October 22, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Who? Who? Who?
Still haven't made up my mind. And hte more I meditate on the matter, the less I can work up any emotional interest in which man occupies the White House for the next four years. I definitely prefer Laura Bush to THK, but that's not helping much.
I'll probably have more questions for supporters of both candidates up this weekend. Meanwhile, some thoughts:
I agree with Jonathan Rauch entirely:
There is nothing wrong with Kerry's senatorial "flip-flops." Maneuvering is what senators do. More disturbing has been his irresolution on Iraq since becoming a presidential candidate. Most disturbing of all is that, with only days to go before the election, I still don't feel I have a handle on what he is really all about. Perhaps Kerry is the scion of Dukakism, the doctrine that the election is about competence, not ideology. But Kerry is running for president, not city manager.I don't believe he is an empty suit. I just wish I knew what was inside the suit. I can understand why my father fears that Kerry might be captured by the Left.
Bush is a dynamic leader, but he lacks what a president most needs: guardrails. Kerry has guardrails, but where is the road? A dispiriting choice.
The Kerry supporters whose opinions I most value have so far basically admitted that their man has a lacklustre Senate record, has been wrong on pretty much every major foriegn policy issue he's confronted, has a foreign policy team composed pretty much of the back bench from the Clinton years, and cares little enough about terrorism that every one of his votes since 9/11 has been too politically opportunistic to enable us to divine what, if anything, he actually thinks. Their argument boils down to two things:
1) The world has changed since 9/11This is true, but not useful, since the central question is whether or not John Kerry has changed. The burden of proof is largely on Mr Kerry, and he blew it with his opportunistic votes. I would be a lot more comfortable voting for him if it weren't for his, yes, flip-flop on the supplemental; Kerry supporters can spin all they want, but all the people I know who worry about this stuff for a living agree that it was pure politics. The fact that he felt entitled to play politics with this worries me at least as much as the fact that I don't know what the hell he stands for, except election.
2) John Kerry would have to be pretty $%@! awful to be worse than Bush
I find this almost, but not quite, sufficient. Everyone who tells me this pretty much hated Bush from the moment he entered office; even though I voted for Gore (albeit with about as much thought as I put into choosing a new shade of lipstick), I lack the fine edge of hatred that enables me to discern otherwise invisible shreds of rectitude and intelligence in his opponent.
Bush supporters have been equally unconvincing. No one has offered any reasonable argument that Iraq is not a cluster [expletive deleted]. And if it was a cluster-[censored], then the blame has to be laid at the Adminsitration's door. Either it was inevitably a boondoggle, in which case Bush shouldn't have started this, or it became a boondoggle, in which case we need someone more competent in charge.
Most disappointing is the failure of Kerry supporters to offer one of the two examples that I asked for which could easily, by themselves, move me into the Kerry camp:
1) A large American government programme, other than welfare, which has been repealed after it was found to cause bigger problems than it solved, or otherwise not function properly2) A foriegn conflict, on the scale of the current conflict (NOT one of the World Wars) that has had more damaging impact on the power that waged it than, say, the destruction of the medical technology industry would be. Such damage should be concrete, rather than nebulous: i.e. I know we're all mad that the Spanish American War launched the American Century, but the "damage" from the conflict is a little too spiritual to answer my question satisfactorily, especially since we're already well down the road of Dollar Imperialism. And the conflict should have created this damage without the interference of another major crisis, i.e. Russia's czars may have fallen because of WWI, but the rot was there for years before. On the other hand, a conflict that ultimately resulted in a bigger and uglier conflict would be more than fine, provided you can give me some decent parallels with the current situation.
Instead, Kerry supporters have harangued me about my views on entitlement spending, particularly health care, even though I specifically stated that I was not interested in such a debate, and none of my interlocutors so far have been even half as well-versed on the subject as I, in my hamf-fisted and amateurish way, am, making their arguments particularly unconvincing. Do y'all want my vote or not?
Has no one provided me with this information because there aren't good examples? (In the case of #1, I'm almost certain that there aren't, but am willing to stand corrected). Or did it get lost in the rush to castigate me for the heartless wretch I most assuredly am? Anyway, it's important enough that I wanted to give you another chance: provide me with an example of one or the other, or better yet both, and you have a very good chance of swinging me to your side.
Right now, apart from the small chance of a thermonuclear device detonated in an American city, it seems to me that the biggest threat to America is not foriegn policy at all [don't you know we're at war?--ed. Yes, I do, but it's a smallish war. Absent nuclear or smallpox attacks, it doesn't pose an existential threat to us, and I am not clear, despite the best efforst of my interlocutors, that Bush has made us either more or less safe from those two types of attacks, since the bottleneck to those sorts of spectacular operations would seem to be not The Will, but The Way.]
The biggest threat is failing to deal with budget and other problems inherent in the demographic surge towards an older population, until the problem deals with itself, catastrophically. The second biggest threat is screwing up the health care system so that we don't get innovative new drugs and equipment. And the third is running out of oil and/or screwing up the climate with our fossil fuel consumption. Kerry's better, marginally, on #3, though I hate his top-down, market-phobic approach; Bush is better, by a bigger margin, on #2, and while I'd like to believe that Bush means it about Social Security privatisation, I've been waiting with bated breath for four years, and frankly, I'm turning blue.
This is a window of opportunity! Convince me that Bush, even if he screwed up in Iraq, won't do so going forward! Convince me that Kerry's terrible domestic agenda has no chance of passage! Convince me that Bush really, truly means it this time about Social Security! Convince me that a bad American foreign policy will hurt Americans more than bad domestic policy! Convince me that you know what Kerry's actually thinking, and it shouldn't scare the bejeesus out of me! You have that rare breed, the undecided voter, sitting in your lap, begging you to make up her mind, and she's even told you exactly what she wants to hear! Surely there's one fair prince among you who holds the key to unlock my weary heart?
Posted by Jane Galt at October 22, 2004 3:41 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksThough I read that you want the dashing Prince to come in I think that the Princess is certainly capable of coming to her own conclusions. The reason that no one has sold you the bill of goods on either candidate is that there exists a downside in both candidates for the thoughtful person. We cannot simply cast that aside.
You have options:
1. Bush
2. Kerry
3. Other
4. Abstain
I would tell you what to do but, alas, my own view is not yet fully formulated except to say that I will note vote for option 2.
Right now, apart from the small chance of a thermonuclear device detonated in an American city,. . .
What magnitude of chance are you willing to accept?
. . . it seems to me that the biggest threat to America is not foriegn policy at all. . .
Given that you could be wrong, in which direction do you think we should err?
You have that rare breed, the undecided voter, sitting in your lap, begging you to make up her mind. . .
Isn't that your job? Maybe you are unable to decide because you are going about it in the wrong way. Rather than compare line items from Column A and Column B, you might pick the most important issue and evaluate each candidate on it alone. For a lot of us that issue is the war. Maybe it should be yours as well, given the inherent uncertainty in your nuclear and geopolitical risk evaluations.
1. You're a libertarian, aren't you? Look at the record of each, and think which one is closer to a libertarian point of view?
2. If Bush could provide for tax-free private health care savings accounts (which Kerry has promised to end), consider that a stepping stone to personal retirement savings accounts - especially if the GOP extends its lead in Congress.
3. You mentioned you like Laura Bush better than THK. Well, do you think THK would exert influence in the White House closer to the way Woodrow Wilson's wife did, or closer to the way, well, Laura Bush does?
4. Did Bush make mistakes in Iraq? Maybe. Maybe not. But consider what FDR said as Japan and Hitler were posing their great threat as WWII was under way: "We may make mistakes—but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle." Ok, you might not like FDR. But every president makes mistakes. The question is: Is it the right kind of mistake or the wrong kind of mistake? Looking at Kerry's rhetoric and his record, which kind of mistakes do you think he'll make compared to Bush?
5. Remember Jimmy Carter's malaise speech? (i.e. America has to lower its expectations, do with less, and stop wanting so damn much.) When you think of Kerry, think of a Malaise Presidency.
No one has offered any reasonable argument that Iraq is not a cluster [expletive deleted].
What were your expectations going in to the war? I mean, on March 18, what did you think the outcome would be? How many soldier killed, what level of destruction of infrastructure, etc? Also how much progress did you think we'd make toward democracy in 18 months? Would we have full elections and a functional government in less than 24 months? Be honest, and tell yourself how badly the current result is compared to that prediction.
I hear you Sister. It's been a rough year for me, and as we get closer, it just gets more gut-wrenching. My struggle has been between voting for Bush and voting for Frank Zappa. I am aware that Mr. Zappa isn't officially running, has never held office, and died in 1993. But it's a rough choice anyway. I cannot vote for Kerry because of his inability to say, a year and a half later, where he stands on the Iraq war. That is unacceptable. A president has to be forward looking, but at the very least, he needs to know where he stands on things that have already taken place.
Regarding the war, here's a small(ish) example: al Tuwaitha nuclear facility. It was a known quantity, the IAEA had been there a month before the invasion doing inspections. The Marines took a while to get there and when they did they didn't stop the looting because they had no orders to do so. As a result 1/5 of the nuke waste from AT went missing. What does that tell you about the war planning?
Convince me that Bush, even if he screwed up in Iraq, won't do so going forward!
Let me try this: if Bill Gates were president, would any Bush supporter honestly think he would have screwed up many things so badly as Bush has done? Even if you, the dear reader, were surrounded by yes-men and sycophantic slags, would you fail to see or accept reality?
Convince me that Kerry's terrible domestic agenda has no chance of passage!
That's where we come in! We the public can put pressure on Kerry and Congress to do the right thing. That's simply not possible with Bush leading the GOP, as the only opposition to some things is from the GOP, and if Bush does something bad the Kool-Aid Krew will fall right in line.
Regarding Kerry, if you haven't already I'd suggest reading up on BCCI and this: Kerry would fight terrorism better.
Some of the reasons why I oppose Bush are to be found at my blog.
"a conflict that ultimately resulted in a bigger and uglier conflict" The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 springs to mind; the French desire for revenge and to reclaim their provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were a major factor in starting WWI, and without Prussia's amazingly easy victory in 1870, it's likely that Germany would still have been divided into dozens of kingdoms rather than being united as Europe's strongest land power. But the war of 1870 was a contest between approximate equals who both followed the rules of civilized warfare. I don't see parallels with the present situation, and I don't understand how such an example would cause you to tilt towards Kerry anyway.
There are plenty of reasons to vote for or against Bush; what exactly are the reasons to vote for or against Kerry? Well, they basically boil down to:
FOR KERRY: Because he's not George Bush.
AGAINST KERRY: It'll really piss off the media.
Twenty years from now, no one will believe the Democrats nominated such a weak challenger to take on such a vulnerable incumbent. Talk about a missed opportunity...
I have decided to vote for Bush rather than a third party for one reason: I think Kerry will screw up in Iraq and in dealing with terrorism in general far worse than Bush might. Either Kerry really is the pacifist he played so well and so often, or he's a vacillator. In the first case, he'll yank the troops out of Iraq, leaving a heck of a mess behind to breed more suicide bombers, and signaling other dictators that it is once again safe to try to improve their political position inside their own country by diverting the radical fringe into anti-American terrorism. In the second case, when problems arise he'll vacillate, take opinion polls, and consult the UN, trying to get permission to take action from those who profited off of Iraq's misery and are no doubt doing profiting off of the new problems.
In military situations, the commander has to decide to do something. Doing something wrong is better than doing nothing. Bush has made wrong decisions, but he made them. I see no signs that Kerry can decide on anything and stick to it.
And this is important, not because of the few dozen or few hundred American civilians that might die in this country in a new wave of terrorism, but because the media gets people so stirred up and terrified at a few deaths that by 2008 they'll vote for anyone who promises to end it, no matter how. It could be the end of freedom...
Yeah, I know people may think I'm nuts, but Iraq isn't a cluster-[censored]. So it's not perfect -- what the heck is perfect?
Read Iraqi blogs. Read about the history of reconstruction in Japan and Germany after WWII. They worked out fine, and they were not a pretty place just after the war.
Moving to a democracy is hard. It's not something that just magically happens, even if it happens peacefully. Russia is still messed up, partly due to an imperfect move to democracy and capitalism.
We're doing a good enough job in Iraq. It will turn out fine. It's like like cleaning -- when you start cleaning up a room, you pull things out of places they don't go, and make a massive mess. Iraq is that mess right now. But as you start to throw out the trash, and put things where they go, and organize, it gets cleaner and cleaner.
We're just still throwing out the garbage.
I think a lot of people have unrealistic expectations about how Iraq would look right now. The same people who are criticizing Iraq now, critized Afganistan and called it a quagmire. I think they're doing pretty darn good right now.
Jane, you descrie yourself as a member of "that rare breed, the undecided voter," and ask me to pursuade your vote?
Honey, you must understand, you are in NEW YORK, and we are nearing the final week of the campaign. It is totally unworth anyone's time to try and persuade you of anything. Anyone who actually cares about this thing should be busy buttering up someone whose vote might actually matter. You want to sit in my lap and beg me to help you make up your mind? Move to Ohio -- then I'll gaze lovingly into your eyes and tell you anything you want to hear...
You're the blogger. You're supposed to be the one gathering information and then writing about it for us. :)
the less I can work up any emotional interest in which man occupies the White House for the next four years.
You know what that really argues towards. And I think many of us have already addressed your arguments against voting for Badnarik. The LP is not able to be moderate in the current system, because the only votes they get are from voters who don't care that they're "wasting" their vote. Until we scrap plurality, they are going to stay extremist. The party you really want to influence is the Republican Party. Punish them for nominating a fiscally irresponsible candidate. Vote Badnarik.
Or Tyler Cowen. That guy's just cool, and he thinks you're ever-effervescent.
What policy issue that Bush said he would put forth has he not? While this may not GUARANTEE that he will TRY to reform the ponzie scheme of SS, at least there is a chance. What has Kerry put forth that he has maintained a position on? Iraq as "cluster **@#**",..... prior too March '03, the estimates (if I recall correctly) were 2 years of fighting, street to street, house to house. 15,000 body bags, and the troops coming home with lungs seared from chemical attacks. Of course those were democrats making the predictions. Next February(less than 2 years) I heard somewhere that elections would be held. Given these things, and what you know of Mr. Kerry, I am in a quandry as to why YOU are in a quandry.
Lonewacko,
I assume (dangerous,I know) that you are referring to Microsoft Bill Gates. He wanted to keep the Inheritance tax didn't he? That in itself moves him behind Pres. Bush in my opinion.
"We're doing a good enough job in Iraq. It will turn out fine. It's like like cleaning -- when you start cleaning up a room, you pull things out of places they don't go, and make a massive mess. Iraq is that mess right now. But as you start to throw out the trash, and put things where they go, and organize, it gets cleaner and cleaner."
Silvermine -- I like that analogy.
Megan...thoughts for your consideration:
1)Education. The current state of the American educational system *does* present an existential threat to us, albeit one that operates with a fairly long time constant. I see no possibility at all that the Democratic Party would be willing to do anything structural about this ongoing disaster.
2)Health Care. Kerry is likely to do something like impose price controls, probably in semi-disguised form, and totally shred innovation in that industry.
3)Business/Trade. Kerry shows no evidence of understanding of the nature of a market economy or empathy with people who are trying to run businesses; all his instincts are top-down. His trade proposals in particular show a failure to understand how supply chains work in the real world, and would put American corporations at a serious disadvantage.
4)Terrorism. I think this *is* an existential threat to us. Can you imagine what would happen to the American economy and society if we were subjected to continual small-scale terrorism on a scale comparable to that which is ongoing in Israel. And I'm not sure why terrorism using a nuclear (not thermonuclear) weapon is of such low probability...and an explosion of "only" several kilotons could cause tens of thousands of deaths.
5)Other security issues. Kerry has shown unwillingness to deal in any serious way with the threat from Iran: he rejects the bunker-buster weapon and is hostile toward missile defense. Iran with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads could cause destabilization throughout the Middle East and in Europe.
6)Above and beyond all specific issues, I think Kerry is a man without imagination, who recites received ideas rather than thinking about the tangible needs of the current situation..whatever that situation may be.
If I had a time machine, I could do much more useful things with it than travel forward in time 4-10 years, look around, and then come back to describe to you what the Future Consequences of Bush/Kerry getting elected turned out to be. :^P
In fact we don't have time machines. Or 20-20 foresight. Or Hari Seldon's "psychohistory". We bipedal primates have to just rely on good old clunky, academically-non-approved intuition ... frustrating as our lack of omniscience is, that's all we've got.
My own intuition is that a second Bush term in office will give us plenty of things to be annoyed by over 4 years but will do a few critical things much better than his critics are willing to admit. My further intuition is that a President Kerry will glide swan-like through his Presidency for 4-8 years, while leaving us with a much worse sequel to 9/11, a triumphant resurgence of anti-American terrorism sponsored by the emboldened national leaders of Iran and North Korea, and a failed attempt to nationalize the pharmaceutical industry, a la Hillarycare in 1994.
But that's just my guess. Free advice, worth what you paid for it...
Silvermine:
You say: "Read about the history of reconstruction in Japan and Germany after WWII. They worked out fine, and they were not a pretty place just after the war."
Except that in the case of the Germans they were surrounded by people that they had previously rolled over - who by and large hated the Germans and welcomed the Allies- and the Soviet Union stepped in which makes comparisons to Germany null and void.
As for Japan, it is impossible to draw analogies there because of the psychological differences between the Iraqi people and the Japanese.
What a good idea! You've collected some interesting posts.
Bush: record of bipartisan achievements both in Texas and Washington.
Kerry: has accomplished nothing to be proud of since Vietnam.
Still undecided who should lead?
Kerry's health care won't pass - Republicans won't be on board, and Democrats won't control both Houses no matter what. Republicans don't want a program that will help the entire middle class and working class (very poor already have Medicaid) because Democrats would run on it till the end of time and scare people with: Republicans will take away your Social Security AND your health insurance.
Republicans out of the White House but still significant will fall back on their time honored role of deficit hawks so they can keep Democrats from enacting their wildest fantasies. Even some moderate Democrats who have made a name as deficit hawks will have trouble supporting such a massive program.
Delay has been a prime mover and arm twister for the Republican pork lately (Medicare prescription drugs, anyone?) and his influence will be decreased or nill after the indictments coming down the pike.
...and a couple more things:
6)Energy...I don't think there's much hope for a favorable result from a galactic megaproject such as Kerry seems to favor. Such things have a way of focusing on the technologies which are popular with currently-influential people rather than those which, in hindsight, will turn out to have been the right ones. The mechanisms that Clayton Christensen described, which work to prevent incumbent companies from taking advantage of transformational technology, also apply...perhaps even more strongly..at governmental level.
7)Kerry has very little experience at actually *running* anything. A career as a Senator is practically a "staff job"...you speak and vote your opinion and may influence the result, but you don't gain the experience of making decisions and then living with the consequences.
Here's a suggestion for you, Jane: Read Grant's memoirs. See if you can figure out why he was so prized by Lincoln (Finally, a General who FIGHTS!).
Then compare what you think are this administration's rife-with-error conduct of the war in Iraq with what passed for good judgement on both sides in our Civil War.
Then tell us how bad things are and are going in Iraq (nothing like having a little perspective).
(1) It is WAY too early to call Iraq a disaster. We aren't even two years into what Bush told us from the beginning would be a long, long battle: building a successful democracy in the Middle East to undercut the islamofascists. So far things are going, I think, quite reasonably well: the people of Iraq defintely welcomed liberation, definitely want to have real elections, and do not like the terrorists among them. We are walking a fine line and are doing a pretty good job of winning hearts and minds. We're in the middle of the tough part right now, which is outlasting the terrorists and proving that beheadings and car bombs won't chase us away, that this isn't another Vietnam or Somalia where we will cut and run. And meanwhile we continue to kill them by the dozens for every one of our soldiers who are lost. We are grinding them down and meanwhile Iraq slowly gets more prosperous and the terrorists have less support. Ask yourself, have we ever fought a war quite like this one before? I don't think so. But have we ever fought a significant war where it would have been safe to say after only 18 months that it was a disaster? No.
(2) As far as I can tell, Kerry's instincts have been wrong on virtually every topic I can think of: he was against all of the major weapons systems we rely on now; he was for unilateral nuclear disarmament; he is on the liberal/socialist end of the economic spectrum and believes (scarily) that government can actually fix things like the health care system rather than make them worse; he believes that the UN and other international institutions can actually solve problems by holding conferences and passing resolutions, when the track record of the institution is one of practically nothing but failure, ineptitude, and corruption. There is nothing I can see that a libertarian would like about Kerry. His ideas are all old FDR/McGovern platitudes that have been proven ineffective in the last thirty years. If Bush didn't have a personal style that rubbed some people the wrong way, there wouldn't be any reason at all to consider a throwback like Kerry. And Bush isn't that bad. He just isn't.
I tell people to look at Bush as your employee, because he is. Then evaluate jrs record giving his various excuses on 911, Iraq, Jobs, Health Care, etc, the same weight your boss would give your excuses for across the board failures.
A third party vote this year makes you the worst type of coward. Dont even bother voting. Theres a very clear choice here, you either support Bush, or you have to vote Kerry. I like Kerry more as a candidate then any presidential candidate in my lifetime. The types of smear campaigns Rove has run against Kerry, Mccain, and Cleeland is the most disgusting politics Ive ever seen. Kerry is clearly the better man.
"I tell people to look at Bush as your employee, because he is." Totally agree. And, having considerable experience in managing employees, I evaluate them in the context of the difficulty of the task. For example, if I gave someone an assignment to run a department that had an array of buried problems, not dealt with properly by prior management of that department, I would bear that in mind in evaluating him. I would also consider (to the extend the information was available) the performance of similar job functions in other companies.
By these criteria, I think GWB looks pretty good.
D Foster, you must be a nice boss, most only care about results. Anyway, 911 is at jrs feet, 20% into his term with no terror policy in place was hardly left to him by Clinton. The jobs the tax cuts were suppose to produce fell millions short of what jr said. If you eliminate the government jobs created, the number is truly pathetic. There are millions of Americans who have lost health insurance despite Bush promising to give millions of more Americans coverage. Then theres Iraq. And the debt. Bush is the worst President in US history.
It sounds like your only real impediment to favoring Bush has to do with Iraq: either we a) shouldn't have gone in, b) should have handled the occupation differently.
If a is the problem, ask yourself what the chances are that four more years of Bush will produce another war. Unless something major happens, and there is a strong consensus among the American public (including yourself, probably) that an invasion is justified, I don't think those chances are very high. The military is stretched thin enough as it is, and the Administration and it's allies in congress have likely been chastened by a public support for preemptive warfare that is shaky at best.
If b is the problem, ask yourself how Kerry is going to handle the occupation, combat insurgents, and (eventually) withdraw any better than the current administration? By summoning all of his "nuance" to "restore our dignity" in the international community, and somehow get France, Germany, and Russia to commit troops for a war he's been calling unjustified?
If you think Iraq is a cluster**** (which I don't - I agree with what silvermine said), but don't think four more years of Bush is likely to yield another cluster****, and don't think Kerry will do any better managing the remainder of this one, then your decision of who to vote for should be determined by other issues. As someone who's adopted a nom de blog of Jane Galt and purports to be a libertarian, I can't imagine Kerry coming out on top there, either.
"across the board failures...worst type of coward...smear campaigns...the most disgusting politics I've ever seen."
If voting for John Kerry didn't also mean legitimizing the barking Begbees of the world, Kerry would probably win in a walk...like Al Gore was supposed to.
But it does, and that's why Bush wins, probably by a surprisingly big (6 points or more) margin.
Geez, if the moonbats are this crazed and angry now, what'll they be like after Kerry loses...?
1) A large American government programme, other than welfare, which has been repealed after it was found to cause bigger problems than it solved, or otherwise not function properly
Here's two:
1) Prohibition. Large government program (law enforcement), tried to keep us all sober, didn't work and caused bigger problems. Repealed.
2) The Works Progress Administration. Large government program (job creation), employed more than 8.5 million people and spent $144 billion in today's dollars, and then was disbanded. Arguably it was discontinued, not repealed, and was a victim of its own success rather than a misguided effort that went off the rails, but still: That's a pretty big program that was ended by the government.
Beyond that I can think of some examples that may or may not meet your criteria for "large" or "programme," like the effort to convert to the Metric System or the House Un-American Activities Committee -- but I think you're looking more for examples that involve reducing the overall size of government.
Silvermine: you're assuming that people aren't standing outside your house tossing trash back through the windows, because they're convinced that God wants it that way ("bless this mess").
GWB's attitude is "the only way out is through, tough it out and everything will be OK." JK's is - well - er, um - what is it?
Jane:
I'd point out, as others have, that there is zero chance of Kerrycare going through. Everything looked better in 1992 - Clinton was a better politician, (IIRC) we had the Congress, the country had just dealt with a much worse recession (and I think the first round of white collar layoffs), it was the big issue of Clinton's campaign (as opposed to Iraq now) - and nothing happened. A year later, we got a Republican Congress. We still have that damn Congress - there is no way Kerrycare gets through, and Kerry knows it.
Bush backers:
1. Why do you keep insisting on the comparing this situation to rebuilding Germany and Japan. If we want an even minimally analogous situation in Iraq, we have to kill either 2.5 mil. Iraqis (Germany) or 600,000 Iraqis (Japan). If you think the US has the stomach for that, get some money together and run an ad. I've already got the tag-line: THINGS ARE GOING TO GET BETTER, WE'VE JUST GOT TO KILL 570,000 MORE IRAQIS. If you win the election with that, more power to you.
2. Does anyone really believe we'll still be in Iraq 18 months from now?
3. "Doing something wrong is better than doing nothing." This might be the scariest line of the night - by definition, doing something wrong is not better than doing nothing; it wouldn't be "wrong" then. I think you're confusing what you said with something like, "analysis by paralysis will cost more over the long run than the sum of any wrong decisions you are likely to make." Unfortunately, I think Bush has them confused as well.
4. "The same people who are criticizing Iraq now, criticized Afganistan and called it a quagmire. I think they're doing pretty darn good right now." Two points: (a) I don't know anyone who thought Afghanistan would be "quagmire," or cares very much what it'll turn into once we leave, and (b) wait four years and then tell me how Afghanistan is holding up. (On the plus side, I hear the poppies are blooming again).
5. "Can you imagine what would happen to the American economy and society if we were subjected to continual small-scale terrorism on a scale comparable to that which is ongoing in Israel" Absolutely nothing. Israel, on a bad day, might lose 10 people. We probably lose that many over a weekend right now just in my city. We are significantly bigger than Israel. If 20 people in Atlanta die tonight in a massive several car pile up, or a fire, or whatever, there's a decent chance I'll never know. As for killing proportional numbers of US dead; I don't think that your suicide bomber is magically able to kill more people as he detonates just because the country's population is bigger. I don't think killing works that way. As for the economy - note that there were the same number of non-negligent homicides in 1997 as in 2001 (inc. 9/11 deaths - Interweb figs, feel free to correct). I don't remember anyone complaining about the economy in 1997 and how we just couldn't survive that many deaths.
6. "I think Kerry is a man without imagination, who recites received ideas rather than thinking about the tangible needs of the current situation..whatever that situation may be." This is clearly an ironic joke mocking the importance of a leader being able to think.
7. ", but you don't gain the experience of making decisions and then living with the consequences." Another joke. Bush and the Republicans are completely unaccountable. By what possible metric has he succeed? And when confronted with the problems, what does he say? "It's haaaaard work." He says that some of his appointments have been mistakes, but he doesn't want to say who b/c it would hurt their feelings. Jeebus. Look two posts (of Jane's) above - a fantastic business opportunity awaits.
Lonewacko,I assume (dangerous,I know) that you are referring to Microsoft Bill Gates. He wanted to keep the Inheritance tax didn't he? That in itself moves him behind Pres. Bush in my opinion.
That wasn't my point; I wasn't referring to any of billg's political positions. I was referring to his ability to conduct warfare of a different sort, that of the modern corporate hero. Somehow I don't think that the man who can put together puzzles in four minutes flat would forget to secure nuke facilities or make sure that his subordinates did. If they did not, he would swiftly banish them to Spokane.
4)Terrorism. I think this *is* an existential threat to us. Can you imagine what would happen to the American economy and society if we were subjected to continual small-scale terrorism
Yes, and George Bush is keeping us safe! His commercials tell me he is, and that's all I need to know!
Oh, wait, I just realized I have a whole category about terrorist infiltration of the U.S. via the borders George Bush keeps deliberately porous.
Bush has clearly made the choice that cheap labor is more important than your safety.
Just the other day an Iranian said that if the U.S. has the right to attack Falluja then the terrorists have the right to attack Los Angeles. Because of Bush's policies - policies that fly in the face of the findings of the 9/11 Commission - they probably already have people in place and more are on the way.
Let' see now.... you say you prefer Laura Bush over Teresa Heinz Kerry. OK. what does that tell me about you. Either:
1) You are not a serious person.
2) You prefer your women plastic.
3) You are jealous of a) Teresa's looks (just kidding) or b) money or c) brains.
4) You are just pulling our legs.
Megan, add mine to the voices suggesting that Iraq is not, in fact, a clusterfuck (and please pardon my lack of delicacy). As a Libertarian who's no fan of the PATRIOT Acts, the Department of Homeland Security, spending that would make LBJ blush, the FMA, or Abu Ghraib, I also feel like the Democrats should have a pretty easy time bringing me around to their point of view. But I keep bumping into one thing: the dogged (I'll even go so far as to say "dogmatic") insistence that progress in our foreign policy be monotonic. I hear the 1,000 Coalition casualty number used as if it's a historical horror instead of a miracle of modern warfare, as if the Battle of New Orleans alone didn't result in 10,000 corpses, nevermind Antietam. It's like a piece I once read about the Laffer Curve—I regret that I can't recall whether it was by Martin Gardner or John Allen Paulos—that pointed out that the obvious flaw in the model was that the curve was smooth, when in fact, with enough data, you'd see all kinds of loops, whorls, and eddies along it. It seems to me that foreign policy in general, and warfare in particular, is like that: you hope to move to a different Nash-Bayes equilibrium at some future date, hopefully one without some of the nasty externalities of the current one. Along the way, you may find yourself in some truly awful local minimum. Unfortunately, when you're in one, it can be impossible to tell that the minimum is local, let alone how close or far away the highly desirable equilibrium is.
The reason I'll be voting for Bush this year is that I perceive, accurately or otherwise, that he grasps that progress is rarely monotonic, that sometimes you are left with no choice but to proceed to that local minimum and do whatever you must to move through it to the new equilibrium. By contrast, all I get from Kerry is that the reason for decades of failed foreign policy is that we didn't do enough of it. And if that observation didn't already feel sufficiently lacking, the vacuum of the Kerry campaign's response to the Oil for Food scandal's misdirected money going to bribe UN Security Council member nations sealed the deal for me. They can talk about Vietnam and BCCI until they're bluer in the face than their already-too-blue-blood-for-this-expat-Hoosier makes them. I want to know how exactly this global test is to be scored when some of our erstwhile "allies" in the UN have cheat sheets.
So that's it, at least for me. Admission of difficulty and uncertainty on one side, coupled with outrageous social and fiscal policies; insistence that 1,000 casualties is too many, failure to address UN corruption, better social policies, and probably just-as-bad fiscal policy on the other. This year, I'm voting for the recognition that progress sometimes has real, even tragic, costs, despite my strong misgivings with respect to non-foreign-policy issues. I sincerely hope that you will too, although I have nothing but the utmost respect for those whose analysis of the issues leads them to an alternate conclusion.
You know you libertarians sound like the vegetarian who let his good for nothing uncle manage the family farm. The crops failed, the herd went dry, the bank is getting set to foreclose. An experienced pig farmer proposes you let him manage the farm and you wonder if you should stick with your good for nothing uncle cause 'on principle' you agree.
As an engineer, I find the argument that Bush has screwed up Iraq and the WOT very weak. It's easy decide what must be done when your following a script of something that has been done before. It is easy to see what might have been good ideas with 20 20 hindsight. It is very difficult to make the right decision in real time. In thirty years, I have worked on dozens of development programs. Each one was new, in each one we thought we understood the problems, and yet each one had delays, replans, screw-ups, and real failures. This was without active opposition. (Unless you consider our vendors and subcontractors as opposition.) The type of nation building that we are doing in Iraq does not have a cook book solution. the steps needed to get the Iraqis to take care of Iraq are not written in some great big perfect plan in the sky. Read Belmont club http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/06/grand-bumblers-people-who-really.html to understand real bumbling. You really need to read this to have a perspective.
Kerry's propensity for Monday Morning quarterbacking worries me. His repeated contention that he would have got OBL in Tora Bora is a perfect example. The man who made the decision about what troops to deploy was the local commander. He did it based on current intellegence, threat assessment, and logistics capabilities. Kerry would not and should not have micromanaged him. At best, Kerry would have listened to the general in the field and done exactly what Bush did. At worst he would have delayed any operation while he asked for more information. If we had a shot at OBL we would have lost it. The fact that he continues to make the statement that, if Kerry had been president we would have got OBL, shows how out of touch Kerry is.
Kerry seems to need more information than is available to make a decision. Kerry seems to believe that he can make every decision himself and that, in the end, he (Kerry) knows best. Kerry doesn't seem to be able to organize a staff. I see Bush as more of a "I'll get the best man for the job and let him do it" manager. I see Kerry's entire campaign avoiding any firm position and hollering about the chances Bush has taken. He's hoping that the Monday morning quarterback syndrome will have the voters focus on decision Bush made and not on Kerry's capabilities or record. He's not offering anything more than "my opponent has made mistakes and I'm smarter".
Using Kerry's logic, Eisenhower would have been fired after North Africa, MacArthur would have been fired after Baatan, Halsey would have been canned after the Coral Sea, and FDR and Churchill would have been gone before the end of the war. And Hitler would still be in France and we would have reached a negotiated settlement with Japan.
I'm not the one to convince you of anything, since I may still sit this one out (the virulent ugliness of the anti-Bush crowd drives me to cast a vote more than anything), but I think you are off base in a couple of areas. First, everything is hard, very hard, in war, including determining what the current state of affairs is. What if it had been fully understood in the summer of 1968 that the Viet Cong had in fact been completely decimated? True enough, there are more than a few members of the Bush Administration that likely have failed to grasp how difficult every single thing is in the conduct of war, but since I think this war needed to be fought, I still prefer those who were willing to wage it to those who likely would have refrained.
Why do I think it needed to be waged? I agree with you that the Islamic world does not pose an existential threat to the U.S.. However, if the Islamic world does not rapidly change, we pose an existential threat to them, and although being among a few hundred million slaughtered is about as bad as things get, being among those who do the slaughtering of a few hundred million is pretty damned awful as well, and it is worth taking great, great, risks to avoid such action.
In fact, this prospect is so grim, and in my view, so likely, absent rapid revolutionary change in the Persian Gulf , I see no way that Kerry, who is essentially a reactionary, can be worthy of a vote. A politically, militarily, and economically, and technologically backward people who sit atop of the natural resource greatly desired by far more militarily, economically, and economically powerful people, are going to meet an extraordinarily violent end if they exhibit any proficiency for hostile action against the more powerful people. Obtaining and using the technology of the more powerful people for hostile action merely seals their doom. Neither Bush or Kerry is likely to be the 21st century Andrew Jackson or Phil Sheridan, but he will be found in short order absent the people of the Persian Gulf modernizing rapidly.
Sorry to burst your bubble Jane, but the oil situation is gonna get worse no matter who we have in office. Within the next five years all indicators point to oil prices skyrocketing because cheap sources of oil are running out fast.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/
My friend's mom works for Shell and they've had a couple analysts in saying the same thing. Your best bet would be to get a diesel car that can run on biodiesel. Also investing in companies that make biodiesel and ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells would probably be a good idea in 3-6 years.
As for why you should vote for Bush over Kerry concerning war, You're already linked to Bill Whittle; and his deterrence essays explain it much better than I would.
Jane,
I agree with you in most of your analysis of our predicament. I'm going to vote for Kerry, though my enthusiam for the candidate is zero. Here's why:
(1) I believe that the US political system works better when the government is divided. Under single party rule, whichever party rules, a robust decision-making process is replaced by a robust patronage process. I don't think the Dems are likely to win in Congress, so I'll pull for them in the White House.
(2) As a side effect of (1), I don't think Kerry will succeed at passing simple price controls, de facto socialization, or any of the other proposals he might wish to pass, but that would be dumb. Kerry will succeed only at forcing a real debate about what's wrong with American health care. If something passes, I just don't think it will be that bad. What will happen is that politicians will have to actually make the case against, say, price controls, rather than pretending that "we would import those cheap drugs from Canada, it's just a a safety issue."
(3) I agree that the growing size and insolvency of the Federal government is an impending cataclysm. I don't see either party discussing this seriously, or credibly proposing solutions they have the ability to act on. I consider this another argument for divided government. Divided government may not be able to push through a real solution, but since none is on the table, we can have gridlock as a holding action. (These considerations might have pushed me towards Bush, if he didn't have a record. He says some good things about Social Security reform, market forces in health care, and school choice. But despite a Republican congress, he has failed to stand behind his own ideas, and presided over the most fiscally reckless four years in recent memory. I prefer gridlock.)
4) I agree with many posters that the we face some existential issues, for which Iraq and the "war on terrorism" serve as proxy. I also agree with many posters that Iraq may in fact turn out okay, despite the recent troubles. I strongly supported the Iraq war, and still think it was absolutely the right thing to do. But Bush has failed to convince me that he is more likely than Kerry to bring about a good resolution to what he began. Bush has nearly the right vision, and Kerry precisely the wrong one, but in diplomatic and logistical terms, Bush has been a disaster. I do hold Bush responsible for Abu Ghraib, not because it was policy, or for its human rights ramifications, but because it was forseeable, avoidable, and deeply damaging in practical terms to our real mission in Iraq. Atrocities happen in any war, but the particular bureaucratic trail of tears surrounding Abu Ghraib has persuaded me that the administation's priorities are badly out of whack, or that it is very badly incompetent. From an accountability perspective, much as I share much more of Bush's vision than Kerry's, he just doesn't deserve a second term. Re Kerry, hope is not a plan, but it's all we've got. Bush's performance has simply been unsatisfactory.
Jane,
The decision is easy. It was well spelled out in this NYT editorial endorsement of Kerry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html
How you can even contemplate voting for Kerry after this, I don't know. Kerry is not an option.
Jane, you and the guy you quoted are wrong about Kerry's flip flops, because his flip flops on the war matter. Here is a guy whose whole career is defined by being anti-war, anti-defense, anti-intelligence, regardless of how many times he voted this way or that, and now he wants to be commander in chief in the middle of a war? And he says he is going to be tougher than Bush, who he and the Democrats have constantly criticized for being too tough? And he has gone back and forth on what he would do depending on whether he was in the primaries against Dean, or not appearing strong enough against Bush, so he has gotten more and more warlike, finally resulting in the murder of a goose, just to appear different than he did a few weeks ago???
I don't think so. He has no integrity.
You are also wrong about his other flip flops, did you read his article in the WSJ about his economic plan? He is going to cut cap gains more than Bush!!! The guy is just totally lying, and since I can't prove that all I can say is whether he voted 98 times or 62 times to raise taxes, again his whole career has been as a tax and spender. We are supposed to suspend belief about the guys entire life and record because he got in a room with some political consultants who told him, this is what you have to do to get elected, so he just started spouting it.
That is so obviously true, so my conclusion is that you just can't trust him.
With Bush you know what you are getting, and he will take it to the enemy with force. That much we know, maybe too much force, but he will stand up strong, and my vote therefore goes there.
The world is too risky now to be taking chances with someone who reinvented himself in a few months to try to win the Presidency.
I am a moderate or even liberal Republican like yourself, I voted straight Democrat for twenty years but I switched over because I realize the biggest issue we face is the encouragement of victimhood that the Democrats spread everywhere in our society. Bush's ownership ideals speak to that, because the biggest thing people have to own is that they are individually responsible for their own successes and failures. That is so critical, I think, for the success of our society as a whole that that really determines my vote at bottom.
I think you have to look at your own personal philosophy about what you think will make our society more successful and vote for the candidate more likely to do that. Even though Bush has gone bezerk spending, Kerry will spend even more.
The reason both Bush and Kerry spend too much is because people demand it and they wouldn't get elected if they didn't. Rove saw that Bush didn't win the popular vote last time, and to expand the GOP base he has had Bush pushing through popular programs like the drug benefit for seniors, but they have cost plenty. The reason people are like that is that they have been taught that they are all entitled victims by the Democrats, and they are owed. I can't write a book here, but that is a sickness at the bottom of a lot of problems, and we need to head toward Bush's ownership society because that implies and will create a philosophy of personal responsibility.
Bush has positive ideals that he is pushing us toward, more than almost any President I can remember. It is just that he is daily bombarded with withering criticism, and has been since before he took office, and has not been able to create too many of them. Think about all the vision this guy has, though, ownership society is a wonderful huge vision, but it is lost in the crossfire and who knows if he will ever be able to do much with it?
"The biggest threat is failing to deal with budget and other problems inherent in the demographic surge towards an older population, "
Bush at least says he wants to do something, and given a Republican Senate he might actually be able to.
Kerry has come out *against* reforming Social Security.
It's not true that we don't know what Kerry stands for. Here it is, in brief:
1. Foreign policy and security:
Bring the boys home, no overseas intervention, France, the UN and diplomacy to take care of world security. Appeasement of Arabs, Mullahs, Norks. No money for weapons. A replay of Clinton (best case).
