The Bronx Blogger

September 11, 2006

2006-09-11T13:43:00.000-04:00

The past few weeks is the first time in a long time that I'm not living in New York City.

It hasn't felt strange -- Bellingham, Washington is a great little city, and my family and I have slipped right into place here -- but this weekend I noticed that I'm really not on the east coast anymore.

We watched the ABC television special, part one, last night about "The Path to 9/11". The show lasted two hours and forty minutes. Immediately after the final scenes they switched over to the local ABC affiliate, "Komo 4", and the news anchor previewed the local newscast that was about to come on. She mentioned a "local 9/11 survivor" who had consented to be interviewed.

She ran a clip from the interview, and introduced the clip by explaining how the man was trapped on the 51rst floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. She mentioned that he was in the tower for over an hour, just until the south tower was attacked as well, and then he escaped.

I noticed her timeline was off, because I knew the south tower was attacked less than a half hour after the north tower. My reaction was, "Wow, how could she say something like that? How could she not know?" And I soon realized that perhaps she wasn't such an unusual person in her ignorance.

I remembered that at 8:45 am New York time, when the first plane hit, it was only 5:45 am Washington time. By the time the twin towers had both collapsed, a lot of people in Washington were still just starting their morning routines. When you also consider that 9/11 survivors are not such a queer animal back in New York, you can see how attitudes and just the simple impact of the attacks on people's consciousness might be very, very different out here than back in New York.

For a long time after the jihadi attacks, I had a hard time looking at the skyline in New York from various angles and not noticing that the WTC is no longer standing there where it used to be. It always registered for a couple of years in my brain that there was an empty space. But now I feel a mildly raw numbness in my mind in that part of my mental map of New York City where the WTC used to be, and I no longer actively think about the gap in the skyline every time I see it. I think a lot more about Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran nowadays than I think about the September 11th attacks and the WTC and the damaged Pentagon.

Steven Den Beste (see this post for some background) has a post up today at the "Chicago Boyz" group weblog. He titles the piece "The Disunited States of America". It's a good summary of what the impact of the jihadi war has been on the U.S.

The U.S. didn't pay a lot of attention to Islamist terrorists before September 2001. Since the jihadis are attention-seeking murderers, a policy of just trying to keep a lid on them seemed like a logical, even reasonable response. We didn't want to feed the martyr-wish of the fanatical foot-soldiers, or play the role in their script that was allotted to the Great Satan.

Even if some people wanted to ruthlessly attack the terrorists and their sponsors, the U.S. political leadership had not tried very hard to mobilize the country. President Clinton didn't even do much to make the country pay attention. When the jihadis bombed the WTC with a rental van back in 1993, his decision not to visit Ground Zero seems to have been part of a broader decision to keep up a public display of business-as-usual. Yet without some kind of mobilization, there wasn't a lot we could do beyond intelligence work, manhunts, and criminal prosecution.

If the strategy of containment-but-not-engagement had not been truly discredited in the years and decades leading up to 9/11/01, it certainly lost most of its remaining credibility afterwards. The jihadis were not going to go away unless we were going to make them.

Five years later, I'm optimistic that we are doing a good job in fighting the Islamo-fascists. The widespread, although mostly passive, opposition among Americans to our soldiers' fighting in Iraq may have emboldened the Iranians to challenge us and our allies. But if that is the worst thing that happens in the War on Islamic Terror, then we are probably in pretty good shape.

In any case, we can only do the best we can and adapt to whatever the enemy throws at us. We seem to have the strength, the raw resources to handle most any problem. We just need to be brave, to figure out the right things to do, and then have the confidence that we're doing the right thing.

Update: Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian who has written a lot of commentary about the War on Islamic Terror. He recently wrote a post about the need to have confidence in the correctness of our fight: "The Will of the President".

Iraqi Prime Minister Criticizes U.S. Raid in Baghdad

2006-08-13T20:30:00.000-04:00

Here's a story with a pessimistic spin on the progress of our security efforts in Baghdad:

Chances dim for peace in Baghdad

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, is apparently being torn between pacifying the Mahdi army, which is the Shiite militia of Moqtada Al-Sadr, and leaving Al-Sadr alone. Al-Sadr is a very important member of the ruling coalition that chose Al-Maliki to be prime minister.

The United States is in a complicated battle with Iran and its proxies. It may get much, much worse before it gets any better, and not just in Iraq and Israel.

Even if we follow the best strategy and make the best tactical choices all along the way, the cost and the pain of the resulting events are likely to be high. Only time will tell how many sacrifices we will have to make and how many people will suffer.

The Bronx Blogger Has Moved

2006-08-13T20:11:00.000-04:00

The Bronx Blogger has relocated from the Bronx.

My family and I are now living near the city of Bellingham in the state of Washington. It's very nice out here, just as nice as the Bronx. Bellingham doesn't have a network of subway trains like the Bronx does, but it does have a network of very green parks along some creeks that lead into Bellingham Bay.

It's also very different in some other ways as well -- here's some information on the area: bellingham.org and the website of the city of Bellingham.

Has the tide turned in Iraq?

2006-06-15T10:03:00.000-04:00

"Post-al-Zarqawi Raids Kill 104 Insurgents"

"The Beginning of the End?"

"Papers Show 'Gloomy' State of Insurgency"

I was directed to the third item by the website Refdesk.

President Bush Visits Prime Minister Al-Maliki -- In Baghdad!

2006-06-13T11:11:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post online has the following story up:

"Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Iraq".

I think President Bush is a person who enjoys being president.

I was directed to this story by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.

What's next for Iraq?

2006-06-09T12:57:00.000-04:00

Today's Washington Post features a special guest writer, Nouri al-Maliki.

Mr. Al-Maliki is the prime minister of Iraq. He represents the new government of national unity that was forged over many months of very intense negotiations among the various parties and factions in the new Iraqi parliament.

Here is Prime Minister Al-Maliki's piece for the Washington Post:

Our Strategy for a Democratic Iraq

Prime Minister Al-Maliki lays out an encouraging plan for securing Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. He also outlines proposals for tackling the other major problems facing Iraq, such as extensive government corruption.

Best wishes to you, sir, and all the brave Iraqis who are trying to reconstruct the country. The United States will help you achieve the success you deserve.

Civil War in Iraq

2006-04-21T11:30:00.000-04:00

Michael Yon talks about civil war in Iraq:

"Of Words"

Mr. Yon has a very informed view about what is going on in Iraq. His opinion about whether or not Iraq is in the throes of civil war is nuanced and interesting.

Anyone who feels confused about Iraq and what we should be doing there should read the whole thing.

The Bronx Blogger Talks About Religion

2006-03-22T09:27:00.000-05:00

I've been having several lengthy and involved discussions over at "The Evangelical Outpost".

We've been talking about all sorts of things: the war in Iraq, the failings of the public school system, Darwin's evolution versus Intelligent Design theory, and so on.

Quite often the post starts out with some religious or theological point that Joe Carter, the site proprietor, wishes to discuss. But even when the post doesn't start out that way, the moral and social issues that lie underneath some of the more political issues often steer the conversations in the comment threads back towards religion and belief in God.

I've often made the point over at the E.O. (Evangelical Outpost) that it is much more important that a person have good character and that a person behave charitably towards other people, than whether or not a person is a particular kind of Christian (or Jew or Muslim). It's even much more important than whether or not a person believes in God (after all, that's what She would think is important if She existed).

To me, this is pretty obvious, just common sense. Growing up and living in New York, I've been exposed to folks from all over the planet and from every walk of life. I know that God has bigger fish to fry than whether or not you or I or Joe Carter gives Her proper deference, or even believes in Her at all.

That said, I respect where Joe and everybody else is coming from. After all, freedom brings great responsibility, and people who have liberated themselves from traditional religious beliefs often seem to mess up the "great responsibility" part of their lives. Religious folks like Joe are just trying to encourage everyone to live life in a good way, in the best way possible.

I salute that, and I wish him great success. And I hope he can keep focused enough on what's truly important so that he can keep all his priorities straight. It's a challenge for all of us, myself included.

