Asymmetrical Information

Funny you should mention that experiment, some guy from Slate did exactly that in L.A.:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108561/

apex
(couple-of-weeks reader, first time poster)

Posted by: apex on October 25, 2004 10:23 AM

I also live in Democratic Central and have not seen ONE Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. But I did see a poor lonely soul with a Bush/Cheney button on his laptop bag while waiting for the subway at 96th & Broadway the other day. I was tempted to tell him to step away from the tracks as he might get pushed in front of a train, but I didn't feel like discussing politics at that early hour. It is scary, however, how undecideds or Bush-leaning folks have been cowed into silence for fear of being labeled a mean-spirited, racist, warmongering Nazi.

I also find it interesting that there was a Kerry rally in my neighborhood on Saturday and folks from the DNC were out in hoards on Broadway yesterday. Preaching to the choir, folks. Go to a state where you can make a difference if you really feel that strongly!

Posted by: Judy on October 25, 2004 10:48 AM

Hey Megan,

I've been wearing a handsome Bush/Cheney 2004 t-shirt on my daily bike ride from Riverdale in the Bronx down to Wall Street.

I've gotten mixed reactions, ranging from mild bemusement and reflexive grimace, up to cheering support and a scathing "[expletive deleted] Bush!".

The "---- Bush" comment led to an interesting exchange with a teenager in Harlem. I'd be happy to regale you with these and other stories, but I need to do some work first. (I also have a pretty good track record persuading Democrats to vote Bush!)

Later, o undecided one!

Posted by: Matthew Goggins on October 25, 2004 11:17 AM

I'm in the UK I plan to celebrate big style when Bush wins (as I will be collecting a nice sum of a friend who thought Kerry would win).

Do you think it will be safe to party in Grauniad country (Islington)?

Posted by: Rob Read on October 25, 2004 11:20 AM

I think theres a much better phrase than "swing voter" to describe the so called undecideds, and that phrase is the "flip flop" voter. After all, its not indecision that causes the polls to vacillate one way then the other, its voters changing their minds that move the polls, and I think theres more flip flop voters then the experts believe. But a reflective electorate capable of voting on the facts rather than partisan ideaology favors Kerry.

I live in SC, and that means Im surrounded by evangelical reps. I hate these people. I respect reps like Novak that are unapologetic and in your face with the reasoning for what he believes. What I cant stand is the Robertson evangelical reps that are $6.00 an hour Dollar Store employees with the Bush/Cheney sign in the front "yard" of their rented mobile home, all because its wwjd.

Posted by: Begbee on October 25, 2004 11:22 AM

Judy:

"It is scary, however, how undecideds or Bush-leaning folks have been cowed into silence for fear of being labeled a mean-spirited, racist, warmongering Nazi."

You forgot "stupid" and, I think, either "bovine" or "cud-chewing."

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on October 25, 2004 11:31 AM

Dang! Somebody beat me to the Slate URL!

However, as I'm in the first ten in this thread, rather than last of the 200+ in your "undecided" thread, I'll confidently predict:

There is a prince somewhere who holds the key to unlock your weary heart. But that key is not talking to you about the relative merits of Bush and Kerry.

Posted by: Karl on October 25, 2004 12:21 PM

I've had a Bush/Cheney sticker displayed prominently on my bumper for about a month now, and have been driving and parking it all over Fairfield (CT) and Westchester (NY) counties, which is solid blue Kerry territory to say the least. Aside from a few approving beeps and waves from fellow supporters, nobody has paid any attention to it, which is pretty much the reaction I expected. It's long been my observation that suburban liberals are much less hateful and intolerant than the Manhattan variety.

Posted by: Rob Leder on October 25, 2004 12:28 PM

I live in ultra-liberal Boulder and I've seen plenty of BC signs, shirts & buttons, especially outside major events like Colorado football games. Granted, KE stuff greatly outnumbers BC, but I haven't seen anything worse than a little good-natured booing at football games. (Because I stand outside of games handing out free samples of my product, I see several thousand opportunities for nastiness. None so far.)

Posted by: Derek Scruggs on October 25, 2004 12:56 PM

I drive in N Virginia. Go along Rt 123 to the GW Turnpike. 123 is a 4 lane divided road. It is great fun driving it each morning. Last Thursday (21 Oct) the road was a collage of Bush/Wolf/Soccus/Kerry signs with a smattering of others. Friday only the Bush/Wolf signs were there. Today (25 Oct) all but 4 of the Bush signs were gone (I could see the remains of some) and all the Wolf signs were gone. Plenty of the Kerry/Soccus signs though! Tomorrow I expect to see a new pattern! With VA going to the Bush camp (Kerry's campaign effectively pulled out about a week ago I believe) there are lots of high tempers on the Democratic side and some smugness on the Rep side. I don't put stickers on my car because its not worth the cost (risk reduction!) of getting keyed or pissing off someone I need to make a sale to in the future.

I do think the arrogance displayed by the Kerry people (basically "smart/informed people vote for Kerry the rest are just idiots") puts a lot of people off. I don't talk politics with my wife. She is sitting on the fence, but every time she talks to her Dem friends their ABB disorder pushes her to Bush. None of her friends can give even one reason to vote FOR Kerry without bringing up Bush. I want to vote for something - and I am for Bush's foriegn policy (and have helped implement as an AF pilot). I am also for his potential SC nominations, anything to get the courts from making law - that's what I hire congress to do. So, with luck, we will have 4-more years of 5.4% unemployment,

Posted by: buffpilot on October 25, 2004 01:19 PM

Where I live in Blue Central (with all due respect to the Upper West Side, I think Chelsea is even blue-er), I'm not interested in getting into political fights while I'm walking down the street. So I've taken the stealth approach: I use a "Support our Troops" ribbon instead. Hardly anybody has them (which is quite different than other places I've been recently like Florida and Ohio), and I get the impression that most of the people with the KE gear (or, more importantly, the anti-Bush gear) would NEVER wear a "Support our Troops" ribbon. So that's my subtle signal of my political affiliation.

Posted by: Al on October 25, 2004 02:14 PM

Please consider having a tape recorder! Small digital camera optional.

Good luck.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad on October 25, 2004 02:50 PM

In my ABB blue town, the Kerry supporters have Support the Troops stickers in their cars, but they think that supporting the troops means to bring them home. They don't understand that bringing the troops home prematurely would invalidate the deaths and hardships that the troops have been enduring.

I was keyed a couple of years ago for having USMC stickers on my car; no way am I going to display a Bush/Cheney sticker.

Posted by: Rex on October 25, 2004 03:57 PM

I recently moved from Bush Country (Texas) to the wild excitement of a Battleground State (PA) and I can hardly wait for election day! The B/C vs. K/E signs seem pretty evenly split in my area. In contrast, to judge by the grossly unscientific "poll" consisting of my listening in on an e-group I started for my neighborhood in Dallas, there was nobody but K/E supporters there. The "Moms For Kerry" in that neighborhood have been planning to attend a downtown-Dallas rally for, oh, three months or more now? Also in that neighborhood, there were reports of K/E signs being removed. Because absolutely no B/C supporters bothered to post, I have no idea about their signs. (As in NY, the TX "opposition" really gets worked up about nothing they can change. But they do have fun doing it.)

A couple of friends are dyed-in-the-wool Original Austin Bush-Haters, too. They can't really say why, but it doesn't stop them from voting ABB.

Posted by: Jamie on October 25, 2004 04:16 PM

I can't tell you who to vote for, but I'll tell you who I'M NOT voting for: George W. Bush!

Posted by: Jim Treacher on October 25, 2004 04:48 PM

I still don't understand why Bush supporters are "mean spirited Nazis" when the Kerry supporters seem to be spewing hatred at every turn (see Slate article etc.) and vandalizing the opposition's property. Who is mean-spirited and angry again?

Posted by: Judy on October 25, 2004 04:51 PM

MSNBC pays for this "analysis":

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/10/little-worried-about-how-election-is.html

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on October 25, 2004 05:34 PM

Megan: I too am a libertarian who has had some trouble figuring out which way to go... there is a certain paradox in being both libertarian and pro-intervention-in-the-Middle-East which is a classic big-government project. I eventually figured out a very straightforward way to reconcile these positions. I hope this might help you decide, or at least provide some amusement:

http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/libertarian-case-for-bush.html

Posted by: Obsidian on October 25, 2004 05:49 PM

keying cars with GOP bumper stickers or stealing Kerry signs.

I would think keying someone's car would be a lot worse than stealing a sign, but that's just me.

Posted by: RMc on October 25, 2004 05:56 PM

"I think theres a much better phrase than "swing voter" to describe the so called undecideds, and that phrase is the "flip flop" voter."

So: flip-flop voters - vote for the flip-flopper !

Posted by: Jacob on October 25, 2004 06:16 PM

I was going to chime in again on one of the other threads, but somebody already made my point for me. So instead let me wish you luck and a peaceful night's sleep before the election. There's always the secret ballot, and they let you bring coins into the voting booth.

Karl

Posted by: Karl Gallagher on October 25, 2004 07:14 PM

T-Shirt Guinea Pig Diaries, 10/25/04

So on the way home from work today, I take the bike path that goes along the Hudson River from Battery Park City (in downtown Manhattan) to Inwood.

While riding, I'm wearing my Bush/Cheney 2004 t-shirt, large red and blue lettering on a white background.

Most people don't notice it, but I do catch someone reading it about every other minute or so.

The biggest reaction today is from a 30-ish man holding the hand of a cute girl about seven years old. They were walking towards me on the bike path. Just about 10 feet before I pass them, the man looks at me and says "S--- --g" in a soft but clear voice. It is as if he wants me to hear, but not the girl. Of course, it's my experience that children are very good at hearing things, even when they don't let on that they are hearing, so I am disappointed, to put it mildly, that the man is willing to let her hear what he has to say.

The only other reactions today are a few ambiguous looks (surprise, concern, fear?) and a couple of smiles.

I spent about 10 minutes or so at about W 90th Street helping another biyclist who had tumbled off his bicycle and landed on his chin and wrists. While dealing with him, two other samaritans, and two ambulance attendants, I forgot that I had the t-shirt on until I finally pedaled away. No one had payed any attention to it, at least not openly.

Posted by: Matthew Goggins on October 25, 2004 07:42 PM

the man looks at me and says "S--- --g"

Suck dog?

Slap pig?

Sift fog?

Huh?

