Everything I Know Is Wrong

Iwo Jima, if covered by media today

Zell Miller lampoons and lambastes mainstream media in this Washington Times op-ed. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:

[...]

Cutie to camera: "No one has yet really confirmed why this particular battle in this particular place is even being waged. Already, on the first day, at least 500 Marines have been killed and a thousand wounded. For this? (Camera pans to a map with a speck of an island in the Pacific. Then a close up of nothing but black volcanic ash). For this? For this?" (Cutie's sweet voice becomes more strident as it fades out.)

DAY 2

At 7 a.m., Cutie's morning show opens with a shot of hundreds of dead bodies bobbing in the water's edge. Others are piled on top of each other on shore. After a few seconds, one can see Marines digging graves to bury the dead.

Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen.

Give us your opinions on these three questions:
1. Were the Marines properly trained?
2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives?
3. Has the president once again misled the American people?

"After the break, we'll ask our own Democratic and Republican analysts, both shouting at the same time, of course, what they have to yell about all this. It should make for a very shrill, provocative morning.

"But before we leave this horrible — some will say needless — scene, let us give you one more look at this Godforsaken place where these young Americans are dying. Volcanic ash, cold, wet miserable Marines just thankful to be alive. And still no flag that we had been promised on that mountain. Things have gone from bad to worse in this obviously misguided military operation. One thing is certain, there should be and there will be a high-partisan — make that bi-partisan — congressional inquiry into this."

Go read the whole thing. You'll either laugh or cry; I don't know.

Mark Dayton is an Idiot

And weird, too.

I voted for one of our two Minnesota Senators, and Mark Dayton isn't the one. Mr. Dayton’s notorious “loonyness” is showing again.

FOX News
Sen. Mark Dayton has decided to shut down his Senate office on Capitol Hill until after the election on Nov. 2 because of what he considers to be "an unacceptably greater risk" to the safety of his staff and constituents.

Senator Dayton said he was closing his office because of information he had received in a top secret briefing along with other members of congress.

Dayton said he could not disclose details of the intelligence report because of its classified nature, but revealed it was presented to senators at a briefing two weeks ago by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search), R-Tenn.

[...]

Frist spokeswoman Amy Call downplayed Dayton's decision to shut down the office, saying the briefings have been ongoing and date back to August when Capitol Police were put on high alert. She said members "certainly make their individual decisions," but indicated there was nothing new to prompt such a decision.

The FBI found Dayton’s reaction “perplexing” as their intelligence has not yet provided specifics.

"We do not know the who, what, when, where or how" an attack might occur, the official said without further comment.

Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland Security Department spokesman, said the department had no intelligence indicating Al Qaeda intends to target any specific U.S. locations.

Added Capitol police spokesman Michael Lauer: "There's been no specific threats against the Capitol complex. We continue to be on guard now, all the way up to the election and all the way through the inauguration."

So why is the Senator who is very likely going to take away John Kerry’s title of “most liberal” running away? Nobody knows.

Could it have to do with the fact that Minnesota is in play for the Republicans for the first time in a while? Will this feed into some strategy the DNC has planned for the next three weeks? Local news is already Ooo-ing and Ah-ing over Senator Dayton's possible motivations in a what-does-he-know-that-we-don't-know-he-is-after-all-an-important-senator-and-a-Democrat-so-we-can-trust-him kind of way.

Stay tuned.

Update: Hugh Hewitt thinks maybe Dayton is testing a new warning system.

Minnesota's Democratic Senator Mark Dayton has now gone into the panic and alarmism business, putting the country on orange or red alert all by himself...

I hope Tom Ridge steps forward quickly to allay any fears that Dayton has inflamed. Two years until the Dayton retirement. Senator Mark Kennedy cannot represent Minnesota soon enough.

More Voter Fraud

With this story coming out last night: 6,000 felons on voter lists

And this one breaking today: I-Team investigation uncovers voter registration fraud

And that's just Colorado in the last 24 hours.

It's beginning to look like this will be the most contentious election in our lifetimes.

