Liberalism's Intellectual Vacuum

Scott Johnson of Powerline waxes eloquent in his praise of the Claremont Institute:

Everything I think I know about American politics I have learned from studying the works of Professor Harry V. Jaffa and his students at the Claremont Institute. In general, we believe that America took a wrong turn with the advent of the Progressive era and the Progressive attack on the Constitution in the name of -- what else? -- progress. It is the audacious project of of the Claremont Institute to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.

Key to the success of the project is the intellectual reclamation undertaken by the institute's flagship publication, the Claremont Review of Books (subscribe here). The magazine is to play the same role in inspiring the rollback of the Progressive undoing of the Constitution as the New Republic served in paving the way for the abrogation of limited constitutional government.

He links to a powerful essay by William Voegeli, "The Endless Party," which examines the fundamental weakness of American liberalism. A sample:

Liberals have a practical reason why they won't say what they ultimately want, and a theoretical reason why they can't say it. The practical reason is that any usably clear statement of what the welfare state should be would define not only a goal but a limit. Conceding that an outer limit exists, and stipulating a location for it, strengthens the hand of conservatives—with liberals having admitted, finally, that the welfare state can and should do only so much, the argument now, the conservatives will say, is over just how much that is.

Keeping open, permanently, the option for the growth of the welfare state reflects the belief that the roster of human needs and aspirations to which the government should minister is endless. Any attempt to curtail it would be arbitrary and wrong. (In his concession speech after losing to Ronald Reagan in 1984, Walter Mondale listed the groups he had devoted his political career to assisting: "the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, the handicapped, the helpless, and the sad" [emphasis added].)

This gets us to the theoretical reason why liberalism cannot incorporate a limiting principle or embrace an ultimate destination. Given humankind's long history of sorrows, most people would consider securing "abundance and liberty for all," ending poverty and achieving racial justice, a pretty good day's work. For LBJ it was, astoundingly, "just the beginning."

It's well worth reading the whole thing.

Calling all Feminists!

Given the whining that NOW has been up to lately (do read Myrna Blyth's suggestion that they change their acronym to THEN), it's amazing that America's foremost "feminists" have been largely silent about the liberation of millions of Afghani and Iraqi women who had suffered under abusive regimes. Well, maybe not, because it would mean saying something good about a Republican administration and its war efforts.

However, there's at least one feminist scholar who is aware of the inherent misogyny of Iran's Islamic fundamentalists. Professor Donna M. Hughes, who holds the Carlson Endowed Chair in Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island, wrote a piece in Front Page Magazine entitled, "Defeating the Woman-Haters" (Hat tip to Chrenkoff):

Introduction

Twenty-six years ago in Iran, Islamic fundamentalists captured their first state. They turned it into a theocratic dictatorship and used its resources to fund terror abroad and pursue weapons of mass destruction. Since then, violence, expansionism, and terror against civilians have become hallmarks of Islamic fundamentalism. If the Iranian regime obtains nuclear weapons, it will use them to maintain control of Iran, intimidate countries within missile range, and expand their influence abroad.

To defeat the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, one must understand what keeps them it power. Insight into the role of misogyny ‑ hatred of women ‑ in the tyranny's ideology and its tactics of social control is the key to ending the reign of terror.

Professor Hughes concludes her case by suggesting a number of tactics governments, the UN, and NGOs should undertake in their dealings with Iran to subvert the misogyny and hence the mullahs' power. I doubt that her rather PC prescription is as strong a lever as she posits, but it's an interesting line of attack. Go read the article, and then imagine the impact of Secretary Rice making a state visit to Iran.

Scott Ritter rides again

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter is making dire statements about the futility of the US ballistic missile defense program:

On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament. [...]

The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys.

To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

Ritter seems to be stuck in a Cold War reality, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Russians aren't the most pressing threat for the US right now: rather, the North Koreans and Iranians are much more likely to shoot first. And Russia is in much closer proximity to those two nations than the US is. You can read more about the SS-27 here.

Even if the US decides that it needs to be able to counter the SS-27, that hardly means that the efforts to date to counter the "less sophisticated threats" are worthless. Check out the MDA homepage for recent press releases and background reading on the US National Missile Defense program.

UN can't buy respect anymore

While there have always been critics of the UN, the gross malfeasance of the bureaucracy is becoming obvious even to the casual observer. The ludicrous posturings by Kofi Annan and assorted co-dependent bureaucrats in the wake of the tsunami disaster are just the most recent insults.

Back before Christmas, Kenneth L. Cain, a former UN human-rights officer, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

A debate currently rages about whether Kofi Annan enjoys the moral authority to lead the United Nations because the Oil for Food scandal happened under his command. That debate is 10 years too late and addresses the wrong subject. The salient indictment of Mr. Annan's leadership is lethal cowardice, not corruption; the evidence is genocide, not oil. [...]

Liberal multilateralists on the left, like me, are often skittish about offering too pungent a critique of Mr. Annan, because it offers aid and comfort to the "enemy" on the conservative unilateralist right. But if anyone's values have been betrayed at the U.N. over the past decade it is those of us who believe most deeply in the organization's ideals. Just ask the men and women of Rwanda and Srebrenica.

Claudia Rosett, who has written reams about the Oil-for-Food scandal, calls for regime change at the UN:

...The Secretariat has had a year of gagging contractors, threatening the jobs of whistle-blowers, and pounding out letters to the editor explaining that the Secretariat should not be blamed for anything because it is in fact responsible for nothing--though somehow more money, especially from the U.S., is always wanted. A few senior officials are now due to depart. Several thick reports on various fronts are due to be filed, and perhaps here or there a head will roll.

But to suppose that the United Nations will reform itself from within is to miss the eerie unreality of the place. It is not simply changes in some of the staffing that are needed, or U.N. commissioned reports recommending that the U.N. "reform" by way of doing even more of whatever it does already. What's needed is something that among sovereign states we have come to call regime change--the basic alteration of a system that in its privileges, immunities and practices resembles rather too closely some of the dictatorships that still pack its ranks.