2. Domestic and economic:
Social security: fine program, no problem. Tax the rich. More money and Gov. programs for education and health. Kyoto or Kyoto lite. More regulation. Compared to Kerry Clinton was a conservative.
Even if a Rep. Congress will be able to block his worst plans, a prez has a lot of power, to nominate, to regulate, to influence public opinion.
So, if you love Social-democracy, European style, and are a liberal - you vote for Kerry. If not, you don't.
Either [invading Iraq] was inevitably a boondoggle, in which case Bush shouldn't have started this, or it became a boondoggle, in which case we need someone more competent in charge.
There is another possibility. Invading Iraq was almost inevitably a boondoggle, but not invading was almost inevitably worse. Sanctions were on the way out. Saddam was willing and eager to reconstitute WMD programs. He was ambitious and ruthless (as were the sons who would almost certainly be his successors). He would not have given up trying to control his neighbors, and I have little doubt that many of them would have gone along with him out of fear of what he would do.
Sometimes you have to choose between two bad choices. Sometimes you have to choose between a bad and a terrible choice. Bush chose the bad over the terrible.
Paul Snively sez:
"[Kerry] probably just-as-bad fiscal policy"
Worse
"Either [invading Iraq] was inevitably a boondoggle, in which case Bush shouldn't have started this, or it became a boondoggle, in which case we need someone more competent in charge."
Would that the Democrats had nominated such a person. Unfortunatley, they nominated Kerry.
Bush's managment record [my opinion only, of course]-
Oil company: C+
Sports team: A-
Texas: A-
First presidential campaign, B+
USA: B-
Second presidential campaign: A-
Kerry's management record [opinion again]
Swift boat - A+ to here Kerry tell it, F- to hear the SBVT tell it. Call it unknown.
First presidential campaign: C- He has walked face-first into so many things he should have been better prepared for (like the SBVT.)
If "competence" is your issue, I'm afraid you're stuck with Bush. He may suck, but Kerry sucks worse.
I don't mean to call you a liar, but in reading your post I don't think you're an undecided voter at all. Why? Go back and read your post yourself again. You've obviously bought into every single bad thing that the Bush campaign and the RNC has said about Kerry with no reservation. What does that say about how undecided you can be?
You ask for Kerry supporters to prove to you that his domestic agenda won't be the disaster you fear. But what about Bush's agenda? The nomination of enough judges like Scalia and Thomas to guarantee anything the far right likes will be found constitutional. (As an aside to that I'd be fascinated to hear your take on the revelation that Thomas, does in fact not believe in stare decisis.) He proposes the partial privatization of social security with not one nod towards how it can be paid for given the massive deficits he's run up. There is lots of talk about how he'll balance the budget but a refusal to accept the pay as you go concept by his party. Personally I like the idea of at least trying to be fiscally responsible but not being straight jacketed into the blind belief in the free market's perfection that seems to be the current Republican religion of choice. Mostly because I think that our current society is discovering its limitations because of the health care system breakdown and globalization's problems. I also think that there is no easy answer and that the human tendency to break things down into labels will prevent any solutions until things get much, much worse. In the modern Republican lexicon anything that isn't pure free market becomes socialism and there can be no original ideas offered with that mind set.
Famed business writer Peter Drucker liked to ask the question, "Are you doing things right or are you doing the right things?"
His point was that approaching the right goal, even imperfectly, is much more important than approaching the wrong goal in the best possible way. Bush has done the right things.
Bush's Iraq strategy has been flawed. The first phase of the war went much better than most of us expected, but second phase has been a lot worse. His Afghanistan war went better than expected in all phases.
The key reason to vote for Bush is that he was right to overthrow these brutal tyrranies and to bring democracy. Polls show a huge majority of Iraqis favor democracy. I think it will work there, despite the strategic errors and horrendous terrorism.
Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Based on his Senate record of hesitancy, I doubt that he would have invaded Afghanistan. He wouldn't have had the commitment necessary to bring democracy to those countries.
Look at history. Our failures in the Korean War, Iran, and the Bay of Pigs left problems that plague us to this day. OTOH, our successful post-war handling of Germany and Japan created stable, democratic allies.
Decdes from now Afghanistan and Iraq will be stable, democratic allies of the US, thanks to Bush's leadership. He has sought to solve problems, not just manage them.
"You've obviously bought into every single bad thing that the Bush campaign and the RNC has said about Kerry with no reservation. "
I live one state north of the guy, and I had figured all that stuff out for myself long before the Bush campaign publicized any of it.
[begin muttering under breath] I still can't believe they nominated that putz. I still can't believe they nominated that putz. I still can't believe they nominated that putz....[/end muttering under breath]
Remember also that Kerry is beholden to his party. While Kerry may have some cetrist instincts, his party has gone off the deep end. You have the protectionist wing of the Democrats on the rise demanding a return to the bad old days of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in order to "keep jobs here." You have the neo-isolationists who demand an absolute pullout of Iraq, and they're a sizable number within the Democratic party.
I firmly believe that political pressure from the radical wing of the Democratic Party will force Kerry to substantially reduce US troop levels in Iraq, which will leave the country in a state of complete anarchy. Based on that alone, I'd expect crude to hit $75/barrel due to widespread disruptions as Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi expands his terrorist operations. It is as simple as they say - we have the choice of hitting them over there, or waiting until they get here. Kerry's entire policy is essentially reactive - we have to pass that "global test" to take action. Unfortunately the only time that's likely to happen is after a major US city has been vaporized. Imagine the economic reprecussions of New York or LA getting wiped off the map. It could very well spawn the Great Depression redux.
Kerry would pass a watered-down version of Hillarycare which would further cement government control over the healthcare center. He'd undoubtedly add massive entitlement programs to the system. Remember that Kerry is *not* a fiscal conservative in any sense of the word - he only pretends to be to get elected, and his Senate record is illustrative of this.
Kerry would have to institute massive new taxes to pay for his programs. And in order to "soak the rich" expect the divident tax reduction to go away completely. Expect a massive increase in capital gains taxes. Expect economic growth to take a nose dive.
Granted, Bush's record is flawed. Yes, we screwed up several times in Iraq, but not so much as to be irrecoverable. But Kerry would only compound those errors through a policy of force reductions and the use of unreliable foreign or UN troops. Yes, Bush signed a major new entitlement into law that will cause problems for years to come. Kerry would expand it even more. Yes, Bush's record on trade is in some ways worse than Clinton's - but the isolationist wing of the Democratic Party would force Kerry to massively harm the flow of international trade.
I'll give Kerry PAYGO, but when you've already set the budget at massive levels it doesn't matter how easy it is for departments to request more. It's like advocating plugging a leaky sink on the Titanic at that point.
Yes, you may end up holding your nose in voting for Bush. A lot of people will. Were this a choice between Bush and a sensible Scoop Jackson Democrat Bush would probably be toast. But given that Kerry's record has been wrong on nearly everything except money laundering investigations for the last 35 years, it is clear that Kerry just isn't the kind of person this country can afford to have in the Oval Office at this time.
Regarding Iraq being a cluster-#@*!:
I disagree. Remember when we were supposed to become bogged down in a quagmire? We weren't. The army routed around local intransegence, and swept in from the south. In days.
Today, 95% of the country is stable, and beginning to come out of the seventh century. Not too bad! The remaining pockets of resistance in Falluja, Baghdad, etc. have been collecting jihadists, concentrating them to be dealt with at our initiative.
You think things would be better if the moslo-murderers were as before, distributed widely across this region and rest of the world? Do you think you would have better results by negotiating with these people? What possible plan could Kerry have had that would have been more successful than the one we have been following? And please don't tell me it includes the U.N., or France!
Today, you have a choice. You can either neutralize the Islamo-fascists where they have been strategically gathered today, or you can let them slip out of the box, and have to nuke the entire Middle-East tomorrow.
Another thing to consider is the likelihood that the next President will have multiple opportunities to nominate Supreme Court justices. Personally, I don't think it likely that Kerry would nominate justices that a libertarian would be comfortable with.
Jane,
Anyone still on the fence only need to read this.
http://theanchoress.blogspot.com/2004/10/woman-in-black-hijab.html
If this does not tip you in the right direction then I am afraid you just need to stay home on Nov. 2nd.
Cheers,
Jody
Hmmm.
Ok. I'll bite.
1. Iraq-devastation.
It's inescapable that both the Democrats and the MSM have made success in Iraq a moving target. At the outset of the invasion the conclusion was that there would be millions of Iraqi casualties, tens of thousands of soldiers killed or wounded and vast damage done both to Iraq and to American prestige and honor. The inflamed estimates of the number of children killed, alone, were in the hundreds of thousands. Additionally many of the people now screaming at the President about the lack of WMDs were the same ones who were predicting massive casualties from Saddam using those very same WMDS. The forward thinking was that American and Iraqi soldiers would be mostly protected, due to specialized equipment, but that Iraqi civilians, who would be completely unprotected, would be devastated.
Yet nothing even remotely like this has happened.
2. Iraq-looting.
A lot of people fault Bush on the post-liberation looting when they fail to even look in their own backyards. What? Haven't been to a sports event? Professional? Collegiate? Either way how many times have you read of a riot after a sporting event? How many cars burned, shops looted and people arrested? And this is in America where most of those people involved come from middle-class families.
And does anyone actually advocate shooting them?
So what were the soldiers to do in Iraq? In the post-liberation period a lot of Iraqis were overcome by the same sort of feelings that apparently afflict any number of sports enthusiasts all the world over. However in the Iraqi's case I think the reason for their excess is somewhat far more credible considering the enormous psychological pressure Saddam enforced to ensure his survival.
Really. If the orders had been given to soldiers to stop the looting then we would have had a situation where Iraqi civilians would absolutely would have died. Soldiers are NOT policemen. They are NOT trained as policemen. Forcing soldiers to act as policemen will result in deaths because soldiers are trained and equipped to kill. While some soldiers do take some training in handling riots, this is not a normal course given to all soldiers. Meanwhile what would the esoldiers have done with such prisoners? Handcuff them? Take them to a jail? Keep them for indictment by the local prosecutor?
Then there's the reaction of the Iraqis themselves to such actions. How do you think the Iraqi people, assured that the American forces were liberators and not conquerers, would react to having boisterous civilians killed by those very same forces?
The right thing to do, at that time, was to let it go. This is what happens with American riots after all. This is what was allowed to happen in Los Angeles during it's riots and looting. It's better to let it happen and let people get it out of their system and it is to crack down with armed soldiers. Soldiers forced into a role for which they are not trained, and should NOT be trained, will end up killing someone, such as at Kent State. Once people start getting killed this begins a cycle of escalation that can only increase the level of violence in manifold ways.
And why shouldn't soldiers be trained to be policemen? Because there's only so much time and money available for training and if you train soldiers to do something other than soldiering, then they won't be as good a soldier as they could possibly otherwise.
"Either [Iraq]was inevitably a boondoggle, in which case Bush shouldn't have started this, or it became a boondoggle, in which case we need someone more competent in charge."
Do you really think the world is a worse place now that Saddam is gone?
If your answer is No then you are in camp Kerry. If the answer is Yes then the next thing you need to ask yourself is: Has anyone come up with a credible argument of how the Iraq war could have been done better. I'm not talking about picayune Monday morning quarterbacking but real big picture stuff. If you believe Kerry's line about the availability of more foreign support then you are still in camp Kerry.
"Right now, apart from the small chance of a thermonuclear device detonated in an American city, it seems to me that the biggest threat to America is not foriegn policy at all [don't you know we're at war?--ed. Yes, I do, but it's a smallish war. Absent nuclear or smallpox attacks, it doesn't pose an existential threat to us, and I am not clear, despite the best efforst of my interlocutors, that Bush has made us either more or less safe from those two types of attacks, since the bottleneck to those sorts of spectacular operations would seem to be not The Will, but The Way.]"
Even assuming your analysis is accurate you are not answering your own question. Have the changes in Afghanistan and Iraq improved our safety vs. Islamist terrorists or have they worsened the situation?
I don't want to get all psychological on you, but it really seems that you are avoiding a final decision on your vote as a means of avoiding a deeper decision on the relative seriousness of the Islamist/terror threat.
Fence sitting will not make this one go away.
Well, Dear, I haven't time to read all of the comments or address all of your points immediately, but I will tell you one thing: The very fact that Bush has the cods to bring Social Security reform up is by itself pretty convincing evidence that he means it. There's no other good reason for him to do so. He's taking a tortured licking from the Kerry people for it because they never miss a chance to rack the other side for merely addressing the matter.
I don't know how much you think you know about health care, but I can tell you this: the one, single most effective thing we could do to begin to repair the system is politically impossible, so I fear we are doomed to a government-run (yes, Socialist) system that will be wretched, and those of us who think it's bad now ain't seen nuthin' yet. We need to sever--COMPLETELY SEVER--the relationship between health care insurance and employment. We'll never do it, no one has the cods I mentioned above. It would, in one fell swoop, eliminate a lot of the sources of trouble. But it won't happen. So Kerry and Clinton and all the rest will "give" us the most-worst option sooner or later. We won't be in a hurry to thank them once we're into it, and by then it'll be far too late. Shoot, it's too late now.
The Libyan nuclear program is in Tennesse now.
John Kerry has 20 years in the Senate and the committees he heads up oversee just a billion dollars worth of expenditures. He is not a leader in the Senate and he was parked in the backwater committees because there he could do the least damage. He is a dilettante. He can make up his mind that he wants something, but once he gets it, he does not know how to go about being effective and DOING something.
The war on terror must be your first priority. It is utterly foolish to conclude otherwise. I regret that Joseph Libermann is not the Democratic standard bearer. But that isn’t going to happen. We are not choosing between the perfect candidate and George W. Bush. No, the president’s opponent is John Kerry---a man who possesses a solidly established record of appeasing our enemies. He didn’t even vote for the first invasion of Iraq in 1991. A man of sixty does not readily change the ingrained habits of a lifetime. We are risking too much in the hope that he might. President Bush is the lesser of evils. We should remain with the devil we know during these dangerous times.
My libertarian reason for voting Kerry is simple: A Republican Congress. Unless something incredibly unexpected happens the Republicans will hold the House, and I suspect they will hold the Senate as well. A Democratic President and a Republican Congress will empower the moderates of both parties at the expense of both ideological fringes.
I think that the best chance to get some commonsense solutions to the fiscal problems of over-spending and the insolvency of Social Security will come with divided government.
Additionally, I think that divided government would reduce the frequency that the War on Terror is used as a partisan bludgeon, and with luck, could produce a long-term plan for dragging the Middle East into the modern world that lies between the "Hulk Smash" attitude of the current administration and the "What War?" attitude of the Michael Moore left.
I realize that doesn't actually address either of your questions, but it's at least a line of reasoning as to why one candidate can be considered preferable.
Hello: Just found this fascinating discussion on a link from Instapundit. It is so nice to see reasoned political discourse and a minimum of name calling. Kudos to those on both sides.
I am a fairly libertarian independent who teaches world history at the high school level, and has studied history and politics most of my adult life. So here is my pair of copper portraits of the sixteenth president.
1. No war has ever been fought with a plan for "winning the peace." This kind of monday morning quarterbacking is absurd. And many of those partaking in this argument were the ones who expected 15,000 battlefield dead and a protracted struggle.
2. Pre emption is the key: In the days of suitcase nukes we can't afford to give anybody a first shot. Look at the economic repercussions from the 9/11 attack. Imagine a dirty nuke taking out most of Wall Street? Sorry Kerry fans we can't sit back and do nothing. the September 10th - terrorism is a law enforcement issue - let's send Jimmy (Lil Abner) Carter to make promises to Kim Jong Il and then be completely surpirsed when he breaks his word- mindset is history.
3. Islam has been going backwards intellectually since the 9th century, when Islamic culture was at its height. Less than 100,000 books have been translated into Arabic since then, and that has allowed the nut jobs to take over. Many of those in that part of the world still cannot get over the decline and destruction of the Ottoman Empire. A working democracy needs to be established in that part of the world.
(Yes, I hear you tut tutting, "But Bush was against nation building!" Yes and I agree, but Bush changed after 9/11 as did a lot of us. It took a Republican congress to pull Clinton back to the center didn't it? It was less than 700 days from Clinton waving the pen, promising to enact universal health care to "the era of big government is over!")
For more on the need for Islamic countries to reform themselves I reccomend Ralph Peters' article on the "Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States" that he did for Parameters in '98. See how many of those characteristics apply to the Islamic World.
4. I do not believe the bombs from the right about Kerry letting the UN dicate our foreign policy (welll mostly), but the UN is proving to be a failure as an organization, an utter and complete failure. Sudan is shaping up as another Rwanda and yet they do nothing. Oh wait I think they just passed another resolution condeming Israel.
And why is it that everyone talks about the "rush to war?" Nine months or so and endless foot dragging by this august body, not to mention numerous resolutions that Saddam was laughing at. The UN resembled the joke about the unarmed British policeman yelling at the fleeing thief, "Stop! Stop or I will yell stop again!"
And why does Bush not get any credit for trying to put teeth behind all those worthless UN resolutions, and showing one of the numerous dictators around the world that free nations do mean business?
Those are my big four! As a libertarian I am not happy with a lot of Bush's domestic policy but I see more creeping socialism under Kerry. Mark me in the Bush camp.
Jane-
With all due respect, your discussion is in a way very revealing. You mention a thermonuclear explosion. Taken literally, that is very unlikely coming from terrorists. But perhaps you don't know the difference between fusion and fission. The much more likely concern for us is a fission bomb. How serious would such a thing be? Think of 911 multiplied by 100, at least. Think of the death of New York City. Think of where you live, and so much of it gone it becomes unliveable. How seriously should we take this concern? Perhaps you don't know how ridiculously easy it is to make a certain type of crude fission bomb, with the right material. If not, read about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and most importantly the differences between the two! That material is out there and might well be stolen. It can be made; relevant equipment from Iraq was spirited away and taken to Oak Ridge, TN a few months ago. The administration does not speak explicitly about this threat, at least not often. They couch it in words like WMD. But this is the threat, and listening carefully you can hear Bush and Cheney saying it. Want perfection? Don't we all but we're unlikely to find it. Want an administration that takes its eyes off the ball and allows NYC or DC to disappear? Go with the candidate with the incoherent foreign policy. My choice is made, not because Bush is perfect (he's not) but because he sees the abyss. As the knight said in Indiana Jones III, "choose wisely."
My libertarian reason for voting for Bush is simple: lower taxes, introduction of personal accounts to Social Security and the health care system, less onerous regulation of industry, and federal judges/Supreme Court justices who understand the primacy of property rights in securing individual liberty.
"Deadlock" is a non-philosophy of government, a recourse to which many libertarians have taken flight because they keep losing elections. I prefer a more vigorous response to statism. Bush is far from perfect, but is the least bad feasible choice.
A man rushing to the aid of a woman being raped is not making himself safer short term but because of his aid the streets will be safer for everyone.
Diversify your investigation of Iraq. As a blogger it is strange that you seem to have accepted the MSM line that all is disaster.
Kerry has done no single thing that qualifies him to be President: Never met a payroll. Never led anything bigger than his office staff. Never accomplished anything save being elected in a state that has Kennedy as its other senator.
I don't understand your indecision. But then you don't seem to see the danger of radical Islam, either. Why do I think I just wasted my time.
How disappointing that at this point an intelligent person like you can't decide. Does it occur that perhaps after 2 years of speeches your inablity to state what kerry stands for is in itself the answer. Please take Michelle Malkin's advice and stay home election day
How on earth could you possibly be undecided at this point? Just stay home, the Republic is not better served by ignorant or hapless people voting.
Even with unbiased intel, I can't think of a single war that didn't look like a "cluster****" to those observing in real time. But our intel isn't unbiased. The MSM is selling a debacle because that advances its agenda. Same old deal as the Tet Offensive. Militarily we won it in a big way, but the boobs on the toob sold it as a defeat. Compared with, say, operations Torch and Overloard, this one is a short stroll on a pleasant summer's eve. Those operations were successful.
The overarching moral passivity of your request to have someone else convince you unfortunately says more about your shortcomings than either candidate.
There's no sin in being confused, uncertain, or overwhelmed. But, there is a dilemma in not having some sort of moral anchor in a sea of information.
It's not the gale, it's the set of your sail that gets you home. Set your own course. The answers will come.
/metaphors off
:o)
I find myself similarly conflicted about what to do with my vote for President, but only because I live in California where my vote is irrelevant (except symbolically). I don't want to vote for Bush due to his record of vastly expanding government spending and entitlements and subsidies. I would not vote for Kerry for a whole raft of reasons; he's worse than Bush on at least 90% of the issues and is willing to say or do anything to achieve his ambitions. I would normally vote for Badnarik, but I am quite unhappy with his position on the War On Terrorism. I may just skip the top spot, but I hate to do that; it would be the first time ever for me.
If I lived in a battleground state where it was just barely conceivable that my vote might actually matter, I'd have to decide on the basis of the War On Terrorism. And I consider this a domestic issue as much as a foreign policy issue. Aside from the actual damage and deaths that a future major terrorist attack(s) could inflict on our country, the potential damage to our economic and political infrastucture might be even more lethal. Look what happened after 9/11. The airlines and travel industries were devasted, hundred of billions of dollars worth of economic activity and jobs were lost, etc. The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress.
Our economy could be hamstrung by another major attack, or by a series of minor attacks. Imagine, for example, a dirty bomb set off in a major city. Such an attack would not be all that difficult; it would require some explosives and (perhaps locally stolen) nuclear waste. Probably no one would die (at least not from the radioactivity), but the public hysteria would force the evacuation and maybe permanent abandonment of the targeted city. The economic consequences would be many times what Florida suffered from the recent string of earthquakes. The political consequences would be new laws to restrict our liberties and invade our privacy.
That's a major reason why Bush's policy of going on the offense against terrorists and harboring nations is valuable. He has kept Al Queda and other groups and dictators on the defensive and on the run. As a result we have not had a significant attack within the U.S. since 9/11. Our economy is now growing, and we're arguing over whether to re-authorize or otherwise modify the Patriot Act. The overall scope of infringements on the freedoms of most Americans has been minimal, and battles are being fought (with some success) in the courts over those whose freedoms were harmed.
That's not a bad place to be, given what might have happened, and given what could happen in the future if the WOT returns to our shores. John Kerry's defensive, law-enforcement approach has a far greater risk, in my opinion, or allowing such attacks and the concommitant long-range damage to occur.
Lonewackoblog claims that if Bill Gates were president, things wouldn't be so screwed up.
I don't buy it. Microsoft's products usually don't succeed until release 3, at which point they become unstoppable. Consider Windows: Releases 1 and 2 were jokes, release 3 was the first one that was usable, release 3.1 was a huge improvement, and after that there was no competition.
What Microsoft has is a willingness to try other things if the first ones don't succeed, and an unshakable determination to lead every market they pursue. That, plus lots of money.
Sound familiar? We're no later than release 2 in Iraq (depending on whehter you count the handover of sovereignty as release 1 or release 0).
Since 9/11, like many others, I've bought a house and started a business in a Republican run, non-union state (FL) that lacks a State income tax and (not coincidentally) has an umemployment rate around 4.5% (far less than the already low 5.4% annually). Sorry a vote for Kerry would be suicidal not just for national security reasons.
I stumbled across this blog this morning. I really do not understand why any intellectually honest person would even consider voting for Mr. Kerry. Our President HAS character, it is what determines ultimately what any individual will do or uphold in the situations of life. You see, having served in Vietnam for 4 months, regardless of the medals or anything else concerned, he ultimately turned on his fellow soldiers. I served in the Army during the Vietnam era also. Our President, has a good, honest track record the last 4 years. Strength of character, caring and even compassion have been seen by the whole world in the heart of this man. Actions speak the heart. President Bush is a man of action, he HAS done the things he has promised as a candidate and President. He keeps his word. A look at what Mr. Kerry has done all his life should really make any sane person uneasy about his heart or his character. After 3 months in Vietnam he used the system to get out of Dodge. He used the honor of all of us who have served out country for his own misguided personal gain. Twenty years in the Senate with virtually nothing to show for it? AND, you have doubts about who to vote for, for President????? I am 62 years old, have lived in Europe for 16 years, am independant, and try to make judgement on intellectual and heart felt honesty. I have made my share of mistakes also. But having said that, at this moment in our county's history, a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for uncertainty, weakness, and for a man that has a lack of character. This is a matter of TRUST, and regardless of anything else, I TRUST President Bush, and he has my vote for the second time. You have a thousand times more information than you need, to come to an honest conclusion on the honesty and character of these two men, so you decide, and if you choose Mr. Kerry, I have serious questions about you character and honesty.
May God have mercy on our country.
Well, you can sit on the lap of this long-term undecided and I'll gaze into your eyes and tell you to vote for George W. Bush. But you have all the facts, and if you're not decided at this point, your duty to the American people is to stay home on November 2nd. We live in a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, and the uninformed rabble--which you clearly aren't--were never intended to be part of presidential elections.
It's really simple to someone with little-L libertarian instincts like myself. No matter how much you wonk away on other issues, terrorism/Iraq is the central issue. And yes, they are intertwined, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, as everyone in the Clinton Administration used to tell us before it was politically expedient to tell us otherwise. The fact is this: Iraq is a mess. You know why? Because there was a war there, a war that overthrew the long-standing government. That was the long-standing government that made its living by murdering its own people by the hundreds of thousands, by fomenting instability in its neighborhood, by funding and harboring terrorists, and by buidling and using biological and chemical weapons, one of only two governments since WWI (Egypt in 1960 being the other) to use such weapons in open warfare. And now, less than two years later, they will be holding elections, however imperfect (think U.S., 1864). Iraqis, by and large, recognize the threats to the tenuous freedoms they now have and are risking everything to sign up by the thousands to defend them. These are not RNC talking points--these are historical facts, whether you can take it or not! Those Iraqi bloggers aren't making sh$%%& up.
If you think I'm idealistic, too bad. The war is the most important issue, and sometimes I'm almost tempted to return to active duty so I can get sent to Iraq and DO SOMETHING instead of contending with obnoxious Monday morning quarterbacking (note to hacks: don't bother daring me to do so, it's not that simple a process and I have another career to build first).
I'll have to save domestic issues for another post, but the short answer is that Bush is the candidate who BEST FITS my own libertarian/liberal internationalist tendencies. John Kerry is no JFK, no Truman, no FDR...he's not even a Clinton, Lieberman or Gephardt, and if voters don't know that, they're too uninformed to vote. I am decided, and I am going to vote next Tuesday, come hell or high water, for the candidate who sees the world as it really is and has a vision (who knows if he's right? it's just a vision) of how it should be.
All very interesting. I would like to know more about Kerry. That is one thing holding me back from supporting him. Releasing his military records and FBI file so we could see more deeply past the spin would be great. Tax returns would be nice. I think that he did release some medical records, which was good. I worry (a lot) about electing Kerry and then finding out unpleasant truths once he is in office. You are precisly right to say that the Kerry mantra so far has been "vote for me, I am not Geo Bush".
The thought that the anti-war bunch might run this country is frightening. Should Bush lose, no future president will go after terrorists in foreign countries for fear of not being re-elected. Bush had no such fear. With Kerry as president, Iran and N.Korea will have a field day and Taiwan returns to China. The snowball starts rolling.
For anyone living in a non-swing state (Jane lives in NY?), voting is an expressive act of making your voice heard rather than an instrumental act of actually affecing outcomes. In NY, a vote for Kerry is wasted (he'll win anyway), as is a vote for Bush (he'll lose anyway). All votes are 'protest' votes. (To a lesser extent, this is also true in swing states, since your chance of affecting the outcome is virtually nil.)
Being a libertarian-leaning person myself, if I were in Jane's shoes, I would vote Libertarian. The actual Libertarian party is made up of raving moonbats. If they had a chance of actually attaining power, I probably couldn't vote for them. But I'm going to vote Lib to signal to the two major parties that I'm disgusted with them, and that if they move in a Lib direction, they might be able to woo me.
As long as my vote isn't going to affect the outcome, I might as well A) send the right signal and B) vote my conscience.
P.S. As far as I can tell, the Republicans are reorienting from being a coalition of 'small gov' and 'social conservatives' to being more like a European Christian Democratic party -- socially conservative, economically interventionist. To say that free market ideology is dominant on the right may apply to think-tanks and academics, but not to the Republican party.
The comment about Bill Gates is laughable. If the Bush Admin had had as much trouble getting the Iraq war done right as Bill has had trying to get Windows to run, we'd still be 200 miles south of Bagdad, washing the windshield in a sand storm.
An additional problem, is childish expectations. The Pres warned this would be long and difficult. What did that mean? We still have a military presence in Germany, Japan, and Korea. Is 60+ years a good historical benchmark?
This in probably not the answer that the generations of instant gratification would wish. But it is reality.
Which brings us to the real issue. And I believe a thinking person can both recognize the presidents long range vision, and the political impossibility of advancing it as the primal argument.
This is a world war with terror.
There have been over 9700 terrorist attacks, world wide in the past 20 years (U.S. State Dept.)
The keystone of this problem is the middle east. And the over riding issue here is the survival of Israel. The muslim fundementalists want to destroy Israel and kill all the jews. This is their avowed goal, not my words. Before Iraq, the world intellegence community agreed that Sadam had WMD, and we knew he had used them. The argument then is not did he have them, but rather when, where, and how did he destroy or hide them. In any event he had the capability and intent to re-constitute the programs at a time of his choosing. It has been estimated that the biological program could have been functional in 30 days. In the 1st gulf war, when Sadam launched the 1st two skud missles, one was into Saudi and the other was into Israel. For years Sadam rewarded the surviving families of suicide bombers $25,000 for the loss of their martyrs.
Israel has an estimated 100+ nukes. You can bet that in the event of anthrax tipped missles landing on Israel cities, Israel will launch a massive response. There would be a lot of glass lined holes in the sand where muslim cities used to be. This would likely provoke responses from surrounding countries with large muslim populations (as well as nukes), such as southern Russia, Pakistan, India, and the usual Arab states. Nuclear retaliation (an eye for an eye) is likely. And we are commited to the defense and survival of israel, and are now in the midst of a nuclear war. And do you think the rest of the world is going to sit back and let this oil soaked patch of sand go to the lowest bidder?
Now if you're "W" do you think you can sell the American people on the idea that we ought to go to war to save the Jews?
What possible solution is there?
The establishment of mid-eastern democracies, liberty, the people pursuing their own personal self interest, under stable governments. Utopian vision? At least it's a vision. You got a better idea?
3. Iraq-post-war.
There have been many complaints about how disorganized the post-war portion of Iraq had been. There is some truth to these complaints but to that I can only offer. So what? This isn't like opening a shop or organizing a bakesale. This is country the size of California with three distinct minorities who basically distrust and hate each other. This is a country brutalized for decades by Saddam in the most incredible ways and who've had their religious, moral and political leaders killed on a regular basis. The aftermath of any great change is going to make for a period of chaos. This isn't something that you can avoid simply because the most valuable thing, that would allow you to avoid that chaos, is something that is never available.
Information.
The amount of solid information coming out of Iraq wasn't all that good. And we're not talking about oil deposits or WMDS either. We're talking information about the electrical grid, water system, sewer system and etc. This stuff isn't easy to find out. The only way you really can find any of this out is by going there and looking. Something not possible while Saddam was in power.
Another point I'd like to stress is that all resconstruction depends on contractors. The amount of terrorism that has gone on in Iraq has largely been responsible for preventing much of the reconstruction. While it's relatively easy to set aside money to effect reconstruction it's hard to do if the people actually doing the work are being attacked. And it's even harder if their work is being slowly destroyed after they finish.
Do I fault the Bush administration for this? No I don't. Who on earth can predict that people, living in a slum with no clean water and open sewers, would actually act to destroy construction projects designed to give them clean water and sanitation? Did anyone predict that Iraqis, endlessly complaining about the level of electricity production, would be also tearing down electrical transmission towers and wires?
Frankly much of the discontent in Iraq is entirely to do with a misunderstanding of America. A lot of people have this image of America where people can wave a hand and anything can be done in a day. Wave a hand and a million tons of new electrical generators arrive to produce all the electricity in the world. No mention of the funds and time to actually build the things, ship them through lousy port facilities, transport enormous machines through half of the country and then install them in buildings that don't exist.
If this stuff were easy and the Bush administration screwed it up, then I could fault them. But it is not easy and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself. It's easy to armchair quarterback and it's even easier to sit on your ass in America and complain. But if you take the time to actually think about how hard this stuff is, particularly when it's done by a government that has never shown itself to be all that efficient, then I think you'll come to a different conclusion.
4. Iraq-reason of war.
A lot of people, yeah that cliche again, talk about the campaign in Iraq in isolation and this is entirely wrong. Iraq is not a separate war but a continuation of the same war that began on 9/11. This viewpoint is important since it's also the viewpoint of the Bush administration. You can disgree of course, but it's illustrative of why Iraq was invaded at all.
The case for Iraq was based on UN Resolutions and WMDs in part as a legalistic justification for some Republicans, many Democrats and Tony Blair. The fact is that we didn't need a justification because Saddam broke the truce long ago. Note that there wasn't a peace treaty, never was. Instead there was a cease-fire called which could always be revoked and forced re-engaged.
In retrospec the time and energy spent on massaging the UN was time and energy wasted. Saddam had plenty of time to cover his tracks in many different ways and to salt Iraq with potential insurgent groups. This also gave France, Germany, China and Russia time to cover their tracks in Iraq with respect to weapon sales and other covert assistance. It was during this time period that the French Ambassador assured Saddam that the French would veto any action against him.
So why invade Iraq?
Well let's leave the WMDs out of it. I don't particularly care about the whole argument over WMDs or their lack. For some people there is a need for a bomb that is marked "WMD". For these people it doesn't matter that it only takes 4 days to manufacture chemical warheads and bombs. For some people you have to have missiles marked "biological agent inside". For these people the fact that, with technology already researched and equipment on hand, it only takes 20-40 days to manufacture biological weapons evidently means nothing. Evidently it also doesn't mean anything that Saddam's technology was crude enough that any WMDs that he did have, had only a short shelf-life that required constant resupply. In other words Saddam's WMD program was designed, by necessity, to build weapons quickly because they didn't last long.
Leaving that behind let's look at the favorite reason for intervention for liberals all around. Humanitarian. How anyone could push the idea that the Balkan Campaign was justified, considering the absolute dearth of mass graves there, while the Iraq Campaign isn't, considering the vast number of mass graves, is completely beyond me. In this regard I think a lot of people, overly dedicated to the removal of Bush from the White House, have permanently damaged their credibility. At any point in the future, their cries for humanitarian intervention will be met with reminders of comparisons with Iraq. If Iraq isn't a prime example of intervention for humanitarian reasons, then what on earth is? 350+ mass graves have been found already that can contain as many as a couple million people. There have been at least 1 mass grave that contained nothing but children, who ranged in age from infants to somwhere around 15 years old. How many mass graves have been found in history that consisted of nothing but children? Before Iraq? None.
So I would suggest that the invasion of Iraq could be justified entirely on the basis of humanitarian grounds. If it couldn't, then what could?
Then there's the geographical, political and *spiritual* aspect of it all. Iraq has the notable situation of being 60% Shia'a, a direct neighbor of Iran and containing much of the Shia'a faith's holy sites. I believe the Shia'a faith requires it's adherents to go on pilgrimages to these holy sites at least once in their lives. The other notable fact is that Iran is 95% Shia'a and so almost the entire population of Iran must at some point in their lives travel through Iraq. In fact a number of cities in Iraq depend entirely on this tourist trade for their local economies. This mass pilgrimage has continued through all sorts of chaos over the years except for some periods of the Iran-Iraq War, where it was sometimes halted due to the fighting, and during Siege of Najaf. It was the fact that pilgrims were being scared away by the violent actitivites of the Sadr militia that eventually wore out their welcome.
The thinking is that a prosperous and free Iraq would be an incredibly corrosive force on Iran and a number of regional governments. Most people in this area have only heard about democracy and freedom and have never experienced it for themselves. A free Iraq would provide a means for conveying this experience to most Iranians who would experience it during their pilgrimage. And it's a pilgrimage that cannot really be stopped. The rulers of Iran are in their position largely due to thier religious influence. I don't believe that they could credibly prevent the pilgrimages for any serious length of time without violating the basic and fundamental rules of their Shia'a faith.
This won't be like the USSR after all, an iron curtain. In this situation it will be absolutely impossible to prevent the cross-border assimilation of new ideas and these ideas will become increasingly dangerous to the ruling mullahs of Iran. In part this is because of the massive corruption that they oversee in Iran. Then there's the rampant nepotism and incompetence that created a 65% unemployment rate and such shoddy construction that the hospitals in Bam, a regional city destroyed by a recent earthquake, were almost the first buildings to collapse. A perfect model of the corruption in Iran is the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire. Insular, insulated and rotten with corruption and back-dealing. Almost the entire population of Iran is on welfare. Another interesting fact is that young adults, under 30 years of age, comprise at least half of the entire population of Iran, a result of the Iran-Iraq War.
So Iraq is a perfect stiletto to shank Iran with. The way to deal with Iran is not to invade it, something that Bush as studiously avoided. But to corrode it from within. The soft seductive voices of fun, happiness and hope. If you think Iraq is bad, you haven't even begun to look at Iran. Once the violence dies down, Iraq will look like Florida to a study-weary college student. Consider all the things you cannot do in Iran, where religious zealots hold sway, and all the things that are possible in Iraq.
And, if you're a young Iranian adult, all you have to do to enjoy all of it is to join a pilgrimage.
Then there's the "flypaper" strategy.
This strategy is one based on cold realism. There are a large number of trained terrorists in the middle east, or at least there WAS. In addition to these trained terrorists there is also a segment of the muslim population that can be persuaded to go and fight in Iraq. What Iraq has done is provide a huge battlefield that is irresistable to these people. There were many accounts of AQ forces fighting American soldiers during the invasion. Many of these AQ forces ended up dead because fighting soldiers, who are heavily armed and prepared to kill, is a vastly different enterprise than shooting unprepared civilians. Additionally the terrain of Iraq is well suited to this strategy since, first and foremost, it is not America and there aren't that many mountains. The only places to hide are cities and the number of cities are relatively small. In addition the minimal highway system and the distances between cities also allows for the isolation of specific cities for specific operations, something that would be nearly impossible here in America. As anyone local to an area knows, there is always a back way. Unless that "back way" is without any cover at all and the people hunting you have highly specialized sensors.
Then there's the issue of how the terrorists deal with local Iraqis. The simple fact is that most Iraqis want the fighting to end so that they can go on with their lives. This puts many local Iraqis in direct opposition to terrorist groups so the groups have to crack down on the locals in order to maintain control. This isn't a situation that Mao described where insurgent forces swum through a sea of helpful peasants. In this situation the terrorist and insurgent groups have little connection with the locals. In effect there is no "sea" for them to swim in and it leaves them very vulnerable.
Megan-
My choice is incredibly simple...Who do the terrorists want in office? Who do those responible for The U.N.'s food-for-oil scam want in office? Who do the shyster hordes(trial lawyers)want in office? Who does every socialist/communist maniac in the world want in office? Who does most of the tenured elite want in office? Who does the hand out society want in ofice? It ain't Bush and that is why I'm voting for him...warts and all.
Good luck.
My comment got so long I ended up just turning it into a post on my own site.
Teaser is that your Presidential vote is not just a vote over who will occupy the White House for four years, but for who will control another branch of government for the next two decades.
Oh, and why the world-view, however flawed, of one of the candidates is more open-eyed than that of the other.
oooops-office
One more...Who does The MSM want in office?
If anyone reads down this far here is my 2 cents:
1. Thank God for the internet(s) and bloggers. Where else would you get to read about the situation in Iraq from ... get ready for it...Iraqi's. Such as this entry http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/ or http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/ . There praise and thanks for Bush and the US are expressed, and concern regarding the election and how "anyone but Bush" will be encouraging to the terrorists. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is world changing. We can't wimp out with John Kerry in office.
2. Watch Stolen Honor..free and uncensored at http://www.buttondepress.com/BostonManifesto/stolenhonor.wmv then please go to the bio of Bud Day at http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2719.html . Does anyone have a better first person historical view of war and John Kerry than Day? Will you be seeing this on TV? No, just the internet from bloggers.
3. I live in a small town that has had most of it's large businesses sued out of existence. I am currently unemployed and truly penniless. Without businesses there are no jobs. Would Kerry/Edwards make business development a priority? Selecting Edwards as a running mate shouts no. It important that we create and maintain a business friendly environment.
4. Commitment to the unborn. JFK still seems to be looking for the right thing to say to win votes. GWB's position is clear. A byproduct of this is the stem cell non-issue. Again, thanks to the internet (and bloggers) I read this article by Charles Krauthammer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34167-2004Oct14.html that was eye opening.
So, my point...read the whole thing as someone once said, and get past the spin. It would appear that if Judas Iscariot had the spin machine that JFK has he would history would be different.
Is Iraq a cluster-(expletive)? I would say no. Yes mistakes have been made, but they are always made in every war. In the heat of battle orders get lost or garbled, targets get misidentified or go unidentified and tactical decisions are made that turn out to be plain wrong, but it is easier to criticize these mistakes from our own comfortable armchairs with the full benefit of hindsight than it is to make them under fire.
