-Americanism in the region.

March 2003 marked a new phase in this conflict--the military action, dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), was undertaken to end the two regimes--Saddam Hussein's and the UN sanctions--that had collectively brought much misery to so many Iraqis.

By removing Saddam, the Bush administration reversed the failed Iraq policy they had inherited. The White House calculated that ten more years of containment would have cost American taxpayers in excess of $100 billion dollars. During this, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would have been consumed by Saddam and the sanctions.

It wouldn't have ended with Saddam. After his passing, the world would then have contended with his sons, who by all accounts were much worse. This was a maniacal family that was addicted to power, domination, and WMD. Iraq would have become another North Korea.

The other option--lifting sanctions--was not feasible. An unfettered Saddam would have quickly rearmed (purchasing weapons from his reliable suppliers Russia, France, and China) and resumed WMD production.

It was thus more prudent to eliminate the Iraqi dictator (and his sons) and spare innocent Iraqis needless grief, as President Clinton noted when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998).

Through OIF, President Bush brought about a political end state that was always the original goal of the 12-year long containment policy—the end of the Saddam Hussein regime.

The systematic weakening of Saddam during the 90s had created a window of opportunity to rid the world of the Iraqi dictator and the Bush team took full advantage of it.

Hillary 2020

A John Kerry win in November followed by a successful first term will shut Hillary out until 2020. In this hypothetical scenario, Kerry will win a second term in 2008 and will be followed by John Edwards. Factor in two terms for Edwards, giving Hillary a shot in 2020.

It will be a shot taken with the burden of 20 years in the Senate--unless Hillary plays her cards wisely and runs for and wins a term or two as governor and gets some "real" administrative experience.

"Say, is it too late to flip this ticket?"

Finally, some dismay from the minority community at Kerry.

NAACP, Minorities, Women: Where is the outrage at Kerry?

John Edwards--he's good looking, has great hair, a Georgetown mansion, cute kids.

So what's wrong?

He ain't black. Or Hispanic. Or female. Or gay.

A party that likes to describe itself as progressive has just admitted that liberalism doesn't deliver a Presidential election.

There is not much to read into this choice. Edwards brings a very particular brand of sex appeal and charisma to the ticket. Democrats were obviously petrified about letting Kerry run with another perceived dullard (like Gephardt).

This is not your grandfather's DNC, which wasn't ashamed to field a wheelchair-bound FDR or an honest, straight-speaking character like Truman.

It was almost inevitable that Kerry chose Edwards. Throughout the summer, the Senator from Mass. enjoyed decent polling numbers primarily because most Democratic supporters knew that Edwards was going to be on the ticket. A Kerry-Edwards platform was being discussed in January. The DNC could not risk alienating the Edwards crowd,

"In any case, a black candidate or a woman doesn't stand a chance," a Kerry insider told me last week explaining that an alternative candidate could have aliented some of the conservative moderates and undecideds.

The alternative--it didn't have to be Sharpton or Mosley-Braun--however, could have given the Democrats a welcome dose of credibility, elevating their superficial platform to the realm of greatness.

Predictably, the Kerry camp has wasted little time in directing some in the black community to put the best spin on their VP choice: Edwards, it is being argued, is "ENERGIZING" for blacks.

"No doubt about it," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). "More so than anyone, [Mr. Edwards] is able to excite broad cross-sections of people with regard to his message of building one America."

At least Mr. Cummings has the courage to reveal that his first choice was Howard Dean.

This faux triumphalism doesn't convince the reliably reasonable Armstrong Williams. The idea that anyone would conclude that black people have been energized by Mr. Edwards is nonsense, he said, calling the choice "offensive."

"No, it has not energized anyone and, in fact, a lot of blacks are upset a black vice presidential candidate wasn't even considered," Mr. Williams said. "There are black candidates out there who are far more qualified and have paid their dues."

Kerry-Edwards: What bounce?

Earlier I gave a couple of reasons why the double-digit lead predicted by Kerry supporters has not materialized.