Peace out, word.

The Bronx Blogger Disagrees with President Bush

2006-02-22T09:37:00.000-05:00

President Bush has come out strongly in defense of an unusual business deal.

A multinational corporation which is partly owned by an Arab country, the United Arab Emirates, is poised to take over a British company which manages port operations in five major American cities: New Orleans, Miami, Balitmore, Philadelphia, and New York. The name of the U.A.E. company is Dubai Ports World, and the name of the British company is Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (also known as P&O).

What's unusual about the deal is that it would grant Middle-Eastern nationals intimate access to our ports at all levels, and run the risk of compromising our port security at five different, extremely vast port facilities. The security implications are mind-boggling.

I don't know the administration rationale for allowing this deal to proceed. I know what they, including the President himself, have said: "President Bush Defends Port Deal". But the administration's responses seem to leave a lot more questions unanswered than answered.

I don't expect the Bush administration to be able to answer all the questions here. We're talking about national security, and we can't announce to the whole world what our security procedures are. We cannot explain in great detail to the whole world why any particular arrangements at our ports should or shouldn't inspire confidence.

Nonetheless, I cannot bring myself to agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial board ("Ports of Politics, or How to sound like a hawk without being one"), that this is just a political controversy with no substantial grounds for concern.

It could be President Bush and the WSJ are right, at least to the extent that the benefits of this port deal outweigh the negatives. Perhaps the U.S. is receiving a lot more in return from this deal than is apparent to anyone who is not on the inside.

But I don't see it from where I sit.

For example, the Bush administration cites the fact that all port security arrangements are in the hands of federal agencies, and will remain in federal hands after Dubai Ports takes control of port management. I find this unpersuasive for the simple and obvious reason that we need to trust everyone involved, and not just the cops.

We need to trust as many people on the private end as possible. If transferring control of port management from British to U.A.E. hands means being able to trust only 80 to 90% of the private people instead of 95% of the private people, then that seems like a very bad deal to me. (I am of course, very ignorant about port security, and cannot justify any numbers or even any specific arguments. But I call them as I see them, and this is how, in my ignorance, that I see it.)

I hope that I am dead wrong about this, and President Bush is right. But I don't think that is likely. (And I'm somebody who really likes Harriet Miers, and who thought that she would have made an excellent Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court!)

Scientists and Businessmen Are Inventing an Elevator to Outer Space

2006-02-14T10:09:00.000-05:00

Here's a very interesting story about some late-breaking developments in the exciting efforts to develop a real-live space elevator:

Next floor for the space elevator

I was directed to this article by Rand Simberg's Transterrestrial Musings.

[That's it for this post -- no more to read.]

Hillary Clinton and the late Hugh Thompson

2006-01-26T22:25:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton is the junior U.S. Senator from New York. She was elected to that position while serving as First Lady in President Bill Clinton's White House.

Senator Clinton gave a speech eight days ago at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University about foreign policy and the problems we face in the Middle East.

Here's a very interesting quote from her speech (29th paragraph out of 40):

I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.

Anyone who supports President Bush and has been paying attention to developments in Iraq and Iran will understand right away why this quote is so interesting. The quote is an excellent example of a very shrewd and unscrupulous tactic that Bill and Hillary Clinton have used before to great effect: state the precise opposite of what is really true and say it with a straight face before a polite (if not downright sympathetic) audience, and pretend that this is what you really believe.

The chutzpah that is required to pull this off is perfectly Orwellian: black is white, war is peace, bad is double-plus-good.

It is true that if you parse Senator Clinton's statement with a lawyerly eye, then it is possible that every word and phrase might be literally true. It is possible, for instance, that Clinton does believe, in hindsight, that we did indeed "lose critical time in dealing with Iran" because the White House chose to publicly downplay the threats and "outsource the negotiations".

What makes this observation so deceitful and such an inversion of the truth is what Senator Clinton leaves out.

She leaves out that it was the Senate Democratic leaders, herself included, who were counseling President Bush to "outsource the negotiations" to our European allies. She leaves out that publicly downplaying the threats was a crucial part of pursuing that diplomatic course. And she neglects to mention that the White House never internally downplayed the threats -- to the contrary, they took the threats as seriously as any administration possibly could.

Now if Senator Clinton were not a prominent and powerful political leader, it would not be very important that she is so dishonest. Politicians have been known to stretch the truth. If Senator Clinton happens to be a particularly shameless liar, she is just choosing to indulge in a vice that many politicians are probably secretly proud to be guilty of indulging in themselves.

But unfortunately, Senator Clinton is not just prominent and powerful, she is perhaps the current front-runner to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. And she is perhaps the single most influential person in the national Democratic party.

Her dishonesty is not merely the desperate maneuvering of a politician trying to stay one step ahead of current events. Her dishonesty is emblematic of a rotten core of unscrupulous opportunism that is widespread in the Democratic party (and which is common enough in the Republican party as well).

If one were to contemplate this state of affairs for any length of time, it could conceivably (easily?) lead to a depressing cynicism and pessimism about politics and human nature in general. So as an antidote to the ugly truth about Senator Clinton, it pays to take a look at someone who is a real leader, someone whose character led him to be a hero, and not a sad lying ambitious huckster.

Such a hero passed on recently. His name is Hugh Thompson, and he fought with distinction in the Vietnam War. That fact alone is enough to make him a hero, an anti-Hillary if you will. But his story is unusual and gripping in a way that even many war heros would find impressive.

You can read about it here: "Someone you need to meet".

The Bronx Blogger Visits An Anti-War Political Blog

2005-12-20T00:31:00.000-05:00

"Lean Left" is a political blog written by "kevin", Kevin T. Keith, and Tom Girsch (that's two different Kevin's and one Tom).

Back in October, Tom Girsch invited me to respond to this post by kevin: Iraq Was Always a Bad Decision".

And I did:

My response

And Tom responded to my response:

Tom's response

And here was my second, and last response:

My last response

President Bush Defuses Wiretap Kerfuffle

2005-12-19T23:46:00.000-05:00

Scott Ott of Scrappleface has produced a funny bit of satire on the topic of National Security Administration (NSA) wiretaps of Americans' phones:

(President) Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List

Excerpt:

“If you’re concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer,” [President Bush] said, “then go to DoNotWiretap.gov, [ ... ] and we’ll let the National Security Administration know that you don’t want them eavesdropping on you.”

I was directed to Mr. Ott's piece by Michelle Malkin at Michelle Malkin.

Sweet Quote from Iraq

2005-12-19T22:41:00.000-05:00

A blog from Iraq that has been around since November 2003: "Iraq the Model".

A report from Iraq last Friday, the day after the voting ended: "Words from Iraq... "

Sweetest quote from the above report:

Iraqis are like sweet fruit, and their sweetness
lies in their big hearts and meeting them at the
voting station yesterday was enjoyable like eating
a good plate of sweets! They cast their ballots while
I enjoyed the Iraqi symphony of patriotism.

I was directed to this story by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.

Steven Den Beste -- Is He Back in Action?

2005-11-10T01:20:00.000-05:00

For several years, one of my three favorite websites was a blog created by Steven Den Beste called USS Clueless.

Here's are three links for the USS Clueless:
Mainpage
Archives
"Greatest Hits".

Mr. Den Beste provided wickedly intelligent analysis of all manner of topics. Most often he wrote about the War on Terror, the invasion of Iraq, and politics. He occasionally analyzed unusual yet revealing points in science, religion, and popular culture.

He gave up political blogging on a regular basis in July 2004. But it looks like he may have jumped back into it, at least on a trial basis.

He has written a series of six posts so far in the past two weeks at a community blog called Red State. Here's a link to the posts: Steven Den Beste diary.

Wall Street Journal Misleads Readers About Libby Case

2005-10-29T04:05:00.000-04:00

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced yesterday that he had gotten a grand jury to produce indictments against Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to a federal officer. Mr. Libby thereupon resigned his position as Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.

I just read an article about the indictments at the Wall Street Journal commentary website, wsj.com OpinionJournal, that seriously ticked me off.