A New Trick for Old Media

Thomas Sowell
A joke has President Bush and the Pope sailing down the Potomac on the Presidential yacht. The wind blows the Pontiff's cap off and it falls into the water. President Bush orders the yacht stopped, gets off and walks across the water to retrieve the Pope's cap.

The next day's headline in the New York Times reads: BUSH CAN'T SWIM.

After the warm-up joke Thomas Sowell examines current trends in media bias. Including an MSM trick for avoiding charges of bias, by avoiding facts, that I have seen many times but never thought of in quite the way he puts it. That is to say I have not thought of it clearly (though I have to say that I don't feel too bad about being out-thought by Mr. Sowell).

A gimmick used increasingly to avoid even discussing some arguments on public issues is to focus on the emotions -- or presumed emotions -- of those making the arguments, rather than on the arguments themselves.

This gimmick was widely used in news reports of Democratic Senator Zell Miller's devastating recitation of all the anti-military votes of Senator Kerry over the years. Whether Senator Miller's facts were accurate or his conclusions logical was a question either not addressed at all or buried under discussions of his anger.

A recent New York Times review of the book about John Kerry in Vietnam -- "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill -- simply ignores or arbitrarily dismisses the book's charges while calling O'Neill "curdled with hatred for Kerry" and having "a fixation on attacking Kerry."

[...]

Thus critics of the public schools are accused of "bashing" teachers. Criticisms of Dan Rather are explained away by the fact that conservatives have long been "hostile" to Dan Rather.

It may well be true that many Jews have been bitter against Hitler. But does that prove that the Holocaust never happened?

Emotions neither prove nor disprove facts.

Thomas Sowell is always a good read. Keep an eye on him here.

How is the Economy Really Doing?

The Heritage Foundation, in an article titled "Framing the Economic Debate", shows the failing US economy for what it is.

A bald-faced lie.

This statistical gold mine by Tim Kane, Ph.D., Rea S. Hederman, and Kirk Johnson, Ph.D. lays out the facts in a way that everyone can understand. To quote Arlo Guthrie out of context - they have "plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints,... twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against" a failing economy.

There is way too much information in the article to excerpt it meaningfully, but this is an important and relatively painless read. It is also an excellent source for material on how the economy is really doing. And just to clear things up, and give it some historical perspective, the economy is doing GREAT!

Shameful Games at the U.N.

For those of you who haven't noticed that the United Nations is the most corrupt organization in the world, Newt Gingrich points out the ludicrous hypocrisy of their Human Rights Council.

LA Times
For more than six months, U.N. observers, delegations from the House and Senate and aid workers from organizations such as Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders have witnessed and spoken out against what the State Department has correctly called the genocide that is being committed in Darfur by the janjaweed militias. Despite its repeated denials, it is clear that the government of Sudan is funding these attacks.

Yet in the face of all the evidence, incredibly, Sudan continues to hold a seat on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. How can that be? How, if that is the case, can the commission have any moral standing whatsoever? How can it affect change or protect human rights?

How can anyone take them seriously?

Dear AFL-CIO,

Though it seems to be the civilized thing to do, writing a letter to people who are terrorizing you is not usually effective. But I'm preaching to the choir.

GeorgeWBush.com
Letter To AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

Mr. John Sweeney
President
AFL-CIO
815 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
October 11, 2004

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

Over the past several weeks, acts of violence and vandalism have occurred at Republican and Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters across the country. In addition to the injuries, property damage and disruption associated with these acts, these events have created a threatening and intimidating atmosphere abhorrent to our democratic process.

On October 5th, according to news reports, witnesses, police reports and admissions of your members, the AFL-CIO, as part of a national strategy, protested at more than a dozen of our campaign and party headquarters across the country. In many locations, the protestors attempted to enter, or entered, campaign or party facilities. As one protestor said, "Actually, we're storming into an office." In Orlando, Florida, injuries and damage were sustained. Protestors forced their way into the facility, fracturing the arm of one staffer, and vandalized the office. In Michigan, protestors entered a headquarters and engaged in activities apparently intended to disrupt volunteers trying to make phone calls.