Over at WindsofChange.net, Joe Katzman explains the origins of the term "Toyota Taliban" referring to UN and NGO (non-governmental organization) aid workers living in luxury in Afghanistan. He also links to other articles on the topic, such as these from Roger L. Simon, Diplomad, and Instapundit.

Actually, you should check out The Diplomad blog regularly to keep up with the on-going UN relief farce. From today's post:

Day 9 of the tsunami crisis.

I know I had promised to lay off the UN for a bit . . . but I can't. As one reader commented on a previous Diplomad posting on the UN, "it's like watching a train wreck" -- you know it's horrible, but you've just got to look at it.

In this part of the tsunami-wrecked Far Abroad, the UN is still nowhere to be seen where it counts, i.e., feeding and helping victims. The relief effort continues to be a US-Australia effort, with Singapore now in and coordinating closely with the US and Australia. Other countries are also signing up to be part of the US-Australia effort. Nobody wants to be "coordinated" by the UN. The local UN reps are getting desperate. They're calling for yet another meeting this afternoon; they've flown in more UN big shots to lecture us all on "coordination" and the need to work together, i.e., let the UN take credit. With Kofi about to arrive for a big conference, the UNocrats are scrambling to show something, anything as a UN accomplishment. Don't be surprised if they claim that the USS Abraham Lincoln is under UN control and that President Lincoln was a strong supporter of the UN.

Maybe watching the UN flounder is not like watching a train wreck; perhaps it's more akin to watching an Ed Wood movie or reading Maureen Dowd or Margo Kingston -- so horrible, so pathetic, that it transforms into a thing of perverse beauty. The only problem, of course, is that real people are dying.

Speaking of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), the US Navy has a photo gallery online of relief efforts. (Hat tip Instapundit.)

Mark Steyn provides a wry commentary:

But the waters recede and the familiar contours of the political landscape re-emerge - in this case, the need to fit everything to the Great Universal Theory of the age, that whatever happens, the real issue is the rottenness of America. [...] But even Telegraph readers subscribe to the Great Universal Theory. On our Letters Page, Robert Eddison dismissed the "paltry $15 million from Washington" as "worse than stingy. The offer - since shamefacedly upped to $35 million - equates to what? Three oil tycoons' combined annual salary?"

Mr Eddison concluded with a stirring plea to the wicked Americans to mend their ways: "If Washington is to lay any claim to the moral, as distinct from the military, high ground, let it emulate Ireland and Norway's prompt and proportionate attempts to plug South-East Asia's gaping gap of need and help avert a further 80,000 deaths from infection and untreated wounds."

If America were to emulate Ireland and Norway, there'd be a lot more dead Indonesians and Sri Lankans. Mr Eddison may not have noticed, but the actual relief effort going on right now is being done by the Yanks: it's the USAF and a couple of diverted naval groups shuttling in food and medicine, with solid help from the Aussies, Singapore and a couple of others. The Irish can't fly in relief supplies, because they don't have any C-130s. All they can do is wait for the UN to swing by and pick up their cheque.

Meanwhile, Belmont Club reflects about why the UN keeps insisting that it should be in charge (also see here and here).

In the matter of providing relief for tsunami victims, the UN cannot afford to assume any other attitude than a reluctant willingness to stoop to command the national contingents. For the United Nations to abandon its claim to primacy in the tsunami relief effort is the equivalent of renouncing its scepter as the 'sole source of legitimacy' and the only fount of 'moral authority'. For no danger is so great to international organizations and Kings as the peril of being proved unnecessary. Though almost almost none of the food, supplies and logistical systems to provide relief have so far have come from the World Body, it appears existentially important to it that what has arrived wear the livery of the United Nations.

Indeed.

Merry Christmas!

Presidential Christmas Message, 2004

For 2,000 years, Christmas has proclaimed a message of hope: the patient hope of men and women across centuries who listened to the words of prophets and lived in joyful expectation; the hope of Mary, who welcomed God's plan with great faith; and the hope of wise men, who set out on a long journey guided only by a slender promise traced in the stars. Christmas reminds us that the grandest purposes of God can be found in the humblest places. And it gives us hope that all the love and gifts that come to us in this life are the signs and symbols of an even greater love and gift that came on a holy night.

The Christmas season fills our hearts with gratitude for the many blessings in our lives. With those blessings comes a responsibility to reach out to others. Many of our fellow Americans still suffer from the effects of illness or poverty. Others fight cruel addictions, cope with division in their families, or grieve the loss of a loved one. Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves. By volunteering our time and talents where they are needed most, we help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer, and bring hope to those who despair.

During the holidays, we also keep in our thoughts and prayers the men and women of our Armed Forces -- especially those far from home, separated from family and friends by the call of duty. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, these courageous Americans are fighting the enemies of freedom and protecting our country from danger. By bringing liberty to the oppressed, our troops are defending the freedom and security of us all. They and their families are making many sacrifices for our Nation, and all Americans are deeply grateful.

Laura joins me in wishing all Americans a Merry Christmas.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Monday Reads

Arthur Chrenkoff has "Good News from Iraq" part #17 posted today. (Also available at Opinion Journal and Winds of Change.)

Lots of bloggers and columnists are weighing in on the on-going debate about whether Christ can be mentioned in the public square during the month of December:

• Charles Krauthamer's OpEd in the Washington Post "Just Leave Christmas Alone" (Hat tip Clay Calhoun)
  
• Hugh Hewitt links to several items:
• One Hand Clapping rounds up several commentaries with "The Christmas Wars"
• Washington Post: "Evangelicals Use Courts to Fight Restrictions on Christmas Tidings"
• Washington Times on efforts here in NJ: "Night of caroling won't be silenced"
• And Hugh's own commentary on a Jeff Jarvis piece that he disagrees with (scroll down). And here's Deacon's take at Powerline.
  
• "Putting the [Blank] Back in [Blank]mas 8" is today's edition of an on-going series over at Cheat Seeking Missiles

A couple of noteworthy items about Judaism in America

• Powerline provides a history lesson in "Teaching the Free Man":
  

  American Jews are celebrating their three-hundred and fiftieth anniversary here. The first Jewish community in North America was established in New Amsterdam (New York) in 1654. In 1658 fifteen Jewish families arrived in Newport, Rhode Island. By 1759 their numbers and resources had increased sufficiently that they undertook the construction of what has become America's oldest synagogue, the Touro Synagogue of Newport.