CNN's Bill Schneider is predicting that Kerry-Edwards will get a boost shortly after the Democratic National Convention--which is less than two weeks from now. But, he says, the bounce may amount to nothing in August once Americans start tuning into the Olympics.

The games will fade into the RNC convention at the end of August, positioning Bush for a strike back, notes Schneider.

We'll see. I find it interesting that the more people are exposed to John Kerry, the less they actually know about him.

Kerry pollster Mark Mellman said Wednesday that there are a lot of people who feel that they don't know enough about John Kerry to make a judgment about him.

...In March, 68 percent of people felt that they knew a lot about John Kerry, but today, 57 percent do...

The lies about faulty Iraqi intelligence

This debate over prewar intelligence about Saddam's WMD is pointless--the decision to undertake regime change was based not on any specific piece of intelligence but on Saddam's track record.

And for good reason: Intelligence is backward-looking--it tells you what has already occured, but it is not a good prognosticator.

Both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in the late nineties that caught the CIA off guard--but even though these were widely condemned and treated to sanctions, we knew that a nuclear war between these two nations was unlikely.

The Clinton administration was similarly stunned when North Korea brazenly test fired a nuclear-capable missile over Japan. This happened after we had secured the North Korean dictator's signature on the Agreed Framework; after we, along with Japan and South Korea, had started bribing Pyongyang with billions of dollars in aid.

We didn't fear the worst because we knew then as we do now that we can count on China and Russia to rein in the North.

At the end of the day, we went into Iraq not on a hunch that Saddam could not be trusted, but on a pretty good understanding--you could call it "intelligence"--that if allowed to get out of the box, he would have quickly rearmed (thanks to his reliable weapons suppliers Russia, France, and China), resumed WMD production and invaded Kuwait (in his first day in court recently, Saddam insisted Kuwait belonged to Iraq).

Putting Saddam in that box wasn't an easy or bloodless process, it should be recalled. Containment was achieved by crudely stripping Iraq off its sovereignty--slicing up Iraqi territory into No Fly Zones, blunting Saddam's ability to channel billions in oil revenue toward million-man armies and weapons programs--we contained him by imposing the most inhumane form of collective punishment ever slapped on a nation in modern times.

Shortly after American troops romped into Baghdad, in May 2003, Bush spearheaded a UN resolution that requested a lifting of the sanctions: "The regime that the sanctions were directed against no longer rules Iraq. And no country in good conscience can support using sanctions to hold back the hopes of the Iraqi people," he noted.

Should sanctions have been lifted with Saddam in power?

In his January 2004 testimony, David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, the organization tasked with putting together a complete picture of Iraq's WMD program, concluded that it was simply more prudent to remove the Iraqi dictator: Saddam and his sons were impatiently awaiting a lifting of the sanctions in order to resume WMD production, Kay reported.

A few weeks ago, Russia's Putin revealed that according to his intelligence sources, Saddam was planning attacks on American soil.

In the end, despite the faulty prewar intelligence, the operation achieved its goals--it preemptively removed a dictator that represented a real danger. Bush's leadership and the sacrifice of American-led coalition troops successfully liberated Iraq from the dual evil regimes of Saddam Hussein and UN sanctions--brought (not restored) that nation a new, genuine sovereignty--and set it on a historic course.

John Edwards: "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country".

Asked on CNN to rank the greater threat--Iraq or North Korea, here's what Edwards said:

" I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat."

That, of course, was a year before the launch of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Last week, the new Kerry ticket met with reporters on board their environment-unfriendly chartered 757 as part of what the New York Times has dubbed a "meticulously orchestrated news media rollout".

Sitting beside Kerry, Edwards, who also voted to remove Saddam, shifted uncomfortably as he fought off "campaign amnesia" while his new boss moaned on about how it was wrong to go into Iraq.