Here is a link to the opinion piece: Obstruction for What? Libby is charged with lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

The piece argues that the substance of the indictments are fairly flimsy. Furthermore, since Mr. Fitzgerald never brought any charges directly related to the leak of classified information that he was investigating, the Journal story concludes that there is a strong possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald should never have pressed charges.

[DISCLOSURE: Mr. Fitzgerald is a good friend of someone in my family. I know him to be a person of impeccable honesty, diligence, work ethic, and judgement. He also went to the same high school as me, but he was not my contemporary there.]

The Journal article, which is unsigned, is perhaps the most tendentiously deceptive opinion piece I have ever read in the Wall Street Journal.

I salute the desire of the author(s) to rally to the defense of a person with a distinguished record of public service, and who has the right, as all defendants do, to a presumption of innocence. But that is no excuse for penning a misleading polemic in the pages of a great national newspaper.

Here's a passage from the article that seems to make an effort to create a false impression about the indictments:

... according to the indictment, Mr. Libby did a little digging, found out who Joe Wilson's wife was, and apparently told Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never wrote it up, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who put it into print after Mr. Novak's column had run. What's more, he allegedly did not talk to Tim Russert of NBC about it, although he claimed that he had. Mr. Libby then didn't tell a grand jury and the FBI the truth about what he told those reporters, the indictment claims.

If this is a conspiracy to silence Administration critics, it was more daft than deft.

Here is the text of a letter to the editors that I submitted in response to the above points:

The indictment accuses Scooter Libby of lying under oath about talking to Tim Russert about Valerie Plame. He swore that he did, and the indictment says he didn't.

Not a big deal, right? We already know that Mr. Libby talked to Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller about Valerie Plame, so why should we care if Mr. Libby mistakenly includes Mr. Russert as well? What could Patrick Fitzgerald have been thinking? This sounds like a pretty gratuitous count of perjury.

Well, it would be gratuitous if Mr. Libby had claimed he was telling Mr. Russert about Ms. Plame. But he claimed nothing of the sort.

What he did claim is that it was Mr. Russert who told him about Valerie Plame, and that he, Mr. Libby, didn't realize the truth about Ms. Plame's status until Mr. Russert revealed it to him.

If Mr. Libby did indeed perjure himself over this point, his purpose is very clear indeed: he is pretending that he didn't learn Valerie Plame's covert status through official government channels. For if he did learn about it through official channels, then revealing it could potentially be a felony violation, since Ms. Plame's status at the CIA was classified information.

I am very disappointed that the Wall Street Journal, in an attempt to cast doubt on Mr. Fitzgerald's indictments, has left out these material facts about the significance of the discrepancies in Mr. Libby's testimony about Mr. Russert. Whether this omission arose through carelessness or a desire to confuse, it does not reflect well on whoever wrote this article.

There are other dubious points and curious omissions in the Journal piece. But rather than "fisk" (that is to say, conduct a point-by-point rebuttal of) the whole article, I encourage any of my readers who are familiar with the indictments to read the article and discover for yourself what I am talking about.

As always, I encourage and appreciate comments, both pro and con, so if you feel like sharing, please don't be shy.

Harriet Miers Drops Out

2005-10-27T09:02:00.000-04:00

Last night, at 8:30 pm, Harriet Miers asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court. She cited the fact that the struggle for her nomination to gain traction among the president's supporters had become a burden on the White House.

I heard this on the radio station WQXR, the station of the New York Times, a few minutes ago. The report made mention of the speech she gave in 1993 that revealed her support of legalized abortion.

I guess this means I don't support her nomination anymore!

Update, 9:45 am Here's a link to Ms. Miers' letter of withdrawal:

"Dear Mr. President"

Link courtesy of Michelle Malkin and National Review Online.

Update, 10:06 am Senator Arlen Specter, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was just shown by CNBC saying, "The way Harriet Miers has been treated is really disgraceful." Senator Specter referred to her confirmation fight as "a sad episode" in a town (Washington, D.C.) that has its share of sad episodes.

Amen to that, Senator.

Update, 11:50 am I'm participating in a good discussion of the withdrawal over at Protein Wisdom:

"Democratic leader: Right wing killed Miers' nomination"

I Support the Miers Nomination

2005-10-27T01:57:00.000-04:00

President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court a few weeks ago.

On October 6th, I put up a post in response to Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal. Since then, I haven't blogged about it, but I have left several comments on various blogs that have been supportive of Ms. Miers nomination.

"The truth laid bear" website launched a blog poll the other day which has been tallying up a couple of hundred bloggers' positions on the Miers nomination: pro, con, or neutral. I had been technically neutral, but leaning heavily towards pro. But now I have decided to cast my vote: I support the Miers nomination.

I don't have time to explain my decision fully right now, so I will have to post an update. But in brief, I feel that Ms. Miers is currently undergoing a kind of pundit/blog lynching that cannot be reasonably justified. I'm still not a hundred percent comfortable with Ms. Miers (more on that later), but I have finally seen enough to convince me that she deserves my support and the support of most people who would generally align themselves with President Bush politically.

Good News from Iraq

2005-10-25T14:09:00.000-04:00

Draft Constitution Adopted by Iraqi Voters

Report from Baghdad by Major E.

I was directed to the constitution story by Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters.

President Bush, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan

2005-10-24T13:02:00.000-04:00

President Bush just announced Alan Greenspan's replacement as chair of the Federal Reserve system. The President read a brief announcement from the Oval Office, with Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke standing by his side. Then Mr. Bernanke made some brief comments of his own.

Mr. Bernanke made a point of emphasizing that he would maintain continuity in policy and continuity in policy strategy with the policy and strategy of Mr. Greenspan. The only known difference in Mr. Bernanke's views on monetary policy from Mr. Greenspan's views is that he believes there should be an openly announced targeted inflation rate set by the Fed.

CNBC commentators and everybody else seem very pleased by the president's choice of Mr. Bernanke. He has impeccable credentials, a long record of distinguishied economic analysis, and highly relevant experience in the public sector and academia.

Well done, President Bush!

UPDATE, October 25th Here's a dissenting view on Mr. Bernanke:

The Scary Side of Ben Bernanke, by John Tammy

I was directed to Mr. Tammy's piece by Mumon, of Notes in Samsarra.

Peggy Noonan Dumps on President Bush for Picking Harriet Miers

2005-10-06T00:30:00.000-04:00

Peggy Noonan is a very smart and very sensible columnist for the Wall Street Journal. Today she has written a piece which explains why President Bush made a big mistake in picking Harriet Miers as his nominee for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here's a link for Ms. Noonan's article: "The Miers Misstep, What was President Bush thinking?"

I e-mailed a reply to the article to the editors of the online Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is called OpinionJournal. The editors may choose to include my remarks in the response section when they post reader reactions later today.

Here is what I wrote:

President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for two reasons.

First, Ms. Miers is eminently qualified.

She has a long and distinguished record of service in both the public and private sector. She was the president of a major law firm in Dallas. She has served as counsel to Bush, first when he was governor-elect of Texas, and then during his presidency.

The second reason President Bush has picked Ms. Miers is the fact that she is a staunch legal conservative who comes personally recommended by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid!

President Bush knows Ms. Miers better than almost anyone, and he is convinced that Ms. Miers is a constitutional constructionist. Apparently Senator Reid didn't realize that before recommending her. Conservatives should be rejoicing instead of complaining about alleged missteps on the part of the president.

In short, choosing Harriet Miers was a no-brainer.

The only real apparent objection is that Ms. Miers is a "crony" of President Bush. I'm sure the Senate Democrats will be sorely tempted to pick up this line of attack when they realize how badly President Bush has hoodwinked them.

Unfortunately for Senator Reid and company, a true crony has to be either incompetent or corrupt, and Ms. Miers is neither. Ms. Miers will be confirmed, and the Democrats will just have to grin and bear it.

I've cut and pasted the text of Ms. Noonan's article for when the link above goes bad. Here it is:

The Miers Misstep
What was President Bush thinking?
by Peggy Noonan

Thursday, October 6, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

It all depends on the hearings.