The true test for success is not the number of individual tactical mistakes, but the larger strategic picture, and that's where things are looking good. Aside from the Sunni triangle, Iraq is fairly peaceful; in the North the Kurds are going about their business, secure in their lives and property while in the South most Shi'ites are supporting our efforts to bring about a democratic Iraq. Even in Sunni controlled areas like Fallujah, many Iraqi citizens are getting fed up with the foreign terrorists and are actively collaborating with the new Iraqi National Guard. Meanwhile the country is quietly being rebuilt and things look to be on track for an election in January.
The Alliance is now consolidating their gains and pressing on into insurgent controlled areas, and the initiative is clearly on our side, but if it doesn't seem to be going fast enough for you, keep in mind that it took five years to reconstruct Japan after WWII. It is going to take time to get this right, and strong, resolute leadership. That's exactly what we're getting from George W. Bush.
Now as for your big three domestic issues, let me hit them briefly in reverse order:
3) Bush has already created incentives to develop alternative fuel sources for vehicles, but that is inherently a long term solution since it will require a revamping of the entire transportation infrastructure even after a viable fuel source is found. Short term, Bush proposed drilling in ANWR, if you'll recall, and promptly had that shot down by environmental activists and their pet politicians. Really short term, oil prices are currently over-inflated by speculation. Yes demand is rising, but supply is rising faster. It's only a matter of time before the dam bursts and prices drop to something a bit more reasonable.
2) High prices on prescription drugs are bad, but centralizing Medicare drug purchasing like Kerry wants to do is just asking for trouble. Price controls always cause shortages in the long run. Dictating a lower price for prescription drugs on the scale of Medicare would drive a lot of the smaller manufacturers out of the market, leaving only a few major ones to compete. Innovation would suffer and there would be no one to pick up the slack should something unfortunate happen to one of the remaining suppliers.
1) Social Security reform was one of Bush's big four campaign promises in 2000. He followed through with the other three, but failed to pass any Social Security reform. My analysis of the subject is that following 9/11 he made a conscious decision not to expend the copious amounts of political capital it would necessarily take to push any such reform through when he might need it to fight the War on Terror. The fact that he chose to make it part of his platform this time around encourages me to believe that he still wants to follow through with it. Whether he'll have the political capital this time around to make it fly is anyone's guess.
From the things you've said in your post you sound like a natural Bush voter to me. Granted you're concerned about the war in Iraq (it's an understandable concern, though I think it's misplaced), but on the rest of the stuff Bush is right there with you. I hope that on election day you'll realize this and come home to where your heart is.
Hmm.
I will admit one subject that Bush does wrongly that absolutely enrages me.
Illegal immigration.
It costs every citizen in America, man, woman and child, $1,000 a year to support all the illegal aliens in this country. 40+ million poor in America? Well there are about 30+ million illegal aliens so that's an answer right there.
ugh. I just pushed my own hot-button. Time for coffee, good-bye.
Although I agree with others that the War on Terror is the primary issue, one way to look at this is through the lens of Kerry's other policy gimmicks.
Just look at his health care "solution". Paying for it by taxing the rich is wrong for several reasons, one of which is that those taxes roll downhill. A big chunk of it will fall on the rest of us. (If my boss's taxes go up, then that affects the value of the work I do.) So for that and other reasons, Kerry's solution is nothing more than hiding the costs, not reducing them.
If he gives us gimmicks for our health care problems, can we really trust him with the War on Terror?
The world is going to get a lot more dangerous. What happens when technology makes bio-terror more dangerous? The 1918 flu killed half a million Americans, and that wasn't even deliberate. This is a war that must be fought now.
I'm not sure how possible it is to convince you, but Iraq is not a tremendous clusterf***. The key determinant here is casualty figures. Blown ops kill significant percentages and tough fights kill significant percentages. We've lost less than 1/2% of the troops who have been in country in 18 months. If we were taking 1% a month, this would be a giant screwup. If we were taking 1% an hour, this would be a rout.
This is difficult to tell because the casualty numbers are so low that each person lost can be mourned.
A different way of looking at this is noting the extremely low percentage of the Iraqi people who have died in this fight.
We are not fighting indiscriminately and we are not losing, unless we decide to. I urge you to make an informed decision about this election, and that you consider history, not media, as your referant.
I humbly suggest that if you can't decide between Bush and Kerry then simply refrain from voting for either. Go and vote. Just don't choose a president.
Megan,
Here are two paraphrases from the campaign that may be helpful (or not):
"I believe in the transformative power of liberty" -- GW Bush
"Stability in Iraq is more important than democracy in Iraq" -- JF Kerry
The former phrase explains why you are not some man's property. The latter phrase explains the roots of 9/11.
If you regard citizenship as a series of business transactions with the government, then confine your study to policy statements. If citizenship is more expansive than that, you may want to examine issues of character.
MG
Option 1 with great reluctance. There is only ONE issue in this election: Iraq (and Afghanistan is a "part" of Iraq). It's the war against terrorism or any other kind of name one chooses.
Iraq is not Vietnam. Been there and done that. What some liberal kid out of college did at the Winter Hearings in 1971 interested me then. It no longer does.
There is the issue of leadership. I'm really not that sure that Shrub II is that much better than Kerry, but the latter's skills are in serious doubt. He's been an unimpressive and not especially effective Senator for twenty years. He did finally (to a limited extent) catch national attention four years ago. But this is my way of saying he's really never shown any leadership of any kind.
Authenic war hero? So what? McCain is more a hero in my opinion but that certainly doesn't qualify him to be President necessarily either (although I *might* at least prefer him as a choice.
But let's say you have a duck hunter who has never hunted ducks before. An aid orders up the largest size camo outfit from a nearby sporting goods store in Ohio and Kerry's personal tailor is flown in the take it up a bit here and there. Someone loans him a shotgun, he rises before the sun, and .... shoots a goose not a duck. Why? Blame it on NPR I guess. They likely don't know the difference.
But why go shoot the duck or goose in the first place? Why look at the photos of the man not carrying his goose but smiling anyway? Possibly he hates to anger the folks at home with the Massachusetts Humane Society and other groups which oppose cruelty to animals. ?? If he's not carrying it then no harm?
It strikes me that Senator Kerry shoots more ducks (or geese) than he's willing to carry (no pun intended). And that bothers me.
I'm afraid Dr. Frank has a diagnosis for you of a terminal case of 'analysis paralysis'. While it's not as bad as the 'rockin pneumonia' or the 'boogie woogie flu', it can stike people of your age and intelligence and leave them breathless before the polls. Look kid, just go with your gut, and take your shot based on your instincts. It's not the last election, it's just the next election. Just Vote Already! You've put more into this than NASA put into surveying the Moon before we went and landed on it.
Megan, Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, when you get all done with it, It's just two guys looking for a job. They work for you, not the other way around, and you have to decide if you can stand to listen to them prattle on about their weekend every Monday morning in the office breakroom.
As evidenced by your last election choice, its entirely possible to be well reasoned and wrong all at the same time, and theres nothing wrong with that.
Adding my two cents for what it's worth....
On foreign policy, it's between Churchill vs. Chamberlain.
On domestic policy it's between big government vs. the Feds & elites controlling your entire life.
Bush should not be reelected because he initiated a war of aggression in the heart of Islam with the resultant death, destruction and chaos. Many wise people on both sides of the political spectrum - not to mention in the military and intelligence comunities - warned him against it. But Bush wanted to be a hero. Now he is incarcerating people for months and years without trial, not to mention turning some over to "friendly" countries in the hopes that information can be torturted out of them. Bush can as easily be called a "zionazi" as his enemies can be called "islamofascists". Kerry, on the other hand, is a fish but doesn't yet have the blood on his hands that Bush does.
Bush is a dynamic leader, but he lacks what a president most needs: guardrails.
No. A government most needs guardrails. A president does not. Why have a president? Why not govern by congressional committee? GWB doesn't need guardrails. That whole checks 'n' balances thing takes care of that.
If you want to argue that the judiciary needs guardrails, you're getting somewhere.
2) "A foriegn conflict, on the scale of the current conflict (NOT one of the World Wars) that has had more damaging impact on the power that waged it than, say, the destruction of the medical technology industry would be. "
How about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan 1979-1989. It contributed directly to the fall of the Soviet empire. It was about the same size conflict with 100k occupying troops.
How about the French Occupation of Algeria? It got so bad that the French had to replace their constition (look up French Fourth Republic sometime for a lesson in how not to occupy a country)
I could also point to the Russian war in Chechnya. Or the Azerbaijan-Armenia war.
More to the point, can anyone remember an occupation of this size, other than the Syrian occupation of Lebabon, that was handled better in the face of the natural problems inherent in conflict?
Megan, While I agree with "George Bush" above that your New York City vote is of little concern to the rest of us at this late hour, I will give you a compelling reason to vote for Bush if you are single:
Since about six months after 9-11, when the loony left felt it was safe to come out of the closet and "blame America first", there is a clear phenomenon occuring around the world where successful American businessmen stand ready to deny employment and affection to those who simply don't "get" what happened on 9-11. In plain English: you will meet some very attractive, successful and interesting men in the future...who may want to sleep with you...but who will not respect or readily forgive you for having voted against common sense in the most important election in history.
And believe me...this lack of respect runs deep. I have turned away the most beautiful women on Earth for exhibiting "America deserved 911" attitudes, which is what left wing Kerry supporters in other countries believe.
I am an American businessman in Europe. My current job and the one I had before, were clinched when I told the interviewer that I was a solid Bush supporter. Both times, the interviewer gave me the job immediately, saying that my courage in sticking my neck out to say what I believed to be more important than "business as usual" was extremely impressive. Top level European corporate managers routinely apologize to me in boardrooms because of the leftist rantings of their fellow countrymen.
The same thing happens with women over here: despite the lukewarm attitude that Europeans often express on Bush, only about 1 women in 4 is a member of the religious left. A man who can eloquently discuss why the Liberation of Iraq had to happen is mostly admired, especially because Europeans mostly live under a dictatorship of left wing media. Considering that lots of Muslims walk around European cities in a threatening manner, one in four European women is more than just a little impressed to meet a solid Bush supporter. I would imagine that the best men America has to offer will then choose to date and/or marry women from this 25% Bush-receptive base...while ignoring the cheesy leftist girls...or the confused middle of the road girls.
I left New York City on September 12, 2001 because I considered a nuclear attack on New York very likely before the war is over (in fact, for a few minutes on a day in late September that year, there was a Reuters article on the Internet confirming that there was a suitcase nuke in Manhattan that the FBI was looking for. The article was mysteriously pulled from the Reuters website - confirming in me a desire not to want to live in Manhattan or downwind again). Living in Europe seems safe, because I know that the USA will do the fighting while Europeans get the benefits of being the cowards on the sidelines.
Most European leaders openly or secretly support Bush for reelection because of this factor.
If you are still living in Manhattan, it probably means that you are in denial about what the existential threat specifically to *NYC* actually is. The rest of Americans consider the nuking of New York as the line in the sand after which the whole of the Arab world will be nuked. I wouldn't like to be "the line in the sand."
Now the Bush administration has clearly told Muslims that the nuking of an American city will result in the nuking of every Arab and Paki city. So, with Bush, you can live in Manhattan peaceably knowing that you are protected by mutually assured destruction as well as by the fact that, as long as Bush is in the White House, terrorists will consider New Yorkers their political allies "against Bush."\
Your bridges and tunnels are generally safe for this reason...as long as conservatives control the White House.
With a Kerry Administration, the above two protections for New York City disappear: Kerry will give off the impression that the nuking of an American city would be met with a UN Resolution condeming the act (even if the resolution has to be made from Switzerland because the UN Secretariat is molten metal). Kerry (and worldwide liberalism) will also become the focal point of Al Qaeda hatred...making Kerry-backing cities like NYC, Boston and San Francisco huge targets for terrorists. You won't go terror-free for four years under Kerry like you have for three years under Bush.
One more thing to consider: If Al Qaeda under a Kerry presidency switches to an anti-Kerry strategy, that strategy will also be an anti-liberal strategy. Guess who will cheer Al Qaeda secretly on the way the far-left has been cheering them under Bush? You guessed it: a lot of the kind of men we now have in the US military who despise Kerry and the liberals.
In other words: if you urban liberals actually manage to get an enemy helping, dishonorably discharged demagogue into the White House in the middle of a war, do you think our military and pro-Bush America are going to react to the next 9-11 in the same manner?
Think about it: a skyscraper full of ignorant Manhattan liberals is on fire with Dan Rather reporting on how the brave unionized Kerry-loving firemen are rushing to the scene. People jumping to their deaths with "I voted for Kerry" written all over their foreheads, while the nuclear powered Islamic Republic of Iran announces that this is all just a warning for the ultimate destruction of liberal New York in two days.
Can you see how our soldiers might just want to get an apology from New Yorkers before they try to save the city?
From SteveO: "Iraq is not Vietnam."
Actually, Iraq may be Vietnam. I would argue that Vietnam was not Vietnam. Mr. Medved agrees.
I strongly suspect that much of the "mess" that is happening in Iraq today is a direct result of the various Islamofacist factions attempting to influence our decsion on 11/2. That is sufficient to tell me who needs to be elected. Bush, there really is no other choice.
WIth all respect, I think your expectations for Iraq are a bit high. Plenty has gone wrong, but there's an acronym which covers this: SNAFU. Emphasis here should be placed not on the last part ("all f***ed up"), but the first -- situation normal.
Things go wrong in warfare, just as things go wrong in any complicated, unpracticed task. But two very important things can be said about Iraq: First, the extraordinary competence you're seeking might not have been there to be found. The US military has been, with only a few exceptions, not been involved in protracted combat situation thirty years. While one might argue (and I would) that the theory of lessons learned from Vietnam was there, it is just as evident that much of the practice wasn't, nor could it be without occasion to test it.
But second, we're learning. Achievements made early are being built upon, such as forming local governments; Afghanistan held elections after almost three years, Iraq will do so in under two. Errors made and risks taken with adverse result are being corrected; turning Fallujah over to untested local authority didn't work, but it freed time enough to approach the various insurgencies in a "defeat by detail" fashion -- to dismantle al-Sadr's forces and then return to Fallujah later.
So, believing as you do, that errors go all the way to the top, do you want an unpracticed new leadership? Has Kerry and staff sufficiently convinced you that a change will bring the required competence in place of or in addition to the experience gained by the Bush team?
Dear Jane,
President Bush is your prince, no matter that he still appears a little froglike to you.
No amount of kissing will make Senator Kerry anything but an opportunist and a fake, willing to hurt American POWs thirty years ago, and willing to hurt us all today with his trivializations and mendacities on the war in Iraq, social security, and stem cell research.
Our only chance for peace in the world is to match President Bush's resolve in spreading freedom among unarmed peoples who long for representative government and the rule of just law but cannot fight ruthless dictatorships armed with modern weapons. For the first time in 50 years an American President has said "Enough!" to the realpolitik of America supporting monsters in order to ensure stability and adequate sources of oil. This may be idealistic, but it is our only chance since history testifies that countries that are free do not go to war against each other.
Has the war in Iraq been handled perfectly? No. Has the media given us a fair picture of the sucesses there? No. The UN has just stated that Iraq is on course for free elections in January. Have you read this in the media? I suspect not. (For details, see InstaPundit's link.)
President Bush's principles of independence for Iraq translate into independence and individuality at home, where he wants Americans to be able to choose their schools and choose (if they are young) to invest some of their savings for their retirement. His principle of a helping hand is evident in his and Congress' 40% increase in federal funds for education.
It is a sign of his character that he refuses to whine about savage and unsubstantiated attacks from democratic partisans.
He is asking for your vote not because he is perfect, and certainly not because he is the most compelling witness for himself (remember the frog), but because he cares about you and your happiness and freedom and the freedom and happiness of us all.
Sincerely yours,
Catherine Glass
Megan,
it is important to remember that the Democratic Party long ago left the Roosevelt/Truman Estate into the camp of the Far Left. For this, you can thank Lyndon Baines Johnson, who invented the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution so he could put 500,000 troops in South Vietnam. Since that time, the Democrat Party has shown itself completely inept at foreign policy (let alone an actual shooting war). Since Johnson, they lost their backbone and do not seem intent on ever getting it back. Look at the unmitigated disaster Jimmy Carter was ( the Iran hostage "rescue" and his comment that the Soviet Union had no "designs" on other countries right before they invaded Afghanistan) and then Clinton (Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down), no response to the bombings of the Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole...nothing). War has never been an exact science nor will it ever be. Did you know that when one president was running for re-election the nations army had lost EVERY MAJOR BATTLE (save two) and an anti-war candidate was running on the Democratic ticket on a platform of "Peace Now". It was the 1864 election, and Lincoln's General-in-Chief U.S. Grant was sending back 2000 wounded and maimed men a week. it was only the capture of Atlanta by William T. Sherman that allowed Lincoln to hang on. Also, in World War II the U.S.'s first time up at bat against the vaunted German Afrika Korps was an umitigated disaster, the U.S. lost badly suffering 6000 casulties in the process. These affairs must be fought by a man - and a party - that has a strategic vision. Pres. Like it or not, Bush and the Republicans have a strategic vision; go into the lair of the beast (the Middle East; Iraq, Afghanistan) and render impotent the forces of Islamo-facism. better to fight them there than here. The war isn't - and shouldn't be - just about bin Laden, it is about the large gathering storm of Islamo-facism.
hope this helps.
I must say that Kerry's open-ended "I have a plan" answers on pretty much everything demands that I trust him, and that is where all of his "voting for it before voting against it" pretty much makes it to where I cannot do that.
I actually think that the UN is more of a cluster-[censored] than Iraq. When Kerry brought up the "coalition of the bribed and the coerced," my first thought was the UN, not the US coalition. I believe that Kerry, if elected, will be the Neville Chamberlain (sp?) of our time.
Megan, I don't even know where to begin. Yes, Iraq is not the Magic Kingdom. But we are at war right now, and we have a real enemy fighting Bush's policy in Iraq. And while at war, there will be death and destruction. The alternative is not fighting that war, which is what we thought we were doing prior to 9/11. No, there were no WMDs. And there is no way in the world we would ever have known that without doing what we did.
Somewhere along the line, Democrats have given us the odd idea that a war is not worth fighting unless everything goes splendidly. That is historically a canard. But if you buy into that canard, then finding a reason for you to vote for Bush becomes more difficult.
What is Kerry's vision for this war on terror? He only talks about better diplomacy and focusing more on bin Laden. Read the latest Krauthammer on the diplomacy angle. On bin Laden, Kerry has made it clear that he believes the war on terror begins and ends with bin Laden. So what if we capture bin Laden in January? Then what? What is Kerry going to do? Is he prepared to invade another country if they are harboring terrorists or nearing completion of a nuclear bomb? You don't know, do you? That's because Kerry has spent the time between his exit from Vietnam to about 1998 being a consistent dove. A Jimmy Carter-like dove. It's all a matter of public record. He's only been hawkish as he considered a run for President, and Clinton proved a Democrat needs to be a hawk to win. But his instincts are that of a dove. That's why the high-minded talk of the UN. That's why he wants to abandon our bunker-busting weapons program, to be a good example for the world. Does bin Laden, possibly hiding now in a hardened bunker, respect magnanimous gestures? What about Iran, where the nuclear program is most certainly being worked on in hardened bunkers? The dove believes that the terrible world RESPECTS magnanimity. This is a dangerous attitude to have in the whitehouse. With Bush, you understand his vision for the war. If you don't, you're not paying attention.
Lastly, one would expect a fair-minded person to be repulsed at how Kerry tries to make appeals based on ignorance. Please read Gen Tommy Franks' Op Ed this past week in the NYTimes on Tora Bora. Kerry is well-placed to have the best knowledge available about what took place in Tora Bora. Most people are not, and during the debates, he used that effectively to suggest that Bush conducted the matter in an incompetent fashion. That was a disgraceful display of dishonesty. Integrity, integrity, integrity. Did you buy that as well? Or the fact that it was just an accident that Mary Cheney's sexual preference was brought up in two debates? Or that he likes goose hunting so much that he does it within two weeks of election day? In a battleground state? You know that Kerry is as phoney as "Lambert Field". And like him or not, you know that Bush is genuine. That ought to be worth something.
And one last thing. The CBS forgeries. The Mark Halprin Memo. Please go read the WSJ editorial today about Stolen Honor. Please go to Little Green Footballs and watch the video from MSNBC regarding Lawerence O'Donnell. Your impressions of this campaign are shaped by the MSM, including the situation in Iraq today, which seems to be your real problem with Bush. Considering this, is it possible you are being lied to? For political reasons? And for reasons of incompetence? This is the same MSM that was calling the initial invasion a quagmire just days before the 3rd ID was renaming Fedor Square. This was the same MSM that said Afghanistan was a quagmire just hours before the Norther Alliance marched through the Panshir Valley and took Kabul with barely a shot, save a few into the backs of fleeing Taliban. The MSM A) Doesn't know what they are doing in matters of war B) Is motivated to make Bush look bad in any way possible and C) Has John Kerry's dovish insticts when it comes to war. In the meantime, Iraq in Afghanistan go from being enemies in the war on terror to being very powerful DEMOCRATIC allies in the heart of the terrorist swamp. The MSM will never give you that perspective.
There is only one reason for an honest and informed person to vote for John Kerry. If you are a liberal who thinks it's bad for us to fight the war on terror beyond our borders, and to do so before they hit us, AND you hate Israel and don't think America should lift a finger to help other nations be free, then Kerry is indeed your man.
Enough on the WOT. Some of the arguments in favor of Bush in this regard are probably more eloquent than I would make.
Another thing to keep in mind is the training and background of the two men. Mr. Kerry has basically no training for the job and little relevant experience. Mr. Clinton at least had some executive experience running Arkansas. But how would he have done if he had been President on 9/11/. He would have felt everyone's pain, I am sure, but after that?
The problem is that both Kerry and Clinton were trained as attorneys. A JD is a fine degree (I have one). But it teaches you to work alone and to see all sides to an issue. It provides absolutely no training whatsoever in running a government with millions of employees, many in uniform (who, BTW, mostly despise both Kerry and Clinton - probably Kerry more for his anti-Vietnam War antics).
Mr. Bush however has an MBA (I have one of those too). In Business Schools, you are taught how to manage organizations. In most such, much time is also taken learning business basics, like accounting and finance. At Harvard though, that stuff is taught. But the real concentration is on running the companies. The adage when I was in B. School (unfortunately, not Harvard) was that you should only hire Harvard B School grads if you wanted to groom them for the top position.
Part of this ability to manage is learning how to delegate. This means hiring the best and then trusting them. Bush's team is several notches above Clinton's ever was. Mr. Bush is not afraid of hiring brighter people than he. Clinton was, and therefore made sure that he was the smartest man in the Administration. Compare position by position. Bush's people are almost always stronger. And what is scary about Kerry is that he is working with Clinton's second stringers.
Also note in passing that Kerry, in his brief campaign, has had more staffing problems than Bush has had in his entire 3 3/4 years as President. Wilson as a foreign policy advisor? Fine, until proven a liar by the 9/11 commission, then fired. Sandy Berger? Ditto, when caught stuffing classified documents down his pants.
Indeed, who is really running the Kerry campaign? To some extent, Kerry, of course. But below that? We know who is doing what in the Bush campaign. It operates as a well oiled machine. Why does anyone think that someone who can't organize a campaign successfully can organize an administration to run this country?
Bush has a well defined decision process, as would be expected from a Harvard MBA. He listens to all sides, and expects to hear such. He then makes his decisions, and expects those under him to execute. No griping or second guessing. They had their chance to express their views before the decision was made (the one exception seems to be Mr. Powell, and I suspect the President gives him that latitude because of Mr. Powell's stature).
Kerry seems to make decisions on an ad hoc basis, as one would probably expect from a JD. It appears that the last person to get his ear often is the one listened to. That is, of course, when Mr. Kerry actually makes a decision. Often though the decisions seem to be being made by those below, acting in his name.
After education, we get to experience. Both had junior officer training, which is really irrelevant here. War College for general officers might have been useful, but the training of junior officers is not.
Mr. Bush ran a small company or two into the ground. Maybe it was the environment (I lost a lot of money in oil then too). Or it might have been lack of skill. Then he did an excellent job with the Texas Rangers. After that, of course, he was the governor of the second largest state in the Union for 6 years (though it does have one of the weaker executives). Probably did a better than average job. In any case, running a state is much more like running the country than running a Senate office of 20 or so staffers. And then, he has run the country for 3 3/4 years.
Compare this with Mr. Kerry. As noted, esp. as a back bencher, Mr. Kerry got essentially no relevant executive experience from his 20 years there. At best, he got some foreign policy and intelligence experience. But with one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, even that is not that impressive.
So, ignoring the WoT, etc., which one has the qualifications to actually run this country and which one doesn't? I think the choice here is clear.
megan,
as a follow up, I should mention something that went wrong for Truman in Korea in 1950 to show that (in war) Murphy's Law will always apply; after thwarting the complete overrunning of South Korea by maintaing a toehold at the Pusan Perimeter, Gen Douglas MacArthur pulled off the brilliant Inchon landings, in effect cutting the Korean Penninsula in two (and cutting off the NKPA [North Korean People's Army] from it's base of supply in North Korea. MacArthur lead the UN force (yes, roughly 90% American) in an offensive toward the Yalu River to reunite all of Korea under a democratic government. However, Red China had been making noises about this and issued stern warnings that it would not tolerate nothing less than a Communist government in North Korea. Cut to the chase: by November 1950 UN forces arrive at the Yalu River. Unbeknownst to CIA and Military Intellgence, 300,000 Red Chinese troops had already infiltrated soon struck the UN line, rupturing it at several points. The entire 1st Marine Division was surrounded and had to fight it's way out of the Chosin Reservoir area. In a nutshell, a HUGE intelligence failure. Truman didn't throw in the towel as his fellow Democrats would today. Intelligence failures unfortunately happen. And at the time neither North Korea nor Red China had nuclear weapons. We lost 58,000 in about ten years in Vietnam. We lost 55,000 in three years in Korea. War - at worst - science, at best an art.
Not with dreams but with blood and iron,
Shall a nation be moulded at last.
- Swiburne, A Word for the Country
I believe that if Kerry had been elected in 2000 the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan, bin Laden would still be alive/out of his cave recruiting and planning, and of course Saddam would still be in power, waiting for the inspectors to leave so he could use his oil for food stolen billions to rebuild his arsenal. If Kerry had been elected in 1988 Saddam would not only still be in Baghdad; he would still be in Kuwait.
9/11 didn't change everything, but it changed enough to make Kerry a dangerous risk.
Dear Megan, While I sympathize with your problem, I must criticize your impatience. The war in Iraq is going quite well, as wars go, and I am amazed we are already this far along. What a basket case you would have been trying to decide between Lincoln and McClellan in 1864.
I spent 4 years in Vietnam as a doctor assigned to handle only VN civilians (but more often than not North VN and VC kids) and saw after Tet how jubilant the people were that the VC had been defeated and that now peace was coming. I treated over 10,000 VN and NEVER once heard a complaint from the VN about American maltreatment from any of them. (I learned to speak VN.) Mr. Kerry was doing his act before Congress while I was there and we were all utterly amazed at such buffoonery (?), perfidy(?), and flat out lying. But I brot home my brother serving with me to Arlington, and saw it all then. It is not too much to say you live in the finest country and most noble one in the world and it is utterly amazing that Mr. Kerry, opportunist that he is, has not only not sustained serious harm, that he would even think of running from president. This proves how utterly devoid of a conscience he is.
Is Bush the man then? Many people might have thrown down their weapons when commanded to march thru Georgia with Sherman. But this the consequence of war. That march is about to continue. You had better concentrate on the overjoyed citizens of Afghanistan. And think ahead to 10 yrs from now. No recriminations, no lasting regrets, no doubts, save you goodness for the massive rebuilding we shall all need to undertake soon. The Marines are starting. As soon as we understand the Iraqis have the same dreams we do, the sooner we finish the Georgian march and get started (read that 2nd Inaugural again).
You remind me of the North VN boy whose knee I was fusing despite his pleas that I cut his leg off. He needed to get home to protect his family and village. He called me back one eve at 11pm just as I finished rounds on a typical 18 hr day and really laid it on me. Cut that leg off so I can get home. With tears and heartache I did so; we gave him a party, a collection, a pair of crutches, & hearty best wishes as he headed west to the Ho Chi Minh trail. I still cry when I think too long on the needless amp that I did (an AK). But even worse are my thoughts of how we let all those wonderful people down. The troops now in Iraq are simply amazing, as were our guys in VN. They are the stars right now and you know who they're voting for -and against. Dick Matern, MD, FACS
I enjoyed the argument above about creating a plausible voting record so the better class of man will find you plausible. I entirely agree with it. I've had many women friends who moan about various men in their lives. When I figure out that those men are straight-vote political liberals, the solution to the problem becomes clear.
A few macho rightists have gotten a bad name; but a huge percent of male liberals deserve a very wide berth indeed from right-thinking women as to day-to-day deliciousness and sustainability.
Vote your future, sweetie, in more ways than one!
--A Seen-most-all-of-it female.
Jane,
If quantity of responses influences your vote, it looks like GWB is a lock by about 3/1.
A few notes on your article and some of the comments:
In the future, The Iraq war / War on Terror will be looked at as a milestone in ME history. It will be described as one of the fastest and least bloody of any conflicts when using a cost/benefit analysis. Cluster***k will not be one of the descriptions no matter what the treasonous Kerry commercial you may have seen today says.
The arguments that the post war situation has been a disaster in Iraq can be best described as a lesson learned in Vietnam. The lesson: The soldiers know better than the politicians what needs to be done. Support them, give them what they want and no more, and get out of their way. You hear a lot of retired military complaining that things should be done differently, but you don’t hear that from the guys running the show. (Don’t bother coming back with the Sanchez and Bremer comments – these are spun)
Japan and Germany are not a good comparison. They were much worse.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Bush and the war-mongers on the other hand find something edifying in dropping a bomb on a group of individuals walking down a street in Fallujah. Friends of Zarqawi, no doubt. Had good intelligence on that.
Bush logic:
All those who resist my attack are terrorists
Iraqis are resisting my attack
Iraq is central to the war against terror
(Can be repeated in other countries)
Plus bagbee is for Kerry and calls him the best Democratic candidate in his lifetime.
I rest my case.
Consider this:
1) War on Radical Islam: the debate seems to be between a "massive intervention" (MI) model and a "law enforcement"(LE) model. A hybrid (such as was used in Afghanistan) is probably best, but the MI method beloved by Bush is doomed to public failure because we don't have the resources to invade all of the troublemakers. LE will fail also, but at least not so publically and won't hack off the rest of the world so badly.
2) other Foreign Policy issues: I haven't seen the climate so bad between the US and other countries in my 20 year career. Not so much because of our policies, but because of the heavy handed way we have dealt with other countries. Our entaglement with Iraq limits our flexibility in other areas (esp. North Korea). Kerry would improve this situation, probably without changing many key positions.
3) Economics and domestic policy: It is almost certain that the Congress will remain Republican. If Bush is re-elected, his admin will continue to run amok on spending and civil liberties (can you imagine a Republican congress giving a Kerry admin, much less say a Clinton admin, the PATRIOT act? the last couple of farm bills? the drug benefit plan?) A Democrat president would probably force the Republians in congress to start being economic conservatives again.
So I think the conservative case is clear: Kerry would be best for the country, because he would be able to due little harm domestically, and probably wouldn't do much worse (and maybe even a little better) internationally.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
Do you actually believe John Quincy Adams would have voted for John Kerry.
He would have called him an opportunistic narcissistic traitor.
Having made the above points that, although your vote won't matter in the election itself, your vote in 2004 has more to do with your personal future as a New York City woman than you may have previously imagined...let's look specifically at Operation Iraqi Freedom. Here are some points:
1) If you supported a violent war against a violent regime when it happened, then it is a bit sick (weak) to be having "second thoughts" simply because many of those violent regime people didn't all fight and die quickly and in an ordered fashion during the initial six week phase of the liberation. That they decided beforehand to let us initially win and then give us a "Vietnam treatment" to influence our elections...should only make you more determined that we were right to have attacked some really evil and cunning people.
Face it Megan: the bad guys didn't all just stand in the desert and die quietly like they were supposed to. For that you would vote in support of the fools who condemn the President for the "Mission Accomplished" sign?
2) If you initially supported a violent war against a violent regime and then, as in Vietnam, other enemy countries [read Soviet Union and China then/Iran and Syria now] sent men, supplies and money into a "resistance" during the occupation...wouldn't you logically then at least entertain the possibility that you would extend the war or threats to those countries rather than say "Oh gee, we're losing to a "local" militia. We never should have started this in the first place"?
Now the following is only for adults: The Vietnam War was a proxy war meant to exhaust the resources and destroy the partnership of the Soviet Chinese Comintern. More than 58,000 American servicemen died in the successful accomplishment of this mission. The fact that American liberals childishly caused the deaths of 2.5 Million Indochinese from 1975-1978 by deliberately allowing the loss of Indochina to local communist forces...didn't matter so much because Nixon had already succeeded in Detente with China in 1972 that has lasted more or less to the current day (unless China is secretly once again our enemy).
The Iraq War as it stands now, is a proxy war to exhaust the resources and take the lives of the flower of the anti-American Muslim world. Every adult understands the "flypaper" strategy that Rumsfeld readily admits results in the deaths of several thousand Muslim fools per month at the cost of about 70 American lives per month.
Our media doesn't report on the mayhem we are creating among the bad guys...and that might be a good thing. There is no better war than one in which the enemy's people believe they are winning, and then their leaders (knowing the horrific losses they are taking) negotiate a settlement that looks good to their people who then have no thoughts of revenge.
This is why many conservative actually expect Bush to "retreat" after he wins reelection and the Sunni tribal leaders kill off the foreigners whom they won't want wrecking their livelihoods over the next 4 years (terrorists won't start trying to "influence the 2008 elections" if Bush wins).
Basically, like the Nixon victory in 1972 caused China to end its "world war against capitalism", (thus ending our strategic interest in the fate of Vietnam) ...a Bush victory in 2004 will do more to end Iraq Insurgent activity then most anything else. Look at the current situation: Both Iran and the leaders of Fallujah want to wait until after November 2nd to decide on what their next move will be in the war!! The Fallujah leaders are basically saying "Give us a T break. Can we hold this battle off a week or two? If Bush wins, what is the point of fighting?" The Iranians are telling the Europeans openly that their answer to the European demand that they not produce nukes will depend entirely on who wins on November 2nd!
Hello???! Is anyone home? Megan...who are you going to vote for?
And the reasons for the Iraq War...let us go into the real reasons:
1) Because Sunni Islam opinion-makers were basically behind the WTC attack, the Iraq War was justified as a way of giving a majority population of Shiites permanent control over the most prized and fertile land in all of what the Sunni Islamic community believed was their birthright. In other words, we have told the Sunnis and any other would-be enemies, that attacking the USA results in a major reversal for their own civilization's territory! The Iraq War has taken away the Sunni Caliphate of Baghdad...PERMANENTLY! And, IRONICALLY, when American troops pull out, the Shiites might SLAUGHTER the insurgent Sunnis and their families. Because of the unique and ironic conditions of the US election, the very people whom we are protecting are trying to kill us!
This is because the Sunnis think that John Kerry might actually put our military to the task of giving them back control of the Iraqi Army!!!
And Kerry might just try to do that!
Now, once Bush wins a second term, the Sunnis have to fear that Shiite Islam will have an army (the new Shiite controlled Iraqi Army) on the border with Saudi Arabia ready to take control of Meccah itself!
You better believe that the Sunni terrorists know that another 9-11 against Americans will at the very least involve the loss of Meccah and the Shiite dominated eastern Saudi oil field regions to Shiite control. In that respect...maybe we won't have to nuke them. Just unleash the democratic Shiites on them.
You better believe that the Iraqi Shiites are being groomed to be unlike the Germans and the Japanese after their occupations. We deliberately turned Germans into a bunch of liberal wimps. The world likes em that way! In Iraq, we are building a warlike, pro-American democracy in the Middle East that will hopefully end up more like Australia: a warlike ally that is always on our side.
2) The Iraq War secured the Iraqi nuclear weapon program in Libya. I don't know why Bush doesn't talk about this. We got the WMD that mattered. My fear is that a number of nukes escaped.
My theory is that Bush deliberately downplayed our finding of WMD because he didn't want to give the Left an excuse to agree with the war in retrospect. Bush wants the Republicans to get full credit for democracy in the Middle East and he wants freedom loving Muslims to clearly see the advantage of the moral conservatives over the immoral left that sided with the terrorists and dictators. This will ensure that the United Nations will some day tilt toward conservatism.
The last thing Bush wanted was a democratic Middle East that leaned far left! He would have gotten that if everyone agreed with him about the war. It, therefore, wasn't in Bush's interest to win UN approval for the liberation.
By making it seem that the Iraq War is going badly and by removing some "good" reasons for having gone to war in the first place, Bush and Rove clearly gave John Kerry no other choice but to come out against the best thing Bush did for the world...to come out against Bush's strength in liberating humanity and killing bad guys. If John Kerry were pro-war and the insurgents were not attacking all the time...he would be winning this election in the same manner that liberals won in England immediately after (or even just before?) Hitler was defeated.
3) In a war you always take the enemy's money and resources away from him. This means that we have to put all oil fields in the Middle East in the hands of good guys in order to win this war. The Iranian oil fields are still NOT in the hands of good guys, while the Iraqi oil fields are. We must also get the Iranian oil fields in good hands soon. Syria would have already turned pro-American if it weren't for Iranian oil money making up for the $2Billion per year influx from Saddam's Iraq.
4) The humanitarian reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom...BORING!! Leftists fall asleep when you talk about that...so lets not bother.
5) Ditto the "Spread Democracy" idea. Leftists are pretty open about not supporting democracy. Not worth talking about.
6) As mentioned above, the Iraq War seems to have been carried out in such a way as to highlight to the max the depraved "blame America first" and "I am scared of being envied" way leftists think. I didn't know what a liberal was until they watered down the Iraq War Resolution 2 years ago to NOT include Syria and Iran. I simply didn't know that political wimps were until that moment. Now I do know.
I give credit to George Bush for waking a lot of us up that there really does exist a loony left in America and the major media stands full square behind them. A lot of us had simply not been aware of that. I actually voted for Gore in NYC in 2000! This shows how much I didn't understand about life and politics just 4 years ago. (Actually, I didn't bother to vote before in my life. I just voted for the first time at a US Consulate on Thursday).
For no other reason, it is incumbent on all rational people to vote in this election to send a message to the likes of Michael Moore and Sean Penn and the Dixie Twits: our minds are not made of porridge! Kerry's opportunistic flip flops on Iraq...again, our minds are not made of porridge.
I really hope that the coming election turns out to be a shocker landslide for Bush where hapless leftists are left wondering where all that extra support had come from (I expect it to come from the college crowd and the young mobile phone and Internet crowd).
I think Instapundit and Realclearpolitics have a million voters mobilized just by being something we all read every few days.
A few quick points.
1. Bush with a 5 seat gain in the
Senate will probably be able to achieve some sort of Social Security Choice plan.
1A. This is not a remote possibility. The GOP could easily sweep the south and trade IL for SD while holding OK and CO and AK.
2. We are already starting the push back against the insurgents in Iraq. By election day we may have Fallujah. Every year under Saddam an average of 15 to 20 thousand people were killed by his regime. Another 20K died each year because of Saddam's manipulation of the U.N. sanctions. Assuming the deaths associated with the current war are roughly 20K (2000+ U.S. and coalition including iraqi forces. 19K Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, civilians etc. Roughly 40K more people are alive today than would be if Saddam were still in charge in Iraq. Going forward the number of lives spared will only increase.
3. 1/2 the country will be voting for Bush. 1/4 will be voting for Kerry. 1/4 against Bush. Kerry's political base is only 25% of the country. He'll have to move left to get any political support. Which means trading missile defense for money to first esponder unions. Which means price controls on drugs if they can be accomplished through executive order.
4. Would you rather have boys grow up to be a man like President Bush or John Kerry?
Pax,
The Elephant
I generally agree with Chuck Watson's comments. Bush's horrific guest worker plan plays a part as well.
Perhaps those who think "flypaper" is a strategy and not a pathetic excuse for incompetence could tell me exactly what we're doing regarding the ideological side of things.
For instance, whether OBL is dead or not, he's still a cult hero. Zarqawi will no doubt become another cult hero, if he isn't already. What exactly are we doing (other than spreading peace and freedom of course) to counter the cult hero status of our enemies? What exactly are we doing to lessen the spread of extremist Islam?
The answer will no doubt include flypaper, spreading peace and freedom to the entire Middle East, trying to bring the Saudis down from the inside, etc. etc. Believe it if you don't, but I don't.
The Iraq War as it stands now, is a proxy war to exhaust the resources and take the lives of the flower of the anti-American Muslim world. Every adult understands the "flypaper" strategy that Rumsfeld readily admits results in the deaths of several thousand Muslim fools per month at the cost of about 70 American lives per month.
How much do IEDs cost?
Let's say 10,000 Islamic terrorists die each month in Iraq.
And, with over a billion Muslims, I think it's say to say that there are a million potential terrorists who could travel to Iraq.
1,000,000 terrorists / 10,0000 a month = 8 years
As long as there are no new potential Muslim terrorists born or coming of age during those 8 years, we should do just fine.
Megan: Dittos to what Ed said regarding Roosevelt...his record as a wartime President was exceptional, his record as a President who believed in and followed the law as written in the Constitution was an abomination. That was, indeed, the lesser of two evils AT THAT TIME.