  In 1790 Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution and complete the Union. To mark the occasion, President Washington made a ceremonial visit to Newport when Congress recessed in August. Newport welcomed Washington with open arms. In Newport on August 18, according to James Thomas Flexner, Washington "completely fatigued the company" by walking, fortified by the wine and punch served in four different houses along his route, briskly from nine in the morning until one in the afternoon.

  In anticipation of Washington's visit to Newport, the congregation prepared a letter welcoming Washington for presentation to him at a public event on the morning of August 18. The letter was authorized by the congregation's board and signed by its president, Moses Seixas. It is Washington's magnificent letter responding to Seixas's that is known as a testament to religious freedom and that has become famous as one of the classic statements of religious toleration in America.

  The congregation's letter to Washington is not so well known. Ironically, however, the most famous line in Washington's letter is an echo of the congregation's letter to Washington. By far the most striking feature of the congregation's letter is its expression of sheer gratitude to Washington for the religious freedom afforded by the United States (pre-First Amendment).

• Betsy's Page excerpts from Dennis Prager's piece in yesterday's LA Times, "Born-Again President -- White House Hanukkah":
  

  As a yeshiva graduate, I never thought I would live to see identifying Jews, let alone Orthodox rabbis, so happy to be in a room with a menorah and a Christmas tree. Yet that signified a sea change taking place in American Jewish life — the realization that Christianity is no longer the enemy or the great Other but, for the first time in 2,000 years, a great ally.
  This realization has yet to dawn on many Jews. The memory of almost two millenniums of European, i.e., Christian, anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust is seared deeply in Jewish hearts and minds, and it is very hard for most Jews to truly believe that the cross is a friend, not an invitation to a pogrom.
  
  But American Christianity has never been like European Christianity in its attitude toward Jews and Judaism. Jews have been equals and honored as such from even before the creation of the United States. Many of the founders studied Hebrew; Thomas Jefferson wanted the Seal of the United States to depict the Jews' exodus from Egypt; Yale University's insignia is in Hebrew; a verse from the Torah (Leviticus) is inscribed on the Liberty Bell; a rabbi attended George Washington's inauguration — the list of pro-Jewish expressions in U.S. history is endless. But perhaps most telling is the fact that although there have been any number of Christian countries and there are many secular ones today, it is the U.S. that calls itself Judeo-Christian.

The Tale of a Teddy Bear

The news from Iraq isn't all about terrorism and bombings. While cross-checking links for more info on the reconstruction effort, I came across a letter from a Marine gunnery sergeant at Blackfive about a little girl, a teddy bear, a landmine and a Marine convoy. It's worth reading the whole thing. (Hat tip Winds of Change) It ends with this comment:

It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?

If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.

[Update] One way you can help send toys to Iraq is through Operation Give. "Operation Give is grass-roots, non-partisan, volunteer-driven, and non-political. All we want to do is help children of Iraq in their recovery from years of depredation, and make the world a better place."

Blackfive also posted a long list of ways to help our troops, including Soldiers' Angels, and Spirit of America.

Rebuilding Iraq

Our local newspaper carried a personal-interest story in the business section today, about a local woman, Kathye A. Johnson (an engineer, no less!), who spent three months in Iraq this year for her company:

In August, Johnson, 47, of Medford, planned a short trip to Iraq to explore business opportunities for her employer, a global construction management firm where she was vice president of operations.

She hoped to expand on the $1.2 billion contract already awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers to a combination of Hill and Michael Baker Jr. Inc. of Moon Township, Pa., and Stanley Consultants Inc. of Muscatine, Iowa. The joint, five-year contract is part of an $18.4 billion package approved by Congress in 2003 to rebuild Iraq.

She remained through October because the person Hill had hired to run the entire job in Iraq was not working out. Johnson volunteered to fill in until James E. Koch of St. Louis replaced her.

...

One of the architects of the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, Army Gen. Tom Bostick, praised Johnson's work.

"We were in dire straits before she arrived. Kathye was an impact player from day one. She was a great leader and most helpful in bringing disparate teams together working toward a common goal," said Bostick of the Army Corps of Engineers.

When she stepped in to mop up the mess, she said the reconstruction effort was at a standstill. Less than 5 percent of the hundreds of planned construction projects from rebuilding schools to restoring potable water had broken ground. Morale was deteriorating because communication among the various divisions had broken down and cohesive leadership was lacking.

"There was a lot of insurgent activity, plus I picked up a serious respiratory infection about 10 days after I arrived. Still, we worked nonstop, seven days a week, on the database and got all the players talking to one another again. There's probably 100 companies involved under our joint team, which has grown from 12 to 22. I helped put the reconstruction effort on track and I believe I made a difference," said Johnson, who had traveled extensively, including a two-year stint in Bangkok, while working for Fluor Corp. before joining Hill's staff nearly three years ago.

Sites that regularly carry good news from Iraq and Afghanistan include Chrenkoff, Blackfive, Winds of Change, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division, US State Department, and DefenseLink. Some recent stories:

United States Forgives 100 Percent of Iraqi Debt

Washington -- The U.S. government has written off 100 percent of Iraq's sovereign debt to the United States, a total of $4.1 billion, with an agreement signed by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Iraqi Finance Minister Adil Abd al-Mahdi December 17.

"Lifting the crushing burden of the old regime's debt is one of the most important contributions we can make to Iraq's new beginning," Powell said at the signing ceremony.

Minister al-Mahdi noted that Iraq was a donor nation in the early 1970s, but he said, "Over two decades, all the fortunes and wealth of Iraq were destroyed. Instead of having billions of reserves, Iraq was left with billions in debts."

The minister blamed the former regime of Saddam Hussein for wasting Iraq's wealth in wars with its neighbors.

Secretary Snow said, "The situation that Iraq faces is unprecedented, and the response of the world community needed to be unprecedented as well." He said dramatic debt relief is necessary if Iraq is to be able to reintegrate into the world community.