Posted by: Brian on October 25, 2004 08:33 PM

Today, I corresponded with a friend who was himself corresponding with a Liberal friend voting for Kerry who, in his email, opined that Bush was stupid. Here is my response to my friend. Maybe it will help you make up your mind.

****************************

It is interesting that your friend is emotionally and intellectually invested in the canard that George W. Bush is a dullard - "a man of limited intelligence who can't even see what he has done wrong." - interesting of course in the light of this past Sunday's article in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html?oref=login .

"To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry."

I cannot say that I put much stock in the analysis done by the New York Times on the intelligence of the candidates. The analysis seems a little hokey to me. But considering the reputation of the NYT among left-leaning voters, it is at least worth noting that the illustrious "paper of record" concludes that George W. Bush is slightly, if insignificantly, smarter than Kerry. The perception of Kerry being more intelligent is credited to his nuanced arguments.

" 'People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand,' Professor Gottfredson said."

A more insightful commentary on the intelligence of President Bush can be found in this February article discussing his MBA education at Harvard: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378 . I don't know your friend, and at this point in the election cycle, he may too tired of election politics to have any remaining curiosity to compel him to read the article in the American Thinker. But being a resident of Arlington, Texas, and having observed President Bush operate from the time he became the General Partner in the ownership group of my hometown Texas Rangers baseball team, I think the analysis by Thomas Lifson in this article is spot on.

"The comparatively small amount of attention paid by the political press to the President’s Harvard MBA partially reflects a generalized ignorance of, and hostility toward, the degree itself. More importantly, acknowledging that he learned any valuable intellectual perspectives would contradict the storyline that young W was a party animal, who coasted through his elite education, scarcely cracking a book. In other words, as the left never tires of claiming, he is too “stupid” to have picked up any tricks across the Charles River from Harvard Square.

This is patently incorrect. Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two-year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students, when their performance did not make the grade. "

I highly encourage you to read the entire article. Maybe then you will be able to rebut the argument that Bush is a total dolt.

But on a more emotional level, your comment, "The Kerry’s come across as hypocrites or at least no clue of Middle America" strikes a nerve. A certain amount of hypocrisy is inherent in any type of compromise, and politics is all about compromise in a democracy - even at the party level. So I can live with Kerry's hypocrisy and even acknowledge that Bush's positions also cannot stand up to the light of intellectual purity. It is the "no clue" portion of your reply that really hits home.

The accusation that Bush is an idiot always carries with it the suggestion that those who support him must be equally as stupid to be fooled by his obviously stupid policies and practices. So saying Bush is stupid is really just shorthand for saying that Middle, non-coastal Western, and Southern Americans who support him are just stupid morons incapable of the most meager reasoning skills. Surprisingly, this doesn't play well in these parts of the country. It is as though our concerns and beliefs can be easily dismissed with a well constructed verse, or a wave of the hand. We're all just a bunch of Bible-thumping bigots, or gun-toten hillbillies too blinded by our own prejudice and/or love of killin' varmints to take the time to understand the global implications of our arrogant unilateral invasion of sovereign Iraq. Witness this interview of Bill Maher by the Canadian CBC network:

CBC: First of all I have to ask you something that everyone wants me to ask you which is what are the five things Canadians should know about the American election?

I don't know about five things but I think what Canadians should know about the American election is that you're lucky you don't live here. You don't have to participate in this sham democracy we have, you know? I mean I could tell you about, I could tell you five ways we don't really have a democracy in this country.

CBC: Unknown question

Maher: You're being logical, dear. You're not thinking like an American. OK? Johnny Depp said this was a stupid country. And then he made me very mad and he took it back. Well, I say it. I don't take it back. It's stupid. Really stupid. It's about the marketing, don't you know? It's not about what's real. It's about what they market to people. I mean, they were able to morph bin Laden into Hussein.

CBC: Why then do people, the polls indicate that this fear is leading more and more people to vote for George Bush or say they're going to vote for George Bush? Why would George Bush be the person they thought they would be safer with?

Maher: I refer back to my answer to question two, stupid country. Stupid. Because he appears to be resolute. He appears to be strong. He clears brush and he looks like the Marlborough Man.

CBC: I think there's been a couple of studies done about Canadians and this evangelical movement never got hold in Canada. We were just never, never, religion plays a very very small part –

Maher: To me, to me it's a real dividing line between people of intelligence and – not that there haven't been some intelligent people who are religious. I mean, T.S. Elliott was a great poet and he became a very devout Catholic… But I always call religion a neurological disorder. I really do believe that. I mean it's not criticizing. I'm just saying if you took religion out of it and somebody went to a psychiatrist and said you know I believe in you know this crazy, illogical thing, the shrink would say, well you have a neurological disorder. And you need to really get therapy or take a pill.

This response by columnist Jim Lileks of the Minneapolis Tribune is appropriate:

"I love that – T. S. Elliott was intelligent because he was a great poet, you see. (Dr. Pound; calling Dr. Pound) The old hoary fallacy: achievement in art necessarily confers some sort of moral wisdom. Here you have Maher in all his fatuous glory – religion is a mental illness, but “I mean it’s not criticizing.” He’s just saying, is all. National Health Service passing out pills that suppressed your transcendental desires: Utopia!

Americans are dumb because Americans believe in God. Canadians are smart because Canadians believe in Canada. Bill Maher believes in Bill Maher. Print this out and put in your wallet for future reference.

Again, to repeat the point I’ve made in the last 3 years again and again: it’s not the dissent. It’s the thin, meretricious, self-satisfied quality of the dissent. This is like Tom Selleck giving an interview and saying, “Well, Americans are too stupid to see Clinton for what he is, and they can’t find Bosnia on a map, and the ones who can are all gay atheists, you know.” He'd be held up as a parochial idiot, but Maher's drivel resonates, because he is vibrating on the moonbat frequency. He's one step removed from the people who would see a mushroom cloud over Manhattan and blame it on Abu Ghraib. Ah well. These people will either have to prosper and live unmolested in a world they hate, or get the world they keenly seek. A rational sensible kindly peaceable world where evil can be regulated by pieces of paper and General Assembly votes. A world where “hope is on the way!” means that Kofi Annan has entered his private elevator.

Barring recounts and legal challenges in ten states, of course. Unless you define “hope is on the way” as a fleet of lawyers fueled up and ready to shove their thumbs into the eye sockets of the electorial process and ensure that every president to come is regarded as an illegitimate usuper. Some do. How many, we’ll find out."

The push to get Bush to publicly acknowledge he has been wrong on some issues is also transparently political. Everyone knows that Bush has not been perfect. But what purpose can acknowledging misteps serve? Can it be that if Bush were to admit to some tactical errors that his political opponents would rise up en masse and pronounce him sufficiently nuanced, bless his overall strategy, and endorse his re-election? Surely, only a fool would think so. No, the attempt to get Bush to publicly discuss tactical errors has only one purpose - to discredit his overall strategy. And despite numerous tactical errors, the strategy is sound. If Kerry at least agreed to and was committed to the grand strategy of "the forward march of freedom", then perhaps his tactical criticisms would resonate. But he transparently isn't.

Kerry's Europhilic leanings and his passionate commitment to multilateral organizations as an end unto themselves betray him. Most Americans are descended from European stock, and their ancestors fled that hell-hole long ago. The desire to crawl back into the arms of Europe to get "legitimacy" strikes us as a betrayal of our legacy. The UN and NATO were created and maintained to tame the European war beast that caused worldwide conflagrations through conquest and colonialism for 3 milleniums. The fact of European pacifism is a monumental testament to the success of our attempt to slay that dragon. But Kerry pretending that the UN and/or NATO is structurally capable of solving non-European problems is evidence of a man so attached to recent history he cannot see the present, much less the future.

Contrastingly, Bush has recognized that our strategic interests have shifted from Europe to Asia. The task of taming the Islamofascists and eventually even the Chinese communists and their surrogates in Vietnam and North Korea is the task before us. Were we an imperial force like our European forebears, we would simply conquer and subjugate. But Americans have no taste for imperialism - even right-wing bigoted, Bible-thumping, hillbilly gun-toting morons like me. Absent 9/11, we were content to let the uncivilized nations and peoples make their own way in the world. But 9/11 changed our thinking. Sure, Hussein wasn't successfully connected to 9/11. But that misses the point. The point is that sworn enemies could no longer be contained. In a world where unambiguous War was proclaimed on (and ignored by) us in 1998 by an enemy with no regard for his own life or the lives of his people, containment was no longer a viable strategy.

And as in the Cold War, when Europeans were content to allow Americans to unilaterally pledge the destruction of our own cities as a guarantee against Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Europeans (excepting a few) are once again willing to allow America to carry the burden of beating back this threat. Surprise, Surprise! Can I understand the resentment of some Americans on being thrust back into the role of the guarantor of peace in the world? Sure. I resent it too. But I am cogniscent enough to recognize that the other options offered to us are much worse. The nuclear pandora's box has been opened and cannot be shut. The only way to guarantee that a terrorist group does not obtain a nuclear weapon is to FORCE states to police their own citizenry. And the only way to minimize the long-term costs of such an endeavor is to push forward freedom as an alternative to tyranny. Moron Bush understood this before I did, (and my IQ is higher than his according to the New York Times.)

Bush's father lacked the vision thing. Bush the younger has vision in spades. Indeed his vision is alarming, breathtaking, and also quintissentially American. It is the same breathtaking vision that compelled our ancestors to abandon their lands, their families and even their national loyalties to pursue freedom on this continent. It is long past time America stopped blindly supporting whatever local despot served our short-term interests. It is long past time we ceased allowing the fears of others to constrain us from pursuing the fulfillment of our national destiny. It is long past time we quit allowing stale alliances to justify turning a blind eye to the suffering of billions of innocents across the world. It is long past time that we lived up to the vision of the Pilgrims, the vision echoed in the speeches of Ronald Reagan - to be a city set on a hill. We must be the beacon of freedom for the world. And bringing freedom to the disfunctional Middle East is THEIR best hope for survival - even as it was for fascist Europe and Japan. We have no need to apologize for establishing freedom in Europe and Japan. And we have no reason to apologize for what we are now doing in the Middle East.

Might it fail? Yes. Are mistakes being made? Yes. Will there always be unfortunate occurrences which others can highlight to accuse us of hypocrisy? Yes. But holding to a standard of perfection is a guarantee of failure. It is far more preferable to muddle ahead with Bush than to try to turn back the clock with Kerry. The recent Kerry political advertisement contrasting the eagle and the ostrich is apt. But the Kerry camp cannot see that it is they who are the ostriches, and Bush who is the eagle. The canard that Bush is stupid is just an excuse to avoid an honest evaluation of his strategies and the success those strategies are already enjoying in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can only speculate to the fear that Bush strikes in the hearts of other despots around the world. Certainly, Lybia responded to the threat of an aroused America.

