Redstate

but doesn't Kerry have an honored spot in Vietnam's war memorial?

I'd resigned myself to becoming a lurker here, but this bit was too juicy to pass up:

Remember when I said that Kerry could make things worse? He can: and he means to, by adding Iraq to the list of Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Mogadishu in the minds of our enemies as a place where America cut and run -- and a place where murderous tenacity reaps rewards. Red State has addressed the awful truth of Kerry's bolt-in-a-hurry plan (which our Iraqi friends can regard only with dismay) time and time and time again. No need to recapitulate it here: the least that can be said -- that must be said -- is that there is no example of this manner of retreat in the face of this enemy that has not ended in blood.

How do you qualify Bush's decision to abandon Afghanistan (power centralized in the warlords, poppy/opium production flourishing, etc.) and the recent troop withdrawals and ceding control of portions of Iraq to insurgents/rebels/terrorists/whatever in Iraq as anything but cutting and running? Did not the administration make a political decision to cut and run in Falluja? Isn't the same thing happening now in Sadr City and other cities throughout that nation? How far back does the US need to draw back into the green zone and how many cities do we need to give to the likes of Sadr and other Islamic fundamentalists before you snap out of the "Kerry would only cut and run" view of the world and see that Bush is currently doing precisely that. I see lots of talk of liberation, but I don't see many instances of the US finishing properly what it started when it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems like the only things we are doing well is mobilizing the local people against us and creating the precise conditions that create the types of people we are fighting against in this "War on Terror".

Back to lurker mode...

... today's Washington Post editorial captures my thoughts in a manner much better than I have expressed them:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6940-2004Sep8.html?nav=rss_o
pinion/editorials

....you didn't read the post at all.

Short version: agreed that those are mostly valid critiques (although calling Afghanistan "abandoned" is silly hyperbole); but this does not ipso facto mean that Kerry will improve things, nor that Bush will not.  In fact, evidence points to precisely the opposite.

Anyway, read the post.

...but rather a museum, in Hanoi.  And you have a definite point.  Was it the one you intended to make?  There are precious few folk outside of the academic world in the American electorate inclined to hold Communist inclinations these days.

I rather like the comparison.  Reagan is immortalized by the free people of a freed, participatory democracy; Kerry is celebrated by the government of a nation most charitably described as an authoritarian kleptocratic pseudo-communist remnant.

my point. It certainly wasn't a counter point to the article! The irony is that some extreme leftists might actually take my comment as a rebuttal to the article, lol.



[Thanks for the correction regarding memorial v. museum. I couldn't remember which it was and stated memorial in lieu of looking up the reference.]

....do you happen to know the name of the museum?  Any web references to it?

Here's a New York Sun article with the classic "it's John Kerry!" line.  Oh, wait - it's in Ho Chi Minh City.  My mistake.

For years, the museum was known as the "American War Crimes Museum." The word "American" was dropped in the mid-1990s. It is now known simply as the "War Remnants Museum."

Looks like a lot of other folks have made the same error, and it's propagated through some right-leaning sections of the net.  Sorry to add my own contribution to that misunderstanding.  Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City, not Hanoi.

Seth, this "mis-exchange" points out an overlooked problem with electronic communication--without the opportunity to immediately clarify, qualify with voice inflections, etc., misunderstanding is common in email messages.  Happens all the time and deserves serious study by communications experts.

Your suggestion that I was accusing Bush of invading Iraq to liberate the people rather than to find WMD's etc. is almost "pre-zactly" the opposite of what I was saying (or, to be generous, trying to say).  Try to follow:

1. Pre-war: Bush implies that invasion of Iraq is needed to remove WMD's that might go to terrorists and because of Iraqi support of terrorism against U.S. (Cheney implies al-Qaeda link.)  Wolfowitz, architect of policy, says these are sufficient reasons, but that a third reason given by some, liberation of Iraqis from humanitarian abuses of Saddam, is NOT sufficient to justify invading.
   
2. Post-war: No WMD's, no clear links to terrorism aimed at U.S. (especially al-Qaeda).  Suddenly, the two reasons sufficient pre-war no longer exist, and the reason Wolfowitz said was insufficient to justify invading becomes the main post hoc justification for the invasion.  If it was not a good enough reason to invade before the war, why is it now given as sufficient reason to have invaded (after the fact)?  (How else to justify Bush's statement that "we were right to remove Saddam from power"?)

In other words, without WMD's, etc., the only clearly demonstrable positive consequence of removing Saddam from power is the "liberation" of the Iraqis--the reason stated pre-war as being insufficent for invading.  Any other direct benefit to the U.S. cannot be demonstrated.  This is smart policy (as well as "honest")?

My criticism is of the incompetence by which this Iraq policy was pursued and the "flip/flop" in the justifications given pre- vs post-war.  By the way, Pat Buchanan (and Tucker Carlson, among others) have similar attitudes about Bush Iraqi policy, so why do you assume that a critic of this policy is not a conservative (or a Republican)? As previously stated, I'm an independent, leaning Libertarian (as of this year).

I read it and mostly agree with the contents. However, the leap of faith that I cannot seem to force myself to make is that Bush (and co.)  is willing or able to take these actions in a competent manner. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your core thesis is that after the election, Bush will finally take the actions necessary to pacify Iraq and crush the rebels/insurgents/etc. While I'm not certain crushing the city of Falluja is the best way to create long-term stability, I can appreciate the military aspect of it. However, where you expect the US to finally act decisively to solve this problem, I doubt that there is the political will to do so.

I'll make the disclaimer that I may certainly be proven wrong and after November we may finally see the massive put down of the Islamic insurgents. However I'm not holding my breath. I expect Bush to back down just as he has done so far and eventually cut and run as Kerry has been accused of supporting in the end, leaving Iraq in worse shape generating more terrorists than there were in Saddam's day. I could be proven wrong and if action is finally taken to break the back of the insurgency, you're free to call me on it and demand that I write that I was wong when posting this.

....I will be quietly celebrating, not calling in chits, no worries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your core thesis is that after the election, Bush will finally take the actions necessary to pacify Iraq and crush the rebels/insurgents/etc.

I wouldn't say that he will, because I've been disappointed plenty of times on that count.  I will say that Kerry won't, and Bush is likely to.  Based on the examples given.

no clear links to terrorism aimed at U.S. (especially al-Qaeda).

Whoa.  Are you being serious?

Surely not.

If I have misinterpreted your statements, I apologize. In my defense, I was taking your consistent stance as an antagonist (don't put too much emphasis on that word) as a context.



If the point is that spinning is going on, yes, I agree. All politicians do that. Is he lying? I don't think so.



That said, I want to provide a different point of view here. I know we probably won't come to agreement, but since you have stated your view, I will state mine. I think your plus/minus column needs to be readjusted a little accordingly:

1) Just as some of the justification evaporated with post-war knowledge, I think other justifications materialized. Just like we didn't know much about the holocaust until we invaded Germany and saw the concentration camps, we had no idea of the scope and horror of Sadam's death camps. I think it is fair that if you are going to subtract reasons from the pre-war justification that you grant new reasons as well.