When 9-11 happened, I felt then and I feel now that many Americans are soft and weak. Maybe too many. The left, having failed in Russia, still craves the destruction of the Capitalist classes. With them gone, the inevitable glory that is Socialism will be possible. Islamofascism is a God - send, ironic as that sounds - those useful religious nuts are doing the left's dirty work.
Are you soft and weak? Do you try to take the easy way whenever possible? Do you think diet and exercise are 'way to much trouble when sooner or later you will find the right little pill? Then this election's choice is simple - Kerry is your magic pill.
Related to flypaper, here's a Bush quote:
You're fighting terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and across
the globe, so we do not have to face them here at home.
In other words, we seem to have some sort of agreement with those (finitely-numbered and hierarchically-ordered) terrorists.
Under the agreement, terrorists will keep going to Iraq to fight us. They will not even think about, say, infiltrating the U.S. through our deliberately porous borders and striking at soft targets.
In understand that what politicians say occasionally doesn't comport with reality. However, I think the above quote actually reflects what Bush thinks, and that's scary.
People blithely say that things in Iraq are not going well, but they fail to explain why they think that.
It's a war folks, the enemy gets a vote in how things go.
We're winning and we're driving the creation of friendly and democratic nations in the middle east. How much better can it get? Sure, any of us can say what we could change, but there are a million ways to skin a cat. This one is working fine.
First of all, Wacko is deliberately ignoring the Sunni/Shiite divide in the equation of Bush's strategic plan for setting up a self-sustaining, pro-American Middle East. This is probably because Wacko cannot break out of his religious left repetition of simple mantras like the one that we are supposed to be imperialistically out to steal the oil of innocent darkies.
One must ALWAYS refer to Shiites and Sunnis separately in any discussion of the war on terror.
Let's make things clear: By liberating the Iraqi Shiites, Bush has set the world's Shiites and the Sunnis in apposition to each other as part of a strategic plan to actually remove the USA (and Israel) from the whole equation of Muslim enmity and violence. The Sunnis know are under the correct impression that the UN and the European Left are on their side more than on the side of Shiites. They feel that Kerry would do what Howard Dean said he would do: favor the Sunnis being given back control of the Iraqi Army. After the Bush victory makes it very clear to the Sunni Arab world that Iraq WILL BE A SHIITE POWER PERMANENTLY, there is a very strong chance that Sunni Muslims will do everything they can (via Al Jazeera and other Sunni media outlets) to suddenly make Bush's America their ALLY instead of their enemy. Why??
Well, we did the same thing with Nazi Germany. The Nazis, thinking that we might not occupy them for long, at first operated a deadly insurgency against our troops after we captured Germany, but it soon became apparent that the real enemy of the Nazis, the Soviets, were breathing down their necks...and the Nazis thereafter became best friends with the American Army...all the while showing respect for our having beaten them in a fair fight.
I served in Germany in the late 80s. I know what it was like to be invited by far right families to dinner...families that would have been our gravest enemies during World War Two.
The key in this war against the Arab right wing, is for Bush to win reelection and make it very clear to the Arab world that the Shiites will be running Iraq forever. That will force the Sunnis to ally with America so the Iraqi Shiites don't just keep "liberating" the rest of the Sunni Arab world, especially the eastern part of Saudi Arabia where pro-American Shiites dominate.
Wacko: You are just hearing from the anti-American Arabs because our media and their media wants you to hear only from them.
Believe me, a Bush reelection victory will win Bush a LOT of respect in all quarters of the world. On the other hand, a Bush victory will deal the religious left and terrorists a harsher defeat than any military action could have rendered.
As an aside: Note that I explained above that it was not a mistake, but a brilliant move, for Bremer to have dissolved the Sunni dominated Iraqi Army after Iraq was liberated. We would have lost the war, and the reason for war, if we had left that army intact with its officers.
Well, I come from the anyone but Bush side, but let me not try and persuade you...
instead let me ask you what is always a good alternative for those who supposedly want a smaller less assertive government?
Answer; Vote against the incombent.
Remember back to the Carter years. Remember the U.S.'s stance of weak willed pacifism, which emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. Considering this lead directly to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, can you imagine somehow that Carter's spineless dovishness did not amount to dereliction of duty, which lead almost inevitably to 9/11?
Remember back to the Tehran hostage crisis, an international crime that went unanswered for 444 days that pararylzed our entire foreign policy, because the Iranians knew the President had no fight in him.
Well, this is what we can expect from a potential Kerry presidency. Only now, the Iranians are close to having nuclear weapons.
Oh, and one other difference: Afghanistan is a democracy now, and Iraq is on the way. For that amazing accomplishment alone, Bush deserves four more years.
And looking at the other side, the physical threats and outright violence and intimidation, not to mention calls for assassination, coming from the anti-Bush people should be reason enough to vote against Kerry. This kind of behavior should not be rewarded.
Its a tough choice when looking at the domestic records, but this is an existential time in history. Kerry's clueless.
http://libertylover.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_libertylover_archive.html#109855778574470166
First, I have to identify myself as someone who loathes Mr. Kerry. I am a Viet Vet who served in ’68 & ’69, the same time as Kerry. His words and actions after his return from Nam define, for me, the content of the man’s character. Glad I got that out of the way.
If one takes Kerry at his word (his word being his campaign rhetoric) he will attempt to reinstitute the Draft. As he now states, simplistically, the current Military is stretched thin, overworked and we have, in effect a current back door draft. He often challenges Bush by saying, “Where will you get the troops, Mr. President?”, when he is saying that if Bush is reelected there will be a chance of a draft. Yet he has stated that his administration will increase the current military by 40,000 troops, send many thousand more immediately to Iraq and increase the Special Ops troops by two fold. If taken at his word, he must reinstitute the Draft to accomplish this.
The reason I lay out the above scenario is not to frighten anyone into believing it - but to point out the shallowness of the man who would be Commander in Chief. Kerry knows that there will not be a Draft, regardless of who is elected; he knows that today’s military is technologically dependent, and as such requires extended training and thus a further commitment than the two years that a conscript would need to serve.
This is one example of many that reflects the underlying character of this man. We know that Kerry’s self aggrandizement has led him to be caught in multiple - no other nice way to say it - lies. Bush may lack a multitude of qualities that voters prefer, but one thing that he does not lack is character. I am not a Bush fan, but in my opinion whatever shortcomings he has as an administrator, he does not lack that one necessary to be a leader - character.
John Kerry would sell his soul (if we could prove he had one) to be President, and maybe he already has. He cares nothing about individual freedom or individual responsibility; he cares not if this country slides into a Socialistic state - and if elected he will immediately push us to that end, simply because that is what will be good for his four year campaign for reelection that starts on January 21, 2005
There is only one reason to vote for Bush and that is the character of the man. Are there reasons to vote against Bush? Not if you consider the only other viable alternative. There simply is no reason to vote for Kerry .
Megan I don’t think you want to vote for Kerry, why?
1. His real plan to reduce health care costs? Two words: Compulsory Atkins.
2. Teresa *hates* Bullmastiffs. Her maiden name? That’s right: DeVille. Cruella was her aunt!
Hope this helps.
We didnt go to Iraq to build a democracy. The American Public would have never accepted this war on those terms, because unlike reps, they remember the last time we tried to shove democracy down a nations throat that didn't want it. If Bush is re-elected we will be in Iraq 4 years from now, and there will still be no democracy in Iraq. SA and Syria will never allow a democracy in Iraq, and the current administration has already proven to beholden to SA to hold them culpable for 911, so they arent going to do a thing about SA financing the insurgency. Everything we were told about Iraq was wrong, I wont use the word lie, but isnt the type of incompetence that found no wmd, that has killed 1100 US soldiers, has killed tens of thousands of Iraquis, that has Reserves refusing to do missions in underequipped vehicles, that has us completely unable to militarily act against real threats, not enough to vote Kerry in just to stop the bleeding? Kerry isnt married to the democracy for Iraq bs, he can put someone in office capable of keeping order and turning the Iraqi oil back on, and get out. Its amazing that this war has helped double the price of gas, and thats not even an issue. This war was an across the board failure, like the Israeli PM said, "The only thing uncertain in Iraq is the size of the American humiliation." Kerry can declare Iraq free from wmd, install a despot, get out and declare victory.
Kerry might have been an adequate, if uninspiring, President in another time. But he is singularly unsuited to this time. He has announced quite plainly that what he really wants is to withdraw within our borders (except where the Secularist Holy See at the UN asks us to bear the bulk of the burden of their feckless, useless "peacekeeping"), hunker down, and hope we don't get attacked again so he can spend that money socializing medicine and further centralizing power over our daily lives in Washington, DC. It is patently obvious that the unfinished liberal project of turning the United States into an emasculated welfare state in the mold of France or Germany is far, far more compelling to him than transforming the Middle East, thereby sending terrorist jihadism to join Communism on the ash heap of history.
Bush, by contrast, not only takes a more pro-active attitude toward terrorism abroad, at home he will spread MSAs, school choice, and give us the option of actually owning at least a portion of our Social Security accounts. That's about as much of choice as having to choose between being robbed at gunpoint and being given a hefty raise.
And then there's the often over-looked but vitally important issue of judicial appointments. SupCt nominations get lots of attention, with good reason, but the lower appellate court judges who decide the thousands of cases that never reach the Supremes matter a great deal, too. And the contrast could not be starker. The Democrats try to frighten centrist women into believing Dubya will nominate jurists who will personally order women into back alleys for wirehanger abortions, but they only do so to distract attention from the real import of what kind of jurist ends up on the bench: Those who hew to the language of the Constitution or those who finesse that language to give their personal preferences the force of law. Bush will appoint the former type, Kerry the latter. Whether the next generation lives under the rule of law or the whims of unelected judges could depend on which man we choose to make those appointments.
But all of that is secondary to the central issue of this election. If Bush "signifies" any one thing, it is an aggressive approach to the war on terror. To replace him with someone who represents the failed 1990's approach of reactiveness and summits would be tantamount to rejecting the pro-active approach. Nothing could be more harmful to the long-term project of success against terror than that.
Megan, among the many other good reasons to prefer Bush over Kerry, here's one more:
Many years ago I read a political cartoon in which a pundit was explaining our system of government to an Eastern European. "Sure," he said, "the government lies. And the press lies. But in a democracy, they aren't the same lies."
Based on the performance of the mainstream media for the past couple of years, I sincerely believe that if Kerry were president they would be the same lies. And it's all downhill from there ...
I'm with the other posters. Iraq is not a cluster-[F]. There are problems. It has not been a cakewalk. But compare and contrast it to any other similar event. Fewer people have died in Iraq in 18 months than in any number of one-day battles in former wars. We are creating a democracy and an entire new civil system in a matter of months. It took Germany years to reach a state of national elections after WWII-and they had known democracy before, if poorly.
What we have lost in Iraq is the war of expectations. Will we prove Osama correct: that Americans really do lack the courage, stamina, and vision to see a real war through? That is our choice. A free and democratic Iraq has the possibility of truly changing the situation in the Middle East in ways that nobody is talking about.
Let's grow up and make a stand, here and now, not to be a bunch of whiny spoiled Americans, let's get into the world and make a positive change.
As a moderate independent, I feel your pain. This year’s presidential election is a little bit like choosing between deck chairs on the Titanic. But I have made a decision. Here are the three issues that have been the deciding factor in my decision to vote for the current president.
First there’s the war in Iraq. Like many Americans I have conflicting feelings about this war and each day’s news seems to make the issues less clear rather than more clear. First, the news reported no WMDs. Then, it became clear that we would never have gotten the support of the UN Security Council because of the Oil For Food Scandal. Next, it became evident that there was a terrorist quagmire on the ground, Bremer said we didn’t have enough troops, and Shinseki was strong-armed out early. But then the Duelfer report concluded that Saddam’s intentions were to mislead the world community in order to lift the sanctions and give him time to rebuild his weapons programs. To me, the strongest argument for being in Iraq is that this is a war on terror, not a war solely on Al Qaeda. Maybe the war in Iraq and the war on terror were two separate issues before we went to Iraq, but with the large numbers of non-Iraqi insurgents, it is the same war now. Also, Saddam, himself, is a terrorist, as evidenced by the mass graves being found in Iraq. Being a terrorist against your own people does not make you less of a terrorist. Doesn’t everyone wish that someone had stopped Hitler from destroying millions of lives and human dignity, instead of practicing the politics of pacification for so long?
There are three things I do know. I was not shown any intelligence or asked to vote on the use of force. John Kerry was and voted “yea”. Like it or not, we’re there now and no reasonable person believes that we can simply go home. Thirdly, John Kerry has called this war a mistake and pledged to bring our troops home as soon as possible. Now if you were a fanatic terrorist zealot, would the knowledge that your enemy’s number one goal was to stop fighting and go home weaken your resolve or strengthen it?
Also, I think Senator Kerry's vote in the first gulf war reveals him to be, not an internationalist as many fear, but, at heart, a pacifist. I find that deeply troubling. If it’s important to win the war in Iraq, doesn't it seem that we are better off with someone who is passionate about this cause rather than someone who thinks it was a mistake from the beginning? So, although mistakes have certainly been made, Bush still wins on the issue of Iraq.
The second issue deals with who has the better domestic platform. I am deepy distrustful of the way Kerry seems to have a plan on everything. If I was counting correctly, he said “I have a plan” over twenty times in one debate. He does, after all, have an extremely lackluster Senate record. What was he doing in the Senate all those years? Thinking about all the things he would do when he was President? How does Senator Kerry propose paying for all his plans with the deficit skyrocketing? In the third debate, he could only invoke the tax rollback for the top 1% of taxpayers. I am a careful listener and know that this simply will not cover all his plans. That means that either he knows he can't pay for all his plans, or he will end up being the political equivalent of "Read My Lips. No New Taxes." And we all know how that turned out.
On October 19 an article appeared in The Arizona Republic. The first two sentences were interesting to me. I copied them in. “Americans will spend the next two weeks trying to sort through the differences between President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry on many issues. But on the economic front, especially when it comes to taxes and economic growth, the president's policies are more likely to bear fruit, according to Arizona's new Nobel Prize laureate.” And then the article goes on to list the reasons why Edward Prescott, last year’s Nobel Prize winner for economics, believes that to be true. So, economics have been bad under Bush, but a Nobel Laureate economist thinks they’d be worse under Kerry.
Lastly, is the simple question of which candidate I believe to be a person of integrity and conviction. I refuse to be frightened of Bush simply because he is a fundamentalist Christian and I don’t see any equivalent conviction, even on liberal issues, in John Kerry. Perhaps this is a cheap shot but a man who cannot find one good thing to say about his wife when asked (in the third debate), but has to revert to comments about his mother, is not the candidate for me. I know his wife doesn't poll well, but if he is going to run away from her politically maybe he should have listened more carefully to his mother's admonitions on integrity.
Begbee wrote: "Kerry can declare Iraq free from wmd, INSTALL A DESPOT, get out and declare victory."
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
Do not let this happen to us. FREE IRAQ!
1) "A large American government programme, other than welfare, which has been repealed after it was found to cause bigger problems than it solved, or otherwise not function properly"
Answer: Prohibition, the early 20th century version of the "war on drugs." This is the kind of program you get with Republican control of the government--poorly thought out constitutional amendments with disastrous social ramifications. Think Bush would stop at, say, a gay marriage amendment if he had a solid legislative majority and no worries about his own re-election? Think again.
2) "A foriegn conflict, on the scale of the current conflict (NOT one of the World Wars) that has had more damaging impact on the power that waged it than, say, the destruction of the medical technology industry would be. Such damage should be concrete, rather than nebulous..."
Answer:
a)The French in Viet Nam. End of them as any kind of power.
b)The US in Viet Nam. One of the other posts mentioned Jimmy Carter and "malaise." Part of that malaise was the left over economic disaster (inflation, etc) from the way Viet Nam was financed.
Jane,
If you haven't made up your mind by now, you should probably stay home on Nov 2.
Ma'am -
Iraq is not a cluster (deleted). It's a battlefield in a world war. I also agree with the "cleaning house" comparison up above in the comments.
Bush ran on education, tax cuts, seniors' prescription benefit (gack), and faced a recession even before 9/11.
Seems to me he's delivered or at least made strong starts on all the issues he pledged to address the first time around. He's stated his intention to inject market forces and personal responsibility into retirement and medical programs and address serious tort reforms this next round. That the opposition has continually obstructed, belittled, or sabotaged (Ted Kennedy killing vouchers in NCLB, Daschle and Kennedy writing off the prescription benefit as a weak start, judges, war for oil, etc, etc...) just about every domestic or foreign policy/defense debate since his term began I think he's done a better job than he gets credit for anywhere.
We are fighting a global war but not one of annihalation. If we were using our military as it was designed to be used and were operating from the basis that Islam is the problem we'd not be seeing suicide bombers or looters because there wouldn't be any populations for them to spring from.
We may still end up fighting that war. It's a race between the fundamental individual advantages of a free society over tribalism/despotism to remove the root causes of Islamofascist barbarism.
We must have leadership that truly believes in freedom and individual potential for excellence. Our leaders must be unabashedly committed to preserving and defending the foundations of our magnificent experiment. They must look out and see citizens they are responsible to. Not victims they may exploit or manipulate.
Kerry, and his party, are not cut from that fabric. Start with "global test". Then consider the potential for victory inherent in a party that embraces 'conflict = defeat' as a catechism.
Good luck in your search for decision.
For what it's worth:
Everyone who tells me this ["John Kerry would have to be pretty $%@! awful to be worse than Bush"] pretty much hated Bush from the moment he entered office
This is clearly not true of Dan Drezner, Robert George, Stuart Benjamin, Josh Chafetz, David Adesnik, Andrew Sullivan, or myself, all of whom are at or close to the point of voting for Kerry at least in part because of catastrophic incompetence, inability to plan or revise, and deceptiveness on the part of an administration we all, to varying degrees, supported two years ago.
My gosh, I had to give up reading the comments, there are so many. I'm sure Jane will give up before she gets this far down, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.
Jane, I think you're asking too much of both sides. You're asking supporters of both candidates to literally predict the future and then convince you that their impossible-to-prove forecast is true.
You seem to know already what there is to know. Thanks to 9/11, and I think to some extent, the rise and fall of the internet-led economic bubble before it, we're at a critical crossroads. The decision should not be between two personalities, because this is not a popularity contest, and neither is it a screen test for a movie about the United States.
The two men are championing, quite clearly, two opposing sets of methodolgies. One is, to the view of a conservative Reagan (ex) Democrat like myself, offering a double-whammy of both the failed foreign and failed domestic policies of Jimmy Carter; the other is offering a sort of watered-down Reaganism, which is the conservative philosophies of his party tempered by the more liberal leanings of his father before him.
If you put away the politics of personalities, and the politics of argument by vulgarities, the choice is actually rather clear. I've obviously colored my view of Kerry by comparing him to Carter; a Kerry supporter would be more inclined to compare him to the more successful Clinton, but Clinton was more easily tempered by Republican opposition. I have a harder time finding coherence in the flip view of Bush, which is a mishmash of invective and comparisons to figures ranging from Herbert Hoover to Adolf Hitler. In any case, you either are inclined to one set of methodologies or the other: you have to decide, not which methodology will win the day, but which you believe, based on past experience, will serve us better, come hell or high water. There is, after all, the possibility that we will arrive at disaster regardless of which philosophy we follow.
No one can convince you one way or another by merely tossing out more arguments. If anything, the contest will just seem to get muddier and muddier as charges and counter-charges continue to pile up. Brush them all away and concentrate on what can be known now. It may just be that previous election-year choices were just more trivial than this one: none of us want to get this one wrong.
Look, I didn't have the time to read through all of the comments, so if this is redundant, delete it, and that's that.
From your post you are clearly looking for a reason to vote for Kerry. You admit that you voted for Gore reflexively (by the way, which shade of lipstick do you wear?). You also admit that, for you, the GWoT is not your number one issue--which is the number one reason to vote for Bush.
You seem to be having a "Vezini" moment (from the character played by Wally Shawn in The Princess Bride). "...so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you" translates into (for you) "so I can clearly not choose John Kerry."
The fact that you have so much doubt about Kerry despite your natural tendency to vote for Gore should tell you all you need about your vote.
So don't vote for Kerry. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Bush, then don't vote for him either. But don't kid yourself that Kerry is really the right man for the job--your own doubts should tell you that he's not, regardless of any other input.
--Fletch
if you are looking for Knights to unlock hearts, ignore that battle and look at this battle.
http://www.pennsic.net/cgi-bin/pennsic/photos04.cgi?cat=Roomie
we have Knights aplenty. as for the political world, good luck!
Look, I didn't have the time to read through all of the comments, so if this is redundant, delete it, and that's that.
From your post you are clearly looking for a reason to vote for Kerry. You admit that you voted for Gore reflexively (by the way, which shade of lipstick do you wear?). You also admit that, for you, the GWoT is not your number one issue--which is the number one reason to vote for Bush.
You seem to be having a "Vezini" moment (from the character played by Wally Shawn in The Princess Bride). "...so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you" translates into (for you) "so I can clearly not choose John Kerry."
The fact that you have so much doubt about Kerry despite your natural tendency to vote for Gore should tell you all you need about your vote.
So don't vote for Kerry. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Bush, then don't vote for him either. But don't kid yourself that Kerry is really the right man for the job--your own doubts should tell you that he's not, regardless of any other input.
--Fletch
Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 wars that might fit your criteria: 1. the Zulu War (UK), and 2. the French/Algerian war. (the Boer War might also qualify).
The Zulu war is somewhat analagous strategically. Britain launched a pre-emptive strike against the local military superpower (the Zulus) in order to stabilize the southern tip of Africa and permit economic and political expansion and normalization. The Zulus were attacked simply because they were militaristic (the entire Zulu culture was organized for war, but the Zulus had not made war on the British).
In the Zulu War, the British lost 1,200 men in the first battle (400 were native contingent, so 800 Englishmen went down that day). A day later, Rorke's Drift was fought, one of the most incredible battles in history. Eventually, the Brits got organized, won the war, and disarmed the Zulus.
There is one difference though. The Brits eventually ran to ground the Zulu King, Cetewayo, after a long search in 1882 (sound familiar?). The Brits exiled him to Capetown, but then he went to England and took a house in Kensington. The Queen invited him to lunch, and when he went out in London large crowds gathered to view the last King of the mighty Zulus.
In a book about the Zulu War, this paragraph appears on the final page:
"The Zulu War had cost the British government . . . 5,250,000 pounds, a sum vastly in excess of expectations. The Army suffered 1,326 dead and wounded, besides one of the worst disasters in its history. The object of the war -- the destruction of the Zulu military system -- had been achieved, but perhaps it is significant that none of the major figures in the episode emerged with enhanced reputations."
Sounds a bit familiar.
The French/Algerian war is a bit different, because Algeria was a former colony, so it amounted to a "war of independence." One might also want to consider the French experience in Viet Nam, which ended in defeat, but that was also a colonial war.
Given that you seem to see the war is the most significant issue, you have a pretty clear choice. Bush and the Republicans have taken the position that the status quo in the Middle East is unacceptable and must be changed, by a combination of diplomacy, economic bribes and sanctions, and the threat and actual use of military force.
Kerry and the Democrats have adapted the opposite view, that they will engage in "summits" aimed at bringing stability to the region. They see the world of a couple of years ago as the model that we should be emulating, when America and the rest of the developed world propped up the Middle Eastern strongmen.
At various points in American history the two parties switch positions, with the reformers becoming reactionary, and the reactionaries reformers. We are living through one of these times. In my life time the Democratic party has always claimed the mantle of being "progressive", of being for the liberty and betterment of people around the world. Now, in this election, the transformation is complete; the Republicans have emerged as the progressive reformers, the Democrats as the reactionary party. It's stunning to me to hear my fellow Democrat's suddenly speaking highly of people like Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Brent Scowcroft, men who just a short time ago they considered the embodiment of evil. And it's not that Buchanan has suddenly moved left either; to the contrary. Instead we seem to have a Democratic party so bereft of ideas that it is reduced to borrowing them from the extreme right-wing fringe.
I remember when the the Democrats billed themselves as the "party of the people", and the GOP as the party of the rich and privilliged. How did we arrive at the state we are in today, where we (Democrats) are now being bankrolled to the tune of over a hundred million dollars by a handful of financial speculators? And my "progressive" friends see no problem with any of this.
If you believe in freedom from corrupt dictatorships for the people of the Middle East, and in curbing the power of the wealthy elite here in America, there seems to be no choice but to vote Republican. It stuns me that I am writing these words. It's as if the world has turned upside down. But that's the way it is.
I'm happy to announce that your Prince has arrived!
Let's just explore some unnuanced reasons not to vote for Kerry. His management experience and qualifications. IMHO he would not be successful in operating a small business, say nothing of a extremely huge and complex one.
A good manager must have a solid, almost messianic vision of where he wants his organization to go. He must also provide the leadership necessary to get there. To get "there" he'll have to make some very unpopular decisions, decisions that even his closest advisors are against. Change is always involved and it can be imposed by enemies, the government, the market, technology, environment, etc. etc. Finally his integrity and honesty to himself and his clients is an absolute must.
Kerry's only possible claim to management success may be traced to his 120 day tenure as commander of a tiny boat somewhere in the swamps of SE Asia. And, even that experience has questions about how well he performed.
His 20 years in the Senate reveal no particular vision nor leadership skills. Nothing you can put your teeth into. If he had noble visions and determination he certainly should have been able to get his fellow senators to rally around him, at least on some occasions.
Kerry panders to the lowest common denominator. That is a strategy for failure. He seems afraid to take strong positions on important issues unless the winds favor it. Nothing wrong with holding up your finger to test the wind occasionally, but one can't transfer his vision and determination to people who are kept wondering what next week's wind will bring.
George Bush on the other hand has lots of management experience, some great, some not so great. He owned his own oil business which failed. He helped to put together a partnership in a major league baseball team which paid off handsomely. He served two successful terms as governor of Texas. Like him or not he's put his legislative agenda through Congress in a time when the WOT has been a slight distraction. No one truly knows how Iraq, Iran and Dear Leader's North Korea will play out, but I'd bet on Bush's vision, determination, and skills a lot more than I'd bet on Kerry's. Bush believes in himself, Kerry believes in the UN, summits, and some vague plans.
Regards
After reading the most logical, level-headed blogging on this site, I'd say the republicans are on the same page while the democrats are still searching for the index. I have faith and believe the American people will never elect these two empty suits. God Bless this great Republic, one nation, under God.
"We lost 55,000 in three years in Korea."
Take a look at the results in Korea: South Korea, saved from communism, a democratic, prosperous nation of some 60 million people (the size of UK or France).
This didn't happen overnight. It took at least 40 years of fumbling and dictatorship, for the current state to emerge. But it worked, and is a success now. Vindicates a little the 55000 American soldiers lost. Nation building works sometimes.
First of all, Wacko is deliberately ignoring the Sunni/Shiite divide in the equation of Bush's strategic plan for setting up a self-sustaining, pro-American Middle East
These grand plans sound almost as loony as, say, a plan to terraform Mars. Unless we decide to make Bush emperor - or perhaps make that a Bush family thing - there's no way he could even put us on the path to reshaping hundreds of millions of people spread over who knows how many square miles in four short years.
Anyone remember Woody Allen's "Bananas" movie? It is Allen's time in San Marcos when the political satire of Bananas really begins to kick in. Allen takes shots at all forms of government and war, and often to greatly humorous effect. In typical Allen fashion, he stumbles upwards in the movement, without particularly meaning to, and soon finds himself the unwillingly president of San Marcos. San Marcos realizes it's in need of a new leader, since their current leader has gone crazy and has used a recent public speaking event to announce that from now on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish, and that every one will have to change their underwear every half an hour. Of course, they will also be forced to wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes, so the government will be able to check.
Around early September - perhaps the chants of "Viva Bush!" played a part - I had finally reached my breaking point. While Bush has not yet mandated that Americans should wear their underwear on the outside, many of his various pronouncements and plans come darn close.
Like "Dan Drezner, Robert George, Stuart Benjamin, Josh Chafetz, David Adesnik, Andrew Sullivan, or Jacob T. Levy" I realize just how catastrophic four more years of Bush would be.
Excellent question, and very articulate.
The reasons for voting for Bush are many (terrorism, economy, health care, etc.) The reasons that I am voting for Bush are thus:
1. He may have to pick a number of Supreme Court Justices, Now, most Kerry supporters would say that would effectively put an end to abortion, not true, it is a woman's body and she has the right to do to it what she pleases. If a private doctor wishes to provide an abortion, then they should be aloud to. I believe that the states should decide this question.
2. Terrorism... as a nuisance? That is the way that President Clinton thought, The USS Cole, The first WTC bombing, The bombing of the Khobar towers, etc. all by Muslim extremists. The current war is not against Al Qadea, UBL, or the Taliban, it is against terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a threat, every major intelligence agency thought that he had WMD's, we went into Iraq to find out, once and for all, if he did have WMD's, not where they were.
3. The Federal government is to big, I believe that anyway, how does someone in Washington D.C. know what is best for someone in Oregon? I believe that the duties of the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, well let's just say that I believe that the federal government's only job should be protection of the people of the United States, that's it, the state governments can handle all else.
4. More than likely, the congress will remain in Republican hands, if you don't want a lot of political games in the next four years on both sides, and getting nothing done, in these desperate times, then the idea of a Kerry administration is scary, at least to me.
I'm sure that there are other people whom have stated a better case for both candidates, but those are my two cents.
You know them by their fruits,
...not their suits.
Their deeds are knowable. Everything else is conjecture and confusion and rhetoric.
Do a timeline on each knowable deed/fact of each candidate. See if it matches your inner compass.
Google Eugene Debs... read his history. see if you notice anything
Read this and see if it helps:
http://dandressel.net/wondering/2004/10/quagmire-my-ass.htm
The aptly named "lonewacko" comes across as some kind of DNC plant. He claims to be conservative, but cites Andrew Sullivan as a conservative going against Bush. Lonewacko also seems to be spamming sites across the entire English speaking web. Are you actually Bill Burkett in disguise?
Real conservatives have never considered Andrew Sullivan one of themselves. His extreme emotionalism is enough to disqualify him, never mind his, shall we say, "progressive" social views.
"Either it was inevitably a boondoggle, in which case Bush shouldn't have started this, or it became a boondoggle, in which case we need someone more competent in charge."
Or it was a boondoggle which was necessary to prevent something much worse in the future. Why do you assume that "not starting it" was a realistic long-term strategy? That's a totally immature outlook.
Another reason to vote for Bush. The Guardian newspaper in Britain is now calling for his assassination.
"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod’s law dictates he’ll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"
Read Alaa at www.MESOPOTAMIAN.com. He just may be the man who can convince you, if Iraq is important to you.
I'm going to go vote early for Bush. Now you know my bias. In 1983 I took a college required Federal Govt. class. It was taught by an old "New Deal Democrat." He claimed that the radical left in the Democrat Party had in effect through the "reforms" of the 70's had taken control of the Democrat presidential primary system. His group had tried to get John Glenn on the primary ballot and generate support for him to run against Regan. His fear was if they kept on nominating left liberals instead of centerists that they would continue to lose presidential elections. He said the political parties had reversed roles. It used to be the Republicans against defense spending, free trade, and were for isolation. Now (1983) it was the Democrats. He had unkind words for my party affiliation, but he knew the rules. He would smile when he said it and he graded fairly.
What do you think his take would be on the present candidates. Explain Zell Miller, Koch, and a few others? In Texas there has been a continuous slow but steady crossing of the aisle amongts local and state officials from the Democrat to the Republican party, guess why?
Most importantly,with access to the internet and hundred of politically savy bloggers, all the main stream on line site from the NY Times to the Washingtn times, from Instapundit and the Belmont Club and all the left and right bloggers, you claim you don't know enough to decide, for Odin's spear, why? You can't be that dumb or that lazy. Frankly I'm primarily voting so I can tease my sister-in-law that I canceled out her vote. If you can't pick a good major reason, pick a petty and self serving one, or just stay home and let the adults fight it out in the polls.
Honestly, the best of both parties believe in helping people in need. They differ on who should do it an how. Republicans believe people help themselves when they have good jobs, Democrats help through government intervention.
Democrats are impatient -- preferring to give people in need someone else's money. Often that simply covers up a problem, rather than solves it, but that is okay with them. Out of sight, out of mind. In turn that instigates class warfare but they don't care because the end justifies the means.
Democrats suffer from envy. They envy people who happen to be fortunate. Suppose you write a hit song and earn a buck on each copy. After two, five, a hundred, or a thousand, they feel they have the right to decide how to spend it. They overlook that even the honestly wealthy contribute to the velocity of money, which is the engine that puts poor people to work -- whether they spend it, save it in banks where others borrow it, or give it away in philanthropy.
Democrats are anti-democratic. They prefer to put decision making in the hands of government for health care, senior care, and political correctness. Democrats prefer equality of result to equality of opportunity.
Democrats believe everyone thinks like them -- or should. They don't believe that United Nations Security Council members might vote for selfish national interest or that Iraq might have been sensible to invade.
Democrats do not respect voters, since they don't care to present honest differences clearing. They tar the opposition with clichés that fail under the most casual scrutiny. And if the Republicans have done the same, that doesn't make the Democrats any more correct to do it.
Nobody can jump to a conclusion faster than a Democrat. And if you think that George Bush won't admit he's wrong for fear of being eaten alive by the press, you should disagree with a Democrat. If you do, you become part of a vast right wing conspiracy or are accused of blind messianic faith.
Democrats fall victim to lazy thinking. You don't want to endorse lazy thinking and it is certainly not in our long-term best interest.
This is off the cuff, but I hope it helps.
Jane. Be honest with yourself. And us too. You're undecided because you WANT TO BE undecided. Anyone who writes under the pen name Jane Galt ought to be able to make an easy decision between the two. Anybody who can get beyond the blatant propaganda of the mainstream media can easily discern that the war in Iraq IS NOT a cluster you know what. It ranks probably in the top 2 wars in terms of efficiency in transformation to a democratic government. (1 is Afghanistan) Essentially Jane, if you vote for Kerry you're a dithering idiot who needs to get the f#*k out of NY before you have to stick your finger up your butt to pick your nose. Love ya. J
1) I do believe there's a good chance that at least half of Kerry's domestic agenda will pass if he's elected. Democrats will support him fervently and I think at least 15% of the Republicans in Congress will be forced to support the measures by public opinion in their districts.
2) It is always politically popular to raise taxes on the rich and corporations. The economic pressures Kerry's domestic agenda will impose will force the repeal of tax proposals which were very favorable to business investment, and which have promoted growth in the corporate sector and in manufacturing. (I base that conclusion on last year's rise in commodity prices like metals.) The estate tax alone is a severe problem for small businesses, and small businesses generate most jobs and growth in this country.
3) Bush's HSA proposal is very favorable to small businesses. It is already in effect to some degree. I work in banking (as a programmer/compliance person) and there has been a surge in interest in these accounts in rural areas. Bush's approach to health insurance is likely to promote great growth. There is another proposal that must pass, which allows trade organizations to gain the same federal status as large corporations for health insurance.
This would allow, for instance, the IEEE (engineers) to offer a health insurance package which would not be subject to state rules. Under the current rules, a business with four employees contracts for their own insurance. If one of the employees should become seriously ill, the premiums for all four will rise drastically. By pooling over hundreds of individuals, each business would be insulated from this risk.
4) Kerry's stance on foreign policy issues has been loopy and confused in the past. Certainly he does not believe in aggressive war. While I'm instinctively pacifistic, I think Kerry will fumble his response to terrorism.
We aren't defensible. Bush changed the equation, found a way to concentrate the terrorists' focus, and engaged them off our territory. Kerry's past history and current statements indicate that he wants to deal with the terrorists by using sanctions, international policing and international pressure. In other words, the Clinton approach. Ignore them but nibble where possible. It's not going to work, although I would not have been able to accept this before 9/11 myself.
So if Kerry is elected I think the terrorists will get four years to regroup and that within six years there will be a dirty bomb attack on the US, probably in Baltimore. At that point our own population will be crazed and enraged, and by public demand we will revert to Bush's tactics, but far more aggressively. In the aftermath of 9/11, I heard plenty of "nuke 'ems" from people who normally are very mild.
So I'm voting for Bush because I'm a pacifist. His basic policies are likely to promote economic growth and avert the castatropic possibility that the US will find ourselves nuking terrorist regimes. Kerry's approach to all of the big, pending problems is to deny or postpone them, and we can't do this. It's irresponsible. I'm not going to vote for a candidate who advocates this sort of thing, even though I have major disagreements with Bush.
Vote Badnarik.
If you live in Oklahoma, don't vote.
Norman Rogers,
Don't you remember that the North lost the Civil War at Antietam? I mean, hell, the Yankees took three times as many casualties in one day as we've taken in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The North clearly lost the Civil War.
They didn’t? WTF?
Please.
The people calling Iraq a clusterf*ck are generally either so ignorant of military history they don’t have what it takes to give an informed opinion.
Or they have an agenda. It’s that simple.
Ah, to be a fair prince.... But given that my 49 year old visage betrays me at every turn, I can still lay claim to some vestiges of that erstwhile crusader of my youth.
To your point "Jane Galt", ...somewhere in the intervening years I found that my own search for the perfect 10 has modified not into surrender, but a growing understanding that "evil" is not an abstract concept but a growing menace. No, this is not a segue into an apologist's essay on Bush's Axis of Evil speech. It is the unintended consequence of the struggle to believe what I see, rather than the other way around. When Bush took us to Iraq, I had serious misgivings... while I have always been a conservative with a libertarian bent, my mind was eventually made up by the tenor of the arguments against the war, and the character (or lack of it) among his detractors, rather than Bush's case for it. And unfortunately, now that my original concerns seem to have been given oxygen by the events of the past year in Iraq, I have "in my face" an increasingly rabid throng of vitriolic and hateful Bush opponents, who are beginning to border on the insane. While I have many disagreements with the President, I read him as a good man. I cannot say the same for Messrs Franken, Moore, Dean, Kucinich, et al...and Kerry if not a true believer, is certain in league with the worst elements in opposition leadership that I have seen in my lifetime. The discourse is irrational, in fact, so much so, that it is nearly impossible to imagine that we will emerge from these times whole... this is Vietnam on steroids. And the aftermath of it was Jimmy Carter and Watergate. I can only imagine where we will be if we capitulate now, as we did then. In the post 911 climate in this country, and the consequences from a politicized and undercompetent intelligence community, it would have been far more irresponsible of Bush not to have acted as he did. Clearly, the policies of the 1990's (and earlier) toward terrorism led to 911... America was attacked "because they could." to borrow the title of Dick Morris' latest effort to make him mega bucks. More importantly they could because nature abhors a vacuum, and there was no policy or activity in place that made a whit of difference to the terrorists. Iraq may not have been the harbinger of immediate threat everyone (nearly everyone) thought... but we have shaken up the bastards...and the certainly unintended consequence was that we indeed wound up creating a magnet for them in Iraq. Maybe that's bad and just maybe that is good...in spite of ourselves.
Bottom line, I thank God everyday that Al Gore was not President at the time of 911... given his latent rants and his apparent inability to control his own ravings....I cannot imagine the country in his hands. My simplistic and intuitive read on Iraq may be flawed... but there is no way that what we have started will be finished under Kerry, and a change in leadership will absolutely empower the terrorists to believe that we do not have the resolve to confront them. That we do not have the stomach for it. That will be their intuitive and simplistic, but quite accurate read, and that is infinitely more dangerous for us. We cannot turn the asylum over to the inmates at this stage of the game. I have absolute clarity on that, and can maintain my misgivings about Bush to be resolved another day. Not this one. We are not given the luxury of fair princes.
Thanks Ms Galt....I am only a desert Rat from Arizona who sincerely hopes you can find your way out of the forest.
Regards, Erich Sielaff
"THE WAR ON TERROR IS UNWINNABLE." -Bush jr
We have created many more terrorists, and lost all credability by not finding wmd in our misadventure in Iraq. We were sold this war on existence of Iraqi wmd, and that Iraq was a "grave and gathering threat." Neither were true. Bush had stated across the board that our military should never be used in nation building. The whole post cold war downsizing of the military was to provide a fast and devastating response, while leaving the nation building to the UN or NATO. We are talking about decade+ in Iraq, to even have a chance of democracy in Iraq. The reps point at Afghanistan as if its a successful new democracy because they held elections, never mind that the Talaban and the Narco warlords control the country. The facts in Iraq is there has been escalating violence every single month of the occupation, the insurgents have proven capable of bombings in the green zones, are somehow winning the PR despite the decapatation videos, and we are no where close to order, let alone democracy in Iraq. If Bush jr is re-elected there will be four more years of American Servicemen dying. In January, Poland, Italy, and several other nations will be withdrawing their troops from Iraq, as scheduled. That means there will be even more US troops in Iraq, but still far less then the 300,000 most experts think it will take to restore order. That begs the question, can an "occupation" end, if the number of occupiers has increased? The world continues to turn while we are bogged down in Iraq, and the long term deployment of most of our military in Iraq makes us very vulnerable. If Bush jr is serious about democracy in Iraq, he has to tell the American people about the 10-20 year minimum length most experts think it will take to bring democracy to Iraq.
Kerry will be inheriting the mess. He can restate the purpose of the invasion was to certify Iraq free from wmd, and he can concentrate on restoring order to Iraq, not bringing democracy to Iraq. Its amazing that noone has brought up the price of oil futures, the price of gas, and its economic implications. The Iraqis never wanted democracy bad enough to fight for it on there own, why should we pay for it? Elect Kerry, and we can stabalize Iraq, get all their oil back online, and start to go after the real terrorists, rather then creating new ones.