The agreement to write off Iraq's debt to the United States follows a decision by the Paris Club of creditor nations to write off 80 percent of Iraq's debt to its members in a three-phase process over the next four years. The November agreement of the Paris Club reduced Iraq's debt to the member nations from $38.9 billion to $7.8 billion.

Al-Mahdi characterized the Paris Club agreement as "a second liberation of Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein." He said that liberating the economy is an important part of liberating Iraq.

Powell hailed the debt relief that Iraq has received saying, "Rather than financing the vices of the old tyrant, Iraq's treasures and resources are being used to bolster security and build infrastructure, to care for the nation's elderly and educate its young people."

Rehabilitation of Iraq's Sweet Water Canal Completed, USAID Says

The U.S. Agency for International Development's $23 million rehabilitation of Southern Iraq's Sweet Water Canal was successfully completed this week. The project was conducted on behalf of Iraq's Ministry of Water Resources with Bechtel Corporation serving as the prime contractor.

The massive cleansing and repair of this vital 149 mile waterway also includes the $12 million refurbishment of 13 water treatment plants and the repair of the RZero pumping station that sends water from the canal's reservoir through a network of pipelines leading to residential, commercial and agricultural users.

The Sweet Water Canal has been a primary source of fresh water for the city of Basrah since 1996. But lack of maintenance caused sediment to accumulate in sections of the canal and pumps to break because of the turbidity. When USAID undertook the rehabilitation, the canal's embankments were cracked and many mechanical and electrical components in the pumping stations were beyond repair.

The completed USAID project improves the quality and nearly doubles the quantity of fresh, potable water produced for the 1.75 million of the Basrah region. The training of local plant managers insures proper maintenance in the future.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has provided economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide for more than 40 years.

Airport Opening Considered First Step to Return of Iraqi Tourism

BASRA, Iraq, Dec. 17, 2004 -- In July 2005, Basra International Airport in Iraq will officially open for commercial air and passenger traffic.

"The airport was never really functional," said Nolan Smith, assistant area engineer for the Basra office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region South. "It was never formally opened to large commercial flights, primarily because of war. But now, it could open up to cargo flights in the very near future."

The $4.9 million renovation of the terminal includes the air traffic control tower, according to Erick Bush, with construction services for the Transportation and Communications Sector of the Corps' southern district. The navigational aids contract has not yet been awarded, but it is out for bid, according to Bush.

Construction needs not yet funded include upgrades to the fuel farm and electric feeder lines. A Native Alaskan firm, Nana Pacific, won the bid and was to start work in early December.

"The airport is one of highest profile projects we have here, with high likelihood of success: being on schedule, on budget and being fully functional when complete," Bush said.

The airport has managed to avoid the 10 years of war, embargo and looting that have devastated other places in the country, according to Smith. "The art is still there," he said, "and there is a lot of it. The facilities are old and suffer from neglect, but we are hoping that some may be reparable.

Giving Thanks

I am thankful the Presidential election was decisive and peaceful. From USA Today:

After months of predictions of a too-close-to-call contest, Bush won nationwide balloting 51%-48%, making him the 15th president elected to a second term and the first to win both a majority of the popular vote and the Electoral College since his father in 1988. The GOP also extended its majorities in the House and Senate.

The results give Bush the public mandate and congressional support he needs to sustain his policies in Iraq and the war on terror. His re-election, which avoids the fate his father suffered at the hands of Bill Clinton in 1992, also gives him a stronger base to pursue a conservative domestic agenda that includes making permanent the $1.9 trillion in tax cuts won in his first term.

I am thankful that Senator Kerry conceded gracefully and swiftly.

But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans.

That is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth.

With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country.

In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort, without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.

I am thankful that Osama bin Laden has no power over the American people. Claudia Rosett writes:

History tells us that every age brings forth monsters. That we have on our hands a bin Laden who would like to command the world is nothing unusual. What's extraordinary is that we live in a world in which democracy is becoming the norm, in which a peeved and rambling bin Laden must try from his hidey-hole to hitch his terror wagon to an American election. That doesn't rule out his doing more murder--which is all he's got. But the world needs to understand that this is the bid of a man who knows he's losing, and hopes if he just pipes up loud enough, we won't notice.

I am thankful that Peggy Noonan has returned to the pages of Opinion Journal. Her writing is always something to savor:

God bless our country.

Hello, old friends. Let us savor.

Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.

George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)

It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!

And I am thankful that George W. Bush is our President and will return for a second term.

Conversations

Yesterday, I heard that one of my engineers was upset by the election results. So I talked to him, mainly to give him a sounding board. He had been frustrated, among other things, by Bush supporters in the office who dismissed his concerns about the President and his administration, and wouldn't engage him in discussion.

We talked about a variety of topics. I told him about what I'd learned over the last two months doing research for this blog, both about Kerry and Bush. For instance, he was a little perturbed about Bush "leaping over" those 500+ folks on the Texas Air National Guard waiting list. I told him that those 500 wanted "weekend warrior" billets while the TANG had several openings for pilot training, training that required a multi-year full-time commitment few were willing to make. I pointed him in the direction of Wingmen for Bush for more information.

There's still a lot of misinformation floating around, and disappointed partisans vowing to "keep fighting" — a theme echoed in Senator Kerry's concession speech:

"I'm going to fight on for the people and the principles that I've stood for," said Kerry, who returns to the Senate to complete his term. Friends and admirers who joined him, running mate John Edwards and their families applauded lovingly during his 15-minute speech at this city's historic Faneuil Hall.

Folks, now is the time for gentle persuasion, not fevered rhetoric. Defusing the anti-Bush animus triggered by Gore's loss in the 2000 election will take a lot of work, one person at a time.

Debate makes for a healthy democracy when participants are willing to listen to each other's viewpoints and work toward finding common ground. So keep the conversations going.

Election Thoughts #3

Email from Dangerous Dave:

I know I said that I planned on watching See-BS for the election returns so that I could watch Dan Rather sqirm, but I couldn't do it. I watched a few minutes before Dan pointed to Illinois and crowed about its 21 electoral votes going to Kerry in a surprise. Now, if Illinois going for the democrat is a surprise to you, then
you have no business calling yourself a newsman.