Barring a withdrawal of her nomination, it's going to come down to Harriet Meirs's ability to argue her own case before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the American people decide she seems like a good person--sympathetic, wise, even-keeled, knowledgeable--she'll be in; and if not, not.

What everyone forgets about the case of Robert Bork in his confirmation hearings is that regular people watched him, listened to the workings of his fabulous and exotic mind, saw the intensity, the hunger for intellectual engagement, caught the whiff of brandy and cigars and angels dancing, noticed the unusual hair, the ambivalent whiskers, and thought, "Who's this weirdo?" They did the same thing with Arthur Liman in the Oliver North hearings. I am not saying Americans are swept by the superficial. I am saying Americans pick things up, and once they've picked them up, they don't easily put them down. Anyway, public opinion moves and then senators vote "no," or not.

So the administration can turn this around. Or rather Ms. Meirs can. In her favor: America has never met her, she'll get to make a first impression. Working against her: But they'll already be skeptical. By the time of the hearings she'll have been painted as Church Lady. There's a great old American tradition of not really liking Church Lady.

That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.

The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.

He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you "don't have to pick." History picks it for you. You fight.

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he's indulging a desire to show them who's boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn't all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated--he'll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he's totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

Whatever the answer, history is being revealed here by the administration every day, and it's big history, not small.

Back to Ms. Meirs herself, and the merits of her nomination. What would she be like on the bench? I know the answer. So do you. It's: Nobody knows. It's all a mystery. In considering who will fill one of the most consequential power positions in the country we are all reduced to, "I like this, I don't like that."

I like it that she's run a legal practice: that she real-world experience, a knowledge of the flow of money in America, of how it's made and spent. I don't like it that she's never written an interesting thing about a great issue. I like it that she taught Sunday school. I like it that she's not Ivy League. I don't like it that she's obscure. I like it that she works so hard. But I don't like it if she's a drone. I like it that she's a woman. It doesn't matter much that she's a woman. Etc.

I don't think it's important to show loyalty to the president by backing his decision. This choice will live beyond his presidency. It's important to get a justice who will add to the wisdom of the court, who will make it more likely that America will get a fair hearing before the bench.

Would she? I don't know, you don't know, the president who appointed her doesn't know. Presidents are always being surprised by what losers they put on the bench.

I wonder in fact if Harriet Meirs knows what Harriet Meirs will be like on the court. I am referring to more than the fact that if confirmed she will be presented with particular cases with particular facts that spring from a particular context and are governed, or not, by particular precedents. And I'm referring to more than the fact that people change, in spite of the president's odd insistence that she won't. People do, for good and ill. Sometimes they just become more so. But few are static.

No one can know how the experience of the court will affect someone--the detachment from life as lived by the proles, the respect you become used to, the Harvard Law Review clerks from famous families who are only too happy to pick up your dry cleaning and listen to the third recounting of your boring anecdote. Everyone wants you at dinner. You notice that you actually look quite good in black.

And you become used to the idea that unlike everyone else in the country, you have job security. A lifetime appointment. When people have complete professional security they are more likely in time to show a new conceit. I don't know why this is, but I think it's connected to the fact that they're lucky, and it seems somehow hardwired in human nature that when people are lucky they come to think they deserve it: It's not luck, it's virtue. And since it's virtue my decisions are by their nature virtuous. I think I'll decree that local government, if it judges it necessary, can throw grandma out of the house and turn her tired little neighborhood into a box store that will yield higher tax revenues. Thus Kelo v. New London is born. I decree it.

But I'm thinking of something different. I've noticed that we live in an age in which judges and legal minds seem to hide their own judicial philosophy from themselves. And that might explain why a Harriet Meirs has reached the age of 60 and no one seems to know what she thinks.

Having a philosophy is all too big and too dangerous--paper trails, insights inadequately phrased that come back to haunt. Lawyers with ambition seem to have become adept at hiding their essential intellectual nature from themselves. They break the law down into tiny chewable pieces and endlessly masticate them. They break it down into small manageable bits, avoiding the larger abstractions. It's one of the reasons they're so boring.

In a highly politicized climate it's not really convenient for lawyers to know their deepest beliefs and convictions. Robert Bork, serious thinker and mature concluder, became bork, living verb. Or rather living past-tense verb.

Only reluctantly and only with time do lawyers now develop a philosophy. They get on the court, and reveal it to us day by day. And reveal it, one senses, to themselves.

And so the historical irony: Supreme Court justices are more powerful than ever while who and what they are is more mysterious than ever. We have a two part problem. The first is that no one knows what they think until they're there. The other is that they're there forever.

I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution. Why not? We'd amend it to ban flag-burning, even though a fool burning a flag can't possibly harm our country. But a Kelo decision and a court unrebuked for it can really tear the fabric of a nation.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," forthcoming in November from Penguin.

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus Gives Iraq Briefing at Princeton

2005-10-02T21:41:00.000-04:00

The Tigerhawk blog reports on a speech given yesterday at Princeton by Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who until recently was a senior commander of the U.S. coalition forces in Iraq. Among other duties, he has been in charge of the NATO mission for training Iraq security forces.

You can read Tigerhawk's firsthand account of the speech here:

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus speaks at Princeton

If you browse the latest posts at Tigerhawk, you can also read his account of a speech delivered two days ago at Princeton by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

I was directed to Tigerhawk's account of the Petraeus speech by Instapundit.

Here are a few excerpts from Tigerhawk's report:

There are 115 Iraqi battalions in combat right now, and every single one of them has a ten man American training team. The American training team teaches the Iraqi officers how to lead and helps coordinate Coalition assistance in logistical matters and combat support. “A huge effort paying enormous dividends.”

So, what's the "bottom line up front?" Iraqi soldiers and special police are “very much in the fight,” as evidenced, “sadly,” by the casualties they have taken in combat, which are at least twice the American.

The most impressive thing about the Iraqi units is how tenacious they have become, notwithstanding early reports that they would cut and run. According to General Patraeus, since the January elections, from which the Iraqi security forces “took an enormous lift that still persists,” the Iraqi forces "have not run from a fight, they have not backed down." This strikes me, by the way, as enormously hopeful for the future of Iraq, the persistence of the counterinsurgency, and the power of democracy to motivate the fight against the war on terror. [Emphasis in original]

[ ... ]

Under NATO's auspices, the Iraqi military academy is open with entirely Iraqi instructors. It might have been opened much earlier with foreign instructors, but the Coalition felt that it was important to make it an Iraqi endeavor. General Patraeus noted later that he was very unhappy that this achievement got essentially no coverage in the media given its importance to success in Iraq.

[ ... ]

General Patraeus' discussion of metrics was very interesting, but I was only able to capture some of it. He did, however, explain the "readiness levels" that have so bedeviled the discussion of Iraqi preparedness.

There are 105,000 “trained and equipped” Iraqi forces through basic training and in the field under the Ministry of Interior Forces, which covers police, police commandos, highway patrol, dignitary protection, etc. These units are not “fully independent,” but they are getting there.

Ministry of Defense Forces Trained and Equipped 89,000, including the Iraqi Army, Special Operations, Air Force, Navy, and Combat Support.

“These are not people who have just walked across the stage. They are out there and in combat. For example, this number is about 12,000 fewer than the number of police trained, because some of them don’t make it.”

Soldiers are graduating every day. By the October 15 referendum on the constitution (which Patraeus predicted will pass), trained and equipped military and special police will total 200,000, and 300,000 by next summer.

The progress since the summer of 2004, when General Patraeus assumed command, has been considerable. Fifteen months ago, only six battalions of Iraqi army (less than 2,000 men) were in training, and none were "in the fight." Now, 14 battalions are in training, and 74 are operational and in the fight.

A year ago, there were no special police units. Now there are 27 battalions in the fight, and five more serving as border patrol and emergency response. These are all top-down units, none that have failed “like the homegrown Fallujah brigade.”

These units are all classified according to "readiness reports" that are very similar to those used for the American army.