And before you reps restart your blizzard of bs tactics here, why dont you tell me what you want to do about Syria and Saudbush Arabia for underwriting the Iraqi insurgency?
The Bush supporters most compelling argument for his reelection appears to be that Bush will appoint judges who will follow the law and won't make it up as they go along. So in America there apparently prevails a situation whereby the second leading party, if it comes to power, will appoint corrupt judges who will bypass the laws they disagree with in favor of their own personal whims. Meanwhile Bush's formost policy objective it to pour American blood and treasure into telling Iraqis how to run things.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering
I am voting for a proven leader who, when our nations was so viciously attacked, arose from the chaos promising to defend America, our ideals and our people and has not relented on his promise since that fateful day.
A leader who can withstand an overwelming litanty of uncivil hate speech motivated out of deceptions and myths created by an elitist intellectual class governed by an ideology determined to undermine the goodwill of the American soul.
One whose decisions and actions have led to the liberation of 50 million oppressed people, specifically in the advancement of female rights. I am a liberated American women who witnessed the extraordinary event of Afghani women voting for the first time in an environment where just three years ago they were treated less than dogs.
A leader whose policies aim to advance individual empowerment and promote personal responsibiliy. The more power and responsiblity in the hands of the individual, the less there will be in the hands of tyranny.
I am voting for a proven leader whose governing principles are based on American exceptionalism, not self-loathing defeatism.
And, I'm voting for a leader who knows how to wear a cowboy hat.
No, Vote Bush - Stand up to the terrorists at the Guardian who pray for Bush's assassination.
Who the f*ck do they think we are?
Megan I won't tell you who to vote for, here's but a couple of things to think about:
1. You're in New York right? Why don't you go down to the big freaking hole where the World Trade Center used to be. There are a lot of people out there trying now to do some thing worse. Which candidate do you think is more likely to prevent that from happening?
2. Most of what you hear about Iraq is very misleading. While it is still dangerous, in every way, occupation of Iraq has gone more smoothly than the occupation of Germany. Try to find out what ordinary Iraqis think about the "mess" in their country.
3. What problem facing the US population today do you think will be solved by paying higher taxes to the federal government? Do you believe that President Bush's tax cuts are responsible for the current budget deficit?
When Iraq and Afganistan of 3 years ago are compared to today, a reasonable arguement can be made that the situation has improved. Afganistan has moved from a terrorist supporting state, with identified training bases and clear ties to attacks upon the United States, to a country which has just completed a successful nation-wide election, no longer supports terrorists, and is actively trying to contain and destroy the remnants of terrorism within it's borders. It's not perfect, but the improved situation is obvious - and in an amazingly short time, given Afganistan's history of resisting change. There is little to suggest that these trends will continue without substantial US support - both military and non-military.
The situation in Iraq ia certainly less positive, but it was a county which had been avoiding compliance with a UN cease-fire agreement, which was supporting terrorist organizations (the Palistinian ones), which was being presented as a victum of the sanctions, receiving considerable support for lifting the sanctions, had used chemical weapons, had a nuclear weapons program, had launched aggressive war, and ruled by one of the less agreeable men on the planet. Today it is not exporting or supporting terrorism outside it's borders, it is not ruled by a violent dictator, it is in no position to wage or even threaten aggressive war, and it is developing democratice practices.
These are all signs of hope - these are also all things that will likely only continue if the United States stays firm in it's involement. These positive trends are not likely to continue if our goal is getting out. Since all I hear Kerry saying is that he wants to develop better allies so we can get out, and Bush consistently says that we will stick it out until successful, I support Bush.
A new article in the Economist claims that gridlock may not control
government spending:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3309115&tranMode=none
>Political gridlock may not be quite as enticing as many fiscal conservatives hope
although Cato disagrees (as is mentioned in that article) it doesn't look
at presidents far back as the article above does:
http://cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html
>Total federal outlays will rise 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005
>according to the president's fiscal year 2005 budget released in February.
>Real discretionary spending increases in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004
>are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years....
>Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during
>President Bush's first term in office. Congress has failed to contain the
>administration's overspending and has added new spending of its own.
http://cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html
http://cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/bush/factsfigs.html
The graphs in that last link show just how big a spender Bush has been even on
nondefense discretionary spending
Plus with Kerry whining from the whitehouse he may con people into a Democratic congress
in a couple of years if he doesn't get his way with policy.
http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=23787
>Most of us know that John Kerry was one of the leaders of the group "Vietnam
>Veterans Against the War" back in the early 1970's.
>
>Little known though is how the Buffalo chapter of the group felt about Kerry.
>
>Using the Freedom of Information Act, Channel 2 News has obtained hundreds
>of pages of Kerry's FBI files directly from the agency's headquarters in >Washington.
>
>A memo dated November 10, 1971 from the Buffalo FBI office to its
>Washington headquarters states that the Buffalo chapter of Vietnam Veterans
>Against the War wanted the national group to condemn Kerry because of his
>"wealthy family background and his political aspirations."
>
>The memo went on to say that the Buffalo group felt that "Kerry supported the
>U.S. government and was only using V.V.A.W. to further his political >aspirations."
" You have that rare breed, the undecided voter, sitting in your lap, begging you to make up her mind, and she's even told you exactly what she wants to hear! Surely there's one fair prince among you who holds the key to unlock my weary heart? "
In a moment I'll point out that your weary heart may be already telling you what to do, the key is within, you are looking in the wrong place by asking others :-)
Perhaps the reason you hadn't heard what you want to hear about Bush or Kerry is that such a thing doesn't exist. Some things aren't predictable. You are attempting to try to find a fantasy to cling to as if either of them has to be any good just because they are the major party candidates, one of whom will win this time. The question for you is why will they ever give any better candidates if voters simply keep giving into these choices? What fantasy leads you to believe things will get better by supporting them? Will you really feel proud of having helped to get either one of them into office? To not be able to with a clear conscience say "don't blame me, i voted for Badnarik (or abstained)". Do you wish to be responsible for helping build big government of whatever stripe?
Bush doesn't mean it about privatization of social security, making sure to deny the "January surprise" suggestion that he would go for it. Even if he did, he isn't about to clean up medicare. Or fix the FDA since its currently holding back innovation (and leading to shortages of flu vaccine, etc). Kerry has taken a *huge* amount of contributions from the trial lawys, and has Edwards on the ticket. Somehow I don't think he'll deal with the issue of junk science and emotion letting people like Edwards trash parts of the healthcare system.
" And hte more I meditate on the matter, the less I can work up any emotional interest in which man occupies the White House for the next four years. "
To me this sounds like your weary heart telling you that you shouldn't support either one. If you are that undecided, if you flip flop back and forth, isn't there a good chance a day or week later you may think "oops, i goofed, i should have voted for...". If so, is it really rationally to be voting for one of them over the other if there truly is not enough information to decide? There is enough information however to know that a vote for the LP will be taken as a vote for smaller government (regardless of who the Libertarian candidate is this time, after the election is over all they will notice is how many votes the LP got, not whether the guy had any "moonbat" tendencies. Kerry's apparent denial of the social security crisis (check his website, he proposes simply growing the economy to solve it) seems a bit "moonbat"ish. Bush really isn't much better, especially if recent claims of his feeling he is doing God's work it seems he has his own "moonbat" issues).
Sometimes you need to accept defeat for one battle even if its hard to accept. Look at winning over the long term rather than being trapped with lemmings who flock to the big government candidates each time usually voting against one or the other. If we don't convince voters to stop wasting their vote on the big government parties' status quo, we will continue to get big government. The Republicans think they can claim to support small government and get away with it. The liberal media wants to paint them as being evil folks that shrink government so they downplay its growth under Bush. Conservative sources and Bush wish to not be portrayed as a big government type so they downplay its growth.
The key is to let go and accept defeat for the short term, to stop supporting the evil candidates, and persuade other people to do the same. How bad do they need to be before you give up on them? How do you think libertarian ideas will have any influence if they know voters will simply cave and vote for the major parties no matter how non libertarian they are? How likely is the media to cover libertarian policy issues (even from sources like Cato) if we don't send more of a message that there is a libertarian public out here not to be ignored. So the LP candidate isn't that great this time. Work on finding better future ones. Even if you wouldn't go as far as the LP would, at least its headed in the right direction and sends the right message. If we ever get even close to the sort of libertarian government you'd like to see then you can jump ship to prevent it going too far. But I don't think that will be anytime soon.
Based on the histories of every war since the beginning of time, I would have to say that "War" and "Clusterfuck" are synonymous.
But, if you cannot navigate the streams of future probability and see that the action taken in Iraq was the only option for ever having any hope to bring peace and stability to the world, I doubt anything I can say would be of any use.
Like someone posted above, you are in New York. Your vote does not matter (as it would not matter in most of the rest of the country, were we to do away with the Electoral College) so, this is largely a waste of time.
I just have to say I am disappointed in seeing someone who calls her blog "Jane Galt" dither so much, or imagine supporting a thumb-sucking collectivist like Jean Francois Kerry.
I have to admit that Bush ain't perfect... but he *has* been upfront about it being a long and hard slog in Iraq.
After all, Germany after WWII took nearly three years before they were at the point where Iraq is at now. So did Japan. This is not going to be solved in a day, and it is not going to be solved by Kerry's pandering to the lowest common denominator.
So I'd suggest Bush, but you might want to keep your options open for a bit longer.
Jane:
You ask that someone offer "any reasonable argument that Iraq is not a cluster [expletive deleted]." I would answer as a military historian, that most incomplete wars look fairly close to such an assessment. Consider the near-run thing that the election of Lincoln was, because of repeated tactical blunders that his generals (and the political leadership) forced the Union to endure... Yet in hindsight, the decision was never in doubt if the Union kept her will. The North never committed her full strength to the fight: the South's near universal conscription was mirrored in a half-assed draft that never provided 10% of the manpower that volunteers did, the ruinous taxation and public debt of the South was contrasted to the liberality of political pork in the North (including give-aways of public lands). America's brightest military figure (hint: the hero of Mexico) stratigiezed that a Union victory would take three years and 500,000 men....and *in spite* of the blunders of those who failed to listen, it only took an additional year and 200,000 men. Ultimately, the difference between North and South was that latter, for all the tactical brilliance of some of her commanders, had no real strategy... While the North, for all of it's general's tactical incompetence, knew what ultimately had to be done.
If I had to distinguish between the two candidates, I would point to this difference between strategy and tactics. Bush and his administration *have* made tactical blunders, ranging from not really planning for battlefield victory...to trusting the wrong people and promises from Iraqi "friends and allies." But they have at least articulated a over-all strategy in the Bush Doctorine: that terrorists must be fought on their own ground and that the nations who provide shelter, arms, support, an encouragement for terror must be confronted ...which certainly included Iraq which had supported terror (if not convincingly al Qaeda) for many years. Finally, that democratic governments and institution are not supporters of terror, so that creation of such acts as a bulwark against the continuing of this scourge.
By contrast, Kerry has offered tactic after tactic... But the best he can offer as a strategy for dealing with terrorism or the Iraqi conflict seems to be to hope reduce the intensity of the problem...not try to eliminate it. This seems to me to be an abdication of strategy. Almost as if Lincoln had been willing to accept the Confederacy, if he could still get some tax revenues and have free passage down the Mississippi.
er, re: climate stuff, you do know that much of human caused global
warming theory is questionable science (much of it junk science) if you actually look into it beyond the media hype. (the same media trying to sell people on national health care, etc.) A Russian referred to it as essentially akin to their past political driven science fad, Lysenkoism. Go actually look at the data graphs, the sources of error in the data, the models that need to be fudged to work due to oversimplifications of the physical modeling, etc. I gave perhaps too many clips to start below.
It is unclear that there is a human caused warming or if there is whether its preventing an ice age accidentally and we shoudln't stop.
A little bit of a start on the info in
clips below, alot more out there. The more recent stuff is the most
skeptical of it. Just as politicians raise scare stories to get voters
to fund things, "scientists" have found it useful to do the same. If
there was no problem, they wouldn't get the huge pot of research money
to look into it. Behind the scenes some scientists like at NCAR
(national center for atmospheric research), home of one of the climate
models, acknoweldge the fudging that goes on and that they've sold
their souls for grant money.
To put the global warming stuff in perspective, some of the very same
people argued in the past just as strongly that there was global
cooling and that we should take drastic steps to prevent it, see if
the sort of rhetoric in this sounds familiar :
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
> Newsweek
> April 28, 1975
> The Cooling World
> There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have
> begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
> drastic decline in food production with serious political
> implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food
> output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The
> regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing
> lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of
> marginally self-sufficient tropical areas: parts of India,
> Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia, where the growing
> season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
> accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep
> up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline
> by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain
> production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.
> ...
> But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce
> agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic
> change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting
> famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force
> economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a
> recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the
> global patterns of food production and population that have evolved
> are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
> A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree
> in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945
> and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
> photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
> cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two
> NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground
> in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
> To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and
> sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
> Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the
> great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its
> warmest eras and that the present decline has taken the planet
> about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the
> cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that
> brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between
> 1600 and 1900 years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly
> that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the
> Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. -
> "The world’s food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg
> of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is
> much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five
> years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and
> creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving
> peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during
> past famines.
> Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
> positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to
> allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular
> solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it
> with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far
> greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that
> government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple
> measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of
> climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food
> supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they
> find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
> reality.
which lead to this when they changed their minds and decided it was
warming instead:
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_19b.html
> . Recall that two leading climate scientists, Stanford University’s
> Steve Schneider and NASA’s James Hansen, have suggested that
> exaggeration has been used in efforts to sway public perception of the
> seriousness of the issue. . Schneider told Discover magazine in
> 1989:
> "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
> statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. "
> Fourteen years later, in 2003, Hansen called for the practice to stop,
> writing in the on-line journal Natural Science:
> Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time,
> when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the
> global warming issue, and energy sources such as 'synfuels,’ shale
> oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however,
> the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios
> consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_16a.html
> Observations Not Models
> NASA’s James Hansen widely is credited as "the father" of the
> global warming issue because of his 1988 congressional testimony
> concerning his detection of a human influence on world climate. His
> work with a General Circulation Model developed at the Goddard
> Institute for Space Studies led him to that conclusion, just as GCMs
> subsequently led others to the offer up "scary scenarios" of our
> climate future. It is remarkable, then, when Hansen writes in the
> March 2004 edition of Scientific American that the climate change
> scenarios put forth in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
> (IPCC) 2001 Third Assessment Report "may be unduly pessimistic"
> and that the IPCC extreme scenarios are "implausible." In
> "Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb" Hansen argues that the
> observed trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane
> concentrations for the past several years fall below all IPCC
> scenarios.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_16b.html
> Climate scientists at least privately now admit that the
> "U.S. National Assessment" of global warming was inappropriate.
> (In fact, they knew this at the time. As has been documented in
> sworn testimony before the House Oversight and Investigations
> Subcommittee on July 25, 2002, both reviewing scientists and those who
> produced the "Assessment" knew the models were worse than a table of
> random numbers when applied to the U.S. temperature history).
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_23a.html
> The political process kicks in and takes credit for saving the body
> politic from certain destruction while the media’s addiction to "if it
> bleeds, it leads" stories leads to unquestioning publicity of research
> that promises to stem the flow. The scientific peer review is
> constitutionally incapable of breaking this cycle. To achieve
> expert-reviewer status, a scientist must have conducted oodles of
> federally-funded research. What rational person would choose to derail
> this gravy train? Research papers that argue against the
> end-of-the-world scenarios are difficult to shepherd through to
> publication even as problems with submissions touting apocalyptic
> scenarios either are glossed over or ignored. All of this guarantees
> we’ll be hearing screams of climate bloody murder for a long time to
> come. It’s simply economics interacting with politics. The result is
> unquestioning publication of absolute nonsense.
from NASA itself:
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_dry.html
> However global temperature measurements obtained from satellites of
> the Earth's lower atmosphere reveal no definitive warming trend over
> the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually
> appears to be downward. These satellite data are verified by in-situ
> measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne
> observations around the world.
blog:
> The March 2003 Astronomy has an article by Peter Thomas titled,
> "Mysteries of the Martian Poles." Among the other interesting aspects
> of the article is the repeated mention that the polar ice caps "are
> receding at rates up to 15 feet (4 meters) a year."
> Someone tell me again just how many of the people there are driving
> SUV's vs electric cars.
> Posted by: John Anderson on February 18, 2003 10:02 PM
check out the actual data the models are using and see whether it
makes sense to you or not, it doesnt' add up:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUtemps.htm
> The Atmosphere and Enhanced Greenhouse - What's Going On?
> To answer our originally posed question: "The atmosphere and enhanced
> greenhouse - what's happening?" the answer must be: "nothing
> consistent." Is atmospheric CO2 increasing? Yes. Is it apparently
> driving temperature? No, it doesn't seem so.
in fact, the question is, if there is a manmade effect, are we
preventing another ice age afterall:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042104F.html
> These web sites, and other publications, have drawn attention to the
> increasing shakiness of the three main arguments which comprise the
> IPCC case for a human influence on climate change.
> ...
> The focus of the climate change debate has shifted irrevocably. Given
> Ruddiman's findings the key question now is not "is industrial-age,
> human-caused global warming occurring?", but rather "are we sure that
> the human effect on climate over the last 8,000 years has helped to
> prevent the occurrence of another glaciation?" Should the answer to
> that question be yes, then it prompts the further question: "do we
> wish to maintain the human warming effect, or instead to counteract it
> and allow Earth's climatic cycle to drop back into its next (natural)
> glacial episode?".
from a blog:
> The absolute best data on the climate for the last 30 years is found
> here http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html Notice that the
> trend is 0.04 C/decade, and wouldn't even be that big except for the
> extra large El Nino of 1998 ( There is recorded evidence of EN's for
> almost 500 years, so that can't be human induced.) Play with the Java
> applet that lets you look at the data region by region. Especially
> take note of the fact that there is no discernible warming in the
> polar regions where the effect of CO2 should be magnified. The
> evidence for any significant global warming in the recent past is slim
> to none.
> Posted by Paul at February 18, 2003 08:30 PM
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/ps-nml090204.php
> A common mineral can remove carbon dioxide from combustion gases, but
> in its natural state, it is glacially slow. Now, a team of Penn State
> researchers is changing serpentine so that it sequesters the carbon
> dioxide from fossil fuel burning in hours, not eons.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_22c.html
> Most "evidence" for a major, human-induced warming in the 21st century
> is derived from climate models that have great difficulty accurately
> reproducing earth’s temperature history. Until climate models are able
> to reproduce observed complexities such as trends with varying slopes
> and step changes, then some key physics built into the models must be
> wrong. We ask again, "Why trust model forecasts at all or, for that
> matter, the IPCC authors who push them?"
http://cato.org/dailys/08-19-04.html
> How many times have we heard from Al Gore and assorted European
> politicians that "the science is settled" on global warming?
> ...
> Well, the science may now be settled, but not in the way Mr. Gore and
> Mr. Blix would have us believe. Three bombshell papers have just hit
> the refereed literature that knock the stuffing of Mr. Blix's position
> ...
> So, to all who worry about global warming, to all who think people
> threatening to blow up millions to get their political way is no big
> deal by comparison, chill out. The science is settled. The "skeptics,"
> the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn't
> coming to an end, have won.
---
> Kerry: FLIP FLOPS ON KYOTO
> Kerry tried to paint Bush as a unilateralist. (Ignoring that we have
> allies in Iraq - and that even the French, the Germans, and NATO have
> TROOPS in Afghanistan! AND further ignoring that we used trilateral
> negotiations with Libya, and are in 6-way talks with North Korea!))
> One tactic Kerry used was to imply
> that Bush's rejection of certain international treaties
> has isolated the USA. For example:
> KERRY (in last night's debate): "You don't help yourself with other
> nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for
> instance, ..."
> Urr... uhmmm... but... Kerry voted AGAINST Kyoto
> http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=220416
> (when presetned as
> the BYRD/HAGEL ACT )- along with 94 other senators, on July 25,
> 1997. IN FACT, NOT A SINGLE SENATOR VOTED FOR THE TREATY.
from a blog:
> Sunday, October 03, 2004
> Global warming fears may be based on a systematic error in climate
> modelling.
> http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/040927-16.html
> According to the article: The Earth's temperature may have
> fluctuated more wildly during the past 2000 years than previously
> thought, according to a new study that challenges how researchers use
> tree rings and corals to give us a picture of the Earth's past. If
> true, the study suggests that recent warming might not be as unique as
> was thought previously, and might partly be due to natural temperature
> cycles, rather than humans spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
> More information here.
> posted by Paul Hsieh on 10:13 AM
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_21b.html
> The Data Weigh In
> Every climate model that is run with increasing atmospheric
> concentrations of greenhouse gases produces some degree of warming at
> earth’s surface and even greater warming above the surface, especially
> in the atmospheric layer between 5,000 to 30,000 feet in altitude (the
> troposphere). Models calculate this warming to be especially strong in
> the tropical half of the planet and weaker in a very small region
> around both poles. Observations of real world temperature trends in
> the lower atmosphere don’t confirm these model results and instead
> show that, generally, warming trends decline with altitude.
> Why is this important? The atmosphere is an integrated
> whole. Temperature aloft is an important determinant of temperature at
> the surface. If the models have the "upstairs" wrong but have it right
> "downstairs" in the area near the surface, they’ve been pretty
> lucky. Some might say, pretty "adjusted."
> The discrepancy between models and observations is the crux of
> one of the major arguments against the models and over reliance on
> them to anticipate future climate. If the models can’t accurately
> portray present observations, they cannot be relied upon to predict
> the future.
the post software complained, the site below is
actually "8k" not "k"
http://mitosyfraudes.k.com/Calen4/confess.html
> So, the real question is, how will weather systems adjust to the
> warming tendency? Will they change their cloudiness or precipitation
> processes in such a way to amplify (positive feedback) the warming or
> suppress it (negative feedback)?
> Our knowledge in this area of precipitation and cloud microphysics
> (which control the equilibrium amount of water vapor in the
> atmosphere) is so meager, that I would argue that it is a matter of
> faith to believe that the Earth will respond by amplifying the warming
> tendency. If the response is simply benign, then about 2 deg. F
> warming is about all we'll have to contend with in the next 100 years
> or so. But in the meantime, I wish all those global warming extremists
> would simply confess their faith -- and stop giving science a bad
> name.
> Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of
> Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he was served as Senior Scientist
> for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in
> Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for
> Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological
> Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring
> work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have
> appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather
> Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of
> Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in
> Space Research, and Climatic Change.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/072004B.html
> The man-made global warming paradigm is about to collapse.
> ...
> During the same period, in personal discussions with scientists, one
> of them confided to me that man-made global warming was the greatest
> scientific swindle of the 20th century. Since I had already acquired
> the same feeling, I asked him whether I could quote him in my
> publications. But he declined. Apparently this issue did not lend
> itself to freedom of speech.
> ...
> And indeed, on 7 and 8 July 2004, the Russians convened a new seminar
> on the issue on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol, the outcome of
> which seems to overturn the earlier impression of a Russian volte face
> in the face of political pressure from the EU.
> ...
> As during the earlier conference on climate change in Moscow, the
> economic adviser of President Putin, Andrei Illarionov played a
> prominent role.
> ..
> Concerning the basic assumptions of Kyoto, Illarionov commented:
> 'Basically, none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the
> 'scientific' theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based has been
> borne out by actual data.
> ...
> If there is an insignificant increase in the temperature it is not due
> to anthropogenic factors but to the natural factors related to the
> planet itself and solar activity. There is no evidence confirming a
> positive linkage between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature
> changes. If there is such a linkage, it is a reverse nature. In other
> words, it is not carbon dioxide that influences the temperature on
> Earth, but it just the reverse: temperature fluctuations are caused by
> solar activity influence the concentration of carbon dioxide.'
> After having complained about the behaviour of the British delegation,
> headed by Sir David King, who - unsuccessfully - tried to exclude
> certain 'undesirable' scientists from taking the floor, Illarionov
> went on to criticize the ideological and philosophical basis on which
> the Kyoto Protocol is built:
> 'That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared with man-hating
> totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during
> the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics,
> Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing
> in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of
> these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology,
> propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other
> way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.'
> Illarionov's reference to Lysenkoism was particularly poignant. Who
> could have imagined some 15 years ago that a Russian would accuse the
> West of Lysenkoism and would have a point? Lysenkoism refers to an
> episode in Russian science featuring a non-scientific peasant
> plant-breeder named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976). Lysenko
> rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a
> passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as 'reactionary and
> decadent' and declared such thinkers to be 'enemies of the Soviet
> people'. Under Lysenko's influence, science -- and especially biology
> -- was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately
> controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was
> practised in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the
> service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady
> deterioration of Soviet biology. It was due to Lysenko's efforts that
> many real scientists, especially in the field of genetics, were sent
> to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko's methods
> were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more
> than a decade after Stalin's death.
> However, Illarionov still acknowledged that one cannot fully rule out
> that Russia decides to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, because of the
> influence of a 'fifth column' in Russia, which is in favour of
> Kyoto. But he added: 'If such a decision is taken, it would deal ... a
> very serious blow to Russia, Japan, the European Union and Canada, the
> countries and regions which were rash enough to assume such
> obligations [of Kyoto].'
> ...
> In the UK David Bellamy, a well-known British conservationist and TV
> presenter went even further. He bluntly stated:
> 'Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a
> myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
> what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and
> policy-makers are not. Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what
> has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the
> environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release
> increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called
> greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat
> up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock.'
> How come that so many honorable and highly reputed scientists have so
> long put their faith in man-made global warming paradigm? Were they
> victims of inadvertence? Misjudgement? Prejudice? Tunnel vision?
> Cognitive dissonance? Self-deception? Is the man-made global warming
> paradigm indeed the greatest scientific scam ever?
> The dénouement is imminent. In the very near future we will know which
> of the preceding question marks we may drop. As inspector Morse used
> to say to his associate: 'It has been staring us in the face all the
> time, Lewis! And we have overlooked it!
> ...
> ....
> But as time went by, we established a reasonable working
> relationship. Of course they referred me to their 'bible': the
> 'Summary for Policymakers' by the IPCC -- a concise document which was
> specially written for people like me who only had vague notions about
> climatological science. As a policy analyst I read thousands of policy
> documents throughout my career, but I never encountered a document
> which was so riddled with inconsistencies. This made me suspicious
> about the man-made global warming paradigm and the IPCC process at
> large and I decided to read more about putative 'climate change' and
> to visit the panoply of websites by climate sceptics. It only
> confirmed my earlier uneasiness.
> ...
> At that time it was still pretty difficult to pinpoint where things
> went astray. But in the course of my further investigations I came
> across many instances of invocation of scientific authority to 'prove'
> points, illogical reasoning, political pressure, refusal to take
> cognizance of contrarian views, derision of opponents, suppression of
> crucial information, falsification and manipulation of scientific
> data, intimidation and even expulsion of scientists who did not adhere
> to the man-made global warming paradigm, etc. In short, all the tricks
> in the book, which looked so familiar to me in the light of experience
> that I had gained during earlier parts of my career in a totally
> different field.
> Although many people know about these incidences, they did not reach
> such proportions that they would fundamentally discredit the man-made
> global warming paradigm and the IPCC process, which is based on
> it. However, this may change very rapidly in the near future in the
> light of the outcome of a recent conference in Moscow, the current
> reviews of the so-called 'hockey stick' curve, which is a main pillar
> of the man-made global warming paradigm, as well as a wave of
> statements of many reputed scientists who now openly confess their
> doubts about the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_16c.html
> Using well-established values for cirrus cloud reflective (cooling)
> and absorbing (warming) properties, Minnis et al. calculate the net
> temperature change associated with an increase in contrails over the
> United States amounts to a warming of 0.2° to 0.3°C per decade. Based
> on comparisons with observed trends in surface and atmospheric
> temperatures over the United States, the researchers find that
> increases in cirrus coverage related to air traffic could account for
> nearly all of the surface and tropospheric warming observed in and
> over the U.S. during the last twenty-five years.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_22a.html
> But, climate models, as sophisticated and "elegant" as they are
> supposed to be, cannot seem to replicate the observed
> trendsindicating that some other processes are likely involved.
> ...
> However, observations show a much slower increase in the daily
> highs. This discrepancy’s net effect on DTR meant none of the models
> properly simulated the observed trend, which is declining at a rate
> greater than what the models indicate it should be.
> ...
> No one who has followed the climate change issue during the previous
> decade will be at all shocked to learn that climate models exaggerate
> the warming rate. What is surprising is that models mischaracterize
> something so fundamental as DTR. If they miss a basic climate change
> indicator like DTR, how can anyone believe they represent anything
> akin to an accurate model of future climate?
> ...
> The "fly in the ointment" appears to be cloud cover. Cloud cover over
> land increased during the last half of the 20th century. Cloudy
> afternoons generally are cooler than clear afternoons, so clouds could
> account for the discrepancy between climate models and reality. One
> might argue you really can't claim to be modeling earth's climate if
> you’re not getting cloud cover correct. Clouds have an awful lot to do
> with planetary temperature and with precipitation. You might even
> argue that because of the "cloud problem," the models may only be
> getting the trends in minimum temperature correct out of dumb luck
> (see a previous World Climate Alert,
> http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_21b.html for more indication
> that "dumb luck" may be involved in apparent model/observation
> matches). Clearly the fundamental physics aren’t correctly
> represented.
> The bottom line? Over land areas, nighttime low temperatures are
> rising faster than are daytime high temperatures. Climate models, on
> the other hand, are incapable of correctly reproducing this observed
> trend and, as a result, they increase daytime high temperatures faster
> than they actually are increasing. This error exists because the
> models have not properly captured some fundamental physical component
> of earth's climate.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_14e.html
> Land use change is identified as perhaps the dominant component of the
> overall surface warming trend in a number of studies released in
> recent months. While turning grasslands into farms (or farms into
> cities) might seem to be climatically innocuous, consider this:
> Land-use change and urbanization accounts for a significant portion of
> the surface temperature increase of the last century, an effect that
> is at least twice as great as has been previously estimated for the
> United States, according to a report by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai of
> University of Maryland (see
> www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2003/wca_1b.html).
> Urban heat island biases in surface temperature data are not
> confined to cities, but may spread to surrounding rural
> locations. According to researchers in the Netherlands (Brandsma, et
> al), this causes urban heat island effects to be much larger in
> magnitude than previously thought (see
> www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2003/wca_3b.html).
> ...
> Recognizing non-industrialized regions show significantly smaller or
> even negligible temperature trends, the authors infer that a
> significant portion of the global warming temperature signal is
> localized. In other words, a significant portion of the global warming
> temperature signal is confined to industrialized regions. Furthermore,
> that warming is confined to the earth’s surface.
> ...
> How does general circulation model output stack up in this simple
> industrialized vs. non-industrialized comparison? De Laat and
> Maurellis apply two of the climate models used for the Third
> Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> (IPCC, 2001). It will come as no great surprise to readers of these
> pages, the climate models completely mischaracterize reality. Instead
> of increasing temperature trends with increasing CO2 emissions (as
> demonstrated by the observational data), the models produce constant
> or even diminishing temperature trends for industrialized regions.
> While they are at it, de Laat and Maurellis point out a serious
> flaw in the IPCC’s surface temperature record. According to their
> paper, the "global" warming trend is about 0.2ºC per decade (it’s
> actually 0.17°/decade for the last quarter-century), but the data do
> not represent global coverage. For instance, there’s virtually no
> information from Antarctica, which is known to have cooled slightly in
> recent decades. When the authors calculate the satellite-based
> temperature trend for the regions covered by the IPCC, they find that
> the IPCC’s geographic selection results in a thirty-three percent
> overestimation of warming. Applying their finding to the surface
> temperature data reduces the "real" warming to something much less
> than the 0.2ºC per decade commonly claimed.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_16a.html
> Michaels argues such a likely and modest temperature rise is one to
> which earth and its inhabitants can readily adapt. He contends it may
> even offer great advantages longer growing seasons, reduced heating
> costs, enhanced global vegetation, and so forth. Because the rate of
> climate change is manageable, Michaels believes, it isn’t necessary to
> induce changes in the global energy structure. He advocates allowing
> market forces to dictate change because fossil fuels are finite and
> mankind will have to develop alternative energy sources.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_21b.html
> In sum, the results of research presented in Douglass’s two papers
> provide strong evidence for three important points:
> 1) The discrepancy between temperature trends measured at the earth’s
> surface and those measured in the earth’s lower atmosphere is real.
> 2) A large part of this discrepancy likely is caused by local,
> non-climatic influences on surface thermometers not by stratospheric
> contamination of the lower tropospheric data.
> 3) Climate models that include observed changes to known climate
> forcing agents (both natural and anthropogenic) are unable to
> replicate the observed behavior of the temperatures in the lower
> atmosphere. Furthermore, if local, non-climatic influences are largely
> responsible for the surface temperature trends, then the climate
> models are getting the surface trends right for the wrong reasons
> indicating their failure at that level as well.
> Such findings should give pause to anyone who relies on climate
> model output to inform their decision-making.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_21a.html
> Are glaciers, ice caps, and sea ice melting worldwide because human
> industrial activity is causing global warming? Geologic history says
> otherwise.
> ...
> Ice ages have come and gone for millennia in the absence of
> greenhouse gases being produced by human industrial activity. In the
> Northern Hemisphere, for example, a Medieval Warm Period (800–1300
> A.D.) gave way to a Little Ice Age (1300–1900 A.D.), from which we
> began to emerge only a century ago. The temperature and ecosystem
> changes the warming and cooling periods triggered are vastly greater
> than anything observed in recent decades.
> Natural variability is critical to glacial fluctuation, according
> to a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters by Montana State
> University researcher Greg Pederson and colleagues.
> ...
> While it is difficult to tease out the potential impact of rising CO2
> concentrations on these interactions in recent decades, this research
> illustrates how natural interactions have resulted in glacial retreat
> and advance for hundreds of years in the absence of anthropogenic
> greenhouse gas forcing. Similarly, ice around the world has fluctuated
> for millennia as a result of natural cycles. The worldwide decline of
> ice sheets and glaciers appears to be in large part their response to
> earth’s emergence from the last glacial maximum 150 years ago.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042104F.html
> Together with another similar site maintained by Sherwood Idso, a
> senior meteorologist from Arizona, Daly's web site provided critical
> and dispassionate discussion of the torrent of frisbee-science which
> today masquerades as discussion of climate change in the daily
> media. These web sites, and other publications, have drawn attention
> to the increasing shakiness of the three main arguments which comprise
> the IPCC case for a human influence on climate change.
> ...
> Argument one asserts that ground-based temperature measurements have
> been corrected adequately for environmental effects, including
> especially the urban "heat island" effect, and that the pattern of
> global change in temperature which results -- about a 0.60 C increase
> over the last 100 years -- is likely to have a human cause. In
> actuality, that part of the claimed increase in temperature which
> occurred over the last 20 years is contradicted by two alternative
> measurements of atmospheric temperature made from weather balloons and
> satellites, the patterns of which agree with each other and show
> little or no long-term trend of temperature change. At the very least,
> this discrepancy casts doubt on the adequacy of the heat island
> correction which has been made to the records.
> Argument two, after papers by statistician Michael Mann and
> co-authors, asserts that both the peak magnitude and the rate of
> temperature increase over the last 100 years are exceptional by
> comparison with the preceding 900 years. But recent published papers
> by other scientists have demolished this argument and shown that
> Mann's work is statistically unsound; both its historical analysis and
> its projected peak of warming at the recent turn of the century are
> now known to be flawed. And anyway, irrespective of recondite
> statistical arguments, many earlier published geological studies show
> that the rate and magnitude of climate change over historic times lies
> within the envelope of natural variation.
> The third IPCC argument rests upon complex computer models which
> attempt to predict the rate of warming for the increasing rate of
> carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through to the year 2100. However,
> these models are unable to simulate 20th century climatic history
> accurately, and also fail when tested against the last 20 years of
> accurate data from satellites and weather balloons. A primary reason
> for the mismatches is probably that the computer models assume an
> unrealistically high temperature sensitivity for atmospheric
> greenhouse gas accumulation.
> The flaws in these three IPCC arguments are cumulatively fatal. But,
> in addition, it has become increasingly apparent lately that the
> 1,000-year interval which is the context for most IPCC advice and
> analysis is a completely inadequate period over which to assess global
> climate change. The focus of discussion, therefore, is shifting away
> from the short-term mechanisms studied by meteorologists and
> climatologists, to attending more to the knowledge base for climate
> change which exists in the geological record over tens and hundreds of
> thousands of years.
> Another Shift
> Which brings us to the second, and quantum, shift in the recent
> climate debate. Bill Ruddiman, a geologist and climate scientist from
> the University of Virginia, has recently re-analyzed the history of
> atmospheric greenhouse gases as revealed by air bubbles trapped in
> polar ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. In an important paper
> in the journal Climatic Change, Ruddiman shows that greenhouse gases
> reached a peak at the start of the present interglacial (the
> "Holocene") about 10,000 years ago and then, after starting to decline
> as anticipated from the natural solar cycle, commenced to rise
> again. Carbon dioxide shows an increase from about 8,000 years
> onwards, and methane from about 5,000 years onwards (Fig. A).
> ...
> Though policy-makers are apparently itching to act "now" on climate
> change, it is clear that for the moment the status quo and "do no
> harm" is the preferred option. A much better understanding of natural
> cycles of climate change and of the magnitude of human effects on
> climate are needed before we consider implementing global mitigation
> measures. In such a regard, neither current IPCC advice nor the Kyoto
> Protocol are remotely adequate as a basis for action.
Jane Galt:
From the posts above it has become clear that you should vote for Ralph Nader. When you've read all the posts the Dems should have convinced you that Bush sucks and the Reps should have convinced you that Kerry is just not up to the job. So why not Nader. The Dem lawyers failed to keep him off the ballot in NY, right? So you actually have the opportunity to vote for him unlike most other Americans. The best part is you don't have to worry what his policies might be since he has zero chance of ever being elected. It's a no brainer! Not one post here has criticized Ralph Nader. He deserves your vote.
Disclaimer: I'm a former Dem Rep but in this case I want only what's best for you, Jane. Nader is the single best answer to all of your questions.
Kerry and his crew has been hammering President Bush to admit he was wrong about the WMD and the subsequent invasion of Iraq for the past year+.
Kerry has had 30 years to consider his actions in Vietnam and after and make whatever adjustments and/or apologises he thought warranted. (hell, even Jane Fonda has apologized!) To this day he stands proud of his honorable record of taking part in "war crimes" during his shortlived service and trashing soldiers with blanket accusations )and no evidence) upon his safe return to a tumultous and divided country, knowing full well that POWs were still being held.
He has not to this day looked one of these men in the eye and given ANY apology for his contribution to their collective horror and yet he has the audacity to demand the President own up to using the data he was given (with which Kerry himself used to stir up Anti-Hussein fervor) to make the difficult decision...
ie: to finally address what the UN has steadfastly refused to deal with for 12 years and 14 Resolutions which is to hold that muderous dicator and his ruthless henchmen accountable to the world body.
The President gave this lunatic an opportunity to leave the country with his crazed sons and millions of dollars and Hussein refused that olive branch which would have spared his fellow Iraqis the damage the world knew our force could inflict and yet where was the encouragement from any country that he leave?
So much for "we are the world....we are the children" which opening lines are...
"There comes a time when we need a certain call
When the world must come together as one
There are people dying
Oh, and it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all"
Yeah right.
President Bush said at the outset that this was a war like no other and it wasn't going to be easy or swift. Was that a lie, Mr. Kerry-Heinz? Sounding like straight-talk to me.
Words never ended a war, clearly or after all the words the last president blathered there would surely be a better peace between Israel and the Palestinians, right? Overwhelming and superior force does that and treaties come after surrender.
I for one do not wish the United States ever be in a position to surrender and try to work out a treaty with the people who think cutting off heads and shooting fleeing children in the back is appropriate behavior and the reward is a roomful of virgins at death's door.
Let's end on a humorous note, shall we:
Q. Why do muslim men believe and look forward to the reward of 72 virgins in heaven?
A. They can't take criticism.
I forgot to add: Can you really be honestly considering a vote for this candidate Kerry? On what record, his promises?
The main reason I'm voting for Bush is, Kerrys cabinet will be Clintonistas. I voted for the Clintons twice but now see they were an absolute disaster.
The world is growing up fast enough to whittle down our sovereignty without having pro-active appeasement cutting us down from within. If you wonder why the world hates us just pick up a newspaper and see how "Hate America" is unjustly promoted over any other ideology.
A President with repairable flaws is one thing. Having an agenda to weaken us is quite another.
1. Mr Sielaff puts it well, especially the disapointment in being past the likely age of Jane's prince. Also the complete lack of useful debate - I won't have any kind of discussion with a raving zealot of any stripe.
2. CW, do you have the faintest idea what the original name of this blog was??
3. I thought it was widely known that the word we've been delicately avoiding (for the most part) is 'fustercluck'.
Regards,
I am voting against Kerry and for Bush because I am convinced that Kerry WANTS to turn Iraq into another Vietnam.
As far as I can tell, Kerry is pleased and proud of the way that Vietnam ended. He is proud of his involvement in ending America's involvement in Vietnam. He has indicated that he intends to do the same with Iraq - that the most important task is pulling out troops out and ending our involvement.
Unfortunately, the result was an absolute disaster for the people of Vietnam, and will be an absolute disaster for the people of Iraq.