Protests by your organization come on the heels of several other incidents at Bush-Cheney '04 offices around the country, including a break-in at our Seattle office where laptop computers were stolen from the Washington State Bush-Cheney ’04 executive director and the state Republican Party 72-hour director. Just last night in Canton, Ohio, a Bush-Cheney '04 staffer was forced to lock herself in an office while another break-in was in progress. The facility was seriously damaged and property was stolen. Additionally, gun shots have been fired into Bush-Cheney '04 offices in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee, windows broken in West Virginia and campaign staffers threatened. In Wisconsin, a supporter of the President had a swastika burned into his front yard simply because he had a Bush-Cheney '04 lawn sign. We urge your support in helping us ensure the safety of all individuals working on our campaign and others as we are making every effort to secure the safety of all participants in the political process.

I hope you will put an end to protest activities that have led to injuries, property damage, vandalism and voter intimidation. We will hold you and your organization accountable for the actions of your members and urge you to immediately discontinue any coordinated protest efforts that result in damage to our facilities, or injury to people who may hold different political views than your members, but who share an equal right to be involved in the political process without suffering violence, intimidation and threats.

Respectfully,

Gov. Marc Racicot, Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman

Kerryisms

Though neither George Bush nor John Kerry can be said be to silver-tongued, Mr. Bush, at least, has something to say. He does not falter in the things he believes. John Kerry on the other hand does little else than falter.

(As more Kerryisms inevitably become available I will update this list and bring it to the top of my blog. If you have a favorite that you want me to post leave a comment and I’ll add it to the list.)

New Kerryism for today:

New York Times
''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.''

---

Previous Kerryisms:

Endeavoring to explain his "global test" remarks in the first presidential debate:

The Washington Times
The test I was talking about is a test of legitimacy — not just in the globe, but elsewhere. - John Kerry

New York Times
Hypothetical questions are not real. - John Kerry

ABC News (Hat tip to OpinionJournal)
I will stand up and struggle, as others have, to try to get that right balance between violence, and sex, and things. - John Kerry

ABC News
Peter Jennings: You told an Iowa newspaper recently that life begins at conception. What makes you think that?

Sen. Kerry: My personal belief about what happens in the fertilization process is a human being is first formed and created, and that's when life begins. Something begins to happen. There's a transformation. There's an evolution. Within weeks, you look and see the development of it, but that's not a person yet, and it's certainly not what somebody, in my judgment, ought to have the government of the United States intervening in. - John Kerry

And:

Jennings: Could you explain again to me what do you mean when you say "life begins at conception"?

Kerry: Well, that's what the Supreme Court has established is a test of viability as to whether or not you're permitted to terminate a pregnancy, and I support that. That is my test. And I, you know, you have all kinds of different evolutions of life, as we know, and very different beliefs about birth, the process of the development of a fetus. That's the standard that's been established in Roe v. Wade. And I adhere to that standard.

And:

Jennings: If you believe that life begins at conception, is even a first-trimester abortion not murder?

Kerry: No, because it's not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It's the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins.

Is it at the point where I would say that you apply those penalties? The answer is, no, and I believe in choice. I believe in the right to choose, and the government should not involve itself in that choice, beyond where it has in the context of Roe v. Wade.

Washington Post
I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. - John Kerry

Boston Fog Machine
There is not a right or wrong here. There was a correctness in the president’s judgment about timing. But that does not mean there was an incorrectness in the judgment other people made about timing.