[ ... ]

The other interesting question [from the audience] involved the "public relations" war. "Are we losing the PR war to the enemy? What are you doing on the marketing PR front?"

General Patraeus said that they have given the media an enormous amount of information, including countless important metrics for measuring progress, but that it is largely ignored. He observed that the enemy “On many days it is impossible to break through the steady drumbeat of sensational attacks occurring in Baghdad throughout the country. The opening of the new military academy got no coverage at all, even though it was a big event with the whole Iraqi government in attendance."

Patraeus is obviously extremely unhappy with the monomaniacal press coverage.

Marine Reservist Explains Why War Protestors Are Sorely Misguided

2005-09-29T08:09:00.000-04:00

Here's an column by Katherine Kersten of the Minneapolis Star Tribune which highlights the stark differences in attitude between Marine Colonel Jeff and so many Americans (and especially news-media reporters!) who view the liberation of Iraq as a costly mistake:

Reservist says protesters are breaking faith

If I have time later, I'll replace this sentence with a short analysis of the article.

I was pointed to this story by an item at the Powerline blog.

Here's the text of the column in case the link goes bad:

Reservist says protesters are breaking faith

by Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
September 29, 2005

Cindy Sheehan made big news at the antiwar rally in Washington last weekend. Cameras clicked as graying Vietnam-era biggies -- Joan Baez, Jesse Jackson -- relived their glory days. Seven busloads of Minnesotans joined them, drawn from groups such as the DFL Party and Women Against Military Madness.

Sheehan set the "outside the mainstream" tone. She has called the foreign terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters." Now -- get this -- she is demanding that America pull our troops not only out of Iraq, but also out of "occupied New Orleans."

Back in Minnesota, Marine Col. Jeff Vold watched the protest unfold. Unlike the demonstrators, Vold knows Iraq firsthand. A Reservist from Maple Grove, he returned last March from seven months in Fallujah and Ramadi, the heart of the violent Sunni Triangle.

Vold's view is 180 degrees different from the protesters'. For years, he says, America took a passive approach to extremist threats. We learned the hard way that this emboldened terrorists and ultimately led to Sept. 11. Abandoning our mission in Iraq now, he says, would be both ill-advised and dangerous.

Vold knows the painful cost of aborting a mission midstream. He was in Somalia in early 1994 when America turned tail. "We abandoned the Somali people because we took 18 casualties in October 1993," he said. "It was a shameful act." That same year, he sat in frustration on a troop ship off Kenya as hundreds of thousands of people were hacked to death in Rwanda. After the first Gulf War, he says, we left the Shiites to a bloody fate. "In Iraq, we're going to stay the course against the terrorists and give the people a chance at freedom and a representative government."

Vold ticks off the extraordinary progress underway in Iraq. In Ramadi, he witnessed ordinary Iraqis braving mortar fire to vote in the January 2005 elections. In just two weeks, on Oct. 15, he adds, these courageous people will have another historic opportunity -- a chance to vote on Iraq's new constitution.

Across Iraq, Americans and Iraqis are working together to reclaim the country from Baathists and terrorists. They are building or refurbishing schools, hospitals, roads and sewer systems. "The battle with the terrorists left Fallujah in rubble," says Vold. "But every day, people thanked us. 'We might have to rebuild our house,' they said, 'but you gave us back our city.' "

Do the Washington protesters know about these great strides? Vold can't say. "When I got back from Iraq, I was disappointed -- astounded, really -- to read the news. The media was saying it's all a failure, while we saw successes around us every day."

Vold puts the continuing sporadic violence in perspective. Most of Iraq, he says, is quiet. "Baghdad is a vibrant city, the size of Chicago's metro area. A bomb goes off -- it's a bad thing, but it's like we're sitting in Eden Prairie and a bomb goes off in Andover. The police investigate, people go about their business. Rush hour is one big traffic jam."

Antiwar demonstrators sometimes claim that their prime motivation is concern for the safety of American troops. "Support the troops," the lawn signs say, "bring them home."

But it doesn't work that way, says Vold. "I try not to take it personally. The reason I'm a Marine is to ensure this is a free country. But I don't think the protesters know the effect they're having on the soldiers. You're always tired, cold or hot, homesick. The last thing you need is a sense that people back home say your mission is doomed, when you see good things happening all the time."

Vold adds that antiwar rhetoric sometimes implicitly portrays soldiers as dupes on a fool's errand. "We volunteered to go to Iraq. The guys over there, who know the situation best, are re-enlisting in great numbers. Most of the guys I served with think this is the best thing America has done in our careers."

How did the Sheehan protest play in Iraq? Yesterday, I asked Vold's friend, Lt. Col. James MacVarish, an adviser to Iraqi troops in Fallujah. He told me in an e-mail that the Iraqis he works with believe such protests and the press they generate "play directly to the strengths of our mutual enemy." Iraqis "are absolutely astounded," he adds, "that we 'allow' that to continue." A few days ago, he had to give his Iraqi colleagues an hourlong civics lesson on freedom of the press.

MacVarish says that the terrorists can't win militarily. So their strategy is to make the U.S. and Iraqi people "bleed a little every day." They hope that the resulting media attention will turn the tide of American opinion against the war, and make the political cost of sustaining it too high. "The more play the press gives Cindy Sheehan," MacVarish concludes, "the better the terrorists' chances are of ultimately succeeding here."

What would a terrorist victory mean? "If we leave before the new government is established and the Iraqi Army is ready," says Vold, "the people will be at the mercy of the bad guys" -- beheaders and torturers, who blow up children. MacVarish minces no words: "If the terrorists win over here, stand by. There will be no stopping them anywhere in the world."

Katherine Kersten is at kkersten@startribune.com.

Steven Vincent Warned Me About Iraq, But I Didn't Listen

2005-09-28T10:30:00.000-04:00

It's not like I had much of an excuse.

I had the guy practically to myself for a solid half-hour.

In very short order I was very impressed with his seriousness, integrity, boldness, and passion for the truth. I took advantage of my time with him to pump him for wisdom about the course of war in Iraq.

Even though he had journeyed to Iraq twice and spent three and a half months there. Even though he written a brilliant book about Iraq that had been published just a week before. Even though he had challenged my own thinking on Iraq by his sharp and deeply disappointed criticism of the U.S. coalition campaign in Iraq. I still didn't let it register that I should digest what he had to say with all the urgency I could muster.

[Note to readers: I wanted to write and post this essay about Steven Vincent over three weeks ago, but I haven't been able to finish it so far. So I have decided to post the beginning of it, and update it piece by piece until I have it completed.

I will also edit it as necessary to make it as seamless as I can. Not only will stuff get reworked and reworded, but whole pieces are liable to get lopped off and disappear forever. So don't be surprised if the end product has evolved into something unpredictably different by the time I'm done.]

President Bush Addresses the U.N

2005-09-15T14:34:00.000-04:00

Here is a link to video of President Bush's speech to the U.N. Security Council Summit at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York yesterday: "Bush at U.N. Security Council"

Here is the text of the speech that President Bush delivered to the U.N.:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT UNITED NATIONS HIGH-LEVEL PLENARY MEETING

United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
9:48 A.M. EDT
September 14, 2005

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the privilege of being here for the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. Thank you for your dedication to the vital work and great ideals of this institution.

We meet at a time of great challenge for America and the world. At this moment, men and women along my country's Gulf Coast are recovering from one of the worst natural disasters in American history. Many have lost homes, and loved ones, and all their earthly possessions. In Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, whole neighborhoods have been lifted from their foundations and sent crashing into the streets. A great American city is working to turn the flood waters and reclaim its future.

We have witnessed the awesome power of nature -- and the greater power of human compassion. Americans have responded to their neighbors in need, and so have many of the nations represented in this chamber. All together, more than 115 countries and nearly a dozen international organizations have stepped forward with offers of assistance. To every nation, every province, and every community across the world that is standing with the American people in this hour of need, I offer the thanks of my nation.