2) Also materialized is that the terrorists and other Islamo-fascists, have seemed to be drawn into Iraq, almost like a blood letting phenomenon. Given the choice between terrorists fighting our trained troops who have guns and body armor there and the terrorists fighting civilians with briefcases and purses here, I'd prefer the former. Maybe you don't agree with the premise of this dichotomy, but this is my view ;-)



3) Even if you oppose the war, if you are trying to be fair about it, you would also have to grant that Libya is a direct consequence and tangible benefit of our tough policy towards terrorist nations and WMD. That should go into the plus column as well.



4) I'd contend that the no links to anti-US terrorism is overstated. No, I'm not saying Sadam was tangibly behind 9/11, but there is evidence of connections between Sadam and al-Qaeda. I don't expect terrorist to keep minutes during their meetings so we will probably never know the extent or lack of extent of Sadam's participation in anti-US terrorism. On that note, there are some who have put forth the connection between Sadam and the TWA flight that many eye witnesses say was brought down by a missile. Whether or not there is definitive proof, it certainly cannot be dismissed out of pocket (IMO), as "no connection to anti-US terrorism".



5) I don't think you will like this one, but here goes... Many say that Bush flip-flopped on WMD to means of making WMD. That is a more disengenious position than what Bush is being accused of. The WMD argument itself was always two fold, a two legged stool if you will. There were the weapons we believed he had, and then there were the weapons we feared he might make given enough time. Obviously, the ones we though he had were of more immediate concern and received more attention and discussion. Of course it appears that one leg of that stool is missing. The fact that the other leg is still present is not evidence that it was re-spun. It is just common sense that you would emphasize the leg that still exists and not talk as much as the one that didn't pan out. It is a re-write of history to say that future weapons were not talked about at all. At any rate, it is definitely a positive that we won't have to guess about tomorrow with Sadam, a proven person with a penchant for building and using WMD. I'm not inclined to believe in his reform.



6) There are probably a few other soft benefits that balance out the soft negatives, but for brevity sake, I'll leave it at that.

As for the question about Republican/conservative, I never said I thought you weren't conservative (at least I don't remember saying so). However, you haven't given any indication that you are Republican (not that it really matters). I don't assume someone who is against the war to be a non-Republican if that is the only issue I know their stance on. However, given your positions on economic policy, war policy, etc. I don't see a sliver of common ground. Therefore, if I assumed you to be non-Republican, I don't think I was that far off base.

"Pat Buchanan (and Tucker Carlson, among others) have similar attitudes about Bush Iraqi policy, so why do you assume that a critic of this policy is not a conservative (or a Republican)?"

    Just for the record, I don't think you'll get far citing Pat Buchanan as speaking for us conservatives and/or us Republicans.  It should be clear to most by now that Buchanan speaks for himself and not much else.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but your core thesis is that after the election, Bush will finally take the actions necessary to pacify Iraq and crush the rebels/insurgents/etc."

    I think his "core thesis" is that Bush is committed, Kerry is not; I think there is no denying that situations in Iraq (and Afghan) represent tough choices-- really, really tough choices.

    In Fallujah and elsewhere, it really is not an option to just carpet bomb the place into oblivion, and that is only citing one obvious fact in what is a highly complicated and highly,  yes, a highly nuanced situation where military goals and political goals are sometimes opposed and frequently ill-defined.

    My belief is not that after the election Bush "will finally" take some dramatic action to end all resistance, finally, fully and quickly.  Rather, I believe that he will stay committed to the long painful military and political haul necessary, though it will frequently be unspeakably frustrating and sometimes error-laden.

    And my belief of what Kerry would do is... is first of all that I really have no clue what Kerry would do, even if I could believe the things he says and the things he says not... and the things he says.

    Second, if I have to go by his history and my instinctive impressions of him, I would guess that Kerry would do whatever the UN & Theresa & the trial lawyers & most especially the New York Times wants him to do.  What credible reason do I have to believe anything else?

Israel certainly hasn't shown a lack of resolve. Do you think they're close to solving their problems with terrorists?

When the Israeli's targeted terrorist leaders and when they built their fence, both policies had positive impacts to reducing the number of attacks they experienced on their own soil. I'd say, when facing the choice of doing nothing and having bombs set off at a pace greater than one per day over a year, and doing something and reducing the amount of terror, I'd do the latter every time...even if the problem isn't completely solved. Giving up land concessions certainly didn't solve it. Details were revealed recently about the Isreali proposed peace settlement that Yassar declined (I believe last year). It is astonishing the concessions that Isreal offered, and yet it still wasn't good enough.

Along those lines, this needs to be properly thought of as a long term process. We don't undo years and years and years of cutting losses and running from terrorism, with a year or two of having a backbone. It is going to take a long term of being serious and not backing down to have a noticeable impact on the terrorists will to take the fight to us. And as long as they hear people like Kerry campaigning on backing down in six months time, they must be encouraged to have continued proof that many, many, many Americans don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them.

I specifically refer to how Israel's attempts at accomodation have only led to greater bloodshed.

I read the post, but I guess I don't find the evidence as compelling as you do regarding what Kerry may or may not do. I find the factual record of evidence that Bush has failed in prosecuting specific aspects of the WOT simply more relevant than your divination from campaign rhetoric as to what Kerry may or may not do. One is fact, the other nothing mor ethan an (educated) guess. But this election is a referendum on the incumbent.

I'm looking for someone to prosecute the WOT in a specific way, with specific emphasis on our American values.

I guess its just a matter of opinion. Perhaps its a waste of time to argue Bush or Kerry's hypothetical actions, and it would be more appropriate to discuss War on Terror strategy? I know that I for one would be very interested in your views on Hart's book The Fourth Power (see this interview for a brief summary).

Kerry is a hollow shell. He doesn't seem to believe anything or stand for anything.

However, he does seem to enjoy the spotlight and the sense of being well-thought-of at the moment (i.e. by the radical left in 1971; by the Sandinistas in the 1980's; by pro-war Americans in 2003 and anti-war Americans in 2003 (depending on political calculations).

The bottom line? Kerry is focused on HIMSELF. He is completely self-absorbed.

Bush is focused on killing terrorists.

Since we are dealing with "people" who will make hostages of school children and murder them in cold blood, my vote goes to the leader who is focused on killing Muslim terrorists.

....saying they don't believe, er, Kerry's own words on Iraq -- hardly my "divination" -- but zero among them explaining why.

I wouldn't characterize the first sentence in your dKos diary on this as accurate, by the bye.

It never is just a referendum. There is another guy involved too. Even if you believe the incumbent is Beelzebub, if it is very likely that the alternative choice is Satan, you don't elect Satan just because Beelzebub is doing a bad job. To do so would be ludicrous. [Demonic references are tongue in cheek.]



That aside, lets not pretend Kerry doesn't have a long record in the Senate with respect to war and military. To assume he would even execute a WOT is to assume a leopard will change his spots the second he is elected.

Im sure lots of people - probably about 49% - believe that Kerry is useless to America';s national security. I noted that youve tried to explain why, but I don't think your conclusion was purely fact-driven, it's also heavily modulated by your stated partisan affiliation. Not that this is a-priori a bad thing, but your conclusions are by no means objective to the point of absolutely authoritative. I can address each specific area of disagreement if you insist, though I dont see the point of the excercise, as its not my intention to either convince you to vote Kerry or defend Kerry more than the minimum neccessary beyond my specific issues that matter to me in the election.