This is now two presidential elections in row where the exit polls were so wrong its not funny. Will we pay any attention to exit polls in 2008?

If I were Bush, I would pull Kerry's real military service file and call him into the oval office for a chat. I would tell him that he has a choice. He can be a very quiet, non-obstructive senator from Massachusettes, or this file can be leaked to the media.
Will Bush do this? No, he has too much integrity. Would Clinton do it? You bet your ass!

A coworker today asked how it was possible that Bush got reelected when he is the only president to lose jobs since the depression. I pointed out that he hadn't lost any jobs. This led to the inevitable statement: "Yes he has."

I replied: "How can you say that when more people are working today than at any time in our history."

He looked at me like I was a moron and said "Because the population has increased."

"Ok, granted. But there are still more people working now than there were 4 years ago."

"OK. You're right, but he still lost jobs."

Patiently I asked: "How can you resolve that statement with the fact that more people are working?"

He tried to for a few more minutes before finally agreeing that yes, if more people are working, then no jobs have been lost.

Then we went to the unemployment rate which I pointed out was lower than when Clinton was reelected and we were told that the economy was the best in our history.

Now that good news stories will no longer help Bush get reelected, I wonder if the media will begin to report some of the good news?

One last exchange at work:
Joan: "Our taxes in New York are just too high."
Dave (the Canadian): "Your taxes here are nothing compared to Canada."
Me: "Our poverty rate is nothing compared to Calcutta. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce it."

OK, the big bad story in the media today is that the election results prove that our country is devided almost 50 - 50 and this is a bad thing. Huh?

• Bush got 53% of the popular vote.
• Clinton never even got 50% of the popular vote.
• Reagan, who won in a landslide, got a little over 50% of the popular vote.
• But with 53% Bush leads a divided America?
• I guess the media has to complain about something.

=====
-Dangerous Dave

Election day thought #2

If the Republicans are successful in enlarging their Senate majority, would that dissuade Senator Kerry from litigating so hard for the White House if Bush held a narrow lead in the electoral college?

In 2000, the evenly divided Senate meant that there was no clear preference for one party over the other in the aggregate. IMHO, that might have contributed to Al Gore's challenge in Florida--as well as the continuing myth that Bush really "didn't win" that year.

Of course, I'm assuming that Mr. Kerry would have the grace to concede a lost cause before squandering millions of dollars in legal fees.

Election Day thoughts

I was the first person to vote this morning in my NJ district. However, I had to wait 45 minutes for that honor because the lone electro-mechanical machine was jammed. The polls opened at 0600, but the only reason a line formed was because we had to wait for the mechanic to arrive and repair the machine. The election higher-ups wouldn't authorize use of the emergency paper ballots unless the machine was declared DOA. Since I had already signed in, along with a handful of others, we opted to wait, and passed the time by chatting. A few people left, promising to return later in the day.

The grandmotherly poll worker observed my chatting/flirting with a mechanical engineer in line, and asked him outright if he were married, since we were getting along so well. Yes, he was. But he does have friends. Nothing like an Italian-Catholic yenta to make the morning fun ;-)

Once the machine was fixed, voting was fast because there were only 4 races and no ballot issues to deal with.

My city and county have a strong Democratic party machine, so it wasn't really surprising that I got Kerry literature left on my doorstep Saturday and Monday, and a noon phone call today encouraging me to vote for Kerry.

I did my small part for the Bush effort, participating in a local walk-the-vote effort on 10/23, and calling 15 Ohio voters (really 10 households) yesterday evening. In both cases, the Bush-Cheney campaign provided the voter information. The phone calls were more fun, because I got to talk with more people than during my walk. Most folks I reached said they would vote for the President, although there was one grouch who didn't want to hear anything more about President Bush (campaign fatigue, maybe?).

I also encouraged my Republican colleagues to vote today, to help make Kerry sweat about New Jersey and boost the overall popular vote totals for the President.

As a sanity measure, Hugh Hewitt linked to a prayer posted over at Stones Cry Out. Go pray it yourself.

"Smart Girl"

Another contribution from Rusty...

Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day. "Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, "will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?

Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"

"Osama Bin Laden," she says.

"Why Osama Bin Laden," her father asks in shock.

"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then! he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."

Her father's heart swells and he looks at his daughter with newfound pride. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard."

"I know," Melissa says, "and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the sh*t out of him!"

Quick Takes

As I wandered through the blogosphere today, I found these nuggets. Enjoy!

Mark Steyn is already tiring of the US election:

Maybe I'm getting old. I've been covering politics for 53 years, and that's just since John Kerry's convention speech. I'm sick of this election, even before the Democratic Party's chad-diviners have managed to extend it to mid-December. These are serious times and the senator is not a serious man. And so we have a campaign that has a sharper position on Mary Cheney's lesbianism and the deficiencies of Laura Bush's curriculum vitae than on the central question of the age.

Today's whole column is a fun read at Opinion Journal Best of the Web.

Football Fans for Truth chronicles John Kerry's sports-related tall tales. For a story for you Red Sox fans, see "Just 30 Yards Away?".

Froggy Ruminations posts an eloquent essay, "Kerry is Unacceptable to Veterans":

These actions by John Kerry paint a disturbing picture for any US Citizen, but for a veteran or servicemember the level of revulsion sparked by this man cannot be measured with existing technology. No heroic act in his past could ever make up for the patterns of betrayal that litter the public life of this candidate. There could hardly be a man chosen by the Democratic party that personified more clearly the antithesis of what a Commander in Chief should be in the opinion of those who would serve under him.

Also check out his excellent character analysis of the Kerry archetype, known in Navy SEAL circles as a Blue Falcon: "a version of the military acronym BF which stands for Buddy F*&%er. That is what (sic) someone who behaves in a manner which elevates his personal needs or desires above those of the unit to which he belongs. i.e. John Kerry."