Your response, like the response to last year's tsunami, has shown once again that the world is more compassionate and hopeful when we act together. This truth was the inspiration for the United Nations. The U.N.'s founding members laid out great and honorable goals in the charter they drafted six decades ago. That document commits this organization to work to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," and "promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." We remain committed to those noble ideals. As we respond to great humanitarian needs, we must actively respond to the other great challenges of our time. We must continue to work to ease suffering, and to spread freedom, and to lay the foundations of lasting peace for our children and grandchildren.

In this young century, the far corners of the world are linked more closely than ever before -- and no nation can remain isolated and indifferent to the struggles of others. When a country, or a region is filled with despair, and resentment and vulnerable to violent and aggressive ideologies, the threat passes easily across oceans and borders, and could threaten the security of any peaceful country.

Terrorism fed by anger and despair has come to Tunisia, to Indonesia, to Kenya, to Tanzania, to Morocco, to Israel, to Saudi Arabia, to the United States, to Turkey, to Spain, to Russia, to Egypt, to Iraq, and the United Kingdom. And those who have not seen attacks on their own soil have still shared in the sorrow -- from Australians killed in Bali, to Italians killed in Egypt, to the citizens of dozens of nations who were killed on September the 11th, 2001, here in the city where we meet. The lesson is clear: There can be no safety in looking away, or seeking the quiet life by ignoring the hardship and oppression of others. Either hope will spread, or violence will spread -- and we must take the side of hope.

Sometimes our security will require confronting threats directly, and so a great coalition of nations has come together to fight the terrorists across the world. We've worked together to help break up terrorist networks that cross borders, and root out radical cells within our own borders. We've eliminated terrorist sanctuaries. We're using our diplomatic and financial tools to cut off their financing and drain them of support. And as we fight, the terrorists must know that the world stands united against them. We must complete the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that will put every nation on record: The targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.

And the world's free nations are determined to stop the terrorists and their allies from acquiring the terrible weapons that would allow them to kill on a scale equal to their hatred. For that reason, more than 60 countries are supporting the Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, on sea, and in air. The terrorists must know that wherever they go, they cannot escape justice.

Later today, the Security Council has an opportunity to put the terrorists on notice when it votes on a resolution that condemns the incitement of terrorist acts -- the resolution that calls upon all states to take appropriate steps to end such incitement. We also need to sign and implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, so that all those who seek radioactive materials or nuclear devices are prosecuted and extradited, wherever they are. We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: You will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world.

Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists. Yet we know that this war will not be won by force of arms alone. We must defeat the terrorists on the battlefield, and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas. We must change the conditions that allow terrorists to flourish and recruit, by spreading the hope of freedom to millions who've never known it. We must help raise up the failing states and stagnant societies that provide fertile ground for the terrorists. We must defend and extend a vision of human dignity, and opportunity, and prosperity -- a vision far stronger than the dark appeal of resentment and murder.

To spread a vision of hope, the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty. We are committed to the Millennium Development goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS -- all by 2015.

We have a moral obligation to help others -- and a moral duty to make sure our actions are effective. At Monterrey in 2002, we agreed to a new vision for the way we fight poverty, and curb corruption, and provide aid in this new millennium. Developing countries agreed to take responsibility for their own economic progress through good governance and sound policies and the rule of law. Developed countries agreed to support those efforts, including increased aid to nations that undertake necessary reforms. My own country has sought to implement the Monterrey Consensus by establishing the new Millennium Challenge Account. This account is increasing U.S. aid for countries that govern justly, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom.

More needs to be done. I call on all the world's nations to implement the Monterrey Consensus. Implementing the Monterrey Consensus means continuing on the long, hard road to reform. Implementing the Monterrey Consensus means creating a genuine partnership between developed and developing countries to replace the donor-client relationship of the past. And implementing the Monterrey Consensus means welcoming all developing countries as full participants to the global economy, with all the requisite benefits and responsibilities.

Tying aid to reform is essential to eliminating poverty, but our work doesn't end there. For many countries, AIDS, malaria, and other diseases are both humanitarian tragedies and significant obstacles to development. We must give poor countries access to the emergency lifesaving drugs they need to fight these infectious epidemics. Through our bilateral programs and the Global Fund, the United States will continue to lead the world in providing the resources to defeat the plague of HIV-AIDS.

Today America is working with local authorities and organizations in the largest initiative in history to combat a specific disease. Across Africa, we're helping local health officials expand AIDS testing facilities, train and support doctors and nurses and counselors, and upgrade clinics and hospitals. Working with our African partners, we have now delivered lifesaving treatment to more than 230,000 people in sub-Sahara Africa. We are ahead of schedule to meet an important objective: providing HIV-AIDS treatment for nearly two million adults and children in Africa. At the G-8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, we set a clear goal: an AIDS-free generation in Africa. And I challenge every member of the United Nations to take concrete steps to achieve that goal.

We're also working to fight malaria. This preventable disease kills more than a million people around the world every year -- and leaves poverty and grief in every land it touches. The United States has set a goal of cutting the malaria death rate in half in at least 15 highly endemic African countries. To achieve that goal, we've pledged to increase our funding for malaria treatment and prevention by more than $1.2 billion over the next five years. We invite other nations to join us in this effort by committing specific aid to the dozens of other African nations in need of it. Together we can fight malaria and save hundreds of thousands of lives, and bring new hope to countries that have been devastated by this terrible disease.

As we strengthen our commitments to fighting malaria and AIDS, we must also remain on the offensive against new threats to public health such as the Avian Influenza. If left unchallenged, this virus could become the first pandemic of the 21st century. We must not allow that to happen. Today I am announcing a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. The Partnership requires countries that face an outbreak to immediately share information and provide samples to the World Health Organization. By requiring transparency, we can respond more rapidly to dangerous outbreaks and stop them on time. Many nations have already joined this partnership; we invite all nations to participate. It's essential we work together, and as we do so, we will fulfill a moral duty to protect our citizens, and heal the sick, and comfort the afflicted.

Even with increased aid to fight disease and reform economies, many nations are held back by another heavy challenge: the burden of debt. So America and many nations have also acted to lift this burden that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Today poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens are receiving more than $30 billion in debt relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants, rather than loans. The G-8 agreed at Gleneagles to go further. To break the lend-and-forgive cycle permanently, we agreed to cancel 100 percent of the debt for the world's most heavily indebted nations. I call upon the World Bank and the IMF to finalize this historic agreement as soon as possible.

We will fight to lift the burden of poverty from places of suffering -- not just for the moment, but permanently. And the surest path to greater wealth is greater trade. In a letter he wrote to me in August, the Secretary General commended the G-8's work, but told me that aid and debt relief are not enough. The Secretary General said that we also need to reduce trade barriers and subsidies that are holding developing countries back. I agree with the Secretary General: The Doha Round is "the most promising way" to achieve this goal.

A successful Doha Round will reduce and eliminate tariffs and other barriers on farm and industrial goods. It will end unfair agricultural subsidies. It will open up global markets for services. Under Doha, every nation will gain, and the developing world stands to gain the most. Historically, developing nations that open themselves up to trade grow at several times the rate of other countries. The elimination of trade barriers could lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the next 15 years. The stakes are high. The lives and futures of millions of the world's poorest citizens hang in the balance -- and so we must bring the Doha trade talks to a successful conclusion.

Doha is an important step toward a larger goal: We must tear down the walls that separate the developed and developing worlds. We need to give the citizens of the poorest nations the same ability to access the world economy that the people of wealthy nations have, so they can offer their goods and talents on the world market alongside everyone else. We need to ensure that they have the same opportunities to pursue their dreams, provide for their families, and live lives of dignity and self-reliance.

And the greatest obstacles to achieving these goals are the tariffs and subsidies and barriers that isolate people of developing nations from the great opportunities of the 21st century. Today, I reiterate the challenge I have made before: We must work together in the Doha negotiations to eliminate agricultural subsidies that distort trade and stunt development, and to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to open markets for farmers around the world. Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to free flow of goods and services as other nations do the same. This is key to overcoming poverty in the world's poorest nations. It's essential we promote prosperity and opportunity for all nations.