My first line is innaccurate? You said Bush hasnt done the job right (ie, to your expectations). You think (its likely that) he will begin to to do the job right in his second term. How have I mischaracterized your position?

sure, Bush vs Satan would indeed be a negating force upon my general assertion, but since I don't think either man in the actual real-world race for Nov 2004 is even on par with Cruella de Villa, let alone Satan or Hitler or whomever, I think we are in referendum-upon-incumbent territory nonetheless.

I don't buy the divinations as to Kerry's intended cut and run strategy either. I know it was linked heavily and repeated thrice in the main post, but thats still an opinion of what Kerry Will Do. Im not bound to accept it unconditionally.

Looks like he's doing those drugs again. Poor kid.

I can address each specific area of disagreement if you insist, though I dont see the point of the excercise....

I do.  It would make you the first, for starters; and I'd love to see facts as opposed to hopes stacked against the evidence.  There is no question but that Kerry wants to withdraw from Iraq as soon as he can; and that the forces he asserts will fill that void do not exist and will not exist when he pulls America out.

My first line is innaccurate? You said Bush hasnt done the job right (ie, to your expectations). You think (its likely that) he will begin to to do the job right in his second term. How have I mischaracterized your position?

Your first line:

Red State looks at the "evidence" and draws the not-surprisingly partisan conclusion that Kerry won't prosecute the war on terror in his first term, whereas Bush will begin to in his second term.

Wrong on several counts:

 Partisan conclusions are based on partisanship.  This is based on the fact of John Kerry's stated aims in Iraq.

 I never wrote nor implied that "Kerry won't prosecute the war on terror."  I say he won't prosecute the war in Iraq, and this will have dreadful implications for the broader war on terror.  I don't doubt his intent to do the latter in his own eyes, even if he will assuredly botch it badly.

 Stating that Bush "will begin to to do the job right in his second term" implies two things: that I discussed this in the context of presidential terms; and that he hasn't done things right already.  Both these implications are false.  You and Yglesias both appear to believe that "too-often lackluster" means "wholesale failure."    It does not.

All told, your intro seems more calculated for inflammatory value than any relationship to a thing I actually wrote.

and the post on teh blog too. please evaluate...

The crux of my disagreement with your analysis is the argument that there is evidence that Kerry intends to cut and run. You do a lot of interpretation that I just dont think can be justified as definitive (though your interpretations are certainly plausible).

If plausibility were the standard, id be able to apply much teh same to Bush's own arguments - including his statement that we cant win the war on terror, one that I was disappointed to see him backpedal on because I thought his larger point was somewhat valid.

Ill try to get around to a mor edetaile dpoint by point reply to your evidence, though since you;re also including your prior postson Kerry Cut and Run, its a pretty sizeable package to chew on. Give me time.

There are many comparisons that come to mind when I think of George W. Bush, but I confess that Lincoln and FDR are not on that list. Custer seems more apt. Or the famously bad cinematic auteur, Ed Wood, who many believe had negative talent. When there was a choice, poor Ed Wood always made the wrong one.

Bush's problems are not his generals, nor is it the lack of a great military. No. It is his incompetence, first by neglecting al Qaeda in favor of Star Wars when everyone who knew better was screaming at him to do something about bin Laden. Next, in playing by bin Laden's rulebook after 9/11,  by invading Afghanistan the way he did with few groundtroops and despite the US commanders knowing next to nothing about the country, which inevitably led to US forces getting duped by local warlords while bin Laden, al Zawahiri, and Omar flew the coop, to fight another day, which is exactly what they are doing.

Then, incredibly, Bush actually listened to the "crazies" from Bush I and invaded Iraq, based entirely on bogus intelligence, without a real international consensus (excuse me, how many troops did the country of Western Zxysdjdfysf send again? 5? 2? Forgive my political incorrectness in insulting our countless brave, stalwart partners in Iraq) and without a plan for the inevitable conquering and occupation of Iraq that went beyond enriching Halliburton and the assumption that democracy would spontaneously flower.

This is the man you want in charge of foreign policy for another interminable four years? Oh, please, Tacitus. If you'd like to pretend you're Lemay and advocate indiscriminately bombing the world to kingdom come, okay, you can come up with some pseudo-logical reasons, no matter how nuts they really are, just like Wolfowitz and Co. can. But unlike them, and you, Lemay certainly could recognize a man's egregious failure to perform and he would not have tolerated or served under a commander in chief as incompetent as Bush for even a millisecond. (Would Lemay rather serve under Kerry? Put it this way: Kerry knows better than to listen his kind of apocalyptic crap and wouldn't want him near a place of influence. Bush would, like he does Boykin and so many other nutballs.)

Bush better than Kerry? You must be joking. A war hero who then had the courage to oppose the Vietnam War when people like you were recklessly advocating nuclear warfare. A man who could have sat the war out but didn't. A man who could then have kept quiet about the atrocities he knew that some -some- soldiers committed, but didn't. A man who has served honorably and well in the US Senate. A man who has the respect of international allies the US will need, both to clean up the awful mess in Iraq and also to forge an intelligent strategy against al Qaeda, sensitive as the US must be, to the vicissitudes of a complex battle. A man who understands that you can't grapple with al Qaeda merely by mouthing macho bromides for the enjoyment of Fox's viewers.

As for your analysis of the situation, there's no there there to critique.  Your knowledge of Islam, Arabic culture, and the Middle East approaches zero. You don't even have the vocabulary or the skills to distinguish Islamists from radical Islamists, for starters. Islamists, Schmislamists, they're all the same, they're terrorists (but, oh yes, let's not be brazenly inflexible, whatever that means). You have as much understanding of the complexities of what's going on in the Middle East as bin Laden has about the differences between the old earth Creationists, the Intelligence Design idiots, and the scientists. (Not that you're unique. This country's ignorance of Arab culture and Islam is breathtaking; hardly anyone currently setting policy in the middle east in the Bush administration knows Arabic (wanna bet Mylroie, Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz are all fluent in Iraqi dialects?), let alone Persian for the upcoming Iran adventure. Worse, neither do their advisers, nor most of the people in the intelligence agencies who inform the advisers. What's worse is that many in the Bush administration simply don't care.)

Give it up, Tacitus. These times are not even remotely comparable to Lincoln's or FDR's, and you know it. You just want to play a cynical game, associating Bush's names with theirs, so maybe some of their greatness will stick. But all it does is make frighteningly plain how  inadequate Bush's intellect and character are in responding are to the enormous challenges we're facing.

The very, very angry Tristero.  The none too bright Tristero.  The NVA-victory-abetting Tristero.  With talking points.  And channelling Curtis Lemay.  It doesn't get weirder.

But I will briefly address this:

You have as much understanding of the complexities of what's going on in the Middle East....

Invocations of ignorance follow.  Problem is, I do know, on some level, the things you assert I don't.  Been to the region, after all.  Attend an Arab church, after all.  A subject-matter expert?  Nope.  More familiar than most?  Yep.

But hey, so long as you steer clear of facts to back up your bile, you're irrefutable.  QED.

Although a bit more strident than I'd prefer to see, I applaud the emphasis on the questionable competence of the entire foreign policy team (sans Powell, although it'd be nice to see him take a real stand, for once).  I'd encapsulate the criticism by saying that Bush under-reacted to the true threat of al-Qaeda, and massively over-reacted to the non-threat of Iraq.  If he'd been competent, he would have done the reverse and had a cakewalk to re-election, regardless of the economy.