For you see, Kerry continued, “Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used. - John Kerry

And:

It is important to remember that this resolution does not authorize the use of American ground troops in Bosnia, nor does it specifically authorize the use of air or naval power. It simply associates the U.S. Senate with the current policies of this administration and of the Security Council. – John Kerry

The Washington Post
And you've got companies like Wal-Mart that are stripping underneath them, that hire part-time people, that have actually advertised to come and work, so they won't do their health care. - John Kerry

The Washington Post
"This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier." - John Kerry

(via Powerline)
War-Torn Democrats
"(I)f you have a breach that, by everybody's standard, at least in the United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president, join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach, and then others -- some of them can't be persuaded -- if we have evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the Security Council and say, 'Here is the evidence. It's time for all of you to put up. We need to all do this together.' And that's what I think the resolution that was passed suggests." - John Kerry

New York Times
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." - John Kerry

(via doubleplusgood infotainment)
Rush Limbaugh.com
No, wait, wait, wait, wait you asked me if I'd met with any leaders. Yes. I have had conversations with leaders, yes, recently. That's not your business, it's mine. I've met with foreign leaders for any (inaudible) purpose - I never said that. What I said was that I have heard from people who are leaders elsewhere in the world who don't appreciate the Bush administration approach and would love to see a change in the leadership of the United States. I'm talking our allies, I'm talking about people who were our friends nine months ago, I'm talking about people who ought to be at our side in Iraq and aren't because this administration has pushed them away in its arrogance, that's what I'm talking about. Are you a registered Republican? Are you a Republican? You answer the question. That's not an answer. Did you vote for George Bush? Did you vote for George Bush? Thank you. - John Kerry

The Boston Globe
"This isn't going to be some kind of, you know, we're-like-them-they're-like-us-wishy-washy-mealy-mouth-you-can't-tell-the-difference deal. This is going to be something where we're giving America a real choice." - John Kerry

TIME Magazine: Interview: John Kerry
TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?
KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament. ...

TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction. ...

TIME: You've criticized the pre-emptive nature of the Bush doctrine.
KERRY: Let me emphasize: I'll pre-empt where necessary. We are always entitled to do that under the Charter of the U.N., which gives the right of self-defense of a nation. We've always had a doctrine of pre-emption contained in first strike throughout the cold war. So I understand that. It's the extension of it by the Bush Administration to remove a person they don't like that contravenes that.

New York Post
"I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f - - - it up as badly as he did?" - John Kerry

New York Post
"I left some blood on a battlefield that President Bush never left anywhere." - John Kerry

The Boston Globe
Those weren't precisely my words, they were the words of a press release sent out. - John Kerry

And:

If we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat. - John Kerry

Hugh Hewitt
Well, ahh, huh, it's interesting to hear that, when they shut the newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq, and, well, let me change the term legitimate --when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days, and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment, so it creates its own set of needs in order to deal with the possible future spread of terrorism. But at the same time, if its unaccompanied by a broader set of moves to try and broaden our own base in Iraq, um, I just think it asks for great difficulties. - John Kerry

Yahoo! News - Civil Rights Group Seeks Kerry Apology
"President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." - John Kerry

Guardian Unlimited
"I don't own an SUV,'' said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies.

Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV.

"The family has it. I don't have it,'' he said. - John Kerry

Vic Gold brings into a new category of Kerryisms - possible future Kerryisms - with this from the Washingtonian.

In September John Kerry, out to answer critics who say his speeches are long-winded and rambling, goes to Independence, Missouri, to bask in the legacy of President Harry Truman. He promises that “in my White House, let me assure you, the buck, which is to say the president’s ultimate responsibility for administrative action, will definitely end at the desk of the chief executive.”

On to the American Legion convention where, invoking the memory of John F. Kennedy, Kerry tells veterans: “Ask not what your country can do for you, either as an individual or a corporation, but what you can do for your country, which isn’t to suggest that just because my opponent hasn’t won a Silver Star in combat, as some of us have, he isn’t qualified to be president.”

And finally to Boston in October, where FDR-like he says, “This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny”—only to deny ever saying it after Rush Limbaugh attacks him for having used a French word.

The Cycle of Violence Continues

or Digital Brown Shirts? Bah! These are real Brown Shirts.

The Seattle Times is reporting yet another attack on a Bush/Cheney re-election headquarters, this time in Spokane.

The Seattle Times
Workers arriving this morning found a hole smashed through the wall from an adjacent, vacant office. Bush campaign officials say a small amount of petty cash is missing and a computer and television had been moved and left near the hole.