Kerry, it should be recalled, had authorized the war based on intelligence that he saw as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The Times report gets a little creepy:

After a primary in which all evidence suggested that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards enjoyed a proper though not particularly warm relationship, the two men went to great lengths to display camaraderie. They finished each other's sentences, touched each other's arms, laughed at each other's jokes...

...But during a particularly long answer, as Mr. Kerry was listing the ways he planned to improve domestic security and said "third" twice, Mr. Edwards broke into a wide grin before correcting him.

"Fourth," Mr. Edwards said. "You already did third."

"That's why he's good," Mr. Kerry said.

...Accordingly, Mr. Edwards was the deferential No. 2 for most of the interview. But he strayed a bit when asked whether Mr. Kerry, who takes an acoustic guitar with him on the campaign trail, had played for Mr. Edwards in one of the first-class cabins at the front of the plane.

"He played some guitar for me," Mr. Edwards said. "I'm not sure I want him to play again.

I am not sure we want to know what Kerry and Edwards do in the first-class cabins at the front of the plane.

If you had a sneaking suspicion that this whole enterprise was riddled with meaningless gestures and empty rhetoric, today was a good day to confirm it.

Both Edwards and Kerry ABSTAINED from a procedural vote against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Both claim to be against the amendment but abstained from voting against it, fearing their actions could hurt them in the upcoming elections.

A few minutes ago, a Human Rights Commission worker came knocking at my door, soliciting funds and a signature to protest against the Amendment.

I asked her, "Did you know Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?"

She shook her head.

"I don't believe the government should dictate who we can and cannot marry," I said. "In fact, I think it is silly even for straight couples to get a license or permission from the government. I certainly don't think we should burden our gay friends with this oddity. What you do in your bedroom is your right and the law should only step in when someone happens to discriminate against you or try to kill you for your sexual orientation."

I told her I will cough up only if Kerry and Edwards publicly announce their support for gay marriage. Then I directed her to Kerry's door (he lives two blocks down the street) and to John Edwards' mansion (he lives one street over).

"You can't miss Kerry's place," I told the HRC lass. "It takes up nearly the whole block of 33&O and there are usually two black SUV's [Secret Service] parked in front."

She departed, ashenfaced, nevertheless awarding me a sticker with the nice HRC logo .

I think it is a good template for the new flag of the new Iraq.

Kerry will not get a huge bounce from Edwards

Some (mostly pro-Democrat) pundits are predicting a double digit bounce for Kerry now that he has picked John Edwards.

But this is wishful thinking. For the past few months, Kerry's support has been the result of public awareness that he was most likely to pick Edwards. In other words, people were already subconciously thinking about a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

So now that the expected has happened, there is no reason for Kerry to get an obscene bounce. On the other hand, it is quite possible for this ticket to sink in the polls as voters start to come to terms with the slapstick, superficial process that brought Edwards into the fold.

Why Edwards? Why was this so-called progressive party so afraid to pick a black candidate (or a woman)--it didn't have to be Sharpton or Mosley-Braun--but the fact that the Democrats have declared John Edwards to be more qualified than any minority candidate is in itself a damning statement.

India elected a female head of state 30 years ago--they elected one this year, too, but she turned the job down. Sri Lanka (four times), Bangladesh (three times), Pakistan, Canada, Norway, Israel, and Great Britain have not shied away from trusting women with the top office.

The US clearly has to play catch up and the Democrats missed a historic opportunity.

How do you like Kerry now?

A political party that likes to describe itself as progressive might not have picked rich white men--millionaires who insist they are hardwired to the mainstream--to fill the top two offices in the land.

Yet, a recent poll reveals that African Americans are willing to ignore this snub. 87% of blacks say they will vote for Kerry this year.

In a society obsessed with media, image and youth, John Edwards should have been the Presidential nominee--yet the DNC denied him the crucial early support and exposure that it showered on Dean and then hastily piled on Kerry (In all, the Democrats will have spent over $300 million to get their guy into the White House). Despite this, Edwards, a trial lawyer turned Senator, proved to be so sexy in the Primaries that he forced yet another rethink from the Democrats.