Belmont Club compares Saddam's tactical retreat with MacArthur's on Bataan. He notes that:

One indication of the unfavorable trend faced by enemy forces face (sic) was the rapid transformation in US operations. It is interesting to compare Marine preparations to assault Fallujah in April 2004 with those apparently under way today, just months later. The Marine methods of April would have been instantly familiar to any military historian: hammer and anvil, seizure of key terrain; feint and attack. Today, many of the military objectives in the developing siege of the terrorist stronghold are abstract. They consist of developing a network of informers in the city; of setting up a functioning wireless network; of getting close enough for smaller US units to deploy their line-of-sight controlled UAV and UGV units to create a seamless operational and tactical environment to wage "swarm" warfare; of getting artillery and mortar units close enough to play hopscotch over everything the network decides to engage. To the traditional methods of warfare the Americans were adding a whole new plane which only they could inhabit.

Noemie Emery, writing in NRO, says President Bush has nothing to apologize for:

Bush picked his course, as James Pinkerton has written in Newsday, and now he clings to it, "come hell or high blood." This is a killer phrase, and it does yield its frisson, but as a line of attack, there is one problem with it: That is how people win wars. The ability to plough on undeterred in the face of brute horror is the trait that made a hero and victor of Ulysses S. Grant after the failures of many more nuanced and flexible generals; that made a saint and a hero of Abraham Lincoln; and that led Roosevelt to victory in the Second World War.

According to critics, one thing for which Bush ought to apologize is the number of Americans killed in Iraq, now more than l,000 in over a year and a half. Regarding this number, four things should be said. First, it is well below the minimal projection of casualties made before the invasion. Second, it is still only about one third the number of Americans killed in two and a half hours on a September morning three years ago. Third, in a six-week period in 1863, Grant lost 60,000 American soldiers. Fourth, in a training exercise days before D-Day, British and American forces lost nearly as many forces as have already died in Iraq to mistakes and confusion. Churchill and Roosevelt did not apologize, nor did their generals. Nobody stateside complained.

For some more perspective on the casualty levels in Iraq, check out the latest FBI stats. The grimmest is that were 16,203 slayings reported in 2003 in the United States. (Hat tip Drudge Report.)

And finally, The Spoons Experience says, "Don't forget to keep an eye on ElectionHell.com, Brian Scott's new blog keeping an eye on stories involving voter fraud, voter intimidation, election litigation, and all the other crap that makes us want to crawl into bed, go to sleep, and not wake up until about December 1 or so, when they finally figure out who won."

Go read Arthur Chrenkoff!

Arthur Chrenkoff has several excellent posts today:

• "Good News From Iraq", Part 13. (Also at Opinion Journal)

  There are two Iraqs.
  
  The one we more often get to see and read about is a dangerous place, full of exploding cars, kidnapped foreigners and deadly ambushes. The reconstruction is proceeding at a snail's pace, frustration boils over and tensions - political, ethnic, religious - crackle in the air like static electricity before a storm.
  
  The other Iraq is a once prosperous and promising country of twenty-four million people, slowly recovering from physical and moral devastation of totalitarian rule. It's a country whose people are slowly beginning to stand on their own feet, grasp the opportunities undreamed of only two years ago, and dream of catching up on three decades of lost time.

• S11 Republicans
  

  One of the very interesting consequences of S11 and the Bush presidency seems to be the increasing polarisation of the electorate. While the passion - and hatred - among the Democrat base, as well as the international left broadly speaking, is getting more strident every day, on the other hand many previously "soft" conservatives have strengthened their ideological stance, and many moderates and even leftists have been forced to rethink their previous commitments, often becoming what is now known as "S11 Republicans".

• Kerry's "Coalition of the Bribed" gets bribed by Kerry
  

  Remember when John Kerry described the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq as not a "genuine coalition" but "some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted"?
  
  If you do, you might be surprised to learn that Kerry's policy to attract back more allies and get them to share the burden in Iraq is to bribe and buy them even more.

• Guest blogger: Rebuilding Afghanistan, Part 1
  

  Today, the first of three parts of a report by Rob, Regional Director of Central Asian Free Exchange (CAFE), who has spent the last three years making the difference on the ground in Afghanistan. His is an invaluable first-hand, sleeves rolled-up, account of the work being done to transform one of the poorest and most unfortunate countries in Asia.

News Flash — Kerry Lied!

To be charitable, he embellished the truth. Again.

Remember Mr. "I will never mislead the American people"? Well, this time Joel Mowbray at the Washington Times caught him in a fish-story he's told more than twice:

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

Apparently, Senator Kerry met with some, but hardly all 15, of the 2002 U.N. Security Council ambassadors or legations. Senator von Münchhausen rides again.

Capt. Ed weighs in:

We have a presidential candidate who has repeatedly accused George Bush of lying to the American public on the thinnest of evidence, and yet Kerry felt no compunction about telling this lie directly to the cameras during a presidential debate. Kerry spent the past week accusing Bush of using scare tactics to get re-elected, and yet Kerry has spent the past several weeks spreading the lies that Bush has secret plans to start a military draft and to steal the pensions of senior citizens. Kerry and his allies have made wild accusations about Bush's military record but have squealed like schoolgirls every time people ask him to sign a Form 180 to release his own complete military file.

Yes, it reveals nothing that we haven't seen before, but in this case the lie is particularly egregious in that he's using it to undermine our foreign policy and diplomacy in a time of war. It's another indication that nothing, not our security or the lives of our troops, comes before his own overwhelming ambitions to seize power and live out the life of his boyhood idol, John Kennedy. And the fact that he's established a firm pattern of deceit and self-aggrandizement shouldn't be treated with a round of indifference; it should be heralded to the American electorate so that they can see Kerry for the prevaricating narcissist that he so clearly is. [Ed. emphasis mine]

Lots more at Red State (where Joel Mowbray is blogging and answering comments), Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Polipundit, Roger L. Simon, INDC Journal (with even more links), and The Truth Laid Bear here and here.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Oh, no! Senator Kerry reads the NY Times (registration required) and blasts President Bush for "letting" 380 tons of explosives disappear. Yet it's unclear if the cache was intact even before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The presumption is that they were looted at some point:

By late 2003, diplomats said, arms agency experts had obtained commercial satellite photos of Al Qaqaa showing that two of roughly 10 bunkers that contained HMX appeared to have been leveled by titanic blasts, apparently during the war. They presumed some of the HMX had exploded, but that is unclear.