Let us hope that if they do hate us, they fear us more. And let us also hope that the people they oppress long for the freedom we represent. If we are responsible for causing instability by kindling the dreams of freedom for average people all over the world, that is an instability I can live with. I'm not saying Kerry is an evil man. But he is fundamentally and tragically wrong and a Kerry Presidency would at the very least be a giant step backwards, not a step forwards.

Posted by: Scott Harris on October 25, 2004 08:38 PM

S Harris, are these the quotes of an intelligent man?

10) "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

9) "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000

8) "I heard there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." —second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

7) "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' —Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

6) "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

5) "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

4) "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

3) "They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

2) "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

1) "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

I could add more....

Heres the reality in Iraq today-

The kidnapping of Margaret Hassan is shocking but not surprising. We have come to accept that the same thing might happen to any of our family or friends. In fact, it already has happened to my dearest friend Nada.
Last month, her nephew Baree Ibrahim, an engineer, was kidnapped. I remember Baree very well from the mid-70s. Here is his aunt's account of what happened:

"Dear Haifa,

"My nephew Baree was picked up on September 25 and no ransom was asked. Actually the kidnappers didn't contact his family, and this led us to believe that they mistook him for someone else as he looked so European. He was beheaded on SaturdayOctober 2.

"I had a phone call from his brother to tell me to tune to al-Jazeera. I saw on TV, Baree talking with mute sound and the writing at the bottom of the screen saying that Iraqi engineer Baree Nafee Dawood Ibrahim was beheaded by 'Jamaa ansar assunna' and the detail of the beheading procedure can be seen on one of the Islamic sites. I called my sister immediately. She was unable to answer the phone. They couldn't mourn him traditionally because the body was not found. A couple of days later his brother was in Baghdad. He and his cousins went every day to the hospital's mortuary to look for Baree's body but they couldn't find him. They even went to look for his body in side streets but to no avail.

"My sister and her immediate family are all now in Amman, Jordan and my other brother and sisters and their children are preparing to leave Iraqs for Syria. At the moment there are about 2 million Iraqi in Jordan and the same in Syria and Lebanon. Some 200,000 Christian Iraqis have fled the country in the last couple of months. This is the freedom and democracy promised to the Iraqis. Nada."

This is the daily reality in the new Iraq, especially in Baghdad. An average of 100 Iraqis are killed every day. Kidnapping for profit or revenge is widespread. Young girls are sold to neighbouring countries for prostitution.

Madeline Hadi, a nine-year-old girl, was kidnapped from her father's car in the al-Doura district of Baghdad. Zinah Falih Hassan, a student in al-Warkaa secondary school, also in Baghdad, was kidnapped on her way back from school. Asma, a young engineer, was abducted in Baghdad. She was shopping with her mother, sister and male relative when six armed men kidnapped her. She was repeatedly raped.

Mahnaz Bassam and Raad Ali Abdul Aziz were kidnapped last month along with two Italian aid workers and subsequently released. Unlike the Italians, the two Iraqis did not receive media attention in the west. No one prayed for them.

And aid workers are not the only victims - 250 university professors and scientists have been killed in the past year, according to the Union of University Lecturers, and more than 1,000 academics have left the country

Iraqi journalists are also frequently harassed, threatened and attacked by occupying troops. This year, 12 of the 14 journalists killed were Iraqi, and six Iraqi media workers were also killed. Many journalists have also fled the country.

More than 100 Iraqi doctors and consultants have been killed or kidnapped in the past year. A spokesperson for the Iraqi Medical Society described the kidnappings as "intimidating and forcing them to leave the country". The latest victim was Dr Turki Jabar al Saadi, chair of the Iraqi veterinary society. He was shot in the head on October 21. None of these killings has been investigated. These atrocities go unrecorded. The dead are unnamed.

There are indeed reasons for all this chaos, murder and mayhem. Those reasons lie in the nature of invasion, war and, most crucially of all, occupation.

The US-led occupation forces presented themselves as champions of liberation, freedom and democracy. What they have achieved is chaos, collective punishment, assassinations, abuse and torture of prisoners, and destruction of the country's infrastructure.

The "sovereign" interim government has, like the Iraqi Governing Council before it, proved to be the fig leaf shielding the occupying forces from Iraqis' frustration and outrage.

Powerless, and with no credibility among Iraqi people, the interim government's failure is disastrous. In addition to the lack of security, there is not the slightest improvement in electricity supply, the availability of clean water, employment, or health and education services. Fighting between occupying troops and various Iraqi groups has become widespread in more than 12 cities.

Without the consent of the Iraqi people, Ayad Allawi and President Ghazi al-Yawer declared that it was the wish of the populace that the occupying troops remain. They also stood aside while F16s and helicopter gunships showered densely populated areas in Sadr city, Falluja, Samraa, Najaf, Kut, Kufa, Tel Afar and elsewhere. The resistance in Falluja is now so persistent that Iraq's director of national intelligence admitted: "We could take the city, but we would have to kill everyone in it." British troops are going to be deployed to achieve this.

In his last monthly press conference before the invasion of Iraq on February 18 2003, Tony Blair said that removing President Saddam will "save a lot of lives" as well as removing the chemical and biological weapons." The people who will celebrate the most will be the people of Iraq, he continued.

We are not celebrating. Death is covering us like fine dust. Four-fifths of Iraqi people demand the immediate withdrawal of occupying forces from Iraq. Margaret Hassan is one of them. Will Tony Blair listen this time?

Posted by: Begbee on October 25, 2004 08:54 PM

Begbee,

You are obviously convinced of your choice, as am I. Quoting Bush stumbling over his words is a non-starter with me. As for the stories of atrocities in Iraq, I blame our enemy for these, not our soldiers, or our President. The question is not if bad things will happen in war. The question is what is the purpose of going to war. Anecdotal stories of horrors or conversely isolated successes are immaterial to the main question - however harsh that might sound to you. We haven't beheaded anyone. And trying to blame us for the actions of our enemy belies a lack of proper respect for the enemy, and is offensive to the those who are making the effort to free people like Ms. Hassan.

Posted by: Scott Harris on October 25, 2004 09:04 PM

S Harris if the mans own words cant convince you of his stupidity, consider his across the board failure as President. Or his record in the private sector, you know, Arbusto, Harkin, trading Sosa.

This war was sold to America on wmd, and that Iraq was a "grave and gathering threat." Iraq was no threat to anyone, not even their closest neighbors. We are responsible for what is Iraq today. As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you bought it."

Posted by: Begbee on October 25, 2004 09:19 PM

Begbee,

You're spitting in the wind. I already voted in early voting last Tuesday.

Posted by: Scott Harris on October 25, 2004 09:27 PM

Im not foolish enough to think I can change anyones mind that cares enough about politics to write here. But the people that just read...

The reality is I actually like Kerry and I live in SC, so my vote is meaningless.

Posted by: Begbee on October 25, 2004 09:37 PM

Begbee:

Eloquence is a wonderful gift, but one that many perfectly intelligent people lack.

Much like the ability to punctuate correctly.

Posted by: David on October 25, 2004 10:20 PM

Liberals may see Saddam's mass graves in Iraq as half-full, but I prefer to see them as half-empty.

--Ann Coulter

Posted by: Jeff Davis on October 25, 2004 10:36 PM

Our neighborhood is pretty blue, but there hasn't been any incivility.

Out neighborhood has been gentrified a lot over the last several years. What used to be working class Republican is now full of lawyers, teachers, upper level beuarcrats in big firms, and mostly Democratic. Ours is the last "working class" household (not professionally licenced or having hiring authority over others) in the block, and one of only three Republican households out of 30.

Posted by: Steven on October 25, 2004 11:03 PM

Begbee,

I'm sorry to hear that your friend's nephew was kidnapped and murdered in Iraq; or are you quoting someone else? Correct me if I'm wrong, tho, but mightn't that have happened at any time when Saddam was in power? Of course, it wouldn't have been on TV, then, would it? I don't know how industrial shredders affect Muslim burial practices.

I'd like to try to follow up on some of your statistics; can you provide links (preferably to something other than the Democratic Underground or Al Jazeera)? I especially wonder about the "Four-fifths of Iraqi people demand the immediate withdrawal of occupying forces from Iraq" claim. I can't imagine the NY Times not running a banner headline if that were true.

Posted by: PJ/Maryland on October 25, 2004 11:39 PM

Here's one undecided voter's ultimate, agonized decision:

http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/10/a_queasy_endors.html

I didn't read this thread, because I didn't know about it till tonight, but I did read a very long and illuminating threat on The Belgravia Dispatch (the link is in my post) with powerful arguments on both sides. I did not want to make a knee-jerk, peer-pressure-influenced decision either way (and I have strongly convinced friends and peers on both sides). I still respect the arguments on both sides, and I see that many people who've decided both ways are unhappy with their decisions. Whatever happens, I hope and pray we survive to have better choices in 2008.

Posted by: amba on October 26, 2004 12:22 AM

I thought I might put my two cents in regarding your vote this election. It is no Mark Steyn, but here goes: vote Bush. I try to listen with "fresh ears" to the candidates noise daily. Bush is simple and let's face it, he always says the same thing--"it's the war on terrah, stupid!" That gets old doesn't it? Can't he come up with something good or at least new and interesting. No, he can't. He knows that undecideds always want the new and interesting and hence are still undecided. The only cards he has to play are the same old ones-but they are blackjack baby. He knows he needs to hammer the fate of the free world home, because he is in a political Catch-22. He feels he has made the world so safe that you can have normal life priorities now. Yet, only if you recognize the depth of the terror will you vote Bush. And yet he doesn't waver--to the point of...losing the election. He doesn't waver. And he won't, even if it means the long ride home to Crawford in January. But he also won't waver if he stays in the White House. He is the same man regardless of outcome. And a man that will wager his political life on what he believes to be right for the country, may just be the right man for the job still.