The man Kerry called too inexperienced to be President in those same Primaries is now his top pick--a move that is already being described as the mother of all flip-flops by the opposition.

John Edwards is unlikely to even deliver North Carolina, but most Kerry fans--especially those who came to support Kerry because they knew he was going to pick Edwards--are joyously relieved. Some of the more cautious Democrats and independents--particularly Wesley Clark supporters, must be shaken by this choice.

Edwards's selection is an acknowledgement from the Kerry campaign that despite support from media savvy allies like MoveOn.org, things haven't gone as well as they had hoped.

From promoting television ads comparing Bush to Hitler to pushing Michael Moore's anti-Bush film, Fahrenheit 9/11, MoveOn had left little to chance.

But in the end, they couldn't hide Kerry's trackrecord behind his stodgy personality. Undaunted by the struggles in Iraq and the rabid, orchestrated anti-administration media campaign the Bush-Cheney folks have manged to sustain a remarkably focused and deft counterattack.

Kerry's biggest handicap, even his hardcore support will concede, is his experience. His long and controversial stint in the Senate, post-Vietnam shenannigans, flip-flops on key issues (including Iraq), and silly half-truths ("I don't own SUVs") were all brutally exposed, forcing him to pick someone quite unlike him--a relatively "clean", uncontroversial and likeable Southerner, someone who could energize the campaign, smoothly divide ("Two Americas") and move the masses, and generally deflect attention from Kerry's past and personality shortcomings.

The Kerry ticket needed charisma and Edwards has enough for a whole Cabinet.

In all, "Please vote for Kerry because now he has Edwards," appears to be the desperate plea from the Kerry campaign.

** The odds are stacked against a Kerry/Edwards ticket. The last time a Senator became President was in 1963, when Kennedy's assasination brought Lyndon Johnson into the Oval Office.

LBJ was subsequently elected a year later, but he chose not to seek reelection in 1968.

Timing of Saddam's trial could be a mistake

We all knew Saddam was not unfortunately dead, but in a cell somewhere and seeing him in court yesterday, alive and kicking, scorning and intimidating as he confronted the charges against him, one was perhaps less reflective of the insanity of the brute and more contemplative of the great and unnecessary dangers that this trial introduces.

First, Saddam's theatrics promise to both embolden his supporters and opponents of the US-supported interim government and inflame confused passions among his victims. As we have seen from his first day on trial, the former tyrant is still the master at propaganda--his labeling George W. Bush the "real criminal" was gleefully disseminated around the Arab world by Al Jazeera. And he is just warming up.

The media knows this which is why it didn't take long for the circus to set up long-term shop: Iraqis, according to this report are "confused" and "proud":

But even Saddam's critics seemed to take some national pride in seeing the man that ruled them for so long looking strong and defiant.

"To see him pathetic when he was caught was a shame on all Iraqis, because we had been so powerfully ruled by a man that seemed to be such a coward," one man said, who would not give his name. "Now this is the Saddam that we knew -- and even if you hated him -- you feel proud to see him act like a man."

Even before the hearing details were announced, the various news outlets were doing retrospective pieces on Saddam's life and much of the reaction to that was nostalgic as people commented on how young he looked in one photo, or how much he loved children as footage showed him swimming along side a group of tykes. Having spent 20-plus years watching Saddam on television every night -- as satellite television was banned -- crowds turned nostalgic for the previous era.

Others immediately seized the grand Iraqi tradition of conspiracy theories ascribed to even the smallest detail. In the lobby of a hotel nearby the UPI bureau, a large group of men gathered around a television. As the first images were broadcast without sound, the immediate reaction was that it must be a hoax. The after quotes from the proceedings began to be read by Arabic language news services, the paranoia turned to pride as it was apparent that Saddam was arguing with his captors. Then after only a small portion of audio was released, the mood changed back to conspiracy.