Kerry appears to care deeply about foreign leaders, and not at all about foreign people. I find that completely unacceptable.
In Bush's favor, I think it is a significant accomplishment for him and his administration that after 9/11 there have been no further attacks on American soil. He may have shut the barn door after the horse was stolen, but at least the rest of the horses are still there.
Dunno if this will make sense to you, but:
To me, the important aspect of Kerry's Senate career has been his investigative work, not his legislative work (which admittedly has been slight-- but I don't think we need a lot of new law either, I think it would be preferable to enforce what laws we have more sensibly).
Specifically, Kerry exposed the BCCI Bank, which not only helped fund terror (including of course terror that our spooks supported) but was explicitly dedicated to weakening the West. And it was hugely corrupt.
If you think there is an asymmetrical aspect to terror, and that the people we really need to nail do not have state sponsors, then Kerry, not Bush, is the candidate that understands that and has the conceptual skills to combat terror.
I will admit that I have hated George W. Bush for four years, so you may not find my arguments persuasive. But the reason why I hate him may be of interest. It is that I asked myself which character in the Rand novels he most resembles. To me, George Bush is Jim Taggart: incompetent glad-handing braggart scion of a powerful family who was born to command and still screwed it up. Kerry is certainly not Galt or Rearden (nor does George Soros make a very convincing Ragnar Dannesjold), but at this point I will happily vote for Eddie Willers.
I couldnt read thru 139 comments to see if any one mentioned Waco,but surely in your list of exploits,Waco was more important than closet searching in Florida..
I think arcane at gene expression did a good job of addressing why a libertarian would vote for Bush.
"Surely there's one fair prince among you who holds the key to unlock my weary heart?"
No surer way to have an unkissed (and unboiled) frog appear, than to exclaim from the tower that you, fair maiden, are in distress.
"This is a window of opportunity! Convince me that Bush, even if he screwed up in Iraq, won't do so going forward!
Then, let's begin to fisk the plaint. "Even if" allows the bask of daylight in the above command. Let's explore, in that full daylight... but be reminded of the most important point of all. We are already there. Turning back the clock is beyond my capacity to serve. When we reach our final analysis, we must come back to this point in time. Given that we exist here, not there, which plan outlined rings true and feasible?
Does it strike you, a wise, thoughtful and intelligent soul, that unsteady, halting and quivering supplications to Euro-Canadian socialist regimes are likely to inspire unconditional surrender by those inclined to eradicate freedom through mindless brutality, to succumb to democratized elections in Iraq?
Can we truly talk them to death? Summit them into calm and reason? Mesmerize ourselves into everlasting peace via a shock and awe campaign of endless committees and blue ribbon panel studies?
Will the U.N. give back the monies stolen intended for food and medicine? Will France? If we go to them on bended knee, begging for forgiveness and seeking permission to move forward? Ever? Anywhere?
What value does one place on full and free elections in Afghanistan? Is there a lesser value in Iraq? If that value we place upon it is to mean anything, if their joy is our joy, then how do we reconcile its abandonment? How can we speak in diluted intonations of its "supposed legitmacy", and expect anyone to rise to defend its embryonic existence?
And we must examine by what standards was the campaign on the ground in Iraq a failure, much less a cluster@#$$? Was it really? If not, then the liberation of a tortured people had some merit, did it not? Setting aside for a moment the "stated intentions", which seem to always be victims of the child's game of "telephone"...the first two questions to be asked about the liberation of the Iraqi people via the ground campaign are: 1)Rape rooms, torture chambers, mass graves, wood chippers, ...have they grown, lessened or disappeared entirely? 2)Sanctions, which were being wailed about and produced such gnashing of teeth because foods and medicines were being denied to the "people" (we now know why), are they any longer necessary?
If nothing else, is there value in the answers to these questions? If so, then the "war/ground campaign" or more precisely, the liberation of the people from the effects of these oppressions to their well being, have been removed. In a campaign that was short, NOT a quagmire, and relatively free of casualties.
(ergo, the ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE pat on the back for those young men and women returning home from the ground campaign, THEIR mission...was indeed "accomplished". Slapping those kids in the face for that kindly pat on the back, is mean-spirited and unwarranted)
If we are able to move forward to the next step, from that day to this, then we are solely confined to the issue of winning the peace, no longer debating in frustration and futility about Saddam's motive, intent, opportunity and wherewithal to render harm near and far. Every realist, pragmatist, objective observer...sans agenda, was universal in agreement on the subject and have been openly since at least the Clinton administration, if not before.
For fear that the text grows too long, I will post and separate that issue as we move forward. Being a prince is hard enough work, but starting as an unboiled frog hoping to be kissed, is even a longer journey.
"Convince me that Kerry's terrible domestic agenda has no chance of passage!"
Ahhh. So wise a question to ask, so much to discuss. The domestic agenda of Mssr. Kerry is really merely a point on a continuum. If one dares to highlight the infusion of leftist origins into a discussion, the ghost of Joseph McCarthy, complete with rattling chains and bogeyman wails will not be far behind.
But, in point of fact, approximately half our nation has one foot in the socialism boneyards of those failed attempts to institute it. Well, to be precise, we seem to be on an inexorable march toward the Euro-Canadian style of socialism with half our population and a dogged resistance to it by the other half. A house divided.
A strange alliance in the attempted "defeat" of free market meritocracy includes the lesser lights of American communists (ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice etc, those who create, develop, administrate and inspire the "marches" and "protests" etc.). And a smattering of anarchists. These latter two groups are less patient and instigate for revolution. Those inclined toward Euro-Canadian socialism, are more inclined to "boil the frog" one degree at a time and have a reflexive resistance to being identified, sort of like mafioso who claim only legitimate business interests, as if hiding identification of being a member to the group to which they obviously belong, elevates their arguments to acceptable levels.
From my perspective, I don't want to be a boiled frog, one degree at a time. Let's call the question. We are split in half. I don't mean to "out" the Euro-Canadian socialists among us, but why this game of blind man's bluff? If half the people want to move toward Euro-Canadian socialism and half want to keep free market meritocracy, let's call the question. I am constantly amazed at how the liberals recoil from being called liberal, leftists recoil from being called leftist, socialists recoil from being called socialist. This isn't "red baiting". It's open and honest discussion about a domestic (and foreign policy) agenda that they want to advocate. Ok. Great. Then out with it.
There is no need to conceal it in some package of fluff and consisting of frilly flips and flops. The reason Mssr. Kerry can't articulate a firm stance on virtually anything, is NOT the fact that he doesn't hold firm beliefs or is not articulate, quite the contrary. It's that he is afraid to let them out of the closet for fear of being rejected.
What has happened, or "evolved" (perhaps some would say "devolved") is that the patience associated with the inexorable march toward Euro-Canadian socialism has worn thin. The fight is now more angry, more desperate, nastier, more "in your face".
The main troika of socialist invective stems from Old Media, Hollywood and college professorship although there are clearly other participants.
But, these competing agendas render Kerry and his followers internally "conflicted". They, at once feel the need to blurt out all that they feel and at the same time keep it closely guarded and under wraps. So, all that is left...is the incessant sniping at those who don't agree with their agenda. All the unboiled frogs. Republican, libertarian, South Park Republican, evangelicals, conservative Democrats, independents who don't buy lock, stock and barrel the lockstep mantra of the left.
And what comes out of this "conflicted" state is anger and frustration. We are all "stupid". Every Republican leader is "stupid, evil, greedy, racist, mysoginistic, homophobic". Every Republican President is stupid, evil, petty and cruel. Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Bush.
Since free market meritocracy is the "real enemy", it must be portrayed with the same venom, bile and heaped upon degradation. Given a combination of Republican President with a free market meritocracy staunch defense and a need for national security, you have the perfect storm for launching an attack. You get the cocktail of "blood for oil", the Pavlovian response to "Halliburton" in any sentence, and the tried and true "disenfranchisement" of people of color and of course the "warmongering impose a draft" and "tax breaks for the rich".
It all stems from a predictable, inexorable march on a continuum. The enemy isn't really President Bush. The enemy, is the impediment to changing from free market meritocracy to Euro-Canadian socialism.
Once we understand that, we understand where Mssr. Kerry wishes to take us. And why. On domestic issues (health care, taxation, etc) we will obtain not just the bloated governmental trough of "plan implementers" to slop at, we will get the nanny portion of decision-making for us poor "unwashed". The "Trust Fund Socialists" will have tucked away their eggs, tell us how to spend ours, and take a "portion" of what we make "for our benefit". Some people call this a "nanny" governmental style.
I call it the nanny grifter. The nanny portion comes in making so many decisions for us. The grifter portion comes in paying for all those wonderfully compassionate and inept government plans bloated with bureaucrats and lined with pork favor treats for the "believers".
I guess I too am one of those undecideds, and I'm vacillating which is truly annoying since I'm usually decisive.Kerry seems to be the consummate politician, which is what our system seems to reward. Bush on the other hand was a nobody (and I don't think I'm being uncharitable when I say that he was something of a failure) before his connections won him a candidacy and the Texas governorship. (I do think looking at early records is a valid means of getting a measure of a candidate before all the political spin kicked in). On the other hand, Kerry doesn't seem to have done very much in his senate career.
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke seem to have some damning inside accounts of what deliberations are like at Bush cabinet meetings, and I have no reason to disbelieve O'Neill when he says that the invasion of Iraq was decided in the first few weeks/months of the Bush administration. Whether or not it was the right thing to do anyway I'm still undecided. In strategic terms, we have a foothold in the middle east, which is probably a good thing since it discourages the crazies in Syria and Iran from doing anything outrageous. Does it justify the cost in lives and resources? I'm leaning towards no. And the idealistic pro forma statements about "bringing democracy to the Iraqi people" are laughable, to say the least. But I'm no expert in such things, I'm just a software engineer.
A big black mark against Bush, in my book, is the whole Halliburton issue which they seem to be doing their best to ignore in the hopes that it will go away. Why the enormous no-bid contract to a corporation that did business through proxies with Iran and Libya (under the leadership of Cheney, no less)? There may have been logistical reasons I suppose, but the recent overbilling scandals and the news that the Pentagon may forgive the small matter of a few billion in overcharges (http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/22/news/fortune500/halliburton_compromise.reut/)
is pretty galling, considering that's some of my money they're giving away. Also, I'm disappointed that some lowly sergeant is taking most of the blame for the appalling incidents in Abu Ghraib. On the other hand, Kerry just makes vague promises about this and that, and his record is not at all promising. Whatever their faults, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and co. at least have a lot of experience in dealing with the situation in the Middle East (I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing though). Sigh.
Amy
Dear Jane,
Please consider Bush's competence:
low unemployment
low interest rate
low mortgate rate
med-high deficit (due to production increasing tax breaks, with lower actual deficits than ealier projected. In times of war; after dot.com recession.) 3 out of 4 on economy.
On Afghanistan and Iraq:
huge success on Afghanistan; less than 3 years after 9/11 response, reasonably good national elections.
reasonable success on Iraq: on track for elections after 2 years, with less than 1500 Americans killed. (Less than 2500 great; 5000 good; 10000 fair) Anybody honest with other numbers?
Only Bush-haters, who have NOT mentioned a standard for Iraq success in time or people, claim Bush is less than competent (yes, less than ideal, Unreal Perfection of 0 losses, democracy in a day, was really silly. WHAT is realistic? In actual numbers -- yeah, "certainly better, yada yada").
Kosovo, 5 years after UN, elections which 10% Serbs boycott. THAT's Kerry's idea of "winning"? If not, why not? What is?
Bush results show competence at the macro level, which is where Presidents (including Clinton), should be judged.
If I am to turn from unkissed and unboiled frog into a prince who has won your heart, I must finish slaying each dragon lain before me. I attempt to do so in this final Part III.
"Convince me that Bush really, truly means it this time about Social Security!"
Alas, I cannot. I don't believe it. This is the world's largest Ponzi scheme. It must be dismantled in pieces. The problem with unraveling a badly twisted fishing line, balled up and knotted, is that there is no good place to begin. Such is the plight of Social Security. Another compassionate plan, filled with bureaucracy and loaded with political entanglements. We may indeed begin, but I have severe reservations that it will do anything other than expire under its own weight.
"Convince me that a bad American foreign policy will hurt Americans more than bad domestic policy!"
Perhaps, this is not an either or proposition. The nanny grifter gives you Euro-Canadian socialism at home, appeasement, supplication and retreat abroad. Weak, poor, and sort of liked (hated less) vs. strong, growing and envied and resented by every leftist in the world as well as Islamofascists.
"Convince me that you know what Kerry's actually thinking, and it shouldn't scare the bejeesus out of me!"
He is thinking that he wants to be elected and will do or say just about anything to get there. Once in, you are going to get Jimmy Carter in Spandex. Thurston Howell III speech patterns instead of Col Sanders. Thurston's wife is no longer "Lovie" with a dry martini, she's "Shovie" with a Montrachet 1978 from Domaine de la Romanée-Conti.
Up for a few gas lines and a little national malaise? Perhaps a try at the hostage record of 444 days? Weak at home, scoffed at abroad? It's a sure path to being loved, admired and adorned with rigged prizes and awards decades later. If you teach the history courses and deliver the nightly news, you own the "facts" and "evidence".
Heck, when they don't fit, one can simply "forge ahead" with their own. Suppression of any competing facts and evidence is de rigueur.
I hope the choice is now clear. It really is about choosing a side. Shall I be kissed? I've tried my best to be worthy.
I think of it in terms of the UN party vs. the U.S. party.
If you think that the reason that the U.S. isn't popular overseas is that we are morally obtuse, then vote for Kerry. If you think that it is the other countries that are morally obtuse, vote for Bush.
I think that our values are better, on the whole, and so my inclination is to vote for Bush.
If you want four more years of American Soldiers dying in Iraq, in a war that has nothing to do with 911, in a war that by every experts account is producing ALOT more terrorists, vote Bush. But know it will be ten to twenty years before any type of democracy will succeed in Iraq, and as the execution of the 50 new Iraqi soldiers this morning indicates, something a high number of Iraqis dont want anyway.
If you want order restored as quickly as possible to whatever Iraqi faction is capable of maintaining it, the certification that Iraq is free of wmd, the reason this war was undertaken in the first place, and the American Soldiers home within four years, then vote Kerry.
For crying out loud, Jane, you only have 1 (one) count 'em one vote, and if you're working in NYC you'll be voting in NY. So why should I care who you vote for?
I'm voting for Bush (not that you should care) because any show of weakness in Iraq or on the War on Terror in general would send a disasterous message. Our country, our world cannot afford it.
Also, if you care about the plight of women in the world, you must vote to prosecute the war on terror in the Middle East and support the effort to establish liberal democracy (or something close to it) in that part of the world so that the casual raping and maiming of women (not to mention men and children) can be ended. Good luck!
I'll comment on just one topic. Do you want the US to have a capable military? If so, you must consider the fact that most of the military absolutely hates John Kerry. Under Bush, they feel they have an important goal they are working for and are supported and appreciated. Under Kerry, they would feel worse than the Vietnam veterans who were spat upon when they returned home.
Everyone who could would quit as fast as they could. The rest would put in their time until they could get out. The quality and quantity of those joining would drop. Perhaps we really would have a draft. But a conscript army will be substantially inferior to the motivated and trained professionals we have now.
I can't imagine why you'd read this far. But here goes...
Observing that you know the issues, I won't touch on them, other than to note that the large majority of people who get out of the Green Zone (or whatever it's called now) do not agree with you that it's a cluster-etc. Using asymetrical information, i.e. what actually is happening versus what most people think is happening might lead you home.
More importantly, consider issues of simple honesty. In the next two weeks, compare the comments of the candidates and their spokespeople versus what is known to be true. Which is "spinning" versus "stretching" spin past the break-point? Which is choosing his colors carefully and which is coloring outside the lines to make a different picture? Do any of the campaign reps make statements of fact they know to be misleading?
are you all really that stupid?
kerry would not be candidate if he
voted the way you wanted him to vote.
but that would be your goal all along
someone like dean or sharpton
nwerle@yahoo.com
Jane....for pete's sake, we're in a WAR. The president is focused on the war which is exactly where his focus should be..nothing else can top this priority. The remaining issues at hand mean nothing if we're all dead. Re-elect the president. He deserves your vote and mine.
Mr. Bush is an optimist, Mr. Kerry is a pessimist. Mr. Bush is married to a woman who seems loving and stable. Mr. Kerry is married to a woman who seems European.
re: "bad domestic policy vs. bad foreign policy". As noted below in these
clips from Cato there is reason to believe that bad healthcare policy
can cost alot of lives even in the current approach. Also, Medicare, etc,
already cause cost shifting over to those with private health insurance '
(whether thats supposed to happen or not). and they both will have
bad foreign policy putting us more at risk by making us a more desirable
terrorist target to more people.
http://cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-39.pdf
> For example, Dr. Louis Lasagna, director of Tufts University’s Center
> for the Study of Drug Development, estimates that the seven-year delay
> in the approval of beta-blockers as heart medication cost the lives of as
> many as 119,000 Americans. During the three and half years it took the
> FDA to approve the drug Interleukin-2, 25,000 Americans died of kidney
> cancer even though the drug had already been approved for use in nine
> other countries. Eugene Schoenfeld, a cancer survivor and president of
> the National Kidney Cancer Association, maintains that ''IL-2 is one of
> the worst examples of FDA regulation known to man.’’
http://cato.org/dailys/10-19-04.html
> After studying 47 different types of health care regulations, Conover
> estimates those regulations cost Americans $169.1 billion on net in
> 2002 alone. The total costs are actually $339.1 billion, but the
> regulations provide about $170.1 billion in benefits.
> ...
> For the typical American, this translates into a hidden tax of more
> than $1,500 per household per year. And because that cost is built
> into medical prices, it makes health coverage unaffordable for about
> 7.5 million people.
> ...
> Conover notes the more money people have, the better able they are to
> purchase greater health and safety. He estimates that by depriving
> Americans of $169 billion annually, health care regulations lead to
> 22,205 unnecessary deaths each year. The Institutes of Medicine
> estimate 18,000 Americans die each year from a lack of health
> insurance, making over-regulation a bigger problem than the uninsured.
re: "running out of oil"
Odd, I assume you know that doesn't seem imminent due to new discoveries of it
and improved technology
(if you look at history, some were worried about that happening any day now
back in the 70s). But more importantly there are other better technologies
on the horizon. If anything of course you know i'm sure that although
it temporarily causes problems
for the economy, higher oil prices for whatever reason no (or looming shortage
in the future) leads to incentives to exploit new technologies.
So where is there hope? In the internet, eg the blogosphere,
breaking the media monopoly and allowing the spread of libertarian
ideas bypassing the Demopublican media. Stop playing their games
and arguing over the least evil vs. trying to figure out how
to create something good, how to spread the word about other
alternative ideas (even if not candidates). Hope that either
the next presidential race in four years, or the one after, can
be influenced by better ideas if time isn't wasted supporting
those with traditional big government ideas, fiddling with the
deck chairs on the titanic while social security and healthcare
burn (to mix analogies :-) ). The key is that you can be part
of the future :-)
and some issues like the drug reimportation one may not be
as a bad as feared:
http://cato.org/dispatch/10-18-04d.html
>Canadian Pharmacies Refuse Bulk Orders from U.S.
> "More than 30 Canadian internet pharmacies have decided not to accept
> bulk orders of prescription drugs from U.S. states and
> municipalities. The move delivers a potentially serious setback to
> U.S. politicians -most notably Democratic presidential candidate John
> Kerry -campaigning to give Americans easier access to cheap drugs from
> Canada," the Financial Times reports.
> "Kerry has argued that opening the U.S. to Canadian imports could help
> lower the costs of prescription drugs for elderly Americans. Such
> reimportation has become one of the points of difference between him
> and President George W. Bush during the election campaign."
> In "Drug Reimportation: The Free Market Solution,"
> http://cato.org/research/articles/pilon-041011.html Roger Pilon, vice
> president for legal affairs, writes: "Americans end up paying for most
> of the costs of drug R&D while the rest of the world rides free -- and
> that is politically unsustainable, as events are demonstrating. The
> current [reimportation] ban should be lifted, therefore, not to
> encourage reimportation, but to allow the incentives to surface that
> will 'force' wider use of market practices and the international trade
> regimes that reflect such practices."
http://cato.org/research/articles/pilon-041011.html
> Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal
> It seems the issue of drug reimportation is finally ready for prime time.
> ...
> The ban should be lifted, therefore, not to encourage reimportation,
> which isn't likely to happen, but simply to allow market practices to
> surface. Today, with their high-profit American market protected,
> companies don't have to bargain hard abroad. The ban shields them,
> allowing them to claim they have to accept foreign price
> controls. Practically, Americans are subsidizing socialized medical
> systems abroad.
> ...
> But with the ban lifted, and the threat of underpriced drugs flooding
> the American market, companies would be "forced" to adjust. They could
> still try to maximize profits by segmenting markets. But they'd have
> to guard against parallel markets the right way, through no-resale
> contracts or supply limits. They could offer a country lower prices,
> but the country would have to police its exports, since America would
> no longer be policing imports. That places the incentive where it
> belongs, on the country benefiting from the bargain. And if that
> failed, companies could limit supplies, as they're doing now with
> Canada.
> In Europe, however, no-resale contracts are illegal -- from a mistaken
> belief that they're anti-free trade. That's why there's a thriving
> parallel market there. If that's the way Europeans want it, companies
> will have no choice but to limit supplies or raise prices. That's how
> markets work. Companies should be free to segment markets. But if it
> doesn't work, international prices will move toward equality. And if
> that happens -- as is likely, given enforcement difficulties --
> there'll be no reimportation, which moots the safety issue as well.
> With the ban lifted, no one knows whether prices will rise abroad and
> fall here, or just rise abroad. That's for markets to decide. The last
> thing we want, however, is the bipartisan Dorgan-Snowe Senate bill,
> which would lift the ban and then prohibit companies from "gaming the
> system" -- limiting supplies or raising prices abroad. In effect, the
> sponsors want to freeze the current situation, then import below-cost
> drugs from abroad -- at those prices. The sponsors seem not to
> appreciate that the only reason a company can sell a drug for $20 in
> Germany is because it's sold for $100 in America. The bill would
> actually import foreign price controls, and that would be the end of
> future R&D and the miracle drugs it produces.
You say of the war that "it doesn't pose an existential threat to us", and that's true -- now. However, technology improves. Let's take the current threats and preserve them or replicate them (e.g., replace Dear Leader Kim with some African equivalent) a generation from now. I expect that nukes will be a lot cheaper, smaller, and more widely distributed, don't you? How could it be otherwise? The same applies to CBW and to shoulder-fired heat-seekers, of course.
I still don't expect an "existential threat" in the sense that I did in the 60s, when (as a high-schooler) I really didn't expect civilization to last as long as it has. I do expect that Bad Guys will be empowered to do Really Bad Stuff with seriously cataclysmic economic, social, and political consequences -- that's _if_ the current threat-pattern is still around a generation or so from now. It might be, or it might not.
Bush has cut Dear Leader Kim's clientele significantly. He has removed one guy who once had a nuclear program and clearly had not renounced the dream. He's gotten another to renounce. That's good, that's really good, but the difference that matters to me in comparing candidates is this
>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-5-2004_pg1_6
> Daily Times - Site Edition
>
> WASHINGTON: John Kerry’s victory would be good news for Gen Pervez Musharraf,
> as the Democratic presidential hopeful has no intention of pressing
> Pakistan and other countries on democracy.
Bush is committed to push democracy. He's trying to surround Iran with democracies; he's made a start. I thought before the war that this was a long-term mess and he was a bad guy to be running it. I still think he's frighteningly optimistic; I'd have run things very very differently. I thought that surely the Democratic party would have no trouble fielding somebody better, but they offer me Kerry who doesn't even want to be better at what I think is absolutely necessary. Sufficient? Well, maybe not. But necessary. So I vote for Bush, and give to spiritofamerica, and worry.
I'm a Bush supporter and I pretty much accepted this coordinated random violence in Iraq as soon as it became apparent. The only way to get to the end is to get the Iraqis involved which they are now.
I liken this Iraq project strategy as if the USA is driving a bus and the Iraqis are all piled in with us. We share the same objectives. But Iraqis are used to people driving the bus. I contend that we should drive that bus so slow, and so inept that they get off the bus and run out in front of us. I think that is what is happening and I believe it is exactly what we should be doing. The best part about this plan is it will give the Iraqis ownership and pride in the result. That is what is necessary to keep their freedom once it becomes theirs.
On Kerry, I think if he wins he is going to be tested by every enemy we have on the planet and I think his indecision will get thousands of Americans killed and hundreds of thousands around the globe killed. If we have a catastrophic attack on this country, Kerry is not the guy we want in the White House. I fear this more than anything else. He has no access to the kinds of people we need to run a defense strategy.
Vanyogan
The fact is Afghanistan is a complete failure. The Talaban and narcowarlords are running the country, poppy production is up over 500%, and every candidate outside of Karzai had initially withdrew from elections due to allegations of fraud.
Heres whats happened in Afghanistan since we moved most of the troops to Iraq-
a decree issued on 21 May 2003, Hamid Karzai appointed Deputy Defense Minister General Abdul Rashid Dostum as a special adviser on security and military affairs. Dostum is to dismantle Army Corps No. 7, commanded by his Jami'at rival, General Ata Mohammad. In turn, Ata Mohammad has stated that he will not relinquish his command of the Army Corps No. 7, effectively challenging Dostum's job description. General Ata Mohammad, commander of the Army Corps No. 7, resigned from his post as "first deputy head of the Leadership Council of the northern provinces of Afghanistan," Balkh Television reported on 20 May 2003.
In late September 2003 troops belonging to longtime rival commanders Abdul-Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammed clashed in northern Afghanistan's Sar-e Pul province. The two commanders are nominally aligned with the central government, but are considered independent warlords, autonomously ruling the areas occupied by their troops. Their forces frequently engage each other in efforts to take control of Afghanistan's north. The United Nations and other mediators have repeatedly sought a regional truce, on several occasions mediating meetings between General Dostum, General Atta, and other local commanders.
In October 2003 the Afghan central government deployed police in northern Afghanistan following clashes between rival factions of the former Northern Alliance. The effort seeks to bring an end to the recurring battles between the militia forces of ethnic Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum and ethnic Tajik field commander Atta Mohammad. About 300 police officers from Kabul have been deployed in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif to help monitor a cease-fire between the forces of two feuding warlords.
The police force is token in size compared to the tens of thousands of militiamen loyal to each of the warlords -- ethnic Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum and ethnic Tajik field commander Atta Mohammad. And yet, the deployment has enormous symbolic significance because it appears to signal the start of a serious effort by Transitional Administration Chairman Hamid Karzai and his international backers to extend the authority of the Afghan central government.
Dostum and Mohammad signed an agreement on 11 October 2003 to extend their shaky cease-fire into other areas that have suffered from factional violence since the collapse of the Taliban regime nearly two years ago. Those areas include the provinces of Balkh, Samangan, Jowzjan, Sar-i-Pul, and Faryab. Dostum and Mohammed last signed an initial cease-fire on 9 October that involved only their private militia forces close to Mazar-i-Sharif. That deal came after a fierce tank and artillery battle advanced to within 20 kilometers of Mazar-i-Sharif. Some reports say as many as 60 militia fighters were killed.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in Afghanistan 4 December 2003 on a one-day visit, where he met with warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum. Rumsfeld held talks with an Afghan warlord, Abdul Rashid Dostum, whose ethnic Uzbek faction had been accused of acting too slowly in disarming. Defense officials said that while Dostum's faction had handed over three tanks to Afghan security forces, his rival, Ata Mohammad, had handed over more than 50.
Afghanistan has more armies than LA has street gangs, and you cant have a democracy without a centralized government.
Heres some of the more positive thoughts on Iraqs ability to achieve democracy-
Because of the failures and shortcomings of the occupation-as well as the intrinsic difficulties that any occupation following Saddam's tyranny was bound to confront-it is going to take a number of years to rebuild the Iraqi state and to construct any kind of viable democratic and constitutional order in Iraq. The post-handover transition is going to be long, and initially very bloody. It is not clear that the country is going to be able to conduct reasonably credible elections by next January. And even if those elections are held in a minimally acceptable fashion, it is hard to imagine that the over-ambitious transition timetable for the remainder of 2005 will be kept. Nevertheless, the end of occupation and the transfer of authority to an interim government on June 28 offered at least a chance for a new beginning. And there is no alternative to this transitional program that does not involve one awful scenario or another: civil war, massive renewed repression, the establishment of a safe haven for terrorist organizations-or quite possibly all three.
We are looking at a looooooooong occupation of Iraq, and even then the chances of failure are much larger than democracy taking root.
Heres what the Iraqis want-
By Robin Wright, Washington Post, October 22, 2004
Leaders of Iraq's religious parties have emerged as the country's most popular politicians and would win the largest share of votes if an election were held today, while the U.S.-backed government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is losing serious ground, according to a U.S.-financed poll by the International Republican Institute.
More than 45 percent of Iraqis also believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction, and 41 percent say it is moving in the right direction.
Within the Bush administration, a victory by Iraq's religious parties is viewed as the worst-case scenario. Washington has hoped that Allawi and the current team, which was selected by U.S. and U.N. envoys, would win or do well in Iraq's first democratic election, in January. U.S. officials believe a secular government led by moderates is critical, in part because the new government will oversee writing a new Iraqi constitution.
"The picture it paints is that, after all the blood and treasure we've spent and despite the [U.S.-led] occupation's democracy efforts, we're in a position now that the moderates would not win if an election were held today," said a U.S. official who requested anonymity because the poll has not been released.
The difficulty with a potential Kerry presidency is simple - he'll have absolutely no mandate if he wins. Why do I say that? Simple - he's not well liked - most of his backers are against Bush, not for Kerry. Given that, with the kinds of pressures he'll be under from his anti-war base, the likely outcome in Iraq would look a lot like Vietnam in 1973 - rapid US withdrawal, followed by chaos. That chaos would be exploited either by Syria (resurgent Baath), or Iran (Shia theocracy), or Saudi Arabia (Sunni theocracy). Regardless, the resulting regime would be
-- hostile to the US
-- believe that it had defeated the US
-- unlike Vietnam, have access to loads of oil money with which to take revenge on the US
When Carter went soft in the 70's, the Soviets responded with higher levels of aggression - a soft Kerry presidency would result in higher levels of aggression from the Islamo-fascists. The difference is, the Soviets, while dangerous - had a level of rationality. They realized that there were bridges they could not cross. The Islamo-fascists don't have that level of restraint.
To see what the Islamo-fascists will do, watch a few rounds of Texas Hold-'em with one good player and a bunch of not so good players. Once that good player smells blood, he just goes for the jugular. Well, the fascists are like that - they'll go for the jugular, even though it's clear that they can't win - worst comes to worst, the US could level any part of the world that it wants/needs to.
The thing is, we don't want to get to the point where we have to level a part of the world. What the Iraq project ultimately is, is the arab world's last, best chance to escape medievel darkness and behavior. If this effort fails (and the most likely way for it to fail would be the US deciding to leave Iraq to its fate), then we'll be faced with these people again. Only next time, they'll have nukes, chemical weapons, and a strong desire for revenge.
At this point, whether you think going into Iraq was a mistake or not doesn't really matter. We're there, and pulling out and declaring victory simply won't work. It'll have very, very bad consequences. Kerry doesn't grasp that; he thinks that it will end up like pulling out of Vietnam (which, by the way, did end up leading to 3 million deaths in Cambodia and the boat people in Vietnam - sure, one could argue that the war itself caused a lot of that. But in 1973, it was too late to go back and call a do-over). It's too late to call a do-over and pretend we didn't go into Iraq. We did it, and we have to deal with that reality.
Megan - does this help your decision-making?
John Kerry has served as an advocate for Communist views - both by collaborating with the enemy during the Vietnam War - and continuing to today.
During the debate on the Dick Cavett Show, John Kerry claimed there would be no bloodbath if the U.S. abandonned Vietnam. Kerry claimed - like a rich patrician counting the meaningless deaths of lesser men - that maybe 4,000 or 5,000 people would die. In fact, Three Million, Eight Hundred Thousand (3,800,000) people died when the U.S. abandonned Vietnam - as the North Vietnamese promptly broke their treaty with the U.S. and descended on South Vietnam. Accordingly Vietnam is still a communist nation today - over 30 years later.
Again, Three Million, Eight Hundred Thousand (3,800,000) people died when the U.S. abandonned Vietnam - as the North Vietnamese promptly broke their treaty with the U.S. and descended on South Vietnam. And this was the the result of the "peace plan" proposed by the Vietnamese Communists and their mouthpiece in America - John Kerry.
Kerry has consistently been on the wrong side of history when it comes to American foreign policy. Kerry also opposed Reagan during the Gipper's confrontation of the Soviet Union during the 1980's. Kerry even supported legislation to cut America's intelligence cababilities AFTER the first terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, in 1993. Can America afford yet another Kerry miscalculation today?
See:
http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/2004_10_24_nikita_demosthenes_archive.html#109865534904312574
I hope this helps you make up your mind.
An Open Letter to the Undecided Voter:
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-10_cy-2004_m-10_d-17_y-2004_o-0.html
Throughout your requests for the supporters of each candidate to persuade you of the rightness of their positions you don't address certain claims made by Bush's supporters. If everything is reduced to its most basic component they claim that Kerry is a liar and Bush is honest. Isn't that really what every argument about how Kerry wouldn't prosecute the war in spite of what he says he would do comes down to? Bush is honest. He has integrity. He says what he means and is honest with the American public. Isn't that basically what they claim about their candidate?
Then weigh this about what he says to us versus what his administration does. During the debates he says that claims about his actions on stem cell research are overblown. He isn't banning it. He's just refusing to fund it with federal dollars unless already existing stem cell lines are used. This is his claim. Unfortunately it isn't the whole truth. In fact Bush is working hard to get the research banned, he's just trying to do it in a way that he hopes won't reflect on him and the Republican party politically. How? He's found a use for the U.N. after all. His administration is leading the effort for a treaty banning all forms of cloning as well as stem cell research. Isn't amazing what you can find if you read page 18? See
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9999429.htm
Begbee wrote: "why dont you tell me what you want to do about Syria and Saudbush Arabia for underwriting the Iraqi insurgency?"
Begbee: that's the whole point. When Iraq is free and democratic, THEY will take care of Syria and Saudi Arabia, with our help. It won't be Americans versus the Muslims - it will be free Muslims versus the oppressed Muslims. That's a winnable and moral fight!
Bryan, your lengthy post would have more credibility if it wasn't basically a conspiracy theory claim and your extensive quoting didn't come from sites whose sole purpose is to discredit the concept of global warming with no real interest in the scientific process. In fact one of the web sites that you cite, techcentralstation.com is in fact a site created and maintained by the same people who bring us the Bush-Cheney '04 web site. Gee, I wonder if they specialize in right wing causes. It's amazing what a whois search and a reverse phone number directory can do.
Given Bush's questionable results as domestic president and as war leader, for me this election is about Kerry's fitness as a replacement.
I go back and forth. In exasperation over various hijinks and pratfalls by John Ashcroft and his merry troupe during the copious time they apparently can spare from hunting terrorists (excuse the sarcasm), I've made small donations to the Kerry campaign. I have supported the SwiftVets because they were Kerry's peer group in combat and their evaluation of him should be taken seriously. I am not donating to the Bush campaign despite having done so in 2000. (Digression: Harry Browne cost the Libertarian Party both my dues and my attention.)
Bush has not held my confidence but Kerry has not won it. Because our holiday from history is over and, heaven forbid, the next four years may bring visceral crises, the SwiftVets' evaluation is the linchpin of my doubts. Don't get me wrong: Kerry is a better man than I...but I'm not running for wartime commander-in-chief.
Either campaign can still attract me or, more likely, repel me. If the election were immediate, I would vote for Bush but my mind may change. This is the most unpalatable choice since Ford-Carter. I will be uneasy no matter who wins.
btw, Jim s, Tech Central Station contains articles at times by Instapundit, you claiming he is part of a corrupt conspiracy?
Jim S your short post would have more credibility
if you actually addressed the scientific arguments and actually looked at the data and analysis in these papers which is fairly straightforward. (alot more out there with concerns about the simplistic nature of the models vs. the chaotic complex phenomenon) And with some of the coming directly from the NASA folks collecting it. There is alot more out there, that was the tip of the iceberg re: the problems with it. I'm a computer scientist (&entrepreneur), I know how easily some people believe simplistic computer models and how complex the real situation is to model (i also have science background) I know computer folks at NCAR who know hear about model fudging and scientist confessions. I was curious as to what the real story about this was a few years ago and looked into it without caring which way it turned out (actually, oddly, my girlfriend at time was a green type, would have been better for me if I found evidence for it since she wasn't a science type to actually look into it. I'm anti-junk science, sometimes went to skeptics meetings, etc, and had smelled something fishy about all this re: especially the past land record vs. the huge surface area to have been measured especially in the past over the ocean, etc, and knowing localize fluctuations such as el nino, etc., the tiny timescale compared to large climate shifts, etc) but having some skepticism noting that they'd already "fooled us once" with global cooling that didn't happen based on shaky science. I recently looked back into it and saw the same issues with it. I was simply also going into why this sort of thing could become so widely believed despite being questionable. Just like many socialist ideas are widely believed due to the press buying into them. The point was *not* "conspiracy" but just as "public choice" economics goes into rational reasons for government failure, there is the self interest of those involved with $billions of dollars in funding involved, etc, and the natural tendency of the media to side with scare stories and of journalists to not be skeptical and ask questions or understand science well.
I'm anti-Bush as well. I just happen to believe in questioning the media and determining for myself what to think about politically correct views which seem to be defended often on emotion and accusations of bias vs. resort to logical argument.
Also re: wars, there is also the Drug War that both major party candidates are in favor of which leads to crime and deaths just as alcohol prohibition did (here, and as a Russian friend noted, they tried it again over there not long ago for a while and learned the same lesson). I didn't look long for stats re: deaths from that from sources I trust so I don't know if there are any good estimates on the fallout from it, but there is one graph of murder in america on this site: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm
(and after addressing the bias issue on something else, i'll note that I've never used illegal substances due to personal choice (not illegality) and have no desire to do so).
Question 2 is a "when did you stop beating your wife" type question. To ask people to assume with you that anything either candidate will do will "destroy the American medical technology industry" (??!!) is absurd. It is as though someone said to you, "give me an example of a tax increase that created more damage than the mass extermination of all 25 million Americans under the poverty line, which is what your tax cut will do.". But if you do want an example of a destructive "small war", you surely already know about Vietnam, which was extremely destructive to this country economically, politically, and culturally. Also, think about the WTC bombing and its relation to the first Gulf War. The cost/benefit calculus for small imperial wars is changing.
For the first question, there are plenty of liberal government programs that have been eliminated entirely -- the WPA and the NRA from the Roosevelt era, Reagan eliminated a whole bunch of programs (CETA, the CAA) in 81 and replaced them all with state-controlled block grants. That is just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more. Many programs have been cut back or undercut so severely that they have been effectively eliminated as a serious threat to bad actors (this describes OSHA in many industries). Lots of programs get changed radically enough to eliminate big chunks even though the title of the program remains. The programs that really do stick around forever are the payoffs to powerful, organized corporate constituencies (e.g. farm subsidies, which Clinton cut back on but Bush expanded again), not programs that benefit the poor.
In Kerry and the supplemental, we see another example of a technique you use a lot on this blog -- pulling an anecdote from an unnamed source out of the air. In this case it isn't even an anecdote, just an assurance that "people you know" say it was pure politics. Well, when Bush threatened to veto the very same supplemental unless it was changed to his liking, was that a flip flop as well? Senators and Presidents try to change legislation so they agree with it, that's what politics is all about. Everyone knew that money was going to the troops, the argument was about how it was funded, and plenty of people either voted against it or threatened to on that basis. To say Kerry was flip-flopping on actual support to the troops really is spinning facts into falsehood.
btw, I should have noted, Jim S, that you appeared to be attempting to describe a conspiracy.
what I was describing was more a sociologicaly phenomenon which some have described as akin. to Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts where the old paradigm defends itself, or akin to Lysenkoism.
Due to their mistake in the past global cooling hysteria it seems right to consider climate claims skeptically. And natural for scientists to wish to
defend their views and to feel they are part of something important, etc.
the media tends to ignore the large number of respected scientists, including climatologists, that question anthropogenic global warming so we pick up a distorted view of the situation. Some people think of it as if it were a straightforward polynomial equation or something, but it isn't.There is just too much uncertainty and not enough data to know whats going on yet amidst various natural damping systems, long term climate shifts, etc., and problems with the mismatch between the surface
data (which has issues of localized heat island effects, ie cities growing and localized temperatures going up, etc) and satellite data and discrepencies in the ability of the models to take all the factors into account and match historical data (ie, you feed a subset of history in and see how well it matches what occured next), sometimes being fudged to get the "right" answers perhaps not for the right reasons. Not necessarily consciously. Even the proponents of global warming have been continually revising downwards their estimates. Much of the public view of it is from the IPCC process where many of the scientists disagree with how the managers summarized the work, and even that document is full of problems if you go and read it (as one of the authors i quoted also did).
oops, sorry for the typo's&semi-repetitive verbosity before, up tooo late, I usually know better.
Comments above about the Shia/Sunni divide. What makes this even more important is Iran. Iran has a bigger population than Iraq - which is why SH used chemical weapons against them in their war. And of course, Iran is currently a Shia theocracy. And is one of the Axis of Evil and is probably working on WMD.