[...]

In Bellevue last week , computers that stored the Republican get-out-the-vote database were stolen in a burglary at the Republican headquarters there . Bush campaign officials believe the break - ins are part of a broader attack on the president's re-election offices around the country, including a burglary in Canton, Ohio, last night, gun shots fired in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee and union protestors storming offices in three Florida cities and Minneapolis.

To be fair, my neighbors across the street have had their Kerry sign stolen and have replaced it with a hand lettered one. This is nothing new. There have always been unprincipled, over zealous jerks stealing campaign signs. I can point to a number of Bush/Cheney signs within a few blocks of my house that have been stolen or defaced.

These attacks, some involving gunshots, indicate a whole new level of violence aimed at Republicans. For some of the attacks the culprits are known to be left wing or union groups, for others there are no suspects yet.

This must be stopped. The first step is simple but unlikely. Liberal leaders must condemn the attacks, rather than participate in them.

Yeah… Right.

Battleground Poll

The Battleground Poll shows some good news for President Bush. He is up four points over John Kerry on the "if the election was held today" question. The Republican base is much more solid; 41% strongly favor Bush, 32 Strongly prefer Kerry (the same as find him strongly unfavorable). Another indicator of the solidity of the Republican base is that 43% will definitely vote for Bush while only 39% will definitely vote for Kerry. Bush's job approval is at 52%.

Bush over Kerry:
Safeguarding America from a terrorist threat:57 to 36
Dealing with Iraq: 53 to 41
Is a strong leader: 54 to 39
Shares your values: 50 to 43
Representing middle class values: 48 to 42
Leading America in the Right Direction: 49 to 45

Good news if voter fraud doesn't make all of this polling moot.

Update: Amy Ridenour noticed something... inexplicable in the Battleground poll.

Likely voters polled said Kerry would do better at "creating jobs," but said Bush would do better at "keeping America prosperous."

Maybe Battleground respondents were thinking of non-prosperous jobs and/or a prosperous economy without new jobs...?

Sometimes poll results make no sense at all.

AB[DN]C

Drudge reports on a memo from ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin wherein he acknowledges his status as a branch of the DNC.

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

That makes two of the top three networks that have declared their allegiance to the DNC. We're just waiting for NBC to out themselves.

Bush Debate Bounce?

The latest presidential tracking poll released by Rasmussen yesterday shows a lead for President Bush.

Rassmussen
Saturday October 09, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 50% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 46%.

This represents the only time in 2004 that either candidate has hit 50% in the Rasmussen Report. They also had some good Electoral College news. President Bush 240 Electoral Votes, John Kerry 169.

Howard Wins Re-election

Excellent news from down under. Australia, our most reliable ally in the world, and a key member of the Iraq coalition, has reafirmed it's commitment to Prime Minister John Howard over the challenging Labor Party which had promised to pull out of Iraq.

Sydney Morning Herald
Prime Minister John Howard swept the Coalition to a fourth term last night, cementing his place in Australian history and banishing Labor to another period in the political wilderness.

Howard's Coalition Party is also poised to take over the Senate. Congratulations Mr. Howard!

Red vs. Blue

I've been observing a political phenomenon that I call "team mentality." I've blogged about it, in various forms, a few times but was never completely satisfied with my expression of the nature of the beast. My chief contention is that Democrats will vote for Kerry, despite his obvious failings, flip-flops, and fibs, because he is on their team. The fact that Bush is better doesn't even enter the equation. They will vote for the guy on their team because he's on their team. Whether his values and voting record coincide with their own is secondary at best.

Duane at Radio Blogger has gotten it just right.

Both sides played this game. It was by and large good sport, and despite the rhetoric used over the years, to the fans (voters), the world really didn't depend on the outcome of the game (election).

Then 9/11 happened. And the two teams went two different directions. The red team decided the fooling around was over, and it's not a game anymore. It's deadly serious. By and large, most of the Bush supporters realize that we are now in a global war that is very real, against a real enemy that is continually changing tactics and locales.