Of marginal relevance, it was heartening to see the many commentaries in Arab papers in the past few days that were critical of Islamic terrorists (and observing that, while not all Muslims are terrorist, most terrorists seem to be Muslim these days).  This was in response to the Beslan massacre.  That event could be a turning point, although Putin also could pull a "Bush" and really make a mess of the Chechnya problem.

I will await with interest your description of what Kerry will do about Iraq as President (presumably a work drawn from his official and public statements regarding the subject and in the context of his public record on war and foreign policy in the Middle East since at least 1990).

Then perhaps we could discuss the wisdom of shipping nuclear material to Iran?

Just saw this link in the left column on this site:

http://www.backtothemainstream.org/

Now if this group gets up a head of steam over the next few years (or sooner if Bush loses), AND restores policies of fiscal sanity to the party, I'll reconsider my registration affiliation.

visceral reaction to Gary Hart but two things:

1. Why would anyone pay for a book by him?  Especially when the commission's stupendous banality(or, if you prefer, "earth-shattering, nostradomus-like foretelling") is available online for free?  Anyone with a shred of honesty must, after reading the reports, admit that the commission's money would have been better spent on "WATCH DA F$#K OUT!!!" flyers handed to airline passengers.
   
2. Hart and his commission spent 3 years and over 300 pages telling the world what we'd already known yet in less than 2 years and 187 pages he can expound an epochal change in "grand strategy"?  Mmmkay.  I'm just curious is credulity all that's required to worship at the altar of Gary Hart?

I'll let Syed Saleem Shahzad do the honors. He knows more about it than I do.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE22Df05.html

"Yet in this environment, Afghanistan is scheduled to stage elections in September, followed two months later by US presidential elections, before which President George W Bush would sorely like to have washed his hands of the Afghanistan problem once and for all."

"Time, then, is of the essence for Washington to cobble together some arrangement that will allow for a graceful exit."

That was in May 2004.

First, you take comments that I specifically clarify are tongue in cheek as hyper-literal. Ok, let me cross the t's for you. This "referendum on the incumbent" is simply put, LM rubbish. It is never simply a referendum, never. It is always about whether you think the other guy is likely to be better than the current guy. Any other position is intellectually untennable. Only a lemming treats an election as nothing more than a referendum on the incumbent, and only someone who wants to profiteer off of lemmings would promote the public voting only as a referendum. Of course the LM wants you to vote like a lemming, so they talk on and on about this coming referendum. I've said it many times, and I'll say it again, Kerry is running on the "I'm not the other guy" because he doesn't want anyone to vote for him, just against the other guy. I ask why. What is he hiding in his record? Why does he have to reach so far back as to Vietnam to show that he would be a tough guy on terror? Surely a vote or two of being strong against the Russians during the cold war might make the case.



Second, you claim that Kerry having a cut and run strategy is a divination when it is entirely consistent with his entire political career and even going back to his military career as well. So it is not divination to predict no change. But what is dishonest about your post is that while holding Kerry to one standard (that divining Kerry's actions based on his record is shear speculation), you appear to claim to divine Bush's future decisions based on his first term decisions. Fine, I don't have a problem with the latter. I'm not asking you to ignore the first term. Kerry is asking everyone to ignore decades in the Senate, and you are apparently asking that as well. No one has produced any affirmative case for Kerry's tough stance as being someone who would execute a tough WOT. Hell, he voted against the first Gulf War which was popular in the world. At the DNC, he reiterated the Clinton doctrine on terror (we'll respond to terrorist acts) which seemed to work so well for us before. You can't ask everyone to ignore Kerry's record and give him a chance to change his spots while asking everyone to look at Bush's record and assume more of the same and yet maintain any semblance of credibility. It is intellectually dishonest and you know it too.



Contrast your position of nuanced double-standards with Tacitus's position of expecting both candidates to remain consistent with their political track records.

...as acknowledged by the quotes. We have not abandoned (past tense) Afghanistan. It is obviously everyone's goal to eventually be able to return our troops home.

Or kap? I certainly confess to being persistent.

I'm gonna make a t-shirt with their mission statement on it. I'll put this on the front:

As a concerned American and a committed moderate, I urge the Republican Party to renew its allegiance to the proven, common sense values which unite America.

Instead of partisan ideology - which increasingly has led moderates to leave the party - what's needed is a speedy return to the pragmatic, problem-solving mainstream.

And this on the back:

As a concerned American and a committed moderate, I urge the Democratic Party to renew its allegiance to the proven, common sense values which unite America.

Instead of partisan ideology - which increasingly has led moderates to leave the party - what's needed is a speedy return to the pragmatic, problem-solving mainstream.

I'll print small.

Seriously, I like the site. My senator is one of the sponsors.

But if the shoe fits...

Surely someone who has stood up strong against a previous evil with nuclear weapons pointed at all our cities would have an easy time standing up to terrorists with box cutters and small arms. Maybe he could make the case on those grounds. Oh wait, on second thought don't look there, uh, nothing to be seen there folks... Um, just look at the three months in Cambodia, er, Vietnam, and most recent speeches (except the ones where he says he wants to get out of Iraq in six months--you can ignore those too).

But that argument is not going to hold water much longer, and unfortunately this issue isn't going away. Wouldn't it be better to face it now? Can you think of any reason why we aren't? Oh wait, there is that election thing. Silly me. Wouldn't want international relations to get in the way of politics.

i do understand that Satan's invocation was meant to be tounge in cheek, but my point is that your point needed the extreme to stand on its own. In the more moderate universe where each candidate has flaws and there's no reason to think that the challenger is fundamentally flawed (a point on which I disagree with you and Tacitus), yes the election IS a referendum on the incumbent.

If I thought that Kerry was flawed then yeah it wouldnt be a referendum on the incumbent, but since I don't, it is. From my perspective anyway. You're trying to get me to accept your opinion as factual premise in order to attack my stated rationale for voting, whch is foul play.

"But what is dishonest about your post is that while holding Kerry to one standard (that divining Kerry's actions based on his record is shear speculation), you appear to claim to divine Bush's future decisions based on his first term decisions."

Perhaps we have different definitions of dishonesty, because what you wrote there strikes me as a classic example of backwards accountability. By your logic then if Kerry mismanages the war to the same degree as Bush during his first term, then Alan Keyes would be a credible challenger. Because no one has proved the "affirmative" otherwise. That's nonsense and quite the opposite of the usual conservative principle of judging someone by their deeds (a principle I am applying consistently).

I've judged Kerry's record and your characterization of it is is biased. Here's my reference:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127

and the fact that Cheney voted to kill the same weapons system that Kerry does, but doesn't disqualify him in your eyes either, supports my conclusion that it's you, not me, who is laboring under illusions of objectivity here.

Stop crying about intellectual dishonesty  when someone expresses an opinion different from yours and refuses to drink your Kool Aid.

I don't know for sure what Kerry will do about Iraq, but I'm going to take him at his word here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0603.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0527.html

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

I don't think that listening to campaign rhetoric is a wise way to predict a candidate's behavior when in office - Bush being a supreme example - but it's frankly the only thing I have, and it's reasonably consistent with his voting record, so it's good enough for me.

Bush's record in office is of course demonstrably stronger evidence. I weight that data more highly, hence the decision of an unknown but prolly not incompetent vs a known incompetent is pretty straightforward.

this also has influenced me a bit:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/compare.html

The fact that you don't find him flawed doesn't mean he isn't or that other's don't so it is not a referendum on the incumbent except in your perspective.