But Iran is at a crossroads. It is boiling inside. The younger generation, with no memory of the Shah's corruption, look at us and see something they want. Surprisingly, many of these young Iranians are very pro-American. And this in the country where their predecessors as students held our embassy for so long under Carter. But the news reports sneaking out of Iran indicate widespread unrest and a lot of repression to put it down, including, apparently, widespread executions.
All this next door to what we hope is a democracising Iraq, with a Shiite majority, who, under democracy, will inevitably have control.
So, the pundits, esp. on the left, ask why we invaded Iraq instead of Iran. Obviously, one answer is military - Iraq, after Gulf Storm, etc., was the easier target. But more importantly, we aren't going to have to invade. With an Iraqi democracy on one side, and an Afghani one on another, I think the pressure to democrasize will be overwhelming. And what do you think the pressure of two Shiite democracies in the Middle East is going to do to the Sunnis?
I don't see though a Shiite attack on the Moslem holy cities simply because if it comes down to a schism war, the Shiites are going to lose. There are far, far, more Sunni than Shiite Moslems.
What I see happening first are Special Forces and the like operating in western Iran for awhile, as well as propoganda broadcasts into Iran, formenting the revolution to come. I only expect us to go into Iran (formally) upon request by the Iraqi Shiites, such as Sistani, to protect their Iranian Shiite brethern. Then we can be the good guys, instead of bringing all the Iranians together against us as imperialist invaders (remember, this is Persia, and they are proud of that heritage).
No, the next place I see us invading, if anywhere, is Syria, jumping off from Iraqi bases, and using the pretext that they are harboring terrorists, and aiding the insurrection in Iraq. Best of course if we can build up the Iraqi army enough to help (window dressing of course, but important, just like when we let the Saudis lead the liberation of Kuwait). I expect this before the end of a second Bush term, if he is reelected. I don't if Kerry is elected, because I don't think he has the vision thing, and I think Bush does.
The problem of course is that it is probably unpolitic for the Bush Administration to disclose all of its vision for combatting terrorism. First, this is not the sort of card that you play, esp. when Syria has made token efforts to work with us. A strong Iraqi democracy on their eastern border is going to put a lot of pressure on them to work even more with us, esp. given the alternatives. But this is why they are helping the Iraqi insurgency. Also, Syria provides much of the Arab pressure on Isreal, and, again, it is internationally impoliticic for us to too visibly help Israel too much right now.
Another thing to consider. I commented earlier on how I thought that the Bush cabinet was significantly stronger than the Clinton Cabinet,and that Kerry would apparently utilize the Clinton second team.
In my mind, one of the strongest is SECDEF Rumsfeld. I consider him one of the best ever, if not the absolute best, since the office was changed from the Secretary of War - and I am not talking about his prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, though I think that was as good as could be expected.
What he brings to the table is extensive management skills, both in government and in business. And as importantly, he brings vision to the job.
His predecessor, Cohen, did essentially nothing in his eight years to convert our military from facing a Soviet invasion of Europe to face the asymetrical wars that we can expect to see in the future. He had, I believe, three things going against him. First, lack of vision. Secondly, lack of will. And thirdly, the inability to overcome the military's notorious inertia. The generals and admirals running our military are always trying to fight the last war. No surprise. Esp. since those generals and adminrals typically rose through the ranks in the areas that were most critical in fighting the last war - such as infantry and amror for the Army and aircraft carriers and submarines for the Navy.
Mr. Rumsfeld has a vision of a future military and is pushing it as fast as he can. He is facing immense inertia within the military. But he is making a lot of progress.
The Marines, and, in particular, the Army need to get a lot more nimble and lethal. We have the technology to do this. Or we are developing it. They are also learning to deal with indiginous populations. Sure, since Vietnam, Special Forces have specialized in this. But we will never have the manpower there to do the type of jobe we need to do to pacify countries like Iraq.
Also, there is a need to move a lot of people from say armor to military police and intelligence. And that means recasting what functions are preformed by the National Guard and what by the active military. There is no reason today that we need nearly as many armor active duty military as we have, since there are not that many visible threats that would entail heavy usage of these people. On the other hand, we are seeing over deployment of the National Guard precisely because they have the people we need in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also note the movement of military personel from places where they are not needed any more, such as Germany, to places where they might be.
The Navy is in a similar situation. As for the Air Force, they need to be moving into space as fast as they can to protect our space based military infrastructure - such as our GPS sattelites, which provide the signals that make their JDAMs so effective. Again, a mismatch of active and National Guard. No reason not to move more interceptors, etc. there (and not just to protect Texas). We would need the full complement if we went to war with China, but not until then.
As I said, this all is being pushed hard by Mr. Rumfsfeld (and sorry, if I have made mistakes here, I am far from being an expert). And he is making progress. Slowly and surely. One thing he has going for him is that he, along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, are popular with the military.
This military transformation is likely to come to a standstill if Mr. Kerry is elected President. As noted, he is expected to appoint Clinton second stringers to his Administration. But as importantly, no one in his team really has indicated that they have any vision of the future for our military.
Add to this that the military is likely to dispise Mr. Kerry even more than they did Mr. Clinton, if that is possible. Yes, Mr. Kerry did fight in Vietnam. But our military know, even if the general public does not, that many of his medals were questionable - that to some extent they were the result of self serving, fictious, reprts and the like made by him. They all know self-serving officers like Mr. Kerry was, and don't respect them. But more importantly, Mr. Kerry came back from Vietnam and essntially called our soldiers there war criminals. He was one of the most visible spokesmen for this. Simply put, he betrayed them. And he met with the enemy. And they don't forget.
Add to this his lack of vision in military matters - or maybe more accurately, possession of a vision of a weak, minimalist, American military. He voted against many of the weapons systems that made the first Gulf War possible, and then helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, maybe we need another division or two. But isn't it more important to see if we can do what we need to do by shifting people around geographically and by speciality, over time? Besides that proposal, I am unaware of any others that he has made that have any relevance to the future of our military.
So, if you desire that the United States continues to have the dominent military in the rapidly changing world, I think the choice is clear.
If we'd followed Kerry's policy on Iraq, the UN inspectors would have eventually reported that Saddam had no WMD (probably true) and no program to resurrect such programs (quite false, see e.g. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041101/opinion/1edit.htm). So the sanctions on Iraq would have collapsed, and Saddam would have restarted his WMD and missile programs.
Would you have wanted to live in that world?
If Kerry's elected, his disasterous domestic policy has a good chance of being enacted. And his foreign policy will encourage terrorist attacks, but more subtly, so we won't have an al-Qaeda harboring Afghanistan as an obvious target.
Bush had to spend most of his political capital on prosecuting the war and getting a few reforms and tax cuts through. Re-elected, he'll probably have a more Republican Senate, and a chance to move domestic policy in the right direction.
It's not nearly as good as I'd like it, but it's much better than what we'll get from Kerry.
THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!
Here is a reason to think that Bush et al. will do much better in any further occupations (e.g., Iran, Syria): the bungling in Iraq is so obvious and so well-documented that if there is a build-up to a new war, all the opponents, and most of the supporters, will say "THERE'D BETTER NOT BE ANOTHER SCREWED-UP OCCUPATION!" and there will be lots of pressure to do much better planning. And furthermore there's some reason to hope that such cries won't go unheeded: part-way through the Iraq occupation, responsibility for reconstruction was removed from Rumsfeld et al. Maybe--MAYBE--this means that the White House saw that even if Rummy was good at planning wars, he's not good at planning post-wars.
Here's another reason not to vote for Kerry.
The Washington Post has a Bob Woodward story today, in which he gives a list of questions he intended to ask Kerry about war and foreign policy. For a while, the Kerry campaign was assuring Woodward that they'd do the interview, but:
"The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55919-2004Oct22.html
So, there are strong and compelling reasons to prefer Kerry's policy to Bush's, but you aren't allowed to know what they are, or what his policy would be. I can't see that as anything but a confession that he thinks honest answers would ruin his chances of being elected. And if he's afraid to articulate his policy, then he shouldn't be President.
THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!
The post cold war scaling down of the US military was a bipartisan effort. Kerry has proposed adding 40,000 troops to the armed services, and the idea our military will somehow be inspirationally hurt if Kerry wins is ridiculous. Our military didn't turn on Bush when he sent them into combat underequipped with Armored vehicles and garbage body armor, so its lunacy to suggest they will be much affected when Kerry wins the Presidency.
The idea that votes for defense spending somehow determines a politicians ability to prosecute a war is laughable. If the furthest right rep hawk would have had his way on military spending in the 90s, 911 would have still occurred. Consider new Bush CIA head Porter Goss. He proposed deeper intell cuts then Kerry did in the 90s, including cuts that were targeted at human intell. We now know human intell is the most important source of intell in fighting terror, and if Bush believes Kerrys votes enabled terror, how can he appoint Porter Goss to head the CIA? So much for consistancy.
The facts are that Afghanistan is a mess, and Iraq is a bigger mess. 46% of Iraquis now think there country is headed in the wrong direction, and if elections were held today, a radical Islamic cleric would be elected PM. Kerry isnt tied to democracy in Iraq, he can restore order, leave, and focus on real terror states. Im still waiting for the reps to respond to the fact that SA has once again been caught red handed supporting terror against us, and Bush continues to do NOTHING.
Your first question about a government program that caused more damage than it did good than has been reversed-- two times-- is the conservative program of starve the beast.
During the Reagan administration the starve the beast program created a federal deficit that absorbed about 15% of total domestic savings.
I challange anyone to show how the federal government absorbing 15% of domestic savings does anything but harm the economy. Under the Clinton admin that deficit was eliminated so much that during the investment boom of the late 1990s the combination of the federal surplus and
foreign capital inflows financed almost half of the capital spending boom-- private domestic savings barely financed half of the capital spending boom. Without the Clinton admin
program of reversing the starve the beast program the capital spending boom of the late 1990s would have been accompanied by much higher rates and the boom would have been much smaller.
I challange you to demonstrate this analysis is invalid and I will be more than happy to provide you any economic data you want. I will freely concede that the Reagan tax cuts played a significant role in creating the 1990s boom, but the boom did not occur until the federal deficit was eliminated and I can clearly show there was a cause and effect relationship.
The starve the beast program is now creating a federal deficit that absorbs some 25% to 33% of
domestic savings. Moreover, if you include the $2 trillion cost of the Bush proposal to privitize social security he is actually proposing more spending than Kerry. Even building in the Kerry health insurance program, Bush is actually proposing a program that would lead to greater spending and less revenues than Kerry is proposing.
The democratic removal of the rebublican starve the beast program is exactly the type of program you were asking for.
"If you want four more years of American Soldiers dying in Iraq, in a war that has nothing to do with 911, in a war that by every experts account is producing ALOT more terrorists, vote Bush. But know it will be ten to twenty years before any type of democracy will succeed in Iraq, and as the execution of the 50 new Iraqi soldiers this morning indicates, something a high number of Iraqis dont want anyway.
If you want order restored as quickly as possible to whatever Iraqi faction is capable of maintaining it, the certification that Iraq is free of wmd, the reason this war was undertaken in the first place, and the American Soldiers home within four years, then vote Kerry."
Begbee's comments remind me why I don't call myself a Democrat anymore. Order restored as quickly as possible, regardless of the faction in charge; we all know how well that turned out, the Taliban had Afghanistan real peaceful. And the idea that Americans, soldiers or not, dying is more important than say, Iraqi's dying by the thousands under a brutal dictator, is so truly selfless and caring. The Democratic party that I grow up a member of cared about social justice for every person on the planet, and were prepared to put American lives on the line if needed to back that conviction. That party no longer exists. It morphed into the "get the troops home" Republican isolationists represented by Nixon - we all know how well that turned out. What bears it's name and waves it's banner is a motley assemblage of 'know better than you what's in your best interest' proponents of the nanny-state and the constituencies that they've trained to depend on their table scraps.
The choice is fairly simple. Bush is a ridiculously bad president. The loss of civil rights, the unfunded spending, the sweetheart deals with business cronies. Too bad he's still demonstrably better than Kerry.
Kerry's given no indication he'll be better on civil rights. He voted for the Patriot Act, and despite attacking the president for how it's enforced, doesn't favor repealing it, and in fact wants to make certain provisions stronger. His campaign has consistently used thuggish tactics against their opponent's, preferring to stifle debate rather than engage in it, showing how truly little they understand about the concepts of freedom. When Sinclair planned to show a documentary that might reflect Kerry in a bad light, they tried to get the FCC to stop them and a Kerry spokesperson threatened them publically with "They better hope we don't win." Great, the GOP's the Gestapo; the Dem's are just the Securitate.
Spending - does anyone actually believe that, short of a return to the Internet bubble days of Clinton, that there's an immediate way to reverse the deficit that's been piled up? And assuming that you do, do the protectionist plans that Kerry tossed as a sop to the unions, and the populist minimum wage hike that he tossed to lower income voters seem like a valid way to achieve it? Has he preposed any meaningful spending cuts? Not to mention his disasterous healthcare plans and the declaration of households earning over $200k annually as rich.
On cronyism, admittedly Kerry is unimpeachable here. It would be next to impossible for him to give favorable treatment to former business associates. Mainly due to the fact that he has no former business associates. With the exception of one job (and a couple of wives), the man's been on the public dime his entire adult life. At least having numerous business connections indicates that you've, you know, obtained and held gainful employment in the real world.
So mainly it's a wash. Except, as has been hammered on relentlessly, on foreign policy. Your choices are a muscular, aggressive policy that looks for threats and seeks to eliminate them as early as possible - and occasionally is wrong; that builds an incentive system based on rewarding friends; punishing enemies, and clearly defining both so that nations don't get to play the ends against the middle; and on building lasting peace by encouraging freedom, which has as a by product MORE FREE PEOPLE - less women without rights, more children in schools as opposed to sweatshops, less summary executions, state organized mutilations, tortures, and rape as coercion, and opportunities to be and to do that will probably make strapping a block of Semtex to yourself and blowing something up a less attractive option. Or you can opt for a foreign policy that has to pass the "global test" of dictators and nations with their own agendas before actions beneficial to the US can be taken. A policy that inherently removes the credible from "credible threat" and grants our enemies the right of first strike. That condemns millions the world over to continued oppression with slightly wrung hands and a smile as long as we're (kinda) safe at home and firehouse aren't being closed in [insert the city Kerry's campaigning in]. It's the choice between long term vision and petty xenophobia dressed up as multiculturalism.
As to the idea that putting kerry in place would result in a favorable outcome because the divided goverment would stalemate, it assumes that we have the luxury of being able to sit quietly for the next 4 years. We don't. We either have to finish what we started abroad or hunker down at home; there is no middle ground.
Bryan, read my post. I said that you seem to be trying to claim a big conspiracy to suppress the truth about global warming, or at least the version of the truth that you accept, which is that it doesn't exist.
You say that there was a "global cooling hysteria". While some people thought that there was a trend towards cooling in the climate during the '70s it was far from reaching the level of hysteria. Check out this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
You and others who attempt to disparage the possibility of global warming love to point back to the science of 30 years ago while never admitting the possibility that opinions have changed because we have better knowledge now because of improved instrumentation at all levels. You also claim that there are MANY respected scientists including climatologists who agree with you. Frankly, about the only critic I have any respect for is John Christie, a climatologist from the University of Alabama. He raised good questions. Even he has had many of them answered recently, though and now admits that there IS human induced warming but he still feels that some models overstate the extent. To paraphrase him, how could any reasonable person believe that we can pump billions of tons of a variety of chemicals into the air, eliminate millions of acres of forest, pave over and build over millions of acres of land that used to be either forests, grasslands or wetlands and NOT affect the climate one way or the other?
Bryan, the satellite data issue has been pretty much resolved. Read some data from this year and late last year. As I noted in my other post John Christie, who also disagreed with global warming based largely on the inconsistencies between land measurements and satellite data has agreed that the problem lay in the interpretation of the satellite data.
Reading here I constantly see appeals to the libertarian ideal. Correct me if I'm wrong but is this an accurate summary of the Libertarian desires for our government?
The elimination of:
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Education
OSHA
SEC
Social Security
Medicaid
Medicare
public education
Everything and anything that vaguely resembles welfare including unemployment benefits.
Many others I probably can't think of, basically consisting of everything outside of law enforcement, the military, the judiciary, the core of the executive branch and the legislative branch. Remember I'm speaking of the ideal, that which they'd like to see happen even if it takes decades to accomplish. If I'm wrong, tell me. But I'd swear this is definitely among the things I've heard before.
If I am reading you correctly, some of the major assumptions upon which you are operating are:
1. The GWOT is not as “big” of a war as the Administration holds.
2. The campaign in Iraq is a disaster (or cluster f*** in your terms).
3. The most important issues that need to be addressed are financial solvency, health care progress and energy/environmental policy.
I will try and address each of these, either within the scope of these assumptions or in an attempt to modify these assumptions.
1. The Global War on Terror (GWOT). Like many considered people, while I don’t think the term is accurate in describing the struggle in which we currently find ourselves, absent another commonly used moniker I will have to rely upon GWOT. I agree with what I read to be your assessment that the major goals are to deny the WAY while addressing the WILL. I believe that America is safer from the doomsday scenario you address than we were on 9/10 for a number of reasons. We have taken great strides to deny terrorists a WAY to obtain such destructive means through unprecedented financial cooperation with countries around the globe. We have denied them physical facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Philippines and other countries. We have largely placed them on the defensive, thereby denying them the leisure to plan and prepare operations at their own pace. While the country may not feel as safe as it did before 9/11, that sense of security was false, for we were in more actual danger then. I liken it to the man with high blood pressure. He was already sick, but just didn’t know it until the stroke. After he may feel worse, but since he’s being treated he may actually in a less dangerous health condition.
I also think that the potential for a catastrophic attack are very small, but the risks involved are so great that we must keep strong efforts in place. I can’t begin to imagine the financial impact and societal changes that may result from the effective removal of a major metropolitan center. Imagine half of downtown Chicago contaminated by a radiological dispersion device (i.e. “dirty bomb”). Even low-level contamination that poses no significant health effects will still effectively kill the city due to the psychological effect. Hell, one attack would kill cities across the country. After Chicago got hit how many people do you think would be on the LIE or Path going to work in NYC the next morning? While the risk is low, the potential effects are so great that we have to deal with it. While many may feel President Bush isn’t doing enough (not strengthening the borders, continuing problems at INS, container inspections), the fact that others feel he has gone too far (Gitmo, Patriot Act) just illustrates that he is conscious that while we must protect ourselves we also must do so in a way that preserves our national moral character and civil liberties. Like the President, I believe that the best way to do so is to remain offensive, denying the terrorists the time, opportunity and resources to plan the catastrophic until they are defeated.
As both Bush (“un-winnable”) and Kerry (“nuisance”) both ineloquently said, this victory will not be strongly marked. But I agree with Bush that victory for us, in the long haul, relies upon victory and liberty for Muslims. There will likely always be fanatics in Islam, just as there will likely always be Nazis in Germany and nationalists in Japan, but the key difference is to have a political structure and economic prosperity that marginalizes rather than empowers this extremism. John Kerry’s expressed emphasis on “stability” in Iraq but not necessarily democracy as an expediency to withdraw troops forfeits the long-term victory for a short-term political goal. I am confident that Bush will keep this vision in the second term.
2. The Iraq “quagmire”. I have often, in blog comments, asked a question to the “Iraq as disaster” crowd that noone has ever answered. If Iraq is such an unmitigated disaster, please provide a counter example of another operation of a similar scale and goal that is considered successful. While I would never deny the personal tragedy each death and injury represents, it defies logic to describe Iraq a failure or disaster based upon casualties alone. Likewise, the duration of hostilities, while far exceeding the attention deficit MTV standards common in America, is not excessive when compared against historical examples. I am assuming in this, of course, that you do not subscribe hook-line-and-sinker to the Doom and Gloom reporting of the likes of the Guardian, but recognize that there is also progress. Relying upon this, the only reasonable basis for one to conclude the Iraqi campaign is a disaster is if one feels the campaign itself was unnecessary. I will assume this is the meaning behind your reference to it as a “boondoggle.” While I have written on this before (http://submandave.blogspot.com/2004/05/reasons-for-invading-iraq.html), I will try again to present my reasons in support of the Iraqi campaign in a concise, clear manner.
If one believes that Islamic terrorism must be confronted, then it is logical to assume that such confrontation will largely happen in the Middle East. Some cite Saudi Arabia as the source of Wahabbism and, therefore, the most important target of our efforts (not necessarily military, but potentially so). Others look to Iran, their strong track record of terrorist support, anti-American regime and nuclear ambitions. And then, there’s Iraq. Did we have to go in, or did we chose to? Hopefully I will show that, eventually, we would have had to go in and that, rather than wait for circumstances to dictate to us we choose the timing to best suit our needs. The invasion of Iraq was executed with the following four goals:
a. Deny terrorists material and resources. I will not insult you by listing the reasons “Bush lied” is, itself, an untruth. With the international assessment that WMD and/or materials were available to Saddam the only way to guarantee they would not be passed to a third party to conduct a surrogate attack against the US was to capture the weapons by removing Saddam. The only other potential set of events that may have had the same result were revolution or military coup, both of which had been tried before and neither of which were remotely successful. As the Duelfer Report illustrated, even absent WMD Saddam was committed to retaining the knowledge and capability for future applications. Also, while not demonstrably complicit in 9/11, Saddam ties to and support of terrorists was clear and undeniable. Given his vindictive nature and historically poor judgement, id ther any doubt that if he felt he had plausible deniability he would have provided WMD assistance to other enemies of the US? In fact, according to President Putin, such warnings were detected by Russian intelligence several times in the run-up to the Iraqi campaign. As we said earlier, the short-term key to the GWOT is denying terrorists support and material. As long as Saddam remained in power that was impossible.
b. Demonstrate US resolve. A key motivation in the 9/11 attacks was the perception that America was a “paper tiger” and, if struck hard, would fold. In Saddam’s Iraq we had an enemy of the US in power, thumbing his nose at us and gaining power, support and stature from the same. In pursuit of the previous goal we had obtained repeated UN resolutions that were consistently ignored or subverted. Failure to act in this circumstance would only have reinforced the image that precipitated Al Queda’s action. On the other hand, aggressively following through on the stated goals of regime change set a clear example for other hostile nations that in the GWOT rhetoric would not rule.
c. Establish a solid presence in the region. While not advertised as such, I am sure this was a critical aspect of the decision. If one presupposes that the option of executing military action in the Middle East will be required to effectively fight terrorism, one must ask from where would military action be staged? While we established a presence in Afghanistan, it is not particularly suitable for this purpose due to its remote location. At the time of the Iraqi campaign we had a presence in Saudi Arabia, but not only was this presence cited as a motivation in the 9/11 attacks, but if KSA were to be a potential hotbed of activity it made no sense to position a small force there that largely relied upon the host nation for protection. Access to Iraq provides us a central location that borders not only KSA but also Iran and Syria, the three main sources of support for international terrorism. Presence in Iraq provides us exactly the position and staging needed to maintain our options in the region. Besides, if action becomes necessary against Iran, evaluate for yourself the potential military advantages of launching such action from Iraq rather than relying almost entirely upon sea-based power projection with an avowed enemy (Saddam’s Iraq) on your flank. As for KSA, imagine staging an action against them without a suitable alternative supply of petroleum. You may have noticed I consistently refer to the Iraqi "campaign" and not "war." This is because I believe our action in Iraq are as integral to overall victory in the GWOT as the North African or Italian Campaigns were to victory in Europe in WWII.
d. Building Islamic and Arab and allies. In the end, Kerry is right when he says that the long-term success of the GWOT will rely upon our allies. He is wrong, however, to assume these pivotal allies to be European. The most important allies we have in Iraq are the Iraqis. That is why I felt his snub and dismissal of Prime Minister Allawi to have been particularly egregious. In a free society the basest elements still exist, but are much less likely to collect and metastasize into the level of threat that exists today. Success against radical Islamic fascists can only be accomplished by either killing them all or changing Islamic society. Any rational person would prefer the latter, and only in partnership with freedom and peace-loving Muslims will it happen. Dismissing Iraqi allies as "puppets," being associated with those who refer to terrorists killing Iraqi children and disrupting Iraqi life as "freedom fighters," ignoring the sacrifice of patriotic Iraqis by repeatedly saying Americans are doing "90% of the dying" is not the way to win hearts and minds.
John Kerry, despite his flavor of the week quote, does not believe in the mission in Iraq, and, therefore, cannot succeed. Even if he is pressured into remaining in Iraq his support of the goals will be half-hearted and everyone knows it, especially the bad guys. In his campaign John Kerry kept subconsciously inviting comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. I fear that under John Kerry that comparison will be more evident.
3. Financial health and responsibility. I, too, would have liked to see less of a drunken sailor attitude toward domestic spending from this Administration. I understand the “pay me now or pay me later” argument for funding Medicare prescription drugs in the hope of curtailing future more expensive treatments, but also know that obtaining an impartial evaluation of the financial risk/benefit is near impossible. I also wish Bush could have moved on Social Security a bit harder, but I am confident he will in the second term. First, as a lame duck he can be more aggressive with his agenda. Second, Social Security reform is the only domestic agenda issue from the 2000 campaign he hasn’t acted on, and I think this was not for a lack of desire but because of practical reasons mandated by the unexpected advent of the GWOT. The bottom line is that Social Security is a ponzi scheme and if action is not taken to instill some reasonable financial model into it collapse cannot be avoided. Kerry has not a single plan to save Social Security other than more of the same.
4. Health care progress. The promise of free, available, high quality health care for everyone sounds good, but is not logically possible. Treated like a commodity, health care is a finite resource. Without a financial incentive to self-regulate access either service quality will suffer or rationing will be necessitated. Neither offers a long-term positive vision of health care in America. Despite Kerry’s frequent insistences during the second debate that he was not proposing a “Government Health Care Program,” at the minimum it sounded like “Government Health Insurance Program.” Considering this pretty much is what Medicare is, who could convincingly present that idea as a solution to high costs? If this is a concern of yours, I fail to see how you could not choose Bush.
5. Energy and environmental policy. You credit Kerry in this regard, but wonder if some of this might be based upon the presumed Democrat ascendency in this area. This is not my forte, but a big red flag always goes off in my head whenever any politician proposes radical reform or action based upon the assumption that the Global Warming theory is proven science. Yes, the potential for harmful environmental effects from emissions needs to be looked into, but basing policy on unfounded claims or emotion never bodes well. If I had my druthers, we’d overhaul nuclear power regulation to make it an industry that can be profitable while remaining safe and tap into ANWR to supplement until we get some new plants online.
6. Character and integrity. Finally, as you have said yourself, Kerry changes his position too much. I understand changing one’s mind, but, like you, I also think many of his supposed “flip-flops” seem too politically convenient at the time they happen. The county’s motivated and on the march so I’ll vote to authorize the war. Howard Dean is polling well with an anti-war position so I’ll vote against the supplemental authorization. Despite his warts, bumps and malapropisms, Bush is Bush. If he says, “give up your weapons or we’ll come take them,” he means it (Kerry actually said he voted to give the President authorization to threaten force, not to use it). Libya, too, seems to believe President Bush. Perhaps part of it is my military background, but I cannot trust a man who will lie and demonize others for his own political purposes and then, 30 years later, claim his moral superiority based upon the exact same service he denigrated in others. In rough waters a ship with no rudder will be blown wherever the wind goes.
I have not read all the comments on this page, so I can't guarantee that mine are not redundant. I will be voting for President Bush. There are a number of reasons, not least the war on terror. I have to agree with Dennis Miller who said - more or less - that he wants a President who wakes up each morning and says 'think I'll kill some terrorists today.'
But I also support President Bush because I am - don't laugh - a fiscal conservative. I know he's not been great on that score, but I think it's important that we rein in entitlement spending, and I believe that that can only happen in a second Presidential term. Also, I believe that Bush - in pursuing the ownership society - also knows the direction that this reform must take.
I don't know what'll happen to entitlement spending if Kerry is elected President. In all likelihood, he would refuse to do anything in his first term, so the earliest we could touch entitlements would be 2009-2010. And THAT'S assuming that he's re-elected. I am unwilling to take that chance. I think that people that want to see Social Security and Medicare spending rationalized, have to support Bush.
Hello,
This will be my one attempt to change someone's mind this election year. Well - maybe second - he was a libertarian too.
I'm sort of a libertarian. I once even ran as a libertarian for state legislature. Don't ask how I did.
I'm voting for George Bush because I believe that he is in the middle of a fundamental restructuring of American domestic policy. He will allow/continue the construction of an economic system driven by consumer choice. The pieces of this 'revolution' include education vouchers, medical savings accounts and private social security accounts. Throw in some (in my opinion) much needed Tort reform, and I'm very sure of my vote. You might say that the first is not a priority of the Feds - except that future supreme court choices may kill it. I know its been adjudicated already - but that won't stop it from being overturned.
You might say that the second has already been established, but it hasn't been widely accepted yet, and it needs some modifications. Kerry could still kill it.
The last item will be a big deal, and it needs Bush for a chance at happening.
It is my opinion that if all of these items are implemented in a big way, that the fundamental nature of political debate will change. With it, the Democratic party will have to change dramatically or die. I predict that they will change eventually to a free market civil liberties party. It would be great to have the Democrats be such a party, but they won't give up their leftist/progressive outlook until George Bush's revolution is complete. Make it happen!
I'm indebted to Bill Bradford of Liberty Magazine for explaining to me a long time ago that their are really two types of progressive socialism. The first kind wishes to redistribute money from the rich to the poor. The second attempts distribute money from everyone to everyone, and therefore make everyone better off through the wisdom of the transfer. The public schools, social security, and medicare system are examples of the second form of socialism. I believe they are the more important in changing to a long term free market system.
About the war: I've always thought this to be a superficial issue, as if Al Gore were faced with the same strategic choices as George W, he would have done the same thing and the Democrats would be largely be behind him. Trouble is, the Democrats are so delusional, they have now convinced themselves that this is not the case, and would force Kerry to withdrawl premeturely. Another reason to vote for George W.
James
I've considered myself (mostly) libertarian for years though I only registered Libertarian a few weeks ago when I registered to vote in New Mexico.
I sympathize with those of my aquaintences who despair over our international reputation under Bush, which as much as anything seems to be because Bush isn't a smooth talking, cultured, individual, as because of any decisions that he's made.
The "biggie," of course, was the decision to invade Iraq. I'm not convinced that was the wrong decision. I'm not convinced that was the right decision. I tend to view "sanctions" as a fundamental dishonesty because they *are* about forcing someone else to do what you want them to do, and they *are* about making people in another country so miserable that they are willing to die to overthrow their government if the government doesn't shape up. All of this while claiming to be using peaceful means and keeping our own hands "clean". Consequentally, I view war as a fundamental honesty... no one is trying to pretend that they aren't trying to overthrow a sovreign government.
I figure, either do it or don't, and that whatever is worth doing is worth doing decisively.
But, for the sake of this debate, lets just say that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, even though he had lots of support at the time. The question, as I heard Kerry say in a debate, is what do we do *now*... because we must see Iraq through to the end. Who will do a better job.
Bush will.
Well, what about the cluster **** that Iraq turned into? What about "losing" Bin Laden at Tora Bora?
I don't trust anyone who calls the situation in Iraq a cluster **** or who implies that only a screw-up could account for Bin Laden slipping away. What this means is that this person doesn't have a clue about the realities of military action. "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" is an absolute military truth. Our military gets better at what it does because it analyzes every bit of action with 20/20 hindsight, not to find fault, but to do better next time. Anyone at all can look back and say that this or that thing proved to be the wrong choice. Anyone who looks back and claims they wouldn't have made similar or even worse mistakes is either Lying or an Egotist.
I can kind of forgive the media for reporting the "bad news," that's what they do, and for the most part the "bad news" is important. What it *isn't* is the basis for foreign policy, or proof that something has gone seriously wrong. Did someone expect to wage war without the "war" part?
We know Kerry is good at claiming he'd not ever have made those mistakes. Most of those of us who have served in the military and know what it takes simply to coordinate communications or supply not to mention troop movements, know better. That Kerry *doesn't* know better, is frightening. Because he ought to know, and nothing he's said makes me believe that he even remotely "gets" military service.
Bush, though far from perfect, would complete our involvement in Iraq better than Kerry. And if we have to do it all ourselves, well, I can't say that I see this as a *bad* thing. (Though I should point out that we *aren't* all by ourselves anyway.) Congress and public opinion means that even *if* he was in this for the "adventuring" he will not be able to expand operations beyond Iraq.
(This is also true about "the Draft." Should either candidate find themselves short of military enlistees, they are simply SOL. If public opinion supports the need, people will volunteer. If there are not volunteers, there is not enough jail space. It would be unenforcible. So far, however unpopular Bush and Iraq, *all* services are meeting their recruiting levels. Which is yet one more reason to disbelieve the cluster **** theory.)
Who will make us safest domestically... egad! Don't even get me started on the pointlessness of most of what Bush has done or the calls to close our borders tight. There is no best choice... I don't think Kerry would be any better about our liberty than Bush is. I don't think Bush's domestic policy will make us measurably safer than whatever Kerry will get it into his head to do.
Who has the best domestic (non terror related) policies? I think that Republicans tend to do better, overall, on the personal responsibility side of things, though they have definate blind spots on certain social issues. Those tend to be mostly academic for me, since they don't directly impact my life, but I keep on working on explaining to people the difference between "legal and illegal" and "right and wrong."
Democrats tend to be better on certain issues of personal liberty but truely suck otherwise, when it comes to personal responsibility or the freedom *not* to be made to accept services or interference in the family or our personal lives. If they aren't big on the "war against drugs" or against "gay marriage" it's not because they believe in limited government.
This editorial, more than any other thing I have read or heard convinced me to vote for Bush. Maybe it will do the same for you. Jim Glendenning
From the Wed 06 Oct 2004 issue of the Ellensburg Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington)... written by Mathew Manweller... Central Washington University political science professor...
"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.
This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.
First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things.
Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.
Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.
Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracking polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.
It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.
This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve.
I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."
Im not attempting to change any single persons mind, but the garbage and revisionist history here keeps me commenting.
We went into Iraq to enforce the UNs resolution on WMD, and this administration had plainly stated they didnt believe in the use of our military for nation building. The whole post cold war US military strategy has been to downsize to create a fast responding military that quickly wins the military conflict and leaves the nation building to NATO or the UN. Thats why we didnt have nearly enough flak jackets or Armored vehicles for the troops. We still dont have enough troops in Iraq to guard and destroy the weapons depots, to quickly train an able Iraqi military, or win order, let alone democracy. With each passing month the violence in Iraq gets worse, and the reps wont even acknowledge the fact that the reason the invasion went so smoothly is because the Iraqi military let them come in, so they could fight the war on their terms, not ours.
Afghanistan is cut up between the Talaban and the narco warlords, their elections meant squat. Iraq is nowhere near close to order, let alone democracy. In fact, Alleli said yesterday that a Kerry presidency would be just as good for Iraq as Bushs reelection, so even the Iraqi government installed by Bush doesnt have much reguard for him.
When did democracy become a cure all for terrorism anyway? Look at Northern Ireland, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Russia, much of the Balkans, and even here in the US, and you will find terrorism. The idea that a countries election losers arent going to be pissed about losing because there was a "fair election" is ridiculous. Nearly as ridiculous as the plausability of democracy in Islamic states.
As to Bush's will in a second term to introduce the private-accounts option into Social Security, consider two things:
1. The road to political perdition is paved with people - supporters and foes alike - who believed that George W. Bush would not do the things he said, from people who voted to give him war powers believing he wouldn't use them, to conservatives who thought he would never really pass steel tariffs and a prescription drug plan.
2. Ignore the policy people. Listen to the political people who say that fundamental change in Social Security would be the gift that keeps on giving to Republicans while disabling the hardiest perennial attack on the GOP. And listen to Kerry, who says such a plan would be beloved by big GOP donors. If you adopt a pose of cynicism, it becomes much more likely that this will happen.
As for Bush's foreign policy, I can do no better than to quote Lincoln, on why he refused to let setbacks and unnecessary bloodshed and criticism of his drinking dissuade him from preferring Grant to McClellan:
"I can't spare this man. He fights."
Oops, went too quickly thru the comments and didn't see that the Grant quote had been mentioned. Great minds . . .
I take it your referring to Kerry with the Grant quote, because hes the only candidate that has fought and killed on behalf of his country. The Cheerleader in chief checked the box that said "NO FOREIGN DEPLOYMENT" when he had his chance to fight for the country.
1: Iraq is not a cluster-f*ck.
Rather than having Iran, Syria, al Qaeda, and other terrorists groups / sponsors focusing on attacking the US in the US, we have them fighting us in Iraq. And dying against us in Iraq. And only being able to target Americans who are willing combatants in the war on terror.
Is everything perfect in Iraq? No. Is everything going as well in Iraq as we might have hoped? No.
The same could be said for the US, no?
Are things in Iraq better, from the US POV, than they were under Saddam? Well, the Iraqi government is no longer filling mass graves, it's no longer trying to build or maintain WMD programs, it's no longer funding terrorism outside of Iraq, and it's no longer funding crooked businessmen and politicians in France, Russia, and Germany. It's rebuilding the infrastructure that was ignored under Saddam, and providing it to all Iraqis, not just those with Saddam's favor. It's being a big enough threat to our enemies that they find it necessary to spend a great deal of resources attacking it.
Sounds like a win for us.
2: I am not clear, despite the best efforst of my interlocutors, that Bush has made us either more or less safe from those two types of attacks, since the bottleneck to those sorts of spectacular operations would seem to be not The Will, but The Way
Pro Bush: See Libya cutting a deal with the British to give up their WMD programs in exchange for Quadafy not being "Saddammed". Nothing like that happened during the Clinton Administration.
Anti Kerry: See Clinton's "deal" with North Korea to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. We paid them bribes, they developed nukes anyway. Kerry wants more of the same (rejecting the multilateral talks), and will promote the kind of people who got rolled by the North Koreans once already.
Bush is effectively attacking their "way", Kerry would not.
3: Energy. What's Kerry's opinion of nuclear power? Do you think the US will see more nuclear power if we spend the next four years with a Democrat Administration run by trial attorneys?
If you want less polution without destroying the US economy, it's coming from nukes. Which means you don't want the Democrats to have politcal power.
If you want the US less dependent upon foriegn oil sources, you favor exploration in Alaska. Which means you again don't want Democrats in power.
Megan, I'm going to have one more try at being your dashing prince:
"Right now, apart from the small chance of a thermonuclear device detonated in an American city, it seems to me that the biggest threat to America is not foriegn policy at all [don't you know we're at war?--ed. Yes, I do, but it's a smallish war. Absent nuclear or smallpox attacks, it doesn't pose an existential threat to us, and I am not clear, despite the best efforst of my interlocutors, that Bush has made us either more or less safe from those two types of attacks, since the bottleneck to those sorts of spectacular operations would seem to be not The Will, but The Way."
I think you overlook a very basic threat about nukes and it has nothing to do with blowing up any American cities. If Al-Quaeda and associated terror types ever get their hands on a few nukes how long do you think the oil terminals in say Saudi Arabia, and/or Iraq, Iran, Kuwait UAE might stay in operation? It is not only a direct threat to the US but to the world economy. If those places are made radioactive for even a year, the world economy, as we know it, will cease to exist.
All the fuss over box cutters, racial profiling, and cargo containers are for naught. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, "We need George Bush on that wall"
I don't have a white charger, but you'll recognize me when you see me on Old Paint!
Heres what the war on Iraq has done for terrorism-
Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists
Released: March 16, 2004
Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
Additional Findings and Analyses
About this Survey
Questionnaire
Summary of Findings
A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished. Opinion of the United States in France and Germany is at least as negative now as at the war’s conclusion, and British views are decidedly more critical. Perceptions of American unilateralism remain widespread in European and Muslim nations, and the war in Iraq has undermined America’s credibility abroad. Doubts about the motives behind the U.S.-led war on terrorism abound, and a growing percentage of Europeans want foreign policy and security arrangements independent from the United States. Across Europe, there is considerable support for the European Union to become as powerful as the United States.
In the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up. Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world.
Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. On balance, people in the United States and Great Britain disagree. Still, about three-in-ten in the U.S. (31%) and four-in-ten in Great Britain (41%) say leaders of the two countries lied to provide a rationale for the war.
Published on Monday, October 11, 2004 by the Associated Press
Israeli Think Tank: Iraq War Distracted US, 'Created Momentum' for Terrorists
by Mark Lavie
TEL AVIV, Israel - The war in Iraq did not damage international terror groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually ``created momentum'' for many terrorists, a top Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.
President Bush has called the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism, saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.
But the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said that instead of striking a blow against Islamic extremists, the Iraq war ``has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly al-Qaida and its affiliates.''
Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman said the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan.
The concentration of U.S. intelligence assets in Iraq ``has to be at the expense of being able to follow strategic dangers in other parts of the world,'' he said.
Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is ``not just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp,'' he said, ``now it's quite clear'' that Iraq ``is not the swamp.''
Instead, he said, the Iraq campaign is having the opposite effect, drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle.
``On a strategic level as well as an operational level,'' Brom concluded, ``the war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism.''
Here's a few reasons to vote for Bush: UK, Australia, and Poland. Three of the countries of the "Coalition of the Willing" who have stuck their neck out and done the right thing to help us in Iraq.