Kerry will wager nothing. If you truly listen, every day he has a new cure for what ails ya. He is like the man with the medicine show in the old West. You pay a penny (allow for inflation...) and he gives you your life back to you new and improved. He is Regenex for your hair, Viagra for your sex life, wrinkle cream, alpha lipoic acid and the genie in a bottle all rolled into one. Like the side show medicine man, their is some effect, buoyed by the hope, real as anything, of ultimate success. And yet, no real change underneath. But hope and will to believe, brings you back and you lay another dollar down. Kerry says Bush is "never wrong". Well Kerry is never out of answers. He always has one. he can tell your future just guide him abit and he will give you the answers...if only he knew the future. I can't gamble on a man who knows all and yet has specifics for none. He sounds great, but he refuses to see his own realities, let alone the world's. He may well win. But he will have done it saying anything, solving everything for you and then you must rely on him to implement and hope he will. That is of course until the next "wonder cure" politician comes along. Edwards 2008, Clinton 2008. Bush...2004.

Posted by: Christine on October 26, 2004 04:59 AM

Hi,

I'm from France. Yes, I know, French are said to be supporting Saddam and Talibans. True. But fortunately not all of them.
I count on you to vote for your Commander-in-Chief again. The world needs him, because there are too many girlie idle statesmen around the world. Not only in France.
Iraq and Afghanisthan haven't been failures yet. But they will be if you allow someone else ruining the current plans, coming back to the stupid status quo that led to 9/11.
W president of the world, Tony vice-president, John Howard Foreign Office and Ann Coulter spokeswoman.

Posted by: Chris on October 26, 2004 07:22 AM

Begbee,

If I had hundreds of reporters watching my every move and recording my every utterance, they would have no trouble at all proving that I was barely capable of stringing words together in coherent sentences by picking and choosing quotes. They could also prove that I was a frickin' genius who had an uncanny ability to predict the future. They could probably prove all kinds of things.

Eloquence and intelligence are not strongly related.

I know plenty of people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable of current events who are going to vote for Bush. I also have a friend who is intelligent and thoughtful who is voting for Kerry. Though he is not as knowledgeable about current events.

Bolie IV

Posted by: Bolie Williams IV on October 26, 2004 09:17 AM

Someone commented that my daughter, who is very intelligent, would be President one day. I responded that she was far too intelligent to run for President. After reading the NYT article, I see that I was correct. I would have hoped that Presidents would be more intelligent, but I guess I'm not all that surprised.

Bolie IV

Posted by: Bolie Williams IV on October 26, 2004 09:19 AM

A friend of mine lives in Alabama (I don't know why?) and is a loyal Kerry supporter. All of his neighbors are Bush supporters. He wears a Kerry t-shirt every afternoon (I assume he washes it) and he has indicated to me that he has yet to receive one ill word. So Megan - there you have it.

Posted by: J Thomas on October 26, 2004 09:25 AM

Begbee:

I'm sorry for all the vicious murdering and torture that is still going on in Iraq. It is ugly and disgusting and horrible.

I am tempted to leave it at that, but I think you would think I am dodging your point: chaos reigns and it's President Bush's fault. So I'm going to answer your point.

President Bush and his advisors looked long and hard at our military history, at world military history, and at our campaign against the Taliban. They looked at the lessons of past and ongoing wars, and they made a decision.

Their decision was to invade Iraq, to use enough troops to successfully invade and topple Saddam's regime, but not enough troops to occupy, garrison, and otherwise police the country.

This was a controversial decision at the time. Many prominent miltary leaders came out against it. But Rumsfeld and President Bush stuck to it.

Now, there are many reasons to use more troops, and many reasons to use less. Any decision about how many troops to use necesssarily entails various trade-offs. It is not clear ahead of time, nor is it clear afterwards, what the optimal number of troops is. It may even be a question that has no real answer. I certainly don't know the answer.

If President Bush used too few troops, then that is a sickening tragedy. In my opinion, President Bush has earned my trust in spades, and until someone persuades me otherwise, I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt on this and several other war-related questions.

Christine:

I agree with you 100%. Excellent comment!

Brian:

The man used an epithet which is considered extremely
rude, "---m b--". No more hints...

Posted by: Matthew Goggins on October 26, 2004 10:29 AM

David, its true Im not much on spelling, and I have to proof read to get my punctuation correct. But this isnt an academic submission or a query letter, I write off those that comment on grammer as anal retentive fools that need to criticize, but are unable to do so on content.

PJ the op/ed piece is from a Iraqi novelist named Haifa Zangania. The stats are from the Pew research center, and its titled, Summary of Findings: A Year after Iraq War. Here is the latest polling data from Iraq-

Religious leaders ahead in Iraq poll
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.

B Williams how do you explain the fact that the media has followed the Presidents previous to Bush, yet none of those Presidents have anywhere near the volume of stupid quotes? How do you explain the fact that Bush was destroyed in the debates?

Posted by: Begbee on October 26, 2004 10:31 AM

I have a better experiment for you Jane. Make a shirt (you have a graphics program and a printer, right?) that says "Lesbians for Bush" and see what kind of reaction that gets.

On another note, I picked up 8 Mile in the discount DVD bin this week, and noted that the scene at the end was eerily similar to the Presidential debates, just a little shorter and a better beat.

BTW, I am voting for Bush, mainly because he can throw a baseball.

Posted by: Brad Hutchings on October 26, 2004 11:10 AM

I was in Fort Lauderdale this weekend and saw one lonely guy on a Rt. 1 median holding a Bush and Martinez sign and snappily saluting drivers who went by. The road passes through an older neighborhood of the city that has been colonized by middle-aged gays. The traffic one expects to be more diverse, but eastern Broward County is perhaps the most Democratic part of Florida outside of 90+% African-American precincts.

I refuse to be rude to political volunteers, but I did give him a thumbs down. I did volunteer work for a local campaign in the September primary and having an opposing voter give me a thumbs down was the one sign that made me smile. It was so goofy, like sticking out your tongue, that I couldn't get upset.

Posted by: Brittain33 on October 26, 2004 11:13 AM

I live in the decidedly right leaning city of Yorba Linda California, proud home of the Richard Nixon Library and birthplace. I have found however that as the city has grown in population we have an increasing number of liberal democrats, like me, living here.

Last Saturday I noticed someone stopped by main entrance to my community putting up a Bush sign on the publicly owned common area. I also stopped and told him not to bother as someone else is bound to take it down and he should put it on his own property where it would remain unmolested. I pointed out that this would be more respectful of his neighbors than his using our common areas to further his political cause.

He launched immediately into a vicious diatribe against me calling me a hater, stupid, and unworthy. I had my son in the car with me so we just rolled up the windows and left.

Later I noticed that his sign, put up just a couple of hours earlier, was indeed gone. So far, no Kerry or Bush sign has lasted more than a few hours anywhere in town except in front of homes.

Posted by: ken on October 26, 2004 02:54 PM

It is interesting for me to read through these comments. I have experienced a lof of nastiness since I put a Kerry Edwards sticker on my car and a pin on my jacket. Although I have never turned away from a reasonable political dialogue, I did have an experience where a Bush supporter chased me out of a store where I buy my coffee every morning. I had decided again defending my choice based on his tone of voice and his clever bit of wordplay using f------ A------- to describe my candidates. (I also have a bit of a problem engaging with someone who choses to read a magazine which has a picture of Homer Simpson on the cover)
I don't think that bad behavior is specific to one party. I think there are people on both sides who are not well informed. There are those that are going to do something stupid. It is not the "party" that encourages stupid behavior, it is the people themselves. Come On people...think about it.

Posted by: Beth on October 26, 2004 04:19 PM

Jane,

At the end of "Charade", Peter Joshua (Cary Grant) stands on one side, Carson Dial (Walter Matthau) on the other and Audrey Hepburn doesn't know who to trust... Which way to turn...

Hepburn pleads for Joshua to tell her why she should trust him. He replies, "I can't think of a single reason." Hepburn turns to Joshua.

Bush made mistakes but he really didn't lie about them. He believed what he was told. Recognized risk. Acted on it.

To listen to Kerry, every problem since Wonder Bread was caused by the Bush administration. Not only that, he, Kerry, has the answer and it won't cost you a thing.

He sounds like someone so desperate to be elected, he'd say anything. "Yeah, that's the ticket." Is the Kerry campaign is lying to the American people just to win the election or are they simply deluded. Which would be worse?

So when, like Audrey Hepburn, you turn, which candidate do you want to face?

Posted by: sbw on October 26, 2004 04:59 PM

clips below re: anyone going for Bush because it "makes us safer", or Kerry because of some idea he is less interventionist, and Russia illustrating the natural tendencies of incumbent parties to try to protect themselves from competition unless people are on their guard. Part of the dominance of our two parties is because the media and the parties keep repeating that we have a "two party system". Although obviously the current voting approach tends to lead that way, it can be overcome with work (and growth of the net's influence), and people
understanding that its sometimes the more, er, questionable candidates that take the effort to run for office which is why the LP needs to grow to change that. (unlike the Demopublicans where they just give in to letting the questionable candidates take over :-) currently just as mass culture often tends to lowest common denominator in TV shows (with some improvements after cable appeared and increased parties, er, i mean channels :-) and the net will open it up further ) the major parties tend towards surface image appeals to the lowest common denominator average intelligence voter who doesn't know much about politics and goes for "brand image" often, ie, "selfish if you aren't ilberal" (trademark), etc.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/print.html
> Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism. The
> International Institute for Strategic Studies in its most recent study
> warns that the Iraq occupation has spurred recruiting by smaller
> terrorist groups around the world. And acting CIA Director John
> McLaughlin worries that terrorists are plotting "something big"
> against the United States. For a time the Pentagon considered closing
> its child care center, lest it become the target of an attack. NRO
> columnist Goldberg observes that the president's contention that the
> war in Iraq has made America safer "is absurd." Goldberg backs the war
> for other reasons, but says it was probably "the risky thing in the
> short run."

http://cicada.typepad.com/cicada/2004/10/i_winced_when_j.html

> Now, even the UN http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3750350.stm
> is wincing at Kerry's inadvertant support for insurgents, this time
> in Haiti. The commander of the UN peacekeepers in Haiti has linked a
> recent upsurge in violence there to comments made by the US
> presidential candidate, John Kerry. Earlier this year Mr Kerry said
> that as president he would have sent American troops to protect
> Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was ousted from power in February. The
> Brazilian UN general, Augusto Heleno, said Mr Kerry's comments had
> offered "hope" to Aristide supporters. Much of the recent unrest has
> centred on areas loyal to Mr Aristide. More than 50 people have died
> over the past fortnight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1327936,00.html
> Kremlin to restrict small political parties
> Friday October 15, 2004
> The Guardian

> The Kremlin is increasing its stranglehold over political debate in
> Russia by getting pro-presidential deputies to introduce laws making
> it harder for smaller political parties to register. It also plans to
> increase the role of key officials of the president, Vladimir Putin,
> in party politics.