The blue team took their hats off during the national mourning of 9/11, then after a short period, put their hats back on and to them, the game resumed. Guys like Paul Begala and James Carville, who is the blue team's television color commentators, and the beat reporters, which are the lefty blogs and most newspaper columnists and editorial boards, are still playing the game. The war to them is not real. They consider it a new play by the red team that they haven't figured out how to defend, so they are trying to spin and win the PR battle to keep the "fans" in the seats.

Looking at a politician, any politician, as if he is "on your team" is a mistake. You have to look at the records of the two Parties, as well as their vision for the future, and decide which one matches your values best. Then you need to vote down the line for that party, because majorities are how things get done in politics. If the Parties change their policies, or conditions change so that their policies are no longer valid, you must be ready to switch Parties at once. Don't be sentimental about it, you're not having your dog put down.

9/11 is a time when the world changed and invalidated longstanding policies in both parties. Only one party changed to match the times. The Republicans lead by George Bush (this is very important - lead by George Bush) re-evaluated their policies and adapted to the conditions that obtain. The Democrats did not. They persist in thinking that the war on terror is not real, that it's just a strategy to garner votes; a strategy that they must learn to finesse.

This shows, more clearly than at any other time in my life, that one of the Parties is out of sync with reality. It's time for Democrats to re-evaluate, dispassionately, their involvement with their party. Don't get all gooey, it's not like leaving a lover, it's more like switching from cable to satellite television. Republicans aren't evil, they're good people just like Democrats, they just have policies that match the times, voting for them won't make you evil. And voting for them once doesn't mean you have to vote for them again next time.

Unless their policies and vision still match your own.

Presidential Debate Number Two

Ok.

Kerry still looked good; not as good as last time, but good. His facts are very shaky as usual. General Shinseki, for example, was not "retired" at all, much less for saying there should have been more troops, which he did months after he left the service. Kerry didn't even answer the question about Iran's nuclear ambitions. He actually had the gall to claim he and Edwards support tort reform.

His response to the stem cell research and abortion questions were unbelievable, as in not believable. They were, for him, a disaster.

But he looked good.

He is a good... debater.

Bush, on the other hand, is not a good debater. But he looked great. Especially after last time. He is really in his element when talking to people about what he believes. On substance, unlike Kerry, Bush was strong. Iraq, Iran, war on terror, taxes, even health care.

As a debate it was a pretty good one though I still don't know where Kerry stands on a whole host of issues. I'm not even sure where he says he stands.

I know exactly where Bush stands.

Transcript and video via Fox News.

What Paul Bremer Really Said About Iraq

Paul Bremer drives a stake through the heart of John Kerry's forign policy "plan" with an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times today. Mr. Bremer, frustrated with the mainstream media's persistant tactic of mis-quoting him, takes matters into his own hands.

New York Times
What I Really Said About Iraq
The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

This is a must read.

Kerry's Case Collapses

Glenn Reynolds outlines what the Iraq Survey Group's report means to John Kerry's foreign policy plan.

GlennReynolds.com (The Instapundit's other mega-blog)
It's hard to pass the "Global Test" when the people grading it are being bribed to administer a failing grade. Perhaps Kerry should change his stance, and promise that a Kerry Administration would "outbid the bad guys." That approach is more likely to succeed than the one he's been touting, which even he has admitted is doomed.

Glenn makes it abundantly clear that the only thing holding Kerry's "plan" together is the good wishes of big media.

Live Debate Feed

Here's a new service provided by the GOP. Check this post during the debate. Each time John Kerry says something false or inaccurate during the debates, the live feed will be updated instantly with the facts.

Should be cool if it works.

Charles Duelfer Reports... What Exactly?

Here are a couple of things to keep in mind as the Democrats begin the wailing and the gnashing of teeth over Chief Weapons Inspector Charles A. Duelfer's latest report.

Here's your typical MSM approach:

USA Today
The finding by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction posed an immediate political challenge Wednesday for President Bush amid a tide of news raising questions about the case he made for war and the way he has waged it.