...usual conservative principle of judging someone by their deeds



Nice try. I am judging Kerry by his deeds. His political life didn't start yesterday...



your characterization of it is is biased



If mine is biased then "the fact that Cheney voted to kill the same weapons system" is a lie on your part. Cheney as Secy of Defense does not vote on killing or funding projects. He manages the budget that is given to him by Congress. In every quote I have seen that has been dug up from Cheney, there is always a reference to the money he has in the budget. Quotes like, not having enough money for the Army to have all three projects, etc. So that is just tired old nonsense, and not to mention the democratic kool-aid, lol.



Every defense of Kerry's senate record is a litany of those who occasionally agreed with various nay votes of his. I'm sorry, but that only proves that others at worst shared his bad judgement, or at best Kerry was occasionally right to cut certain programs. It does not therefore prove that he is strong on defense. That is the first article that contains any mention of Kerry's opposition to certain defense budget cuts. It certainly doesn't weigh too heavily against the litany of nay votes (many of which are curiously omitted from that article), and if they are resorting to listing that he save 6 F-18 fighters, they are really reaching for scraps to bolster up his consistent anti-defense record. That is in fact embarrasing if that is one of the main strong points of his defense.

"...despite the US commanders knowing next to nothing about the country...."

that's as far as I got.  Best laugh I've had in months.

I'm sorry, but you are resorting to comparing promises to change one's spots in the future to a distorted past track record? Now who is drinking the kool-aid? [At least I am not refering you to Bush's website for "evidence", lol.]

Funny that the hard left believes exactly the opposite, i.e. that Kerry is really an anti-war peacenik they are all familiar with, and is pandering to get moderate votes with promises of being tough on terror. They choose to quote his speaches where he steals quotes from Howard Dean, conveniently ignoring his speeches that sound hawkish.





Almost as funny is that many high level democrats have accused Kerry of not being able to adequately manage his campaign. Hence the shake-up, and hence comments like those from Susan Estrich saying that many democrats have stopped talking to the Kerry campaign in favor of organizing separate 527 campaigns to get the job done properly. Now if Kerry can't manage a simple campaign against a "failed" incumbent with a "failed" war, can we expect from that lousy track record (as acknowledged by many democrats) that he would be any better at managing the GWOT?? No.





And then there is that whole super secret plan for accomplishing all these things ;-)

it doesnt really concern me what "all the other democrats" think about whatever. They don't control my vote.

For what it's worth I don't see any peacenik tendencies in War God Kerry - if anything Im a bit leery that once in office he'll be a but too aggressive.

and kerry's campaign had a shakeup once before - just before they cleaned Dean's clock in Iowa. I personally prefer a leader whos filling to fire an incompetent. Wish Bush had the same ethos rgarding failures under his watch.

"We don't undo years and years and years of cutting losses and running from terrorism, with a year or two of having a backbone."

    Well spoken.

    Those who haven't read the Norman Podhoretz (sp?) World War IV article should surely do so, btw.

    It's been established that Osama's lieutenants tried to talk him out of the 9/11 strategy-- they felt certain that it would raise too much wrath for their own good, and... well, right they were, I suppose.  But Osama, of course, differed-- it was OBL after all, who educated the Somalis on exactly how to disable a helicopter by firing at the rear stabilizer blade; Osama who is on record mocking that retreat of ours on the basis of 19 dead and one dragged through the streets, Osama who had no doubt that America would suffer in silence as usual in a 9/11 scenario.

   All of which means that, given our long history of non-response, and given the popular, (indeed, the world-wide) loathing of Bush, and given the opposition's selection of a candidate with a rock-solid record of appeasement orientation, al qaeda may very well estimate W's WOT as a temporary flash of stupid American cowboy bravado, and not a long term change in America's policy.

   So whether it seems unfair or not, electing Kerry, under these circumstances, would send the wrong message-- the mere fact of his election, that is, wholly apart from whatever policy changes he pursued, Allah only knows what changes those might be.

    I don't want to seem a partisan hack-- it would be different if they had nominated a sober & serious Joe Lieberman, which I wish they had done.  But they didn't.  Let the cards fall where they may...

it doesnt really concern me what "all the other democrats" think about whatever. They don't control my vote.



Called a deflection. I stated that since you are relying only on current speeches that current speeches also reflect some very cowardly statements and promises. Apparently Kerry is planning on both fighting a tough WOT and returning to the Clinton doctrine at THE SAME TIME! If you are going to rely on his current speeches, don't cherry pick, because cherry picking can also lead to the opposite conclusion.



I don't see any peacenik tendencies in War God Kerry - if anything Im a bit leery that once in office he'll be a but [sic] too aggressive.



I really, really appreciate you making my case for me. That was very magnanimous of you. Haven't I already stated that case for Kerry being tough relies only on three months in Vietnam 35 years ago, and a few current speeches (and ignoring decades of contrary Senate track record)? Falling back to "Well, Kerry killed some in Vietnam, so he'll be tough" is just patently silly.

• He is so hawkish, he wanted to stay longer to kill more, er....maybe not.

• He is so hawkish he signed up for combat duty on Swift boats, er....maybe not (according to Brinkly he signed up because Swift boats at the time were not used in combat).
• He is so hawkish, he came back and didn't try to end the war at all costs, er...maybe not.
• He is so hawkish, he didn't join up with a group so radically anti-war that an actual plot to assassinate 6 senators was tabled, er....maybe not.
• He is so hawkish, he stood with Reagan on a tough policy against the Soviet Union, er...maybe not.
• He is so hawkish, he has a litany of votes for defense, for intelligence after 9/11, for this weapon, for that weapon, while only cutting 6 F-18 fighters, cutting intelligence before 9/11, and cutting one or two other spending bills, er...maybe I have that backwards
• He is so hawkish, he would vote to supply our troops with body armor just like "anyone" else would do, er...maybe he doesn't count himself as "anyone."
• He is so hawkish, he voted for the first Gulf war along with the UN and the rest of the world, er...maybe not.

Further, didn't Kerry make precisely the opposite point, i.e. that he has seen the horrors of war and would be more than cautious about committing troops to battle? Didn't he espouse the Clinton doctrine (note that Clinton did not serve, so the fact that they share the same doctrine, one from a military past, the other from a draft dodger past, completely nullifies any straw clutching about Vietnam toughness implying Presidential toughness)? Didn't he espouse that we would only go to war if we had to, not by choice? That's certainly not a statement that leads you to believe he would do anything preemptive, or necessarily even a reactive war. Again, the Clinton doctrine that worked so well for us.



and kerry's campaign had a shakeup once before



You mean a shake-up initiated by those around Kerry as opposed to by Kerry? Susan Estrich clearly indicates that there is a big fallout and that Kerry has little to do with it, other than being the person that prominent democrats think is incompetently handling his campaign.



I personally prefer a leader whos [sic] filling [sic] to fire an incompetent.



If that is in fact what was happening, it would be a credible response. However, didn't the campaign say that no one was being fired, that all were retaining their current positions and responsibilities, yet new experts were simply being added (for whatever unexplained reason--yeah right). So, no, I see no evidence of him firing anyone. And no, as I clarified above, it isn't exactly Kerry that is initiating all this.