Other HMX bunkers were untouched. Some were damaged but not devastated. I.A.E.A. experts say they assume that just before the invasion the Iraqis followed their standard practice of moving crucial explosives out of buildings, so they would not be tempting targets. If so, the experts say, the Iraqi must have broken seals from the arms agency on bunker doors and moved most of the HMX to nearby fields, where it would have been lightly camouflaged - and ripe for looting.

Ergo, it's highly probable that when the Marines found no I.A.E.A seals in the facility, they kept on moving to other high-priority sites. [Update 10/26 05:50 am. Also see CNN story.]

It's perhaps worthwhile to dig into the NY Times article to find out why this information has come to light. Well, the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A) asked for it:

Early this month, Dr. ElBaradei put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under I.A.E.A. supervision, including the Qaqaa stockpile.

"Iraq is obliged," he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, "to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen."

The agency, Dr. ElBaradei added pointedly, "has received no such notifications or declarations from any state since the agency's inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq in March 2003."

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 10, Dr. Mohammed J. Abbas of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote a letter to the I.A.E.A. to say the Qaqaa stockpile had been lost. He added that his ministry had judged that an "urgent updating of the registered materials is required."

A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 American tons, of HMX, RDX and PETN as missing.

Yes, that's a lot of bang. It's also a very small fraction of what's already been discovered and destroyed. Captain Ed does an excellent job of providing context:

So let's keep in mind that when we're talking about 380 tons of ammunition, it represents 0.019% of the estimated amount of explosives and munitions that confronted the US at the beginning of the invasion. As Mike* makes clear, it will take years to find, secure, and destroy all of these caches, and the Coalition had to prioritize the sites very quickly on their arrival. Absent any IAEA seals, they did what common sense dictated: the US moved its troops into positions where they could fight the enemy and secure communications.

Most egregiously, the failure to protect less than 0.02% of the total estimated munitions in Iraq has been seized upon by Kerry's campaign as an example of "incompetence":

Reacting to the IAEA announcement on Monday, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry said the "incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be."

These hysterical ravings from the Democrats should convince voters that anyone this panicky cannot possibly be trusted with any kind of command authority over our military, let alone guide us in an asymmetrical war with Islamic terrorists and the countries that sponsor them.

*Mike is the author of a series of pictorial emails explaining to his kids "Why We Fight". Part III covers his work with the discovery and disposal of cached ordnance, and Capt. Ed quotes from it in his post today.

And this is today's email from Ken Mehlman, Campaign Manager for Bush-Cheney '04:

Subject: John Kerry's Attacks: Ripped from the Headlines!
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:11:45 -0400
From: Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman
To: Kate Adell

Dear Kate,

Kerry's campaign is becoming desperate.

Everyday brings a new charge against the President and every charge is pulled right from the headlines of the New York Times. If you want to know how John Kerry will attack the President in the afternoon, just read the Times in the morning.

John Kerry will say anything he believes will help him politically, and today he is grasping at headlines to obscure his record of weakness and indecision in the War on Terror. These are the tactics of a candidate who has no message for the future and no positive record to run on.

The entire country of Iraq was a weapons stockpile. So far, 243,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured and destroyed. In addition, 163,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured and are awaiting destruction. All the Monday morning-quarterbacking and armchair-generaling in the world by John Kerry won't make up for the fact that he does not have a vision, a strategy or a plan to fight and win the War on Terror. [Ed. Underlined in original.]

Saddam Hussein's government stored weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals and countless other locations throughout Iraq. Yet, John Kerry showed today that he still cannot decide whether Saddam Hussein was a threat or not. He claims the weapons our troops have secured and destroyed were not a threat, but any other weapons were.

You should prepare for more baseless attacks torn from the headlines in the coming days by John Kerry. You should also expect more desperate flailing by his campaign as more polls show President Bush on his way to re-election.

John Kerry is attempting to distract voters from the clear choice they face between President Bush's strong leadership to protect America and John Kerry's weak record of proposing reckless cuts to our defense and intelligence budgets.

They will not succeed.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman

For a self-proclaimed realist, who has sworn that "you will always get the truth from me, in good times and in bad times. And I will never mislead the American people," Senator Kerry has a remarkable facility to be selective in his use of "facts".

[Update 10/26 05:50 am] Michelle Malkin digs into misleading "Kerryisms" about 95% uninspected cargo, his UN chats, and Senator Lugar's implied support of Kerry's positions.

Remembering Vietnam

None of the Vietnam veterans I work with will be voting for Senator Kerry to be our next President. And a lot of that stems from his 1971 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which in turn cited the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation. So with all the noise about the film "Stolen Honor" and Sinclair Broadcasting, I thought I'd compile some background reading for you.

The documentary "Stolen Honor" can be watched on the web, although I'll warn you that it's 42 minutes long. (It's free of charge for a limited time). Here's the director's plot summary from IMDB.com:

In the mid 1960's thousands of young American men left their families, homes and jobs and went to fight for their country in Southeast Asia. Many of them never returned. Others were shot down and captured behind enemy lines. They were forced to suffer years of brutal treatment at the hands of the Communist captors. In the opinions of this political affiliation, their horrifying days of darkness, starvation and torture were made worse by the actions of a young American Officer named John Kerry.

Bowing to political pressure, Sinclair Broadcasting did not show the documentary. Readers at Lucianne.com have some choice comments about what was broadcast instead. A Wall Street Journal editorial provides more background and wonders about long-term consequences for freedom of the press:

Sinclair bent under enormous political pressure, but notably a kind we haven't seen wielded before to silence the media. We aren't referring to the raft of Democratic complaints filed with official agencies. There's nothing unusual there. A call for an advertising boycott came next -- again, not pleasant, but not unheard of in this business.

The next step was something new: A double team by trial lawyers and government officials threatening shareholder suits. [...]

Now that this trial lawyer-government precedent has been set, who's to stop it if it next turns, as eventually it will, on the New York Times, or CBS? ... If the standard now is that stirring controversy is a fraud against shareholders because it may cost ad revenue, a lot more media owners than Sinclair are going to become political targets.