> Pro-Kremlin MPs yesterday proposed a bill that would change the rules
> for registering political parties.

> According to the bill, a party can only be registered if it has at
> least 50,000 members nationwide.

> Previously, a party needed more than 100 members in half of Russia's
> 89 regions, but it will now need 250 members in every region - and
> more than 500 in half of them.

> The bill was proposed by three parties which dominate the Duma: the
> pro-Putin United Russia party, the equally loyal Liberal Democratic
> party and the nationalist Rodina party. Together they command at least
> 296 of the 450 seats in parliament - more than enough to pass the law.

> Parties who do not satisfy the new rules will be denied registration
> and have to exist as "social organisations". This would impact
> primarily upon the smaller parties, such as Yabloko.

> Its politics is popular among the 20% of the population considered
> liberal, but it failed to gain enough votes to win any MPs during
> December's elections.

> Political analysts said the new rules allowed the Kremlin to decide
> which parties could exist.

Posted by: Bryan on October 26, 2004 05:00 PM

OK, Begbee, what's your deal? You give a string of cherry-picked off-the-cuff (that is to say, not rehearsed or edited) malapropisms from Bush and claim it's "content," but when someone notes that you yourself aren't the soul of eloquence (or grammar, or usage), you claim it's a low blow that doesn't answer your argument. You put forth the equation "Slip of tongue=dumb," but when you repeatedly commit the same silly un-sin, even though you, at least, have the ability to correct it because you're writing rather than speaking, we aren't supposed to draw the same conclusion?

The dull plastic knife cuts both ways, friend.

As for the substance of that particular argument, I'd argue that Kerry's made some pretty significant gaffes ("nuisance" springs to mind, as does "whoisalesbian," which I know you don't want to get back into). Please see the Pew Research Center's (to use one of your sources, even though I instantly distrust anybody respected by NPR these days) results on liberal bias in the media for the answer to your question concerning why other presidents haven't built up such an extensive library of unfortunate quotes. Though I'm sure you already know that.

Concerning the IRI poll about Iraqi support for religious leaders over the interim government, I quote from this link: http://www.iri.org/10-22-04-iraq.asp:

It has been reported that IRI's poll found "religious parties" and their leaders to be most popular with potential Iraqi voters. In fact, the poll found less than 40 percent of Iraqis indicating any level of support for a political party, and no single party receiving more than 8 percent support.

The same article points out that a significant majority (64%) of Iraqis believe that their country is on the right track. A majority nearly as significant (58%+) believe that Iraqi elections will be held before the 1/31/05 deadline (85% of respondents plan to vote). And perhaps just as importantly from an American-foreign-policy point of view, 52% believe that "religion and government should respect each other, but remain separate." When questioned about which cleric might be likely to influence their vote (not, please note, earn their vote as a candidate), al-Sadr was mentioned by only 5% of respondents, versus 53% for the moderate al-Sistani, who supports democratic reform.

Quagmire, quagmire.

Posted by: Jamie on October 26, 2004 05:37 PM

Begbee's a troll, folks. A nasty, angry troll who's gonna be a lot nastier and angrier a week from now.

Want a reason to vote for Bush? How about "Because it means the Begbees of the world lose"?

Posted by: RMc on October 26, 2004 07:16 PM

Jaime, every President in US history have had quite a few more news conferences and as many speaking engagements as jr. Wheres their never ending list of stupid comments? Seems to me mispelling potatoe one time ended D Quails political career. Bush is flat out the dumbest person to ever be President of the US, which completely dovetails with the fact he is the worst President in US history. Remember the debates? "Hardwork" and "Mixed Messages". I never said it was a low blow to attack my grammer. I said I write off anyone who chooses to comment on my grammer in the context of a message board, with no comment on the content of the post. Btw, Im devastated by the "dull plastic knife" comment from a whit as rapier sharp as yours.

Actually I have no problem revisiting Kerrys previous remarks you single out. Kerry said he wanted to return terror to a level when it was a nuisance, i.e. before Bushs incompetence allowed 911 to occur. Bush has stated "the war on terror is unwinnable" and followed up that rallying cry with "its up in the air if we will ever win the war on terrorism" on Handjob and Colmes last night. I have no problem with Kerrys comments on Cheneys daughter, nearly the exact same comments were made to Dick himself on national TV, and he thanked Edwards for "the kind words". Only the republican fear and smear machine can turn kind words into some sort of a political attack.

Only a desperate hrepublican would try to turn the fact that 2 years into the occupation of Iraq, 48% of Iraqis want a radical Islamic cleric to rule them into a positive. And you dont even mention the fact that the Sunnis will never allow any Shi'ite, like el Sistani, who btw is a moderate and for democracy only when compared to the Talaban, to lead in Iraq. Last I looked Alleli was a Sunni, which side do you think we are backing? Elections in Iraq will mean nothing, do you actually think people that have hated each other for centuries are going to quit killing each other because they were allowed to vote? I wrote at another site that the occupation was going to be the real war, while everyone else was celebrating the photo op of Saddams statue coming down and planning parades. Im telling you now, no matter who is President of the US, if Iraqs elections take place in January, the elections will only escalate the violence, because whichever Iraqi faction wins will be percieved to be in collusion with the US. One last thing, Alleli has recently stated that he thinks Kerry will be as good for Iraq as Bush. Wanna talk about damning with false praise...

Posted by: Begbee on October 26, 2004 07:46 PM

Rmc trolls live under bridges and eat stupid humans. Now I dont live under a bridge, dont care to sample long pig even if its your carcass, and REALLY WISH YOU WOULD HAVE SOME CONTENT SO I COULD PROPERLY HUMILIATE YOU AGAIN. Nice you quit posting under my screen name, fool.

Posted by: Begbee on October 26, 2004 07:52 PM

I can be a troll and post random snarky political crap while calling myself "begbee" too!
Wheee!

Posted by: Begbee on October 27, 2004 01:49 AM

Funny. This started as an indictment of the Libertarian candidate and ended up as a string of arguments for and against the two major party candidates. Of course, I recognize that this is top of mind these days, but the issue of the viability of the Libertarian Party in national politics is still worth some more consideration.

This summer, I attended a local meeting of the Libertarian Party where Gary Nolan was speaking. It was held at a, get this, bar-b-q joint. After Gary said his peace, he took questions. I asked him about his stance on Iraq and he gave the standard "Iraq is not the war on terror" answer. Fair enough, so I went on to ask how he planned to deal with the terror problem. I pointed out that there is a large contingent of Islamic radicals who have stated that they intend to destroy America. Before he could answer, I was shouted down by several of the attendees. They were railing about Bush and spouting all sorts of conspiracy theories, up to and including the ridiculous idea that Bush planned 9-11 so he could avenge the assassination attempt on his father and so that he could get access to the Iraqi oil.

This is the fundamental problem with the party - the wackos. The first thing that needs to happen if the party is going to be taken seriously is that these idiots need to be ostracized. The party needs to appeal to the ever-growing masses who support the ideas of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. As long as the conspiracy theorists are the picture of the party, it will always be considered a fringe group that is indistinguishable from the Green Party.

Check out www.enlightenedcaveman.com for some interesting reads on the political environment these days.

Posted by: wilson on October 27, 2004 02:18 AM

re: "blood for oil".

Whats interesting is that Buckley somehow feels its a better idea to
trade blood for oil than to confront the luddites and build US nuclear
power plants (perhaps isolated in the desert if need be to appease
fears, presumably the grid can ship the power and if not it could be
stored in fuel cells or whatever is needed). Better modern technology
can surely keep them safe, and if needed to appease the luddites
isolated enough where worst case there wont' be any nearby people to
be harmed by it, unlike blood spilled in a war. And I think
underestimates the potential of other technologies if the timescale to
run out of oil were moved up. Fuel cells and other technologies are
not that far off. I wonder what sort of N level multiply redundant
safeguarded nuclear plants could have been built for the cost of the
war if thats his justification for it.

Also, even if this wasn't started for oil, but Buckley propses there
is a justifiable trade of blood for oil, the question in each case is
whose blood and why? Shouldn't it be Iraqi's who choose to give blood
for their own oil, or mercenaries they hire to be paid from oil money?
Its not US oil (unless they choose to give us the land, become a US
territory of their own volition, etc, doubtful obviously). Its in the
interest of those their to sell the oil whether its now or in the
future, they aren't likely to just let a valuable commodity sit there
even if infrastructure is temporarily destroyed. If they don't sell to
us for some reason, to some other customer, then we buy oil
elsewhere. I'm not going to take time at the moment to look, but I
think Buckley is understating discovered but unexploited oil reserves
elsewhere.There seems to be this desire to prematurely control others
in the same fashion socialists wish to manage and control things that
we wish people should have free choice about.

If countries refuse to sell us oil, then we worry about it, and
presumably attempt negotiations before deciding to effectively go and
steal oil.

"but if it succeeds in building a democracy in the middle east, it
will be well worth the cost ". Wonder what those 10,000-15,000 Iraqi
civilians dead who didn't have a say in that choice of "cost" would
say. Obviously we think they are better off, though seems likely we
could have targeted Saddam personally vs. the country more cheaply and
let them sort out the mess among themselves, but of course presidents
don't target other heads of state because they don't wish to become
targets themselves since of course they feel its better to waste
thousands of other lives than to put themselves at a bit more risk.

After the Iraqi's have the election, should the paternalistic US run
things over there for them vs. letting things settle out which may
take a *long* time? "democracy" is a nice idea but in formerly
authoritarian countries it takes a while to truly work in the way
americans think of it vs. retreating into elected authoritarianism, as
is happening now in Russia, Venezuala, happened in Germany in the past
of course, etc.

The libertarian way of course would have been for those who feel the
cause of Iraqi democracy to chose to send their money to the Iraqi
opposition to fund it. Getting to choose whether instead to fund
uprisings to create democracy some other country, or some other cause
vs. whatever pet cause Bush saw fit to pursue. Perhaps re: oil the oil
companies counting it as a cost of doing business if they feared not
being able to buy oil in the future.

Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 03:01 AM

Oh, and I'm sure the response to the idea that people
could have chosen whether to send their money to the Iraqi opposition vs. some other cause elsewhere would be just the same as the cry for socialism for some particular task "that's impractical, you wouldn't raise enough money because people don't really value this cause as much as we think the should, those who wish to do this need to force you to pay for it through government since we know whats best simply because we outnumber you. Never mind if you think Democracy someplace else, or a cure for cancer, etc., is where you would make your own personal moral choice to your money, we legislate morality.".
And of course the cries of "defending America"
when of course its made us less safe and the Iraqi's weren't attacking us, and our complaint was with the leader not the whole country (and some creativity i'm sure would have come up with a better solution if needed just to take that guy out). I was telling people many months before the war that it didn't matter whether there were any WMD, Bush was going to go for it anyway, seemed pretty obvious. But the question is once they have
an election, isn't it then up to them to decide if
we should be there (if we are willing to be for some reason) vs. Bush or Kerry and what exactly
the US's role is? The US action caused the leader to be removed, once a leader is put in place it seems like the rest of the mess of Iraqi's fighting either other, etc, is their own internal problem, akin to being police/law enforcement, vs. ours other than simply providing them some reperations perhaps which they could chose to spend on mercenary help or whatever. Perhaps we have setup the wrong structure over there, inadvertently propped up the wrong leaders, etc.
We can attempt to educate people over their on our ways of thinking but we can't stay there forever holding guns to them until they think our way since or we could be there for who knows how long.
Money spent being there to keep things "safe" for them isn't spent to help those in other countries, or for other causes, or even if the money went to them as reparations its keep our troops over there for that cause vs. some other vs. being back here say policing borders (if thats even possible given the number of illegals that slip in, sort of a joke, but just noting that it isn't automatically a given that its wrong to just pull out quickly. perhaps it is, but the justification for doing so then needs to be thought through). Whats happened so far has happened, its a sunk cost, we cost them the leader so I can see the idea of sticking through the electon, then after that there is a seperate question of why and how long we stay.

Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 03:34 AM

groggy again, likely am not making the points well, just puzzled I guess as to any libertarians seriously thinking Bush has or will, or Kerry will, make us "safe" from Terrorism and that we need them to have the "strength" to wage a war
on terrorism apparently through finding ways to breed more terrorists rather than attempting to narrowly focus things as much as possible vs. using terrorism fear to justify policing the world
and molding it in our image, rather than focusing on defense as the Japanese are off peacefully safely doing for the most part aside from token help to their friendly trading partners.

btw, obviously I know its doubtful the way things work that there would have been private funding to overturn the Iraqi's and the first reaction as I noted is that its a silly idea because it wouldn't have happened (the way the world currently thinks). My point however isn't to seriously think the way things currently are that anyone would have gone for that policy (ie, forget any "idealistic/impractical libertarian fantasy type comments, I don't think realistically that would have happened. Though the question then is still why this approach was appropriate or moral and why libertarians latched onto it. Just trying to get hawkish libertarians to question their assumptions for reference in future situations also. and to remember that the more we let the Iraqi's back under their own control and be in charge as quickly as possible the less hatred we continue to brew against us in the mideast for being over there and forcing our way of doing things on them since we think we know whats best.

I suspect some folks were Hawks initially due to the justification used of WMD and Terrorism and even though logically may have adapted to those not being the reason are perhaps still holding on to conclusions based on those reasons without having gone back to rethink things but still reflexively a bit Hawkish since thats the way they started and the US is "in the middle of it".

It may be that we need to take the course Bush or Kerry propose there, but just suggesting libertarian skepticism of the status quo since the
election there is a turning point and the past should be considered a sunk cost and not a constraint on future approaches.

also what approach do we take in the war on terror if the current approach makes us less safe and why. Did those Libertarians who began all this with hawkish impulses (sensing it perhaps still there for some re: other countries) feel the need to have the daddy govt. do *something* to calm fears of terrorism even if it makes us less safe since we inspire more hatred over there (vs. Japan off doing its own thing peacefully), the way the socialists wish the govt. to *do* something to calm fears the market won't take care of something the way they wish even if it means everone winds up worse off? and assuming others are guilty till proven innocent the way nanny govt. in this country tends to assume individuals are guilty until proven innocent (ie, regulate to prevent harm from being done, attempt to find perfect security, needing to prove we are innocent before we act so we must be overregulated to ensure that).

Also I'm curious about some libertarians still seem to be giving hints of thinking in this mode that somehow attacking countries won't make them hate us more and inspire
more terrorism. Its seems to me akin to domestic issues where there is this desire to reflexively turn to the government to do something when we have fears vs. when libertarians skeptically question whether the govt. is the best answer and whether we are right to force our choices and will on others even if we disagree with their approaches, as long as they aren't harming us. Individuals harmed us, not the other governments and not the bulk of the people of these countries.

Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 04:27 AM

oops, I meant libertarians with hawkish impulses of course not Libertarians. and I phrased it wrong re: alternative use of troops, guarding borders has more appropriate connotations than policying.
I just realized how verbose/repetitive i was,
sorry, I'll avoid temptation to respond to this stuff
when i'm up late and sleepy, think it through better when i'm awake (just been more productively busy with other stuff then).

Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 04:41 AM

Goodness, Begbee, how you do go on. Seems to me I answered your oft-repeated "point" about Bush's intelligence, or in your opinion lack thereof, by noting that (a) you yourself, who want to be taken seriously in this forum, don't even bother to correct your most egregious (if unimportant) spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors - much like Bush forgetting the text of an old saying like "Fool me once...", and (b) the liberal bias in the media has been clearly demonstrated and backed up by members of the media themselves, which certainly permits one theory as to why Bush's verbal missteps (as well as Quayle's misspelling) get so much play.

Further, I opined that Kerry's using the word "nuisance" to describe the emotionally charged issue of terrorism within our shores was a gaffe - which it surely was, since a whole lot of people have responded to it as such. Likewise his "whoisalesbian" comment, which a whole lot of people have also decried. A gaffe is a "socially awkward or tactless act" or in these cases, statement; its truth has no bearing on people's response to it. Thus, Bush's verbal acrobatics might be embarrassing to him, but that's all. Kerry's comments, delivered in his nice sonorous tones, have proven to be embarrassing to him as well, in that his campaign has had to waste a great deal of time defending him rather than "getting to the issues," as they say they'd like to.

Or possibly his comments weren't gaffes at all, but instead part of a brilliant (we all know he's brilliant, right? Anybody not on board with that?) strategy to keep off the issues as much as possible, since "I have a plan" and "I can do better" aren't awfully substantive.

You respond by belittling my "whit" (which is just fine, thanks, and is spelled "wit," one of those tricky three-letter words with which we all struggle) rather than addressing my argument.

Did you take offense just then when I corrected your spelling? One difference between us, I think, is that I know that spelling and intelligence are not correlated, and therefore I bothered with this trivial spelling correction only to make this point; you believe that public speaking ability and intelligence are, and you consider this false assumption a reasonable basis for deciding on a president. Another difference: you apparently have trouble with certain simple statistics, interpreting "52 percent of respondents expressed the opinion that religion and government should respect each other, but remain separate" (from this link: http://www.iri.org/10-22-04-iraq.asp) as "48% of Iraqis want a radical Islamic cleric to rule them" (from Begbee's post, somewhere up there).

Get out your whitstone; you may be needing it.

Posted by: Jamie on October 27, 2004 11:17 AM

Just seven more days before I spray spittle all over my keyboard! Wheeeee! (Oh, wait...I'm doing that already...)

Posted by: Begbee on October 27, 2004 02:00 PM

"total price tag to about $225 billion"

People only work part time to pay for the government of course, but in effect that works out to drafting the household income for a year of over 5 million households.

re: the "blood for oil" trade, I don't want the government playing venture capitalist, but to illustrate the point you can likely imagine that alternative energy technologies, rather than fossil fuel or fission, could have been created for that much.

I'm more awake now, try to clarify my points which are intended to
inspire thought, which may lead to the same approach Bush/Kerry would take or may not re: continuation in Iraq. One thing to remember is that if the goal was getting rid of WMD: we've already "won". If the goal was getting rid of Saddam then we've already won. What is our goal now, what constitutes winning and why and with what justification are we using US resources to win that?

Obviously the US made a mess of things over there and there is some inherent obligation it seems to help restore order.

Consider 3 causes of mess/chaos over there:
1. Chaos caused by the US getting rid of the old Iraqi govt.
2. The mess caused by the US due to physical destruction of the war
3. The existing disputes between factions over there which the US did not
create but which became visible and harmful due to the other sources of chaos.

Number 1 and 2 obviously need to be addressed by the US.
The US is helping to repair number 2, physical damage, though it seems as though after the Iraqi govt. is elected they should be entirely in charge of that process and its unclear aside from reparations money what role the US govt. should have in that. Iraq may hire US companies, but should the US force its own choice of preferred no bid contractors on it? Perhaps they'll go along with US recommendations but thats their issue.

The US has will soon have gotten them through an election to repair number 1 (although i'd be curious how much inappropriate influence we'll have (vs. Iraqi's own choices) in the initial newly elected government). Once that is in place, the question is how much beyond that its appropriate for the US to do, depending on what the Iraqi's want.

The reason is number 3 we did not cause, that is part of a country evolving towards true peaceful democracy. For humanitarian reasons and guilt over
feeling like we put them in a position where number 3 is still an issue
perhaps we do need to help them. But we must be careful to realize that too much interference in internal squabbles and maintenance of military over there is not likely perceived well by the mideast that hates us interfering over there. We also must be careful to realize that at some point we've switched from this effectively being part of restitution for what the US did over to it being a humanitarian mission. The question is, given their are lots of humanitarian causes in the world, which ones should be funded and by what mechanism. How much should being stuck in a rut effect choice of one vs. another when effectively the restitution level help is done. There is also the issue then of whether the US is then being a mercenary force that the Iraqi's need to pay for helping quell their internal squabbles.

If hawks propose intervention in other places I think its important to clearly separate out the reasons for doing so and the alternatives. ie, if its for humanitarian reasons to give them the sort of democratic govt. we wish to see, there are lots of humanitarian causes to choose among. If the justification is anti-terrorism, are we making ourselves less safe in actuality rather than more?

Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 04:01 PM

Jamie, the only reason I tend to be long winded in dealing with you, is that you leave me with so much to correct. I post here as a hobbie, proofreading or doing this on Excel then transferring my writing here, would be to much like work to be enjoyable. My philosiphy on message boards is that if the spelling and grammer isnt so bad as to change the meaning of my words, its good enough. Bush, on the other hand is paid a large salary and has the greatest percs in the world as a result of his job. A primary part of the Presidency is public speaking, remember in July when Bozo died all you reps went on and on about the "Great Communicator"? No other President has demonstrated ignorance and stupidity publically 1% as often as Bush has. And the mistakes are much more then the verbal "gaffes" that you write off as nothing, I consider these "gaffes" to be part of the big picture of Bushs term, and thats a complete lack of preparation. Bush has been left stuttering and stupid on national television on questions like, "What mistakes have you made?" and "What is your administrations position on Kasmir?". Not to mention "Kosavans", "Grecians", "misunderestimate", etc.. Those quotes arent "verbal acrobatics", there pure stupidity.

Your attempt to equate Kerrys verbal skills with Bushs complete lack of verbal skills, makes me think you must be as stupid as Bush. Didn't you watch the debates? Even the polling gives Kerry three large margin wins over jr.

The liberal media stuff is complete garbage, are you suggesting these Bush quotes are made up by the media? And if you have a single source of a scientifically valid study that confirms your "liberal media" claims, post it.

Now that I have corrected the record as to why Bush is stupid, and not merely "bad at public speaking", I'll now address your only point on content. If 48% of Iraqis dont believe religion and politics should be seperate, who do you think they want to lead them? The Pope?

Jaime, next time try to bring some content, and dont spend so much time vastly overestimating my opinion of what you think.

Rmc your right about my spraying spittle on my computer screen. But its only because of how hard Im laughing at you. 6 MORE DAYS!! 6 MORE DAYS!!

Posted by: Begbee on October 27, 2004 07:26 PM

Interesting, so even Japan's minimal non combat
support made them a target (at least over in Iraq). Perhaps they'll learn their lesson
quicker than the US will:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20041028/wl_nm/iraq_japan_dc
>Japan Seeks Iraq Hostage Release as Deadline Nears
...
>Japan has sent about 550 non-combat troops to
>Samawa, 168 miles south of the Iraqi capital,
>Baghdad, for humanitarian and reconstruction work.
...
>The troop dispatch has divided the Japanese
>public and many critics say it violates Japan's
>pacifist constitution.
...
>A poll published by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper
>on Monday showed that 63 percent of respondents
>opposed Japan's plan to extend the deployment of
>its forces in Iraq.

btw, the concern I expressed re: how long the US
stays their helping Iraq in its intenal squabbles
is in part guessing that they may not be
resolved for a very long time, and in fact might
be made worse by the US being there, and the US
should't be deciding what approaches to take
to deal with their internal strife (being
perhaps perceived as imposing our will by others in the mideast even if we are just trying to keep peace). I can imagine also that some of those over there likely relying on peaceful voting process if they think the US may rig the election at all, I can imagine that whatever precautions are taken there would likely be some distrust over there.
It was rather predictible this mess would occur of
course.

Its a shame of course that US troops who enlisted
to "defend" the country, especially those who died
over there, were/are conned into believing thats
whats going on. Its a shame they couldn't have
been given a choice on whether to go to Iraq and
been told "this is not really defending our
country, it will in fact make us less safe likely overall, it is a mission to get rid of the Iraqi leader and turn it into a democracy for the sake of the people there (and to some tiny extent neighboring countries who likely woudln't have been threatened after what we did to them the last time the entered another country)). Its your
choice if you wish to risk dying for this rather than sticking to just defending our country."

Posted by: Bryan on October 27, 2004 10:53 PM

Begbee,
"The liberal media stuff is complete garbage,..."

Is it? o_O

In that case why did one liberal journalist proclaim the media's support of Kerry as worth 15% of the votes that will be cast? o_O

http://instapundit.com/archives/016534.php

And if we assume that people put their money where their heart is then what should we do with the fact that the journalists who donated more to the Left vastly outnumber the few who donated to the Right?

http://www.mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2004_07_15_mpetrelis_archive.html#108993629656421197

(via Instapundit)

BTW, do you think that poor Mr. Rather would have been so eager to use the CBS forgeries if his motives were apolitical? Isn't it interesting that he was a speaker at a Democratic rally before those broadcasts if he were truly neutral? Just my 2 cents. I'll look forward to your response. ^_~

Posted by: Small Pink Mouse on October 27, 2004 11:18 PM

"No other President has demonstrated ignorance and stupidity publically 1% as often as Bush has."

Oh? Ever hear this rhyme?

"John Quincy Adams who can write,
Andrew Jackson who can fight."

It was written by a supporter of Adams who sought to exalt his candidate over Jackson. I suspect if you trade the sort of things that Adams or Calhoun supporters wrote against Jackson with the things that Kerry supporters write against Mr. Bush today by switching names you would have a hard time telling the difference between the 2. About the only giveaway would lie in the fact that the 19th century slurs would be more eloquent and show a higher level of education. The same is true with the things that the supporters of Stephan Douglas, George McClellan and Jefferson Davis routinely wrote against Abraham Lincoln. In all these cases the specimens of urban folklore written against Jackson, Lincoln, Reagan, and Bush represent the same thing; The demented screams of a decayed political class who have been made deranged by the knowledge that they are on the way down. It's an interesting paradox that it's that very dementia that accelerates their decline. The fact that Democrats would show up at ANSWER rallies without caring who ANSWER was might be taken as an example of this. Sad but true. My only question is whether the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party will be able to pick up the pieces after everything goes to smash for the Democrats in this election. That, and that alone, will determine whether the Democrats are merely the victims of a cyclic decline from which they will recover or are truly on their way to the scrapheap of history.

Posted by: Small Pink Mouse on October 28, 2004 12:09 AM

Below is a survey done a few months back by
Pew of other countries attitudes a year after
the war. To me it seems like the attitudes of
muslims sort tends to indicate Iraq and other interference over there would tend to breed
terrorists and make us less safe:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
>A Year After Iraq War
>Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists
...
> A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies
> has intensified rather than diminished.

> 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.

> In the four predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, opposition to the
> war remains nearly universal. Moreover, while large majorities in
> Western European countries opposed to the war say Saddam Hussein’s
> ouster will improve the lot of the Iraqi people, those in Muslim
> countries are less confident. In Jordan, no less than 70% of survey
> respondents think the Iraqis will be worse off with Hussein gone.

> Americans have a far different view of the war’s impact on the
> war on terrorism and the global standing of the U.S. than do
> people in the other surveyed countries. Generally, Americans think the
> war helped in the fight against terrorism, illustrated the power of
> the U.S. military, and revealed America to be trustworthy and
> supportive of democracy around the world. ...

> These notions are not shared elsewhere. Majorities in Germany, Turkey
> and France – and half of the British and Russians – believe the
> conflict in Iraq undermined the war on terrorism. At least half the
> respondents in the eight other countries view the U.S. as less
> trustworthy as a consequence of the war. For the most part, even
> U.S. military prowess is not seen in a better light as a result of the
> war in Iraq.

> But there are deep differences about whether the U.S. or the United
> Nations would do the best job of helping Iraqis to form such a
> government. The U.N. is the clear choice of people in Western Europe
> and Turkey; Americans are divided over this issue. However, roughly
> half of Jordanians and a third of Moroccans volunteered that neither
> the U.S. nor the U.N could do best in this regard.

> ... Publics in the surveyed countries other than the United States
> express considerable skepticism of America’s motives in its global
> struggle against terrorism. Solid majorities in France and Germany
> believe the U.S. is conducting the war on terrorism in order to
> control Mideast oil and dominate the world. People in Muslim nations
> who doubt the sincerity of American anti-terror efforts see a wider
> range of ulterior motives, including helping Israel and targeting
> unfriendly Muslim governments and groups.

> But large majorities in Jordan and Morocco hold negative views of both
> the U.N. and the man who leads it.

> there is still considerable hostility toward the U.S. in the Muslim
> countries surveyed. Substantial numbers in each of these countries has
> a negative view of the U.S. Overwhelming majorities in Jordan and
> Morocco believe suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners
> in Iraq are justifiable. As a point of comparison, slightly more
> people in those two countries say the same about Palestinian suicide
> attacks against Israelis.

> About half of Pakistanis also say suicide attacks on Americans in Iraq
> and against Israelis in the Palestinian conflict are
> justifiable.

> Fewer respondents in Turkey agree, but slightly more Turks view
> suicide attacks on Americans in Iraq as justifiable as say the same
> about Palestinian attacks on Israelis (31% vs. 24%).

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796
> Outside of the United States, people in the surveyed countries give
> the U.S. and its allies poor marks for addressing the needs of the
> Iraqi people as they rebuild the country.... There has been a modest
> rise in the number of Jordanians who say the U.S. and the allies have
> done at least a good job in this regard; 27% express that view now,
> compared with 17% a year ago. Still, most Jordanians (65%) say the
> allies have done a fair or poor job in addressing the needs of Iraqis
> in the rebuilding effort. Fewer than one-in-five in the other Muslim
> nations surveyed Turkey (16%), Morocco (16%) and Pakistan (10%)
> believe the U.S. and its allies have done a good job in meeting
> the needs of the Iraqi people.

> In every country except the United States more people say the war in
> Iraq has hurt the fight against terrorism than say it has
> helped. Fully two-thirds of Moroccans (67%) say military action in
> Iraq has done more harm than good in this regard, as do solid
> majorities in Germany (58%), Pakistan (57%), Turkey (56%) and France
> (55%).

> Even in Great Britain, 50% say the war in Iraq hurt the broader
> struggle against terrorism while just 36% say it helped the war on
> terrorism. As on other questions related to Iraq, Americans take a
> very different view. By more than two-to-one (62%-28%), Americans say
> the war in Iraq helped, not hurt the war on terror.

> Similarly, majorities in all eight of these countries say they have
> less confidence that the U.S. wants to promote democracy globally.

> In Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey and Morocco, where most oppose the war on
> terrorism, the prevailing view is that the U.S. is overreacting to the
> terrorist threat.

> Majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed do not believe that
> the U.S.-led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce
> international terrorism....There is even more skepticism of the
> motives for the war on terrorism in predominantly Muslim countries. By
> wide margins, the publics of Turkey, Morocco, Jordan and Pakistan
> question America's sincerity in this effort. In Pakistan, just 6% see
> the effort as a genuine attempt to reduce international terrorism,
> while 58% say it is not.