Let me lay it out for you, without using Vietnam or current contradictory campaign promises, make the case of why we should believe that Kerry is going to execute a WOT, when he couldn't manage to execute his own presence at Senate securtiy meetings more than say 10-20% of the time?

you're under no obligation to believe Kerry. But my point is that I dont interpret the evidence the same way you do, and Ive come to a different conclusion. And Im willing to hold Kerry accountable if he does in fact stray from my expectation - same as I will in November with Bush.

if that above para sounds familiar, its because I think weve come full circle. I may simply be misunderstanding some central point of yours, but it feels like weve covered this ground before.

...since the referendum part was just the first line of my post. After reading your article, I think it is even more reckless and irresponsible to distill it down to a referendum vote on leadership when the president nominates judges (for life) and wields veto power. It seems social issues might very well be a factor for people to vote on. Who are you to tell people that these are irrelevant and that the ideals of sending a message to future leaders should trump anything else two candidates stand for. Is that what they are teaching in school these days? To your credit, you appear to disagree on social issues, and you disagree on the quality of his leadership. There isn't much you do agree with, and hence I do concede that for you it is probably just a referendum.



I don't contend that you can't hold that it is just that simple in your personal opinion, but I really cannot fathom how you can suggest that others distill it down to a referendum on leadership. Remember this is the "most important election of our time" and it isn't just leadership that people are referring to when they say that. I also am amazed that I appear to be the one with the more "nuanced" view on the subject.

im voting on two issues alone: 1. war on terror, and 2. the economy.

social issues, im mostly moderate conservative, but am opposed to changing the constitution and favor state-level control. I dont perceive a culture war from my perspective within the mainstream. So its not relevant.  

I see that people justify Kerry's promises by saying he went to war. I can at least see the connection being made. If he just came back from Iraq and that is all we knew about him, I can see offering the benefit of doubt. But just to be clear, you are saying you look at his Senate record and say, "Hey, here is a guy who means business with evil doers and is willing to do what it takes to be tough on terror whether by committing troops to battle or whatever"???



Now obviously I'm not going to get you to say Kerry is full of crap. However, I still haven't seen anyone present evidence of his toughness while in the Senate (and postwar activities for that matter). Either the evidence is there and no one has presented it yet, or you are saying that all these soft votes from Kerry should be taken to mean his is tough, not soft (opposite day again).



Switching topics slightly, if having a war record makes for a good President, I invite you to investigate history. Some really bad presidents had war records. Some really good Presidents had war records too. There is actually very little correlation, maybe even a negative correlation if any. George Bush went to war, and many think him failed. Eisenhower and Grant are not talked about in many glowing terms. On the other hand, FDR, Ronald Reagan had no combat experience. Thomas Jefferson had no combat experience. And for those who love Bill Clinton, he had no military experience.

but since you raised judges as an issue, let me mention that judges like Roy Moore strike me as more activist than the average. Hed be just as activist but in the other direction were he appointed by Bush. Are you against activism by judges, on general principle, or is the courtroom just another battle front of the social war?

I dont see a social war. Im personally pro life, and i support education to reduce the number of unwanted babies as my preferred social policy to combat abortion. I am against making it illegal because a. i agree that there are health/rape exemptions and 2.  I dont want to impose my view on someone who disagrees. Yes, point b. admits that I consider the debate on the topic to be legitimiate. if you dont, then point b wont be admissable to you, which is fine.

Neither candidate is on my page so the issue is moot for this election.

and i think that we just are drawing different conclusions. I very much liked his work in taking down the BCCI bank, which is a front on teh WoT as far as Im concerned.

Kerry might well indeed be full of crap. Lets see. If so, i'll vote against him too.

what it tells me is that he disagreed with Vietnam on principle, but volunteered to serve anyway. Then cam eback and tried to talk about the issue of war crimes that resulted from bad leadership. I disagree with your likely interpretation that he blamed his soldiers in arms - i read the testimony myself and I saw it as honorable.

Boittom line, i think Kerry's sense of duty is strong, and it gives me a lot of confidence.

but im under no illusions that hes a guaranteed success, and i intend to be a ferocious critic f i odnt get what i want. I do blog, you know, fro time to time :)

You don't have to perceive a culture war to see that the two candidates have very, very different views on social issues, and that the President has considerable power to affect society. Wasn't it Clinton who vetoed a partial birth abortion ban?



Also, when there is no incumbent, don't we compare all aspects of two candidates, leadership, social leanings, philosophy of judges, track records, views on the economy, etc. We might say, this guy has weak leadership, but I agree with his morals. Or we might say, I don't want higher taxes, even though he is a proven leader, etc. There isn't a handbook on voting. You can't say people are wrong to vote according to a handful of issues (maybe abortion, maybe taxes, maybe economy), but right to look only at leadership. Given that, distilling a second term election to just leadership is inconsistent with how we vote, especially those who vote less on leadership and more on other issues on a consistent basis.

But it certainly isn't the front that Kerry is touting he would be tough on. Hey, I don't have a problem with the economic aspect of the WOT, but it doesn't make the case that he would be tough with military. It is the old schoolyard dichotomy of the nerd vs. the jock (or bully). Being tough with the pen doesn't imply anything other than that one is tough with the pen.

In some contexts, you seem to try to be objective. In others you don't. This is one of them. Smearing the names of people and his band of brothers is not how you "save them." How come those people aren't more grateful for being saved? Smearing America such that he is immortalized by Vietnam, is not how you uplift America. Meeting secretly in Paris with Vietnamese representatives while still serving in the military does not give me confidence of his sense of duty to our country (in fact it may meet the legal definition of treason). Kerry's sense of duty should have led him to turn in the VVAW when talk turned to assassination. Committing atrocities (according to his claims) and then accusing his brothers of the same crime, doesn't give me a sense of his integrity or honor. But that is just me....



Furthermore, saying he went while being against the war appears at face value to be a re-writing of history. He went because at that time there was a gung-ho-ness about the war at the time. The majority of his Skull and Bones group entered the service at the time. There was very little mainstream opposition to the war at that time. Contrast that two two years later when Bush was in Skull and Bones. Very very few from that group entered the service because Vietnam had already become a very highly protested war. Serving was not commonly thought to be so noble. So those who tried to get out, who tried to protest the war are all patriots, except Bush. Those who signed up years earlier are also patriots, (except Bush because he didn't sign up). It doesn't wash.

I agree with most of your second paragraph, except a big problem with the "combat-avoidance" (seems more accurate than "draft-dodging") of Bush, Cheney, etc. is that they were for the war, while most others who avoided combat were against the war (and thus acting consistently with their apparent beliefs).  You're right that Kerry didn't turn against the war until some close friends were killed and he saw what was happening close up.  He was gung-ho when he arrived.

Most of the first paragraph is off the mark.  Atrocities occurred, so Kerry (and others) testifying to them is what is typically called "being truthful while under oath."  A Pulitzer was won THIS YEAR by the Toledo Blade for a series on a rogue unit, The Tiger Force, that committed a series of "small-scale" (not My-lai type) atrocities in Vietnam in the late 1960s.  Saying they did not occur doesn't make them go away, so nothing would be gained for anyone to have denied their occurrence to Congress (we certainly had enough lying BY the govt about what was going on, no need to compound the problem).  I gather that his objective was to call attention to the impossible positions soldiers were being put in by the policies of the war (e.g. vague search and destroy orders when the enemy isn't easy to distinguish from the civilian population--often both were one and the same).  His intent was not to besmirch his comrades, many of whom were also against the war by that time, but to explain to the people who could change things how badly it was going.