By expanding trade, we spread hope and opportunity to the corners of the world, and we strike a blow against the terrorists who feed on anger and resentment. Our agenda for freer trade is part of our agenda for a freer world, where people can live and worship and raise their children as they choose. In the long run, the best way to protect the religious freedom, and the rights of women and minorities, is through institutions of self-rule, which allow people to assert and defend their own rights. All who stand for human rights must also stand for human freedom.

This is a moment of great opportunity in the cause of freedom. Across the world, hearts and minds are opening to the message of human liberty as never before. In the last two years alone, tens of millions have voted in free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, in Kyrgyzstan, in Ukraine, and Georgia. And as they claim their freedom, they are inspiring millions more across the broader Middle East. We must encourage their aspirations. We must nurture freedom's progress. And the United Nations has a vital role to play.

Through the new U.N. Democracy Fund, the democratic members of the U.N. will work to help others who want to join the democratic world. It is fitting that the world's largest democracy, India, has taken a leadership role in this effort, pledging $10 million to get the fund started. Every free nation has an interest in the success of this fund -- and every free nation has a responsibility in advancing the cause of liberty.

The work of democracy is larger than holding a fair election; it requires building the institutions that sustain freedom. Democracy takes different forms in different cultures, yet all free societies have certain things in common. Democratic nations uphold the rule of law, impose limits on the power of the state, treat women and minorities as full citizens. Democratic nations protect private property, free speech and religious expression. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And democratic nations contribute to peace and stability because they seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens, not the conquest of their neighbors.

For these reasons, the whole world has a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq -- and no civilized nation has an interest in seeing a new terror state emerge in that country. So the free world is working together to help the Iraqi people to establish a new nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. It's an exciting opportunity for all of us in this chamber. And the United Nations has played a vital role in the success of the January elections, where eight and a half million Iraqis defied the terrorists and cast their ballots. And since then, the United Nations has supported Iraq's elected leaders as they drafted a new constitution.

The United Nations and its member states must continue to stand by the Iraqi people as they complete the journey to a fully constitutional government. And when Iraqis complete their journey, their success will inspire others to claim their freedom, the Middle East will grow in peace and hope and liberty, and all of us will live in a safer world.

The advance of freedom and security is the calling of our time. It is the mission of the United Nations. The United Nations was created to spread the hope of liberty, and to fight poverty and disease, and to help secure human rights and human dignity for all the world's people. To help make these promises real, the United Nations must be strong and efficient, free of corruption, and accountable to the people it serves. The United Nations must stand for integrity, and live by the high standards it sets for others. And meaningful institutional reforms must include measures to improve internal oversight, identify cost savings, and ensure that precious resources are used for their intended purpose.

The United Nations has taken the first steps toward reform. The process will continue in the General Assembly this fall, and the United States will join with others to lead the effort. And the process of reform begins with members taking our responsibilities seriously. When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected -- respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.

At the start of a new century, the world needs the United Nations to live up to its ideals and fulfill its mission. The founding members of this organization knew that the security of the world would increasingly depend on advancing the rights of mankind, and this would require the work of many hands. After committing America to the idea of the U.N. in 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt declared: "The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation." Peace is the responsibility of every nation and every generation.

In each era of history, the human spirit has been challenged by the forces of darkness and chaos. Some challenges are the acts of nature; others are the works of men. This organization was convened to meet these challenges by harnessing the best instincts of humankind, the strength of the world united in common purpose. With courage and conscience, we will meet our responsibilities to protect the lives and rights of others. And when we do, we will help fulfill the promise of the United Nations, and ensure that every human being enjoys the peace and the freedom and the dignity our Creator intended for all.

Thank you. [Applause from assembles delegates]

END
10:13 A.M. EDT

Ask, and You Shall Receive

2005-09-13T21:19:00.000-04:00

Tonight is primary night for New York City. The big prize up for grabs is the Democratic candidacy for mayor. The recipient of this honor will have the right to assume office if somehow Mayor Michael Bloomberg crashes and burns between now and November.

An hour and a half ago, I had a phone conversation with someone who, according to my caller ID, was calling on behalf of "Central National Research".

Here's how it went.

Woman with a somewhat mechanically upbeat voice:

"Hello, there is now one hour left you to go to the polls tonight. Go vote for Congressman Anthony Weiner for Mayor. There is one hour left at the polls. Go vote for Congressman Anthony Weiner."

Me:

"Is there any particular reason why?"

Woman:

"Excuse me?"

Me:

"Particular reason why?"

Woman (no longer somewhat mechanically upbeat):

"Because he's running." [Click... dial tone]

Fourth Year of War Behind Us

2005-09-11T22:49:00.000-04:00

Four planes, two skyscrapers, and the Pentagon were attacked September 11, 2001, and 3,000 folks and 3,000 families were destroyed.

IN MEMORIAM

Michael Brown Update

2005-09-10T12:27:00.000-04:00

I highlighted Michael Brown's role in the response to Hurricane Katrina in this post: "What Role Did President Bush Play in the New Orleans Nightmare, Part II?"

Here is an update on the responsibilities that Mr. Brown will have now that he's been reassigned back to Washington, D.C.:

FEMA's Brown Promoted to 'Assistant President'

If you click on the above link, you will be able to read the following story, plus have access to a wide variety of items that you probably won't get a chance to read anywhere else, courtesy of Scott Ott of Scrappleface. Scott Ott's motto is "News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher."

[ Mitigating Circumstances Alert on behalf of Under Secretary Brown: Michael Brown has made some infamous comments in the past two weeks that give the impression that he may have been in over his head in supervising the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. And his agency, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency), has made some widely publicized bureaucratic decisions that have the appearance of being unforgivable mistakes. Nonetheless, I personally do not believe that he has done a poor job. It is not clear to me that a career bureaucrat with more impressive credentials would have done a much better job than he did. If Michael Brown was indeed in over his head, it was because Hurricane Katrina was something that very, very few people outside of the Coast Guard, the Pentagon, and some private charities were prepared to deal with. ]

FEMA's Brown Promoted to 'Assistant President'
by Scott Ott

(2005-09-09) -- According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) website, director Michael Brown is headed back to Washington D.C. where he has been offered a new position as "Assistant President of the United States for Outplacement".

The post would continue Mr. Brown's meteoric career trajectory which began when he was "assistant city manager" of Edmond, Oklahoma, overseeing all activity on a large veneer desktop, including organization of paper-fastening devices and emergency replenishment of hot caffeinated beverages.

In his new post, Mr. Brown would oversee emergency restoration of personal crediblity and rehabilitation of the resume of a former top government official.

Public Schools Teachers Union Urges Boycott Due to Fear of Private School Competition

2005-09-05T22:01:00.000-04:00

I'm still working on my next Steven Vincent post. In the meantime, I'm posting a link to this story about kids who got scholarships to attend private elementary schools:

"Private schools do more for variety of kids"

I was directed to this story by the following item on the Powerline blog: "The power of moral vision".

Public school unions sometimes like to conflate the idea of promoting healthy competition to public schools with the idea of attacking public schools. While it is true that competition attacks the public school monopoly, it is a fatal attack on public schools themselves only if the public schools cannot adapt to the competition.

And since public schools have proven capable of adapting, competition isn't even an attack in such cases, but a prod to improvement. Public schools shouldn't be shielded from the accountability that many of them so desperately need.

UPDATE The above link to the Minneapolis Star Tribune article has gone from free, unrestricted access to free, registration-required access. So here is the text of the article that I linked to:

Private schools do more for variety of kids
by Katherine Kersten, September 5, 2005

The education establishment tends to see red at the words "school choice." It claims that public schools suffer when kids -- even poor kids in marginal schools -- leave the system to attend private schools.

What about reports that low-income kids often do better there? Private schools "cream" students, we're told -- skim off the best -- while public schools have to take all comers.

Recently, the National Education Association -- the nation's largest teachers union -- called on parents to boycott Wal-Mart, in part to protest the "anti-public education activities" of founder Sam Walton's son, John Walton.

Walton's "anti-public education" sin? He co-founded the Children's Scholarship Fund, which gives tuition dollars to low-income children whose parents believe they would do better in private schools.