"Saddam will never really be tried for he knows all the secrets of Bush and America," one said. "He will tell the world about them and they can't let that happen."

...For his part, Saddam, who appeared without an attorney, seemed to have a sense of humor when asked if he could afford an attorney.

..."The Americans say I have millions hidden in Switzerland. How can I not have the money to pay for one?" he said to the judge.

Expect this kind of reporting to go on for months.

Over on a BBC newsboard bleeding heart Western liberals are already openly expressing pity for the former dictator.

Despite savaging hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Saddam was largely viewed with admiration in the Arab world for his brawls with the United States and Israel. An escalation in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians during his trial could be exploited by Saddam to turn Iraqi public opinion against both the trial and the new government in Iraq. "Palestinians are being slaugthered by Israel with American support while I sit here helplessly, unable to help my Muslim brothers," you can almost imagine Saddam saying.

Broadcasting his humiliation on television is not likely to win hearts and minds of Muslims who generally disapprove of prolonged public circuses.

This trial is a security nightmare--transporting Saddam from an undisclosed safe location to court and back burdens a security apparatus that is already stretched thin.

Saddam should have been killed upon capture or the proceedings against him should have been delayed for a few months.

Debt drives 3000 farmers to suicide

Honor suicides met with unusual response from the new government in India.

Mr Singh is visiting Andhra Pradesh, where nearly 3000 farmers have taken their lives because of crippling debt.

The prime minister announced a federal compensation of 50,000 rupees ($1,136) to each family where a farmer had committed suicide.

Political segregation creates unique opportunity for viable thirdy party

David Brooks shines a light on a troubling trend--the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be ideological in your politics.

In theory, of course, education is supposed to help us think independently, to weigh evidence and make up our own minds. But that's not how it works in the real world. Highly educated people may call themselves independents, but when it comes to voting they tend to pick a partisan side and stick with it. College-educated voters are more likely than high-school-educated voters to vote for candidates from the same party again and again.

That's because college-educated voters are more ideological. As the Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz has shown, a college-educated Democrat is likely to be more liberal than a high-school-educated Democrat, and a college-educated Republican is likely to be more conservative than a high-school-educated Republican. The more you crack the books, the more likely it is you'll shoot off to the right or the left. Once you've joined a side, the information age makes it easier for you to surround yourself with people like yourself. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past generation, it's that we are really into self-validation...We don't only want radio programs and Web sites from members of our side — we want to live near people like ourselves...When we find ourselves in such communities, our views shift even further in the dominant direction. You get this self-reinforcement cycle going, which social scientists call "group polarization."

As a result, "Republican places become more Republican and Democratic places become more Democratic," argues Brooks.

But while Brooks rightly notes that the information age has aided political segregation, he fails to acknowledge the deeper, structural causes for polarization: the influence a party's politics wields among its own constituents. This is no more evident than in the case of a Presidential race where rivals in the Primaries will often cast aside bitter differences and personal animosities and trundle over to support the party nominee while brutally assailing the nominee from the other side.

Why do the likes of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark cheese out and support John Kerry but refuse to vouchsafe for Bush? On many issues, most voters consider--as Kerry's former Primary rivals did--Bush and Kerry to be much more closer than advertised by respective parties--hence the head-to-head polling numbers for both candidates.

In theory, as long as key Democratic and Republican leaders continue to hold cross-party solidarity as taboo and exploit the "information age" to propagandize and polarize rather than inform, Americans will continue to cleave to this destructive trail of divisiveness and partisanship.

But in practice, the combination of an educated voter and the "information age" could eventually lead to a time when the voter finds neither major party candidate to be particularly attractive--creating a surreal opportunity for a viable third-party.

I think that time had arrived in 2000--only there was--and there still is--no viable third-party option.

Which is what keeps American politics so viciously conformist and depressingly lame-brained.

Tuition burden falls by a third

As reported in the USA Today:

What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998, thanks to new federal tax breaks and a massive increase in state and federal grants to most students and their families.