Aside from being panged by conscience, Kerry was certainly grandstanding in anticipation of a political career, but that's not atypical.  Also, it shows a maturity (and I would argue "patriotism"--telling it like it is) that W certainly lacked. As others have said, though, all of this is no guarantee that he'd be any good running foreign policy (look at Carter's record, and he was a Naval Academy grad).

Fundamentally I agree with returning to state-level controls. If it were only that simple though...



It becomes more sticky because there is the issue of whether another state must recognize another states marriage laws. It is also sticky because, for example, gay marriage (I assume that was your reference) supporters would take a decision in their favor whether it came at the federal level or state level. If they argue Constitutional protections, then you just really can't counter by saying, "We'll take our fight to the individual states." You either concede or you counter at the Federal level. So saying it needs to be a state by state decision, requires strict adherence by both sides to keeping it at the state level.



And if it gets taken to the Federal level, which would you prefer, a black and white ruling on the matter or the constantly changing "living, breathing Constitution" approach? I'll take the former every single time. The latter opens us up to judicial tyranny, and if the founding fathers wanted the Consitution to be twisted in its meaning over time, I don't think they would have included a rigorous amendment passing process. It is implicit in the Consitution that it is not meant to have a changing interpretation over time, but rather it was meant to be changed over time. I'd rather have it say something or another than have two groups discard all historical context and re-interpret to bolster their personal social agenda.

re: Bush serving in TANG, being pro-war, etc.



I haven't seen quotes or anything about him being pro-Vietnam-war while serving in the TANG, but I am open to someone showing me his exact stance at the time. What I would submit is that many of those who dodged the draft were generally against US might and the military altogether. I would also submit that those who went into the guard or other non-combat services very well could have opposed the war itself but are for US defense, and thus were expressing their patriotism. I'm not saying Bush was thinking that at the time. Frankly, I don't know and don't really care. But I think it verges on demogoguery to suggest that there is only one motivation for avoiding combat by going into the guard.



re: testimony



That just doesn't fit as an explanation. Kerry testified not just to his own experiences, but also extrapolated to the entire Army ("...on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."). He also related many third hand accounts when the witnesses themselves refused to testify under oath. Saying that his unit did certain things when they didn't does besmirch his comrades.

"We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats'...[Gen. Abrams] told us we were doing the right thing.

Now I don't know about you, but if I was a Swift boat captain, and I wasn't committing atrocities, I'd certainly be offended.



Would you also argue that it is mature to coerce others to testify to atrocities they did not witness as if they did witness them (coersion to lie under oath). It was prep for a political career, so lets agree to call a spade a spade. But it isn't noble or mature when that prep includes making up charges, relating charges that were only heresay, smearing comrades, calling the Army the army of Ghengis Khan, working with groups so radical that assassination plots are discussed, claiming to be sent by Nixon into Cambodia, etc. (I could go on...)

I'd also submit that while important, it is far from the vastly more important front on terror. Terrorists can more easily get around frozen bank accounts than they can bullets. You only inconvenience them and reduce their ability to operate. Yet all that does in the end is make the WOT more asymetric. And the terrorist have proven that box cutters (can it get more asymetric??) can be made into bombs without watching McGyver re-runs to show them how. So unless you can squeeze them down to mere pennies with economic war, it will never be enough.



On the other hand eliminating them through military action is far more permanent, and over time, more demoralizing to their cause than taking away their money. When it comes to combatting terrorism, I'd rather have proof of a mighty sword than proof of a mighty pen.

your taking th etime to engage me on the points rather than insult my intelligence as sfreith did. But the conversation is so divergent now, that i cant keep up. what interests me more than the memo thing is the issue of kerry's record and how it influences my thinking, and i intend to blog about it (a diary on that topic probably would be frowned upon here). I owe Tacitus a similar post also so i will try to tie it together. But i really need to do some dissertation writing and pulse sequence design now and have already spent too much time on this already.

my email is azizhp at gmail dot com if you'd like to email me a reminder about my promise here to you to address your questions. I plan on doing so.

What's the evidence Kerry coerced others to lie under oath, to testify to atrocities that never occurred?  He also never said that "everyone" committed crimes.  He has since regretted using some of his terminology, as many who recall the confrontational nature of those times can relate to.  I heard that CSPAN ran the entire 2 hrs of his testimony a few days ago.  I would like to see that, to make my own decision about whether or not he was out of line, rather than the typical 10-sec sound byte.  Seems to me that if McCain can be friendly with him (closer to him than Bush) and says he is not soft on defense, etc., then that should count for a lot.  I trust McCain's judgment more than others, for reasons I've previously stated (i.e., less partisan).

The inaccuracies regarding where he was and when (Cambodia in 1968) could be mixing up dates, or could be serious exaggerations for effect.  I guess I have less problem with a guy who actually can show he was there and fought than a guy who used family connections to get a cushy Guard spot and then blew off even that responsibility.  Regarding only his stint in Vietnam, I can't help but notice that, ignoring all other "evidence", the official military records seem to be closer to Kerry's version of events than the Swift Boat version.  Official records (pay, attendance, etc.) also seem to show that Bush did not fulfill his duties as most who were in the Guard at the time would define that.  If Bush could find anyone who could verify serving with him in Alabama, that would be the end of it.  The fact he hasn't been able to do that all this time is damning evidence he shirked his duty.  Toss it off as the irresponsibility of youth, but it's also inconsistent with his claim now that he did fulfill his duty, honorable discharge or not. (Who was going to risk political punishment for penalizing the son of a high govt official, short of the son committing treason?)

Evidence here.



re: McCain



And yet other vets, including democrats like Zell Miller, say he is soft, so I don't get your point. Citing so-and-so-agrees-with-me is a retreat from the point. By your standard of non-partisan, Zell who is a democrat is at least as credible as McCain.



Kerry campaign has backtracked and recanted the Cambodia stories without admitting lying. Yet, you call them exaggerations for effect. If you aren't there, it isn't an exaggeration, it is a lie. If it wasn't stated so strongly as being "seared" into ones mind, you might make the case for being mistaken, mispoken, etc. You might make the case that he got lost, thought he was there, etc., if he didn't say he was there under orders from Nixon. Also, the Kerry campaign retracted stories that Kerry wasn't at the VVAW meeting where assassinations were discussed. Kerry campaign later admitted he was there after FBI surveillance records were discovered. Another lie, or just an exaggeration for effect?



Where the double standard occurs is in your criticism of Bush. Ok, so it would be great if the Bush campaign got someone to come forward testifying that they saw him in Alabama. The lack of such a person makes you skeptical. Fine. Aren't you equally skeptical about Kerry's war record seeing as Brinkley says Kerry has over 100 pages of documentation that he won't reveal to the public (wouldn't even let Brinkley see them), documentation which would most certainly back or refute his war claims. Why not just sign that little form and release all records to the press and be done with it? Does anyone in their right mind think that countering with the "web of connections" was more effective that proving beyond doubt with the real records?? That would be like the Bush camp sitting on irrefutable evidence that the docs are forgeries, opting instead for a vague insinuation that the democrats are behind it therefore it must not be true. I'll return your statement: If Kerry would just release those 100 pages of documentation, that would be the end of it! What makes that a more condemning argument is that Brinkley says that the 100 pages exist and that Kerry has them. No one is testifying that Bush is hiding the witnesses to his service in Alabama.