You may recognize them in Kerry speak as part of "the coalition of the bribed and coerced". Or should we introduce you to the US "puppet" (according to Joe Lockhart) Ayad Allawi. A man who risks his life every day in order to try to make things better.
For those who think "how can Kerry do worse on Iraq than Bush?" Just think how far would these countries be willing to sacrifice for a President Kerry? We already know that France and German won't be forthcoming with more troops.
The easy route is to withdraw from Iraq and if Kerry's too busy insulting everyone who isn't taking the easy route than can we really expect them to tough it out if he gets the nod?
re: global cooling, that was a piece published in Newsweek magazine
back in 1975 which sounded fairly dire to me. As clips below note,
much it began with Dr Stephen Schneider who was also then a major
voice in global warming and NCAR. The point is that those talking
about climate disasters were too easily lead into crying wolf before
and the major media went right along with them. We need to be careful
to be skeptical to make sure we aren't making the same mistake again.
I didn't have time to go and search for new clips beyond what I posted before, below are clips from
a few years ago but on topics that are still relevant dealing with some of your points. The models still don't accurately deal with modeling water, etc. I don't want to take time to get into a debate on this so I'll just pass along a fair chunk of the stuff I found of interest to note some of the real concerns about data, etc, and others can scroll past it (sorry). It was for my own use, i don't seem to have saved URLs but anything of interest I assume can be searched for on the web. eg re: scientists
skeptical of human caused warming, the media and
politicians have given the idea this is generally accepted science
since the early 90s, so even though its out of date, the 1997 clip of
the 15,000 scientists or so refered to in a clip below as skeptical of it,
details below. as does the earlier study showing most climatologists
skeptical of it.
The claim of Bush backers coordinating to create websites attacking
global warming science is a claim of a small number of people plotting,
a conspiracy. While it is true that it was initially a small number of
people who started the global warming fears, what I noted re: pro-global
warming science was a distributed phenomenon such as the growth of
public acceptance of socialist type ideas in this country. It isn't some
secret conspiracy of a small number of people plotting together but
instead the results of a media biased by nature to like scare stories,
politicians inclined to fund research on major threats to the planet,
people independently picking up on advice by some of the global warming
proponents as to the need to not express doubts, etc. There were also
published accounts of prior versions of the high level IPCC report
being fudged by managers to not agree with what the scientists actually said
in the research.
btw, I linked to the NASA data in one of those clips.
True, new instruments now have improved since the 70s, *however* much of
the argument depends on collected historical data and on data collected
from a tiny fraction of the huge surface area of the earth, as noted
in some clips below which immediately calls into question its ability to
have enough data to accurately ensure local fluctuations aren't part of the
impact. The quality of the measurements is also questionable.
There is also a large variability in the climate in the past and
If you look at the graphs even showing the claimed warming
vs. the CO2 measurements its questionable whether the graphs match up as those
recent papers I pointed you to note. ie, during some time period N,
from start to finish, both may have increased,but they dont' seem to be
correlated well. There are reasons why the effect of CO2 re: dumping
a hole bunch into it as you noted isn't somehow obviously going to have
an effect without question. CO2 Warming is damped for varius reasons (as
someone noted the earth would be a hundred degrees warmer now if it
weren't damped) related to impact of water, saturation blockage of
the radiation bands that CO2 absorbs, etc.
>Kyoto accord protest quickening
>
>By S. Fred Singer
>Copyright 1998 The Washington Times
>April 22, 1998
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on
>global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number
>of American scientists - more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with
>advanced academic degrees - have now signed a petition against the
>climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
>A covering letter enclosed with the petition, signed by Frederick Seitz,
>president emeritus of Rockefeller University and a past president of the
>National Academy of Sciences, makes this quite clear: "The treaty is, in
>our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do
>not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary,
>there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is
>environmentally helpful."
...
>"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken
>out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media
>about a 'warming catastrophe,"' said Mr. Seitz. "The petition reflects
>the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have
>been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse
>of science to promote a political agenda."
>
>It was Mr. Seitz's essay in the Wall Street Journal ("A major deception
>on 'global warming"') on June 12, 1996 that first drew public attention
>to the textual "cleansing" of the U.N. scientific report that forms the
>basis for the Kyoto accord. (For details on the unannounced text changes
>and how they distorted the sense of the IPCC report, consult
>www.sepp.org/ ipcccont/ipcccont.html.)
>
>In 1992, more than 4,000 scientists worldwide signed the Heidelberg
>appeal to heads of states who were meeting in Rio de Janeiro to approve
>a Framework Convention on Climate Change; the appeal warned of the
>inadequate scientific base for such a global treaty.
>
>The Oregon-initiated petition drive is the latest and largest effort by
>rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that
>subvert science for the sake of a political agenda.
Global Warming Petition
>We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
>agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any
>other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would
>harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and
>damage the health and welfare of mankind.
>
>There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
>dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
>foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
>and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial
>scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce
>many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments
>of the Earth.
>During the past 6 weeks, more than 15,000 basic and applied American
>scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global
>Warming Petition.
>
>Signers of this petition so far include approximately 2,100 physicists,
>geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and
>environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these
>individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects
>of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
>
>Signers of this petition also include approximately 4,400 scientists
>whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and
>other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals
>) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon
>dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
>
>Nearly all of the initial 15,000 signers have technical training
>suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are
>trained in related fields. In addition to these 15,000, approximately
>1,800 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields
>other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on
>their returned petition.
>
>The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private
>donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal,
>oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's
>organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon
>Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from
>such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds
>of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
------
>To get unstuck, modelers "parameterize" smaller scale processes known to
>affect climate, from the formation of clouds to the movement of ocean
>eddies. Because they can't model, say, every last cloud over North
>America, modelers specify the temperatures and humidities that will
>spawn different types of clouds. If those conditions hold within a
>single grid box--the horizontal square that represents the model's
>finest level of detail--the computer counts the entire area as cloudy.
>But as modelers point out, the grid used in today's models--typically a
>300-kilometer square--is still very coarse. One over the state of
>Oregon, for instance, would take in the coastal ocean, the low coast
>ranges, the Willamette Valley, the high Cascades, and the desert of the
>Great Basin.
>
>Having the computer power to incorporate into the models a more detailed
>picture of clouds wouldn't eliminate uncertainties, however, because
>researchers are still hotly debating the overall impact of clouds on
>future climate. In today's climate, the net effect of clouds is to cool
>the planet--although they trap some heat, they block even more by
>reflecting sunlight back into space.
---
>All of which only adds to the skepticism of scientists who might be
>called the "silent doubters": meteorologists and climate modelers who
>rarely give voice to their concerns and may not have participated even
>peripherally in the IPCC. "There really isn't a persuasive case being
>made" for detection of greenhouse warming, argues Brian Farrell of
>Harvard University, who runs models to understand climate change in the
>geologic past.
>But the IPCC left the
>estimate of the warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide at 1.5oC to
>4.5oC, where it has been for 20 years. "That's an admission that the
>error bars are as big as the signal," says Farrell.
---
>"It's pretty apparent that the lion's share of the warming ocurred
>before the lion's share of the trace gases went in."
>- Prof Patrick Michaels
>"Yes, - that's a remarkable puzzle."
>- Prof. Tom Wigley
>- (from interviews with UK Channel 4, August 1991)
>- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider - NCAR
>
>"Looking at every bump and wiggle of the record is a waste of time -
>it's like trying to figure out the probability of a pair of dice by
>looking at the individual rolls.
>You've got to look at averages.
>So, I, don't set very much store in looking at the direct evidence."
>- (Dr Stephen Schneider, UK Channel 4 interview, 1990)
>"But just who are the 2,600 scientists proclaiming the certitude of
>human-caused global warming? One would assume climate experts, but an
>analysis of the academic backgrounds of the signatories to Vice
>President Gore's letter found only one bona fide climatologist."
>Dr Hugh Ellsaesser, 1997
>
>"... the media, because they rely on news impact,
>have given the greatest weight to the most extreme forecasts,
>and are not interested in emphasising uncertainty.
>To compound the difficulty we are greatly outnumbered
>(and outranked in political terms)
>by a community of experts in other such disciplines
>as economics, geography, geology, and social sciences,
>all of which are pleased to justify their own activity
>in terms of the consequences of climate change."
>Dr A.D. McEwan, CSIRO Oceanography, 1990
>"The climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost
>become respectable." Richard Kerr, discussing flux adjustments in
>climate models in Science, 1997
>"[Climate] treaty supporters tend to become apoplectic at anyone who
>dares suggest that the threat of global warming is theory, not
>established fact." Wall Street Journal, Oct. 3 , 1997
>
>"Many climate experts caution that it is not at all clear yet that human
>activities have begun to warm the planet--or how bad greenhouse warming
>will be when it arrives." Richard Kerr, Science, May 1997
>In 1971, Dr Stephen Schneider, who currently heads the National Centre
>for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, published a paper in "
>Science" in which he warned of an imminent ice age, caused by aerosol
>build-up in the atmosphere.
Schneider repeated his Ice Age warnings in a book he
>published in 1975, called "The Genesis Strategy".
>
>=20
>
>Other scientists joined the same Ice Age bandwagon. Sir Fred Hoyle, an
>eminent British scientist, published his "diamond dust" theory in a book
>called "Ice", in which he warned that the growth of frozen crystals
>(diamond dust) high in the Antarctic and Arctic atmospheres could
>trigger off the next ice age. Nigel Calder published "The Weather
>Machine" in 1974, which became the basis for a 4-hour TV documentary
>special which was broadcast by the BBC during prime time on a Saturday
>night. This TV documentary put great emphasis on the so-called "
>Snowblitz" theory, where it was claimed that an Ice Age could descend on
>us quite suddenly.
>
>The cause of all this Ice Age panic was the cooling of global climate
>during the post-war period. This cooling was not just evident on
>instruments, but was also quite noticeable by ordinary people who saw
>summers get cooler, and winters colder. The most extraordinary aspect of
>this era of cooling was that greenhouse gases were increasing steadily
>during that entire period. If Greenhouse was as powerful as we have been
>led to believe, this cooling would have been quite impossible, or at the
>very least, very short-lived, instead of lasting nearly 40 years.
>The cooling bottomed out in 1976. From then on, the global climate began
>to warm again, with a strong warm peak in 1980. As if deserting a
>sinking ship, all the scientists involved in the Ice Age doom scares,
>such as Calder, Schneider, Gribbin etc. quickly became promoters of
>global warming. Thus, rather than abandon their doomsayer approach to
>science, they simply shifted gear to yet another means to terrify the
>worlds public.
>STEPHEN SCHNEIDER
>GREENHOUSE SUPERSTAR
>
>By
>
>John L. Daly
>
>"To capture the public imagination,
>we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
>make simplified dramatic statements
>and little mention of any doubts one might have.
>Each of us has to decide the right balance
>between being effective,
>and being honest."
>
>- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
>( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)
>
>...
>He is also a fully qualified climatologist, closely identified with
>climate modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),
>Boulder, Colorado, USA. He has written numerous papers and articles on
>the subject and is invariably sought out by the media for the latest
>horror predictions about Greenhouse, due to both his willingness to cast
>scientific caution aside in making such predictions, and his natural
>articulate and charismatic appeal to the general public.
>
>He can truly be described as a Superstar of Greenhouse.
>
>It would be fair to say that Schneider bears a large part of the
>responsibility for making Greenhouse the hysterical public issue it has
>become today. He even once joked that since Greenhouse had hit the
>public arena, he had become more of a politician than a scientist.
>(`Many a true word is spoken in jest')
>
>That Greenhouse had moved from being an esoteric scientific issue to
>being a political one was certainly true, and Schneider was in the
>vanguard of the political push to get Greenhouse firmly implanted in the
>public consciousness.
>
>...
>Firstly, Schneider was not always promoting the idea of Global warming.
>Up to about 1978, Schneider was warning the world of an impending Global
>Cooling, leading to the next Ice Age !
>
>Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion
>of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had
>become a scientific article of faith that the Ice Age was about to
>happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.
>
>"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
>could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."
>
>Prof Patrick Michaels, now a prominent critic of the Greenhouse scare,
>was justifiably sceptical then, just as he is now.
>
>"When I was going to graduate school,
>it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start.
>I had trouble warming up to that one too.
>This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse,
>but it's certainly the loudest
> =20
>
>Just as with Global Warming, we find Schneider in the vanguard of the
>Global Cooling doomsayers during the 1970s.
>
>It was only when global temperatures took an upward turn around 1980
>that Schneider and others quickly made a career change and became
>passionate advocates of impending catastrophe, only this time from
>warming, not cooling. But then, opportunism is a trait of politicians
>rather than scientists.
>
>During the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s, Schneider was one of it's
>foremost advocates. He published a book titled "The Genesis Strategy" at
>this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a
>testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age' book of the time -
>(Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which
>the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was
>but the precursor to the main event - the coming Ice Age.
>
>Schneider was one of the first in the scientific community to warn of
>the impending Ice Age with this paper -
>
>Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
>Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July
>1971, p.138-141
>
----
>Claim: The majority of scientists believe global warming is a process
>underway and that it is human-induced.
>
>Fact: A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 82 percent of
>respondents either believed that global warming was not occurring or
>that there was insufficient evidence to make a determination.
>Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists said that "current science is
>unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused
>only by man-made factors."
---------
>Trombe Wall Effect, Changing Skylines, or Greenhouse Effect?
>
>
>Everywhere today we hear that the Earth is warming up due to increased
>carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet the MSU satellite observations
>fail to see any warming. The surface observations, which are the main
>support for the greenhouse effect hypothesis, are poorly made and
>contaminated with urban effects and changing skyline effects. The
>surface temperature observations are made mostly in the 1% of the global
>areas that are heavily populated and built up. The spatial-temporal
>sampling of the surface network is not global and this under-sampling
>alone appears to be causing a spurious warming trend of 0.12 C (out of
>the observed 0.23 C warming trend between 1979 and 1994).
For these reasons, it is very misleading to create alarm about
>"greenhouse gases", without first specifying which gas we are actually
>talking about. Since CO2 is near saturation, it can be considered
>harmless, climatically speaking. And yet, the global warming scare has
>been built primarily around CO2 emissions, mainly because they are more
>visible, and provide easier targets for anti-development groups. Other
>gases such as Methane and CFC are not at saturation level yet,
>theoretically allowing them more warming potential, but these have been
>largely ignored amid the hysteria over CO2. The rapid increase in
>atmospheric methane over the last few centuries has now all but levelled
>off, leaving its future effect in some doubt also.
>
>=20
>
>...
>Another limitation of the greenhouse gases is that many of them have
>overlapping absorption bands. Thus, where two gases share the same
>absorption band, the result may be that even though neither gas is
>itself saturated, their overlapping on the same part of the spectrum
>causes that particular wavelength to become effectively saturated. This
>most commonly happens with water vapour, which overlaps several of the
>other gases at many points (see fig 5.5).
>
>=20
>
>The biggest overlap of all occurs in the tropics where double water
>vapour molecules, called "dimers", close off the main radiation window
>altogether, effectively saturating the entire infra-red spectrum, but
>only in the tropics. For this reason, increases in man-made greenhouse
>gases can have only a negligible effect in tropical regions.
>
>=20
>
>This overlapping also means that while CO2 notionally accounts for about
>25% of the natural greenhouse, its hypothetical removal would not cause
>a 25% reduction in the greenhouse effect as one might think. Water
>vapour would simply take over its role on the overlapping bands, causing
>a reduction in greenhouse absorption of only about 3%. Similarly,
>increases in CO2 will, in many cases, simply overlap on bands already
>occupied and largely saturated by water vapour, rendering the increase
>ineffective on those particular bands.
>
>=20
>
>...
>Finally, it can be seen from fig 5.5 that there are parts of the
>infra-red spectrum which are not "occupied" by the absorption bands of
>any of the gases. This occurs especially at around 8-12 microns, which
>also happens to be the area of strongest radiation from the Earth. These
>open gaps in the spectrum are known as "Radiation Windows", and any
>radiation from either the surface or the atmosphere which is of those
>window wavelengths, passes straight through the atmosphere as if there
>were no gases in the way at all. Increasing the levels of the main
>greenhouse gases has no significant effect on these windows.
>
>=20
>
>Using a garden greenhouse analogy, it is equivalent to having several
>broken holes in the roof of the greenhouse, freely letting out the heat.
>
>=20
>
>It also happens that the Earth has its strongest radiation right in the
>main radiation window at 8 - 12 microns. The global mean temperature of
>+15 deg also causes the mean wavelength of radiation to be at 10 microns
>, plumb in the middle of this window. Many climatologists believe that
>this is no coincidence, that the main radiation window centred at 10
>microns acts to "lock" the Earth into a narrow range of temperature
>between 11 and 18 deg (ie. ranging between ice age conditions and the
>historically warmest temperatures). The fact that the Earth has never
>gone outside these limits for hundreds of millions of years gives
>powerful support to this view.
>
>=20
>
>...
>Dr Stephen Schneider, in his 1971 paper in "Science", claimed (rightly)
>that global warming caused by CO2 absorption band broadening would
>require the gas to be increased by a factor of about 1,000 or more (or
>35% of our atmosphere, compared with 0.035% now). This represents 100
>times more CO2 than is contained in all the coal and oil reserves
>existing on this planet. Current scenarios of CO2 growth involve a mere
>doubling of the natural background level over a century time-scale,
>hardly in the same league at all.
...
>
>The remarkable feature of the real climate over hundreds of millions of
>years is just how stable it has been in spite of major catastrophes,
>such as the comet or asteroid believed to have hit the Earth 65 million
>years ago, causing mass species extinction. This remarkable stability of
>climate suggests that negative feedbacks are the dominant feature of our
>real climate. Had positive feedback been dominant, the Earth would
>quickly, and uncontrollably, plunged millions of years ago into a
>boiling thermal runaway or into a permanent deep freeze, triggered by a
>quite small climate change.
>
>
>
>Where a climate model gives undue weight to positive feedbacks, we end
>up with predicted warmings much greater than would be found in nature
>under similar forcings. Scientists committed to the theory of global
>warming go to considerable lengths to downplay the role of negative
>feedback, but constantly seek out new positive ones to include in the
>models.
...
In fact, an increased energy flux does not necessarily lead to a
>temperature increase at all. The tropics cover about half the globe, and
>are predominantly ocean. Near the Equator the oceans are typically 28
>degrees. At this temperature, the vapour tension of the ocean surface is
>so high that any further energy inputs are consumed entirely in
>evaporation. This process removes water vapour (and thus latent heat)
>from the tropical oceans, leaving the oceans, and therefore the air
>directly above, with an unchanged or even cooler temperature.
>
>
>
>The latent heat in the water vapour is released later, above the main
>greenhouse blanket, when clouds condense out. Thus, we get our enhanced
>negative cloud feedback with no ocean warming necessary to initiate it.
> With the ocean temperature unchanged, the air temperature will remain
>equally unchanged.
---
>It is perfectly possible to be assured of an exaggerated warming in a
>model by setting a series of key fixed parameters. By making the
>following seemingly innocent-looking assumptions, a large warming is
>positively assured in the model.
>
>
>The combination of the above assumptions, common in whole or in part in
>many models, guarantees that positive feedbacks take their full toll on
>temperatures, but that compensatory negative feedbacks are largely
>suppressed. In this way, a minor +0.25 deg. CO2 warming, blows out into
>a +2 to +5 degree warming.
>
>...
>The scientific literature on negative feedbacks such as clouds, shows a
>strong resistance to admit to any negative feedback at all. Even the
>clouds, (which common-sense, and now NASA, says cools the Earth), were
>doggedly claimed by the modelers to have a warming influence, against
>all notions of common sense, let alone scientific accuracy.
---
>Negative feedback acts to restrain the impact of either a warming or a
>cooling, rather like a thermostat, and results in any climatic change
>becoming much smaller than it might otherwise have been. Only with a
>preponderance of negative feedback could the Earth's climate have
>survived in more or less its present form for all that time.
>
>
>
>Earth's climatic history supports no other conclusion.
>From the foregoing, it is clear that the output of computer models is
>conditioned entirely by the assumptions and inputs of the modelers, and
>simply re-creates a simulated world directly from the mind, and even
>prejudices, of the modeler. It is also clear from the literature that
>modelers expect predictions of +2 degrees plus, and that when a model
>fails to live up to this expectation, there is a strong tendency to
>reject its results out of hand.
>We thus have a `self-fulfilling prophecy' where any new model is
>assessed against the performance of other models, rather than against
>the real-world climate. Such a practice perpetuates any errors inherent
>in the earlier models. The Manabe/Wetherald model (GFDL) of 1980 is
>regarded as something of a `base-line' for this purpose, as frequent
>comparative reference to it is made in the scientific literature
>whenever new models are developed.
---
>Coverup in the Greenhouse?
>
>THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>July 11, 1996
>
>Dr. Seitz, former president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences,
>has revealed that a UN-sponsored scientific report promoting global
>warming has been tampered with for political purposes.
>...
problems with the temperature data:
>Geographical Spread
>
>Since land only occupies 30% of the earth's surface, the network of
>white boxes can only measure temperature on land, not the 70% of the
>planet represented by the oceans. Islands can give some indication of
>oceanic temperature, but in many cases these are widely scattered and
>usually located in the largest town on such islands
>
>....
>Even within the land areas, vast areas of desert, tundra and mountains
>have also not been monitored. Thus we have a problem of `geographical
>spread' where one region, such as central England, has been subject to
>overkill from hundreds of boxes, whereas a vast area like central
>Australia would be lucky to have just one.
>
>...
>In the face of this unevenness of data, the procedure has been to divide
>the world into grid squares and to estimate the historical temperatures
>of each square by averaging the temperatures of all the sites within
>that square (eg. Jones, J.Clim. v.7, p.1794, 1994). Global temperature
>is then determined from averaging all the grid squares. Where a grid
>square only has one site, that site's temperature becomes the
> temperature applicable for that entire square.
>
>In some cases, there are no sites within a grid square (e.g.. parts of
>Australia, vast areas of ocean etc.), in which case the temperature for
>such a square must be estimated from the temperatures recorded in the
>nearest neighbouring squares. For example, the lone site at St Helena
>Island in the South Atlantic Ocean has to represent most of the South
>Atlantic for sheer lack of sites anywhere else in the region. Any
>problems with the St Helena site (as once occurred when the box was
>storm damaged and subsequently moved downhill, only to record warmer
>temperatures at the new location) results in the local error infecting
>most of the South Atlantic.
>
>In Australia, the whole of central Australia (almost one third of the
>continent), is represented by the instrumental record at Alice Springs,
>an urban site (or is it a rural site? - It only has 40,000 people which
>puts it squarely within some scientist's definition of `rural') (Torok &
>Nicholls, Aust. Met. Mag., 1996, 4-Dec-96, p.251).
>Having said all that, how well do poorer countries maintain their boxes?
> Can they afford the paint, the cleaning etc.? Do they even care? USA
>stations certainly do and so too does Europe and Australia, but that's
>barely 6% of the planet. For example, a country like Russia which hardly
>ever pays its officials these days and cannot afford to render spent
>nuclear submarines safe, would hardly be expected to put a priority on
>maintenance of weather boxes. The ragged state of many records from 3rd
>world countries suggest not only bad maintenance, but also bad personnel
>training, if any, and a generally low priority on data collection.
>
>No amount of elaborate computing and statistical massaging at CRU or the
>NOAA can turn bad data into good. If the starting data is bad, all
>subsequent analyses will inherit those faults.
---
Temperature comparisons between towns, cities, and the rural areas
>surrounding them show that the urban areas are generally one or two
>degrees warmer than the rural areas nearby. This urban heating mainly
>impacts on night-time temperatures. Large cities such as Los Angeles or
>London show very marked temperature differences between urban and rural
>temperatures, sometimes as much as 3 to 4 degrees.
>
>...
>The combination of all these factors causes towns and cities to record
>higher temperatures than rural or marine areas in the same nearby
>geographical region. Since urban areas only comprise about 0.1% of the
>Earth's surface area, heat islands have no significance to the broader
>global climate. But when over 90% of the land-based temperature data is
>obtained from those areas, an illusion of warming can be created, caused
>purely by urban data skewing the global result.
>The question then arises, what can we say about temperature data
>collected within such urban heat islands? Obviously they cannot be
>regarded as representative of general ambient temperatures, since they
>are too subject to localised distortions.
>
>=20
>
>This creates a particular problem when comparisons are made between
>present temperatures and those recorded several decades ago. To begin
>with, the fewer motor vehicles used in the past would mean that
>temperature measurements taken then would be less subject to the ozone
>mini-greenhouse. Secondly, most modern cities were much smaller decades
>ago, therefore giving a weaker Heat-Island Effect in the past.
>
>=20
>
>Thus, a typical set of temperatures taken in London in, say, 1930, could
>not be directly compared to a similar set taken today due to the more
>intense Heat-Island Effect existing there now. In effect, any direct
>comparison between the two would show an apparent increase in
>temperature. Similar sets of temperatures taken in rural Sussex (close
>to London) would not show this artificial increase.
>
>=20
>
>If some scientist, in blissful ignorance of the Heat Island Effect, were
>to look at London's temperature record, he/she would find a steady
>warming of night-time temperatures in direct proportion to the growth of
>the city itself. Daytime temperatures tend to be less affected. Such a
>researcher might mistakenly announce that a major climatic warming had
>taken place!
>
>=20
>
>...
>Even island readings, such as those of Bermuda, which one would assume
>to be free of this effect, are often taken in the urban centre of that
>island, thus reinforcing the heat-island distortion. One island
>location, St Helena in the remote South Atlantic, produced an apparent
>warming during the mid 1970's, (which was assumed to be typical of most
>of the South Atlantic), until it was learned that storm damage caused
>the people maintaining the measuring unit to move it 150 metres further
>downhill to a safer location. This, of course, caused a slight increase
>in temperature in proportion to the lower altitude. The immediate
>secondary effect was a rise in inferred temperatures for most of the
>South Atlantic!
>
>=20
>
>Keeping track of positional changes like this is another problem facing
>any team attempting to calculate global mean temperature, and more
>importantly determining any long-term trends.
>
>=20
>
>Recent studies in the USA have produced a new dimension to the
>heat-island issue which was not allowed for in previous studies. It was
>determined by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
>(NOAA) that even small towns and villages exhibit the Urban Heat-Island
>Effect. The table overleaf shows this very clearly.
>
>...
>If we look at measuring stations known to have no urban distortions, or
>other local environmental effects distorting the record, we generally
>find little or no warming at all. What little warmings we do find tend
>to be mainly caused by night-time warming, with the days even cooling
>slightly. Night warming can be caused either by urbanisation, enhanced
>greenhouse, or simply increased cloudiness. In the case of remote
>stations, urbanisation is ruled out, so we are left with greenhouse or
>cloudiness as the primary cause of a slight night warming only.
>
>Fig 2-3 gives an example of one such station, Moreton Island Lighthouse
>off the coast of southern Queensland, Australia. It shows little
>noticeable change at all over a 100-year-plus record. A similar record
>taken 60 kilometres away in Brisbane would show an urban-induced
>warming. It would be folly in the extreme to select Brisbane as a
>climate reference station, but that is exactly what CRU has been doing,
>while at the same time excluding numerous remote stations from the
>climate reference network.
>...
>CRU's calculated +0.5 deg warming for eastern Australia, which included
>large cities, is known to be in error by a factor of 5, the real warming
>being only +0.1 deg or so, when measured from a purely rural station
>network (Tasman Institute 1993). Their global estimates are consequently
>no more reliable than their Australian subset.
-------
Global Temperatures
>
>by Dr Philip Jones CRU [NOTE - CRU is the source of the temp. data used
>everywhere]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dr Philip Jones
>The rise in global mean temperatures of about 0.6=B0 Celsius over the last
>140 years represents the major piece of observational evidence in the
>global warming debate. Over the last 15 years the Climatic Research Unit
>has been compiling and checking temperature records from over 3000
>land-based sites and using nearly 80 million observations of marine
>temperatures taken by both the merchant and the naval fleets of the
>major maritime nations. The task is not simple. Few of the workers who
>established routine meteorological observing networks in the 18th and
>19th centuries could have anticipated how important their data would be
>in helping the present generation of scientists unravel the course of
>climate change. Often the records left are incomplete and inconsistent.
>However, by quantifying and eliminating uncertainties, we have been able
>to assemble a fairly accurate picture of what has happened to the
>Earth's climate.
>Meteorological Observations
>
>
>"I have been an observer and meteorologist for 35 years of my life and I
>can tell you matter of factly that surface temperature measurements
>around the globe are suspect. For many years we used the liquid in glass
>thermometers, read supposedly to the nearest 10th of a degree
>(questionable to say the least as you could be off several tenths
>easily). Exposure of some of the devices was also not the best. Later
>electronic devices came and the maintenance tolerances on U.S. devices
>were plus or minus 1.5 degrees F. Now current automated temperature
>devices have maintenance tolerances double the 1.5 F. (approx.
>plus/minus 3 degrees F). On top of this, observing sites have been moved
>from one place to another fairly often as urban areas grew. So the
>measurements of surface observational temperatures may not be as
>accurate as you would want. I assume similar circumstances exist or
>existed elsewhere. I saw first hand the quality of observations in the
>far east in the 50s and they were not the best you would want. The point
>is that 1 degree increase is not a big thing so far considering this and
>other factors." Paul Pettit, Weather Consulting, Dec. 16, 1997
>
>"Actually repainting [Stevenson screens] can have rather serious
>consequences for measuring long-term trends in temperature. If the
>earlier boxes were painted white with oil-based paints which have
>thermal emissivities of about 0.8 and were repainted with latex-based
>paints with emissivities around 0.9, a systematic upward temperature
>trend would appear in the records, that would have nothing to do with
>global warming. Are records of when the paintings were done and brand of
>paints used recorded? Are temperature records adjusted to account for
>it? I doubt it. It is not a trivial matter to measure temperatures and
>it would be healthy for the GW debate if the same level of skepticism
>directed towards the satellite measurements were directed towards the
>surface measurements." J. Preston Bye, Jan. 11, 1998
>
>"On the subject of surface (screen) temperature measurements the
>literature and this site have, to my knowledge, ignored two important
>sources of bias. One is that in the last few decades there has been a
>shift from manually read psychrometers to remotely read
>temperature/dewpoint devices. Prior to the change, the door to the
>Stevenson screen was always opened, while now it is always shut when the
>temperature is measured. In nocturnal, and windy, conditions the effect
>is probably small. However, at other times it may bias the temperatures
>toward warmer values. The second is that, as has been shown elsewhere
>(John Daly's site among others), there is a tendency for the environment
>around met stations to change (growth of trees, construction of tall
>buildings etc). The influence of such changes on the thermal
>counter-radiation toward the surface is generally appreciated. However,
>this is only part of the story. Of possibly greater importance is the
>associated change in aerodynamic surface roughness. Tall objects tend to
>break up the nocturnal surface inversion. They also interact with faster
>air aloft, generating pressure fields which, in turn, move the air near
>the surface, greatly enhancing the convective exchanges on calm, clear
>nights, increasing the surface equilibrium temperature, be it that of
>the Stevenson screen or that of the ground. For more info, see an
>article in Agr. For. Met. 63 (1993) 171-188, which discusses this effect
>in the context of shelter woods." Hardy B. Granberg, Jan. 12, 1997
>
>"In the process of creating GHCN, we have heard many cautionary tales
>that cast doubt on the quality of climate data. For example, a
>meteorologist working in a tropical country noticed one station had an
>unusually low standard deviation. When he had an opportunity to visit
>that station, the observer proudly showed him his clean, white
>instrument shelter in a well cared for grass clearing. Unfortunately,
>the observer was never sent any instruments so every day he would go up
>to the shelter, guess the temperature, and dutifully write it down.
>Another story is about a station situated next to a steep hillside. A
>couple of meters uphill from the station was a path students used
>walking to and from school. On the way home from school, boys would stop
>and . . . well, let's just say the gauge observations were greater than
>the actual rainfall. In the late 1800s, a European moving to Africa
>maintained his home country's 19th Century siting practice of placing
>the thermometer under the eaves on the north wall of the house, despite
>the fact that he was now living south of the equator (Peterson and
>Griffiths, 1996). Such disheartening anecdotes about individual stations
>are common and highlight the importance of QC of climate data." NOAA web
>site, January, 1998
---
>Measurement Practices
>
>The current standard practice is to record the daily maximum and minimum
>temperatures at each site and to average these out over a month and a
>year to give a mean temperature. The mean temperature for each grid
>square is then obtained by averaging all the mean temperatures from the
>individual sites within the grid square (if there are any).
>
BTW -Note, this seems rather bogus since the temperature doesn't
rise and fall linearly throughout the day. The true average temperature
throughout the day is not necessarily half way between the min and max.
It may spend most of the day warm and have a short dropoff at night, and
vice versa.
>But it was not always so. Prior to adoption of these standards, it was
>common for data to be collected in a variety of ways, such as measuring
>the temperature every 6 hours, or twice a day at fixed times, or at
>other times convenient to the people collecting the data who often had
>better things to do.
>
>In many cases, particularly at isolated sites, there have even been
>cases where the people at the site neglected to record the temperature
>on many occasions but filled in fictitious temperatures in their log
>books in order not to lose the small stipend they receive for such work.
>Or the cases of seaside tourist resorts where a tourist operator (who
>also happened to be the town weather recorder), bumped up the
>temperature a few degrees in the hope of getting more visitors from the
>city. Such stories abound in the corridors of weather bureaus, but
>scientists naively imagine that the people collecting the data are as
>scrupulous about it as they are.
>
>Falsification of data of all kinds for economic reasons became a way of
>life in Soviet Russia, so temperature data would have been no exception.
>One could imagine what a local soviet official in some faraway Siberian
>village would do during the bad old days of Communist central planning,
>when he knows that his village's fuel supply is allocated according to
>how cold his community is? Of course he will record lower temperatures
>in his log than his instruments show in order to justify an increased
>fuel allocation. With the demise of communism, such a life-or-death
>motive would no longer exist and temperatures would then be recorded
>correctly. This would give the impression of a post-communist warming -
>which is exactly what has happened at many Siberian sites, a warming
>which is not evident outside Russia at similar latitudes such as Alaska
>and Finland. But the scientists who analyse such data are oblivious to
>how it was collected. To them, only the numbers themselves matter,
>regardless of how they were collected, or what political factors may
>have influenced the collection process.
>
>A further procedural error has been the conversion in the last few
>decades from manual reading to remote automatic reading of the
>temperatures in the boxes. During the manual days, opening the door of
>the box increases ventilation, thus cooling the instruments prior to
>being actually read. Today, with automatic monitoring, the box door is
>not opened and so the temperature recorded will be slightly higher, thus
>giving an impression of warming of perhaps one or two tenths of a
>degree.
>
>Dr Hugh Ellsaesser of Lawrence Livermore has even suggested that the
>sharp warming of the 1920s may have been partly caused by changes in the
>measurement procedures from that of fixed times to one of maximums and
>minimums only. If thousands of sites world-wide all change their
>procedures over a period of only a few years, a distinct up or down jump
>will show up in the long-term aggregate data. There is such a sharp jump
>during the 1920s at the same time when procedures were changed to the
>present system, and it was a warming jump of about a quarter of a
>degree.
>
>But claims today that we are +0.5 deg.C warmer than 100 years ago
>include that 1920s upward jump, a `warming' which is in all probability
>a largely artificial one coincident with the procedural changes.
>
>...
>OCEAN TEMPERATURES
>
>Over the 70% of the planet represented by the oceans, the only
>indication of temperature history comes from small islands and ships. In
>some cases, the air temperature is measured in the usual way from a
>Stevenson Screen located on an island or a ship, while in others the sea
>surface temperature (SST) itself is taken as a proxy for the atmospheric
>temperature overlying the ocean.
>
>This suffers even more from geographical spread problems than the land
>temperatures. The use of islands to represent vast ocean areas is one
>problem already mentioned. In addition, the temperature recorded on an
>island is often from the only town on that island and thus affected by
>its own urban heat island and other warming creep errors already
>mentioned.
>
>In the case of ships, the instruments are generally maintained properly
>and the micro-environment is not subject to much change. However, the
>ship is constantly travelling so that a temperature taken during the day
>in one location may be 200 nautical miles from the next temperature
>taken during the night.
>
>Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are
>simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not
>record weather data on the way. Attempting to compile a `global mean
>temperature' from such fragmentary, disorganised, and geographically
>unbalanced data is more guesswork than science.
>A Hole in the Bucket
>
>As to sea surface temperatures (SST), this data is even more fragmentary
>than the air temperature readings. Prior to around 1940, SST was
>collected by throwing buckets over the side of a ship, hoisting it on
>deck and dipping a thermometer in it.
>
>...
>How deep is the bucket dropped into the water? (SST varies with dep=
th)
>How long does it take to hoist the bucket up to the deck?
>(the water is cooling while it is hoisted)
>Is the deck on which the bucket sits hot under the sun?
>(If so, the bucket water will heat)
>Or is the deck cool from sea splash and wind breeze?
>(If so, the water will cool)
>Is the bucket made of canvas, wood, or metal?
>(this affects evaporation and heat transfer rates)
>Is the thermometer dipped in immediately, or is there some delay?
>(time delay equals cooling or heating)
>Is the bucket left in the sun, or in the shade?
>(also affects heating/cooling rate)
>How long is the thermometer left in the bucket?
>(as the water cools or heats while waiting for the thermometer to settle)
>How carefully is the thermometer read?
>(usually by a 17-year-old cadet).
>Get the idea?
>...
>Long-term climatic data gathered by buckets is little short of junk.
>
>Bucket data is only useful for immediate weather prediction purposes,
>not for long-term statistical climatic analysis. Any other data
>collected in such bizarre ways would be laughed out of any other
>scientific forum - but not from Greenhouse forums, where such data is
>tortured with esoteric precision until it confesses to anything you want
>it to.
>
>In 1989, MIT did an analysis of SST bucket data (brave fellows), but
>could only find a +0.2 deg.C warming between 1860 and 1940, hardly the
>stuff of catastrophes (Newell & al, MIT Technology Review, Nov/Dec 1989,
>p.80).
>
>Buckets no more !
>
>But post-1940, things seemed to improve.
>
>SST was now measured directly from water intakes beneath the hulls of
>ships. Of course, the depth of this intake varies with the state of
>loading and the size of the ship. The ships still travel their same
>favourite routes well away from regions of the ocean which still lack
>any data at all, and there are no scientific checks on the accuracy,
>calibration, or drift of most of the instruments used. So we are a bit
>better off than with the buckets, but not much.
>
>The 1989 MIT study also analysed the post-1940s data but could find no
>warming at all.
...
>The only way surface data can be used with any confidence is to exclude
>all town/city and airport data - no exceptions. Only rural sites should
>be used, and by `rural' is meant strictly `greenfields' sites where
>there is no urbanisation of any kind near the instrument.
>
>This would reduce the available stations to only a tiny fraction of
>those presently used.
>
>Once `greenfields' sites have been identified, the station history of
>each site needs to be examined thoroughly, including old photographs,
>details of site moves, records of maintenance, procedural changes and a
>thorough on-site inspection of the micro-environment. Only then can
>meaningful corrections to data be contemplated. Any such corrections
>should be independently reviewed by inter-disciplinary scientists, not
>the questionable `peer review' by fellow specialiasts as used at
>present. In-house review by fellow `peers' is hardly likely to convince
>a skeptical public.
>
>Once the sites have been quality tested in this way, it is highly likely
>that the result would be little or no global warming this century,
>particularly as the USA itself shows no warming after high-quality
>control being applied to its surface data.
----
Changing Skyline Hypothesis
>
>
>Every thermometer station is located such that the thermometer screen
>and adjacent region view both the earth's surface and the sky. The sky
>is cold compared to the surface so there is net flux of radiant energy
>away from the station to the sky. Over the years, the portion of the sky
>seen by the average weather station may decrease because of growing
>trees or new nearby buildings. If these trees grow such that an
>additional 1% of the sky is blocked, then the temperature immediately
>around the radiation screen will rise by about 0.2 C. This temperature
>increase occurs because the thermometer is now embedded in a deeper and
>warmer cavity then before. The growing trees will also decrease wind
>velocities at the site, leading to further warming.
>
>For example, if the station is located in a field with a line of trees
>about the station that are 20 feet high and 150 feet away in 1979, and
>are 30 feet high and 150 feet away in 1996, the temperature of that site
>will warm by 0.2 C. This warming is caused by increased trapping of
>thermal radiation which can no longer radiate as easily to the cool sky.
>The warming will be greatest at night when the contrast between surface
>temperatures and sky temperatures is greatest and will tend to be
>greater in northern regions then in tropical regions. This effect will
>show up in rural stations.
>
>A nice aspect of this hypothesis is that it explains why the surface
>stations are warming, but the satellite observations of the free
>atmosphere above the stations are cooling. The explanation, in brief, is
>that climate is slightly cooling and the surface network is spuriously
>warming. It also explains why the diurnal cycle of temperatures is
>decreasing even at rural locations and why these changes are greater in
>the arctic regions then elsewhere. No other climate hypothesis predicts
>this behavior. We will name this hypothesis the "Changing Skyline
>Hypothesis". To our knowledge, there has been no discussion or
>consideration of this possibility anywhere in the scientific literature.
----
>Mercury-in-Glass Thermometers
>
> Mercury-in-glass thermometers, were the favoured measuring instruments
>for the overwhelming majority of the measurements collected by the
>compilers of the above annual averages. Measurements from maximum
>thermometers would also be by mercury, but mi