> Majorities in seven of the nine nations surveyed believe that
> controlling Mideast oil supplies is an important reason why the
> U.S. is conducting the war on terrorism. This view is not only
> widespread in Jordan (71%), Morocco (63%) and Pakistan (54%), but also
> in Turkey (64%), Germany (60%) and France (58%).

> Majorities in five of the nine countries surveyed say that the U.S. is
> conducting the war on terrorism in order to dominate the world. This
> view is particularly widespread in Jordan (61%), Turkey (61%) and
> Morocco (60%). But roughly half of the French (53%) and Germans (47%)
> also believe that world domination is an important factor in the
> U.S. fight against terrorism.

> Large percentages of people in predominantly Muslim countries also
> believe the anti-terrorism effort is driven by the desire of the
> U.S. to protect Israel. Seven-in-ten Jordanians hold this view, about
> as many as see the war as an attempt by the United States to control
> oil in the Middle East (71%). A majority of people in Morocco (54%)
> and slightly fewer in Turkey (45%) and Pakistan (44%) also see
> protecting Israel as an important reason for America's actions.

> About half of respondents in the four Muslim countries surveyed
> and roughly four-in-ten in France and Germany also say the
> U.S. is conducting the war on terrorism to target unfriendly Muslim
> governments and groups. For the most part, however, this is not
> mentioned as frequently by Muslim publics as other possible
> U.S. motives. In Jordan, for example, 53% say the U.S. is waging the
> war to target unfriendly Muslim governments; significantly more
> Jordanians see the anti-terrorism campaign driven by America's desire
> to control oil supplies in the Middle East and to protect Israel.

> Generally, people in the largely Muslim nations surveyed are divided
> over whether suicide bombings and other violence against civilian
> targets are justified in order to defend Islam against its
> enemies. Fully three-quarters of those interviewed in Turkey (76%) say
> such attacks are rarely or never justified. But more people in
> Pakistan and Morocco say suicide attacks in the defense of Islam are
> justifiable: roughly four-in-ten in each country say these attacks are
> often or sometimes justified (41% Pakistan, 40% Morocco).

> There is broader agreement that suicide attacks in specific
> circumstances against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq, and
> by Palestinians against Israeli citizens are justified. Large
> majorities in Jordan (70%) and Morocco (66%) believe suicide bombings
> carried out against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are
> justifiable. Nearly half of those in Pakistan agree (46%), while 36%
> say such attacks are not justifiable. In Turkey, most respondents
> (59%) feel attacks against Americans in Iraq are not justified, but
> about three-in-ten (31%) say that they are.

Posted by: Bryan on October 28, 2004 02:32 AM

SPM I asked for a scientific study that proved liberal media bias. Not the anecdotal claims of a single journalist, and not a survey that I cant find the details on as the page listed is "unfound", and likely depends on self reporting of donations of randomly selected reporters.

Heres what I know about the media. I know the op/ed pages are dominated by the Krauthammers, Charens, Novaks, Wills, Raspberrys, etc. I know the most popular cable news channel is Fox, and the most popular cable political TV show is Orielly. I know B Mahr was run off ABC for simply stating that the 911 terrorists weren't cowards. I also know that some of the newspapers that endorsed Bush last election, are now suddenly "liberal" because they endorse Kerry this election. I wont argue that say, the NY Times has a liberal tilt, but the other major NY paper has a conservative tilt.

SPM I dont have a clue what your getting at with the JQ Adams stuff. Im talking about stupid things Bush said himself, your whining about things other people said about Adams. Bush is stupid. Most of the people here would have better represented the rep party at the debates. I dont understand how any responsible voter could vote for a guy that has virtually no command of the issues after four years as President. Clinton grew into his role as President, Bush has been overwhelmed by the Presidency. First the Pats, then the Sox, and soon Kerry will be President. Quite the year to be from NE.

Posted by: Begbee on October 28, 2004 10:58 AM

Begbee,

I can't remember the last time someone outside my immediate family has called me stupid, or even implied I was stupid.

This may mean I'm stupid, and everyone is just too tactful to bring it up with me. But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate I'm not stupid most of the time.

Moreover, I have some experience speaking in public, ranging from small groups to groups of close to a thousand people.

I am a firm backer of President Bush and most of his policies. But if I had to go on stage, before a national TV audience, and debate Senator Kerry, I suspect most people would quickly conclude I was an ape-like moron, and Senator Kerry would be mainly concerned in not embarassing me to death.

In short, you use the word "stupid" a lot, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Matthew Goggins on October 28, 2004 11:29 AM

M Goggins I never called you stupid. Your public speaking skill are irrelevant, your not President. Consider this, if Bush were as intelligent as Kerry, dont you think he could have sold this war alot better? Bush can't even have a press conferance for fear of taking questions, how does that build trust when the nations ar war? Bush is clearly stupid. If the debates, the press conferences, and speeches arent enough to convince you, consider his across the board private sector failures.

Posted by: Begbee on October 28, 2004 12:25 PM

Begbee, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had called me stupid.

My point is, if President Bush fumbles a question in a debate, or sounds weird in a press conference, he's still doing a heck of a lot better than I probably would.

I not only believe Bush is smart, I know he's smart. I know a lot of smart people, and I've observed President Bush very closely (from a distance, though, not in person) for a long time. President Bush is a smart, very bright guy.

I would not hesitate to hire him to run or manage any enterprise I was associated with.

He does sometimes screw up to a certain degree while speaking extemporaneously in public. But very few persons never screw up when speaking off the cuff, and those persons are not necessarily the brightest folks you can find.

Moreover, President Bush is very good at delivering prepared speeches, even in very stressful circumstances.

Posted by: Matthew Goggins on October 28, 2004 03:55 PM

Further below comments on new estimate of
Iraqi deaths of 100,000 (and this didn't risk
breeding terrorists among survivors???)

Most people aren't now worried about the nuclear threat of Russia but
instead about the threat of terrorists acquiring bombs.

Similarly re: nuclear efforts in Iran, etc. Isn't it likely that if we
trying to stop them and imposing sanctions they will ignore (since the
leaders aren't the ones hurt by them) , or hinting of military action,
and simply proposed working to help prevent spread of the material to
terrorists, that they would be more likley to be honest and
cooperative with the US to try to do limit the spread of material
which might just as easily wind up in the hands of factions hostile to
its government? Trade is more likely to improve relations with
countries than the absence of it. As someone said, when goods don't
cross borders then troops will.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=6&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll_4

> By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer

> LONDON - A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many
> as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18
> months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the
> death rate before the war.
> ...
> There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the
> conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000
> to 30,000.

Consider the percentage of the Iraqi population represented by the
death tollestimate (that estimate will get play in the mideast regardless of
its accuracy). To understand how they might feel, the same percentage
of the US population (which is over 10 times their population, closer
to 12 but i'll use 10 to make the point) would be over 1million
people, with even the prior lower estimate would be the equivalent of
100,000 to 300,000 Americans. Somehow I suspect many of the survivors will be a bit anti-American
as may others in the mideast.

Posted by: Bryan on October 28, 2004 04:21 PM

Megan wrote on Instapundit something puzzling,
>They go for Kerry for precisely the reason I'm thinking of doing so:

refering to a quote from The Economist with the conclusion:

> Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for
> accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters
> should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable
> alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a
> better position to carry on with America's great tasks.

Either major party candidate will attempt to
maniuplate public opinion to be that he was
voted *for* since its in their own interest.
That his non libertarian ideas were approved
of, etc. It won't be in his self interest to
view it as a vote "against" (even if it was)
regardless of what the polls say initially.
and if the winner is Kerry then of course the
media will play it up as being in support of
his healthcare plan, etc, etc. After the
election the other candidate is out of the
picture and they'll attempt to spin things in
a positive fashion for them and people will
likely fall for it.

so, re: Megan's comment, huh? The msg won't be perceived as "accountability" vs. support for Kerry,
and even if it were, what does that matter since it wont' decrease the
rate of errors of any future president as if they weren't somehow not worried
about making mistakes without hearing that msg.
Kerry likley would have made the same mistakes. Regardless a vote
for Kerry will be seen as a vote for unaccountability of the big govt policies
of Bush since they will be continued and he'll try to make them worse.

It ignores the idea of holding both major parties "accountable" by voting against them in a clear
way (and it *will* be viewed as more a protest
vote by the media, to go in a libertarian
direction, than as a vote for the LP's specifics
since the media knows most won't know details
and the liberal media will doubt people really want to go that far towards libertarianism since
its thinking is so alien to the media)

It is a vote for bigger government, making us less safe, etc.

Posted by: Bryan on October 28, 2004 05:04 PM

I tend to think that if for some reason people
wished to see the govt. spend money on something
to make us safe over there, there are likely
more effective techniques using the carrot rather
than stick approach if they were creative.
I personally wouldn't be into an idea i'll
suggest due to libertarian qualms. Its not thought
out completely, just off top of head now. It may
be a silly idea but the point is that it seems
like there often isn't much thought to how to
persuade countries to do things other than
resorting too quickly to a stick (whether force,
or trade sanctions). At first glance it seems better than the current approach.

Incent these countries to help out against the
terror war by giving them something positive,
like $X spread out over N years if there are
no terrorist attacks, with the amount dropping by
$Y for each attack traced to someone from or using
their country. They get a bounty for bin Laden
and other captures related to 9/11 but then
again lose money if any future attacks occur
to prevent bounty-seeking. Make it something
like say in the form of medicine, food, whatever
humanitarian aid (ie, socialist approaches
libertarians don't go for, but better than war), or even to show tolerance some aid (though i an
imagine screams from those who see it as violation
of seperating religion from govt) to non-fanatic
religious islamic groups to show we aren't anti-islam. There can be a propoganda campaign that the terrorists are hurting the countries, to
they are traitors, to turn them in. Perhaps for bin laden give a choice of charities a $1billion
bounty could go to so it incents the individuals
who have particular causes to go for it. There would be corruption re: the grants, even with goods, but goods are perhaps better than direct $ to make it a little more hopeful it goes to the
right place (though if the people there think it
does, thats what matters).

Obviously there are potential flaws that
can be found in this approach (and from
a libertarian standpoint its still using our
money to do this, and also getting the people
over there used to government handouts). The
point is if for some reason people can't seem
to avoid this desire to stop meddling over there,
perhaps positive carrot meddling will make us safer even if the approach I suggested doesn't
work, come up with another. Perhaps there isn't
any, but the current approach makes things
worse. not that i'm hopefully any reasonable
idea would actually be adopted, but punish both
parties for mindless no-brainer