In reverse order...whether you believe there is a concerted war over culture or social issues, surely you agree that there are some big social and/or cultural battles going on. They may not be tied together or coordinated, but judges are, in fact, resorting to activism on many of those battles. I don't like your statement about "point b." I can believe debate to be legitimate and still believe my view is correct. I call that having conviction. Laws, in general, reflect a moral agreement of the majority of people. So I don't buy imposement argument. If most agree, it isn't imposing. You can't say, "I believe it is murder, but hey, if murder is right for you, then who am I to say you can't do it." If me and a handful of people believe one way contrary to the rest of America and insist on laws reflecting those beliefs, that is imposing.



Judges... Absolutely correct. Activism either way, is not the role of a judge. I am consistent in that point of view. I think you would agree, and I haven't seen much presented to the contrary, that Bush tends to nominate constructionists.

I just noticed your reply from yesterday. (I don't go back to retrieve but generally just glance at recent posts, which is how I miss some replies.) I'll try to reply to each as succinctly as possible:

1) I hardly think whatever was discovered upon entry into Iraq is comparable to the German concentration camps.  I don't think Iraqi burial mounds were much of a surprise to anyone.  This doesn't change what I said before at all, that humanitarian concerns were not thought sufficient justification for invasion before the war but suddenly were just fine as a rationale after the war.

2)That's quite a spin!  Al-Qaeda has come into Iraq because we're there and didn't close off the borders.  They are fighting us there because we are there and more convenient for them than targets in this country.  Really, this is the most far-fetched point I've seen thus far on this board.  I'd have preferred the $200 billion plus spent on this war be used to strengthen security at home, which would have been a far smarter way to deal with this issue.

3. Yes, this is a "direct benefit" that I overlooked before, although it's not clear how far along Libya was. Whether it turns out to have been worth the looming disaster in Iraq remains to be seen.
   
4. Al-Qaeda had far closer contact with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan than Iraq.  Saddam had no interest in the goals of Al-Qaeda--fundamentalist Islam.  
   
5. I won't be too critical of the difference between actual WMD's and clear evidence of production capability.  However, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I have no doubt the invasion of Iraq was to establish a dominant military presence in the heart of the Middle East, not because of any threat to the U.S.  Iraq was an easy push-over, centrally located, with a "history", and so the logical choice for take-over.  From there, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and now Iraqi oil sources can easily be protected; Israel can be protected; and nearby enemies (Iran, Syria, etc.) can easily be intimidated.  From the neocon PNAC perspective, this is a blueprint for dominance in the region for decades to come.  Only problem is, locals don't like us and will become insurgents (didn't we have evidence of the antipathy from our presence in Saudi Arabia?) (The goal is not necessarily bad, just totally unrealistic.) Fifteen hundred years of Middle East history should have convinced the PNAC folks that we would not be able to set up shop for any length of time.  Even the Ottomans had a tough time, despite religious similarity.

I don't think this view is much different from that Pat Buchanan would give. (I appreciate his outspokenness--reminds me of McCain sometimes--although I'm generally not a fan of his, just don't think the "culture war" argument is an electoral winner in the long run.)

i dont perceive social battles going on, just politicized incidents. Gay mariage being the best example - its all so .. dramatic. on both sides. I dont think the average person cares apart from the hyper-political. I mean, a gay couple doesn't threaten my marriage anymore than a childless one or an in-vitro couple do. I dont care how people live and I doubt the majority does either, as long as we are left to live as WE choose.

if theres any underlying social majority in this nation, its the libertarian one. social battles are just posturing on the news and fodder for talk radio. Likewise the judge issue seems overblown unless you're one of the hyper political at teh forefront of the drama.

From what i dimly recall, Bush has nominated quite a few people, all of whom had very activist positions on abortion. Priscilla Owens? i dont recall. They were I think blocked, thankfully. I hope that judges are always held to a demanding hurdle to be appointed so that the process is as diffoicult as posible. The Executive branch shoudl nominate bipartisan-acceptable judges, drawn equally from both parties, not ideological comrades as Bush has done.

Wasnt paying attention during the Clinton years so please dont mention it :) its not relevant to me.

1) There aren't a lot of parallels of atrocities to draw from. Germany while vaster in scope is similar in that we just didn't know how vast Sadam's atrocities were until we got there. Surely you aren't going to contest that some of the revelations of what really was going on there, and the scope were shocking.



2) It isn't a spin. However it got to that point, it is at that point. No matter what the exact reasons are, I'd still rather have troops with guns fighting terrorist, than civilians with brief cases and purses fighting them here. You listed unintended negatives of the war; I'm listing unintended positives.



4) You said there were no clear links between the two. Obviously I am not concerned at this point with which other countries have stronger links than others, because links alone were never a reason in isolation.



5) Didn't we already have a military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (and maybe a couple of other minor locations)? Isn't that one of the reasons al-qaeda states as to why they hate us so much (we occupy their Holy Land)?

Number of participants isn't an indication whether a battle is going on or not.



In principle, I don't know how you could be activist against abortion. It was an act of activism that granted the "right," returning the "right" to legislature is returning it to where the power should lie. That is called returning back to the status quo so that the matter can be decided by the proper branch of government.



Ideology being divorced from the process sounds nice, but it is impossible. Ideologically you believe in constructionists, or activists, or other variations. Constructionist tend to rule on the laws themselves, activists tend to create laws by precedent rulings. Decisions vary depending on the ideology. At the end of the day, you could always claim that ideology played a part.

1. The fact that there has been so little attention paid to these "discoveries" show how unsurprising they were.  I've heard no one else express surprise about this.
   
2. Since Osama's #2 is threatening us now, along with the occasional "terror alerts" from Ridge, shows that us fighting insurgents in Iraq has not reduced the threat to us internally at all. Do you really think those who have been planning to attack the U.S. have been diverted to Iraq?  They are different objectives for the terrorists, with Iraq being a focus of a thousand insurgents for every al-Qaeda terrorist planning an attack here.
   
4. Considering links were emphasized as one of two big reasons (and still pushed by Cheney), the fact that Iraq is pretty far down the list of accomplices of al-Qaeda is not a minor detail.
   
5. Permission to use bases in Saudi Arabia is not at all the same as owning a lot of bases in Iraq.  We don't fully control the Saudi govt, which causes problems when it feels heat from fundamentalist locals.  Not a problem if you control the new Iraqi govt (but that's a pipedream, as I said--no govt we could put in our pocket would withstand popular uprising.  That we learned in Vietnam, at least those who went learned that lesson; which leaves out W and his cadre except Colin).

1) Where have you been? Sure there aren't constant news stories running around the clock, but I wouldn't expect that to be the case no matter how shocking the info was.



2) Unless you think people can be in two places at the same time, you can't argue that there isn't some diversion of resources and men and material. I never said plans on the US stopped. I did say that those fighting US in Iraq are quite obviously not here and are not trying to sneak into our country. Pretty simple concept.



4) First, no one said they were "pretty far down the list". You claimed there were no tangible links. Yet there are links that have been discovered. The exact nature of what was discussed at various meetings cannot be divined to know the exact level of cooperation or collusion.



5) I really don't see that we are trying to control the new govt. And I don't buy the conspiracy theory that we just want troops there. We have troops there. Kuwait, Turkey, etc. al-Qaeda seemed to think we had troops there too.