Contrary to the widespread perception that tuition is soaring out of control, a USA TODAY analysis found that what students actually pay in tuition and fees — rather than the published tuition price — has declined for a vast majority of students attending four-year public universities. In fact, today's students have enjoyed the greatest improvement in college affordability since the GI bill provided benefits for returning World War II veterans.

What made the difference: a $22 billion annual increase in grants and tax breaks since 1998.

That 80% jump in financial aid — targeting middle-class families earning $40,000 to $100,000 a year — has more than offset dramatic increases in tuition prices.

See also.

Iraqi sovereignty

What a day! Highlights:

* The quiet, poignant and short (five minutes) ceremony was so apt--a dignified Paul Bremer hands Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Allawi the letter; Allawi peers at it appreciatively through his glasses. Most Iraqis are dressed in suits. Interim Iraqi President Sheikh Yawar, in grand tribal gear, makes a speech of hope that was broadcast around the Arab world--the Arab street is undoubtedly stunned to see a traditional tribal leader spearheading Iraq's flight toward democracy. Then, within minutes of the ceremony, Bremer gets on a military plane and departs Iraq. I have come to admire the way Bremer has handled his role in Iraq. This guy wore the title of Administrator well.

* Allawi puts terrorists on notice: "I warn the forces of terror once again,” he said. “We will not forget who stood with us and against us in this crisis.”

* A gleeful handshake between President Bush and Tony Blair at the NATO summit marks the moment the Coalition has been accused of opposing. Blair nodded his head in triumph several times. Rumsfeld, seated a row behind Bush and Blair, beams.

* NATO pledges to help train Iraqi troops--16 NATO members are already in Iraq.

* The Left's reaction to the news was largely sullen.

* The disgusting, off-hand reaction of the insufferable French: "We have taken note of this step, naturally. The transfer of sovereignty is an event which was expected and is significant. It is a stage in the political process which will continue until 2005... Further stages will follow, in which France wishes success to the interim government and the people of Iraq."

* The equally despicable statement from the new Spanish Prime Minister, Zapatero: "The Spanish government does not plan any participation in the process under way in Iraq."

* There were no terrorist attacks in Iraq today.

Falsely advertised as a documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 strikes box-office gold

"'Fahrenheit 9/11' torches box office records" screams a headline in the USA today.

"First documentary to take top spot" took "an astounding $21.8 million this weekend," notes the story.

Documentary? Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary--it is an op-ed put to film and marketed as a documentary--which is what Michael Moore excels at.

As the numbers for Fahrenheit 9/11 and his previous efforts Bowling for Columbine and Roger & Me prove, no one does profiting from tragedy better than Michael Moore.

The secret to his success lies in a clever bit of repackaging which fools even people who normally shun his conspirational op-eds and books into paying to see those clueless rants transformed to the big screen.

Who pays $10 to hear Moore insist that the military operation in Afghanistan was really about an oil pipeline, a claim already fisked by experts?

Moore's twisted insights have always appealed to a certain kind--people who distrust the mainstream media, big corporations and the US government. No, not radical conservatives, but the conspiracy-minded, ignorant, latte liberals—self-declared intellectuals who struggle to tell fact from fiction. And with Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore broadens his reach--Islamists wouldn't be ashamed to order this flick for their dens.

Moore first revealed himself as a fact-contorter nonpareil in the 1989 "documentary", Roger & Me, in which he tried to establish himself as a standup little guy trying to stick up for the other little guys. R&M, he claims, was about exposing the impact of GM's CEO Roger Smith's downsizing efforts on the common folk in his hometown Flint, Michigan.

Moore blames Smith for causing an impoverished, jobless citizen to be evicted from her apartment on Christmas Eve. He doesn’t mention, of course, that the person evicted was not a GM employee nor does he credit the vehicle maker for employing thousands in that town who were (and still are) well-served by it. He doesn’t say that many unskilled factory workers—“shop rats” were better paid than the college-educated in Flint. He deliberately ignores the fact that it was the Unions that had tried to strangle GM forcing it to look elsewhere.