Here are a couple of things you might want to keep in mind. For some reason the MSM reports don't mention them (though to be entirely fair, the USA Today piece mentions in the last sentence, "Duelfer concluded, based on interviews with Saddam and other top officials of his regime, that he intended to revive his nuclear weapons in the future").

The Washington Times reports Duelfer's findings a bit differently:

Saddam Hussein's goal through the 1990s and until the 2003 U.S. invasion was to end U.N. sanctions on Iraq, while working covertly to restore the country's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, a report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector says.

[...]

Starting in 1997 and peaking in 2001, he developed a giant smuggling operation that hinged on the establishment of "a network of Iraqi front companies, some with close relationships to high-ranking foreign-government officials," the report says.

Those officials, it says, "worked through their respective ministries, state-run companies and ministry-sponsored front companies to procure illicit goods, services and technologies for Iraq's WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs."

[...]

Regarding nuclear weapons, Mr. Duelfer said that during the 12 years after the Persian Gulf war "Iraq's ability to produce a weapon decayed" and that "the time for Iraq to build a nuclear weapon tended to increase for the duration of the sanctions."

"Despite this decay," he said. "Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions."

[...]

"With the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance of the oil-for-food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to re-establish [chemical weapon] production capacity," Mr. Duelfer said. "By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two."

It's hard to imagine that USA Today and The Washington Times are talking about the same report isn't it?

Here's what the scientist who was the creator of Iraq’s centrifuge for Saddam's Nuclear programs says:

The Scotsman
AN IRAQI scientist-turned-author says the most significant pieces of his country’s dormant nuclear programme were buried under a lotus tree in his backyard, untouched for more than a decade before the US-led invasion in 2003.

But their existence, Dr Mahdi Obeidi writes in a new book, is evidence that the international community should remain vigilant as other countries try to replicate Iraq’s successes before the 1991 Gulf war to develop components necessary for a nuclear weapon.

In The Bomb in my Garden, Dr Obeidi details Saddam’s quest for a nuclear bomb: "Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a red flag to the international community."

As a possible reason that the WMD programs were not persued with the same vigor as before the first Gulf War the Scottsman article points out that "Saddam was doing well from the UN’s oil-for-food programme, while increasing his control over a population reliant on him for basics."

In response to the reports indictment of the United Nations' incredibly corrupt Oil for Food program, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, had this response.

US Newswire
"Mr. Duelfer's conclusions show the full breadth of Saddam Hussein's corruption and manipulation of the U.N. Oil for Food program.

"Billions of dollars were siphoned from the Iraqi people with the complicity of many of our allies who helped finance and arm the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein.

"The world cannot wait years for answers to the growing body of evidence implicating senior U.N. officials in outright corruption.

"Immediate public access to U.N. internal audit and other documents - thus far denied to members of the Security Council - is imperative if the world body is to escape further damage to its credibility as a result of this grossly mismanaged program."

Here's are some possibilities I see:

1. The UN Oil for Food program was so lucrative that the governments involved in the corruption (which includes the UN at the highest levels, France, Germany, and Russia as the primary beneficiaries) couldn't afford to let the sanctions be lifted. Lifting the sanctions would mean an end to the Oil for Food program which was their Golden Goose. That is why Saddam destroyed his weapons "without telling the UN." No weapons - no sanctions. No sanctions - no Oil for Food money.

2. I think the UN may have been involved in covering up the fact that Saddam had no WMD so they could keep Oil for Food going.

3. Saddam was hedging his bets against the future by securing the ability to restart his WMD programs, after all you can't trust a corrupt partner.

4. France, Germany, and Russia stymied our pre-war efforts in the UN because they wanted to keep profiting from the Oil for Food money. If we attacked Iraq we would find out that there really were no weapons and the sanctions would be lifted.

Update: Here's video of Duelfer in front of the Senate (.rm thanks to C-SPAN2)

That's Not a Knife...This is a knife

That's not subliminal...

This is subliminal...

Update: For that matter this isn't subliminal either (Click here for Atomizer's whole post).