In the Weekly Standard, author Joshua Muravchik penned "Never Apologize, Never Explain," in which he discusses the smokescreen the Kerry camp has used in "explaining" the 1970-71 visits to Paris and the 1971 Senate testimony.

When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unveiled the fourth in their series of television ads--this one accusing Kerry of having "secretly met with the enemy" in Paris--both papers went into full debunking mode. The Post ran 600 words under the headline: "Ad Says Kerry 'Secretly' Met With Enemy; But He Told Congress of It." The story explained that the Swifties were "referring to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry . . . mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of that year."

The next morning the Post ran a correction. The previous day's story, it noted, "incorrectly said that John F. Kerry met with a Vietnamese communist delegation in Paris in 1971. The meeting was in 1970." The correction did not acknowledge, however, that this apparently minor error invalidated the entire point of the Post's impeachment of the Swifties' ad. Kerry's visit to Paris took place in or around May 1970, eleven months before his Foreign Relations Committee testimony. In other words, his meeting with the Communists (while he was still a reserve officer in the U.S. Navy) appears to have been kept secret for nearly a year.

Other resources:

• SwiftVets have lots of articles and links. Check out their Latest News page and all their ads.


• Wintersoldier.com explains how fraudulent the whole "Winter Soldier" investigation was. They also have a large reading list, including public FBI files on the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.


• Veterans for Bush have compiled an extensive reading list on their homepage. Check out their links to charity too, such as Soldier's Angels which is a favorite of Hugh Hewitt.


• Wingmenforbush.com provides one-stop shopping to debunk the rumors about Lt. George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. (For my research on the topic, see the "RareKate Writes" archives 09/05/2004 - 09/11/2004.)


• Also check out Froggy Ruminations for a former Navy Seal's perspective on current events. His is one of many excellent Milblogs out there.

Thursday picks

Michelle Malkin says "Rosie the Riveter has given way to Sally the Sniveler.":

But Rosie is gone. And in her place, we have Hysterical Women for Kerry. They are self-absorbed celebrities who support banning all guns (except the ones their bodyguards use to protect them and their children). They are teachers' union bigwigs who support keeping all children hostage in public schools (except their own sons and daughters who have access to the best private institutions). They are sanctimonious environmentalists who oppose ostentatious energy consumption (except for their air-conditioned Malibu mansions and Gulfstream jets and custom Escalades.)

They are antiwar activists who claim to love the troops (except when they're apologizing to the terrorists trying to kill our men and women in uniform). They are peace activists who balk at your son bringing in his "Star Wars" light saber for the kindergarten Halloween parade (but who have no problem serving as human shields for torture-loving dictators). They are ultrafeminists who purport to speak for all women (but not the unborn ones or the abstinent teenage ones or the minority conservative ones or the newly enfranchised ones in Afghanistan).

She has more comments about her column here. Michelle also comments on Senator Kerry's Ohio hunting trip yesterday in her post, "YOU CAN'T FOOL A SPORTSMAN". (I'll also add her to my blog list on the right this evening.)

Over at Opinion Journal, Claudia Rosett has the latest installment on the Oil-For-Food scandal at the UN. (For more on the topic see my Columbus Day Digest.)

Don't miss the Wall Street Journal editorial, "Desperate Kerry tries to scare seniors" about Social Security:

At his party's convention in Boston, Mr. Kerry pledged, "As President, I will not privatize Social Security." OK, fine. But as President, what would he do to prevent a fiscal catastrophe? Isn't this part of a President's job description?

He certainly hasn't left himself much room for leadership. His campaign Web site says: "As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security or privatize Social Security." These promises simply can't all be kept. There is a choice to be made.

Mr. Bush is at least proposing one way to address the problem that is open to public scrutiny and debate. Senator Kerry refuses to choose, assures us that with "minor changes" it will all work out somehow, and demonizes his opponent for having a plan. These are the scare tactics of a desperate candidate, and we hope the Bush campaign doesn't let him get away with it.

In The American Thinker, Herbert E. Meyer writes "The Lessons of 9-11":

What we learned on September 11 is this: We are now living in a world in which a small number of people can kill a large number of people very quickly. They can hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, spread anthrax spores through the mail, pour botulism into a city’s water supply, detonate a “dirty” backpack filled with radioactive waste in a shopping mall, or even get their hands on a nuclear device and set it off in one of our cities. And so the lesson of 9-11 couldn’t be more clear: our tolerance for political horseplay must drop, to just a small fraction above zero.

Now you see why going after al Queda and other terrorist groups is necessary, but not sufficient. As long as there are states willing to play footsie with the terrorists by giving them sanctuary, selling them arms, laundering their money, providing false passports, or helping them to shift people and equipment around the world – and as long as there are states whose own policies and actions threaten mass murder – civilization cannot be safe.

Also at The American Thinker, Edward L. Daley has some sarcastic commentary about Kerry's Nov 3 strategy:

Since it's apparent that we, the American people, are no longer capable of running our own elections, who better to do it for us than bus-loads of left-wing legal eagles and Kyoto-supporting foreign bureaucrats? A practicable answer to that question escapes me, as I'm sure it does all of you who are reading this now. [...]

Why, it's almost as if these cantankerous cretins think that America is a nation which values the opinions of wholly ordinary people as highly as it does those of Harvard educated law practitioners!

I mean, have you ever...?

James K. Glassman writes a thoughtful piece for TechCentral Station about Who, or What, Grants Us Our Rights?:

Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, "affords" rights to Americans. My dictionary defines "afford," in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.

That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.

Where do our rights come from if they don't come from government? They come from God -- which may be why John Kerry doesn't get it.

Lorie Byrd at Polipundit posts "A Brilliant Retort To The Arm Chair Generals":

It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, “What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can’t even answer simple questions like 2+2=4″. That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently “the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.

But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn’t take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

You can read the whole thing at Andrew Sullivan’s site.

And finally, Little Green Footballs reports that "Retired General Tommy Franks is still taking the fight to the enemy, with an op-ed in the New York Times pointing out John Kerry’s lies about Afghanistan: War of Words." A sample:

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never “took his eye off the ball” when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.