The moral of R&M--your employer owes you a lifetime of employment and that it is okay to blame others for your own failures. It was an anti-capitalist message masquerading as an anti-establishment tirade.

Roger & Me went on to become one of the highest grossing "documentaries" of all time. It also belonged to--one could argue it spawned--a unique genre--dark docucomedies that writhe with anti-Americanism--to which Moore later added The Big One and Bowling For Columbine. Through seductive narratives he convinced many common, decent Americans that layoffs, globalization, and the gun culture are essentially the outcome of an evil American society.

A society that deserved 9/11.

The day after the September 2001 attacks, Moore wrote an open letter on his web site (which was soon picked up and distributed by Marxists, Communists and Socialists) and charged that “A-rabs” were being unfairly blamed for the attacks.

The tragedy, he declared, was the Bush administration's “race-card” conspiracy to get Americans “whipped into a frenzy against a new enemy”.

“If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!” Moore thundered adding, “In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again.”

And so Fahrenheit 9/11 was born. This time the anti-globalization crusader who has already made millions from global distribution of his work--fine-tunes his formulaic jaundiced view of America for maximal international appeal. This time, George W. Bush is Roger Smith, America is GM, and the terrorists represent the common man fighting back at the source of injustice.

As always, Moore, CEO Hate America, speaks from the heart. And as David Brooks notes Moore, has been alternately sourcing inspiration for and laying the groundwork for F9/11’s international success from his many lucrative ($30,000 per appearance) speaking engagements abroad.

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

In the days after Sept. 11, while others were disoriented, Moore was able to see clearly: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

This leads to Michael Moore's global plan of action. "Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.

Moore doesn't hide from the obvious electoral implications of Fahrenheit 9/11--he says he wants Kerry (who voted to send troops into combat but then voted against a bill to provide them with critical equipment) to replace Bush.

Are Americans smart enough to understand that beyond an anti-American screed F 9/11 is also one long negative campaign ad for Kerry?

Fahrenheit 9/11: The Missing Scene

Dear Michael Moore,

Congratulations! Your latest flick is already a big hit in America loathing circles, and here in the nation’s capital, it is not uncommon to find whole groups of people, many of them foreigners who lined up for hours at an American embassy for a visa, lining up to see you bash those same American troops that are fighting and dying around the world for your freedom.

A friend—he’s French and a Kerry supporter—and another acquaintance, this one working for John Kerry for President, tried to get me to go see Fahrenheit 9/11—they are upset that I am bashing it without even having viewed it.

I correct them—I am not against F9/11—I am anti-Michael Moore.

But it wasn’t always this way. For a while after I stumbled across “Rivethead”, that amazing book by Ben Hamper (where is he?) for which you wrote the foreword and which became the inspiration for your equally amazing Roger & Me, I followed your work with great interest.

You are at your best when you go to extremes to get face time with avaricious, dodgy CEOs, but you crossed the line when you decided to frame the liberation of Iraq as the brainchild of crooked, greedy former oil company executives, Messrs. Bush and Cheney.

An “Oil War”, Michael Moore? What the hell happened to you?

But I am nothing if not fair-minded. So here’s my proposition—you insert one scene into F 9/11, and not only will I go see it, but I will also ask everyone I know to do the same.

The scene? Bill Clinton being serviced by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office while Bin Laden trains the 9/11 hijackers from his (now former) base in Afghanistan. The money shot? Bill stares into the camera and says, "I let Bin Laden get away and then I launched Operation Desert Fox against Saddam. I got confused--see, when Monica was working on my WMD, it suddenly occured to me that Hussein, too, was perhaps working on WMDs. Ooops."

Animation may be necessary to get this across, but seeing how successful you were in depicting President Bush as a clueless, negligent hack who loitered on golf courses while Al Qaeda schemed, I am confident you can pull off the “Blowjob that cost 3000 lives” scene quite well.

Cheers!