The Children's Scholarship Fund has a presence in the Twin Cities. Each year since 1999, it has partnered with Kids First, a local nonprofit, to help 600 to 1,000 children attend the school of their choice (www.kidsfirstmn.org). The mission, says Kids First director Margie Lauer, is to provide "a choice for parents, a chance for children."

Last week, I decided to test the conventional wisdom and visit Kids First families who clearly don't qualify as educational "cream." How are they faring outside government schools?

I stopped first at Mary Collins' home on Selby Avenue in St. Paul. Collins' sons, Lamar, 11, and Donte, 9, attend St. Peter Claver School in St. Paul on Kids First scholarships.

Seeing Lamar and Donte, bright-eyed and beaming, you'd never guess that they -- like Collins' seven other adopted children -- were born with drugs in their systems. They were crack babies, found cowering under a bed after a crack house raid eight years ago.

"All my children came to me with severe medical problems," says Collins, who subsists on government adoption subsidies. Some of the older children attended St. Paul public schools. "But they seemed lost there," she says. "Classes weren't structured enough."

The younger boys found exactly what they need at St. Peter Claver. "The academics are rigorous, the classroom environment is disciplined and harmonious, and teachers tell me just what to do about my boys' special learning needs," Collins says.

How could this be? St. Peter Claver, whose students are nearly 100 percent minority and low-income, has far fewer resources than St. Paul public schools. It spends about $5,000 annually per pupil, while St. Paul schools with similar demographics generally spend around $11,000. And the Collins boys are precisely the kind of "special needs" kids who are supposed to soak up resources.

Moral vision

The answer, I suspect, is this: St. Peter Claver, whose principal is Teresa Mardenborough, is rich in one essential "resource," which the public schools tend to steer clear of. It has a clear, confident moral vision, and teaches it with no apologies.

Collins says she saw immediately that the school's focus on moral character made all the difference for her boys. St. Peter Claver guides them to think seriously about their purpose on Earth -- their vocation, she calls it. "The public schools have signs on the walls -- 'Respect others,' 'Be nice,' " she explains. "But they can't tell the students why they should do these things, which can be difficult. It's a moral issue for public schools. They think it crosses the church-state line."

St. Peter Claver, she says, is trying to bring back the faith-based vision of the good life that she learned as a girl.

Lamar and Donte tick off the virtues they're learning: honesty, responsibility, respect, generosity. They both like school uniforms. "If you wear jeans and an armless shirt, then it's like you don't want to learn," Donte explains. St. Peter Claver, adds their mother, expects students to "dress for success."

"Our principal tells us that black students should be leaders, not followers," says Lamar.

Lamar and Donte sympathize with a 7-year-old neighbor who sometimes cries before taking the bus to his public school. "In public schools, there are fights for no reason," says Lamar. "I said, 'You should go to our school because you're talking about fighting and stuff. Our school isn't like that.' "

Change in conduct

In Minneapolis I met another Kids First family: Chalnicea Smith and her 12-year-old daughter, Musulyn Myers. Smith, a single mother, recently lost her job as a home health aide. Musulyn is in seventh grade at Ascension School in north Minneapolis.

Musulyn was out of control in her public school kindergarten, says Smith. "She was suspended -- in kindergarten! I was being called to school all the time. At the end of the year, I vowed, 'She's not going back.' "

Musulyn's conduct improved dramatically when she switched to Ascension, whose students are 95 percent minority and nearly 60 percent low-income. Again, the school's moral vision was key.

"Ascension teaches the kids a clear sense of right and wrong," says Smith. "Every day, they learn self-discipline, trustworthiness, kindness and gratitude." The school uniform, she adds, is a constant symbol of this moral code. "It shows that school is about what you learn, not how you look."

Dorwatha Woods, Ascension's imposing principal, sets the tone as mentor, disciplinarian and master teacher. "After school," says Smith, "Musulyn sits in Ms. Woods' office, and she makes sure Musulyn does all her homework. She tells her to be grateful: 'Your mother's making sacrifices every day to send you here.' "

During the next legislative session, we're likely to hear "sky-is-falling" rhetoric about how public schools lack the resources they need to deal with "the hardest cases." But schools like St. Peter Claver and Ascension take "the hardest cases" on a shoestring budget.

They are confident in the power of their moral vision.

Katherine Kersten is at

kkersten@startribune.com.

What Role Did President Bush Play in the New Orleans Nightmare, Part II?

2005-09-04T12:26:00.000-04:00

If I'm going to defend President Bush, then I should criticize him too, when information like this comes out:

"You have got to be kidding me"

"Memo to Bush: Fire Michael Brown"

The first link is from Brendan Loy's weblog, The Irish Trojan's Blog. He is one the relatively few people who specifically and publicly forecast the scale and depth of devastation that was very likely going to follow in hurricane Katrina's wake. He actually has more than one story posted now on some disturbing problems with the Bush administration response.

The second post is from the website of Michelle Malkin, a conservative journalist and pundit who is very supportive of President Bush. Michael Brown is the head of FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency).

Update: Click here for the latest on Michael Brown and his reassignment back to FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C.: "Michael Brown Update".

Welcome Fellow Instapundit Readers

2005-09-03T02:24:00.000-04:00

Glenn Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee. He is widely known for his extremely popular and respected weblog, Instapundit.com.

Earlier tonight I e-mailed him my last post about hurricane Katrina and President Bush. He agreed with me that the story was important, and he put an update on his latest post that links back to mine.

So courtesy of Professor Reynolds, I'm now receiving a large influx of visitors to The Bronx Blogger.

For those who would like to know more about my perspective on things, you can check out this post: "Bush Post Repeat".

Here's an interesting little item about Iraq that I posted in April: "CNN and Other Media Report on Anti-US Demonstrations in Bagdhad, But They Ignore Large Anti-Terrorist Demonstrations".

And here's another post I particularly like: "Girls Gets Geography Lesson, Two Weeks Later She Saves 100 People".

This weekend I hope to put up another post about Steven Vincent. I will explain how Steven surprised me with some of his views about President Bush's handling of the liberation and reconstruction of Iraq. And I'll tell how I don't completely agree with his assessment.

Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate getting feedback, so feel free to leave comments.

What Role Did President Bush Play in the New Orleans Nightmare?

2005-09-02T23:09:00.000-04:00

While reading the Powerline blog this evening, I came across an item that I think should get widespread notice by people who are upset at the catastrophic disaster that continues to play out in New Orleans.

The item documents a key aspect of President Bush's response to the crisis that is really quite a revelation, something that everyone who cares about New Orleans should know about.

Here's the link to the Powerline item:

"Why Was New Orleans Evacuated?"

Here's the link to the news story that the Powerline item quotes:

"Mandatory Evacuation ordered for New Orleans"

And here's the text of the above news story, in case the link grows stale (emphasis added):

Mandatory evacuation ordered for New Orleans
8/28/2005, 10:48 a.m. CT
The Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin.

Acknowledging that large numbers of people, many of them stranded tourists, would be unable to leave, the city set up 10 places of last resort for people to go, including the Superdome.

The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

"There doesn't seem to be any relief in sight," Blanco said.

She said Interstate 10, which was converted Saturday so that all lanes headed one-way out of town, was total gridlock.

"We are facing a storm that most of us have long feared," Nagin said.

The storm surge most likely could topple the city's levee system, which protect it from surrounding waters of Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River and marshes, the mayor said. The bowl-shaped city must pump water out during normal times, and the hurricane threatened pump power.

Previous hurricanes evacuations in New Orleans were always voluntary, because so many people don't have the means of getting out. Some are too poor and there is always a French Quarter full of tourists who get caught.

"This is a once in a lifetime event," the mayor said. "The city of New Orleans has never seen a hurricane of this magnitude hit it directly," the mayor said.

He told those who had to move to the Superdome to come with enough food for several days and with blankets. He said it will be a very uncomfortable place and encouraged everybody who could to get out.

Nagin said police and firefighters would spread out throughout the city sounding sirens and using bullhorns to tell residents to get out. He also said police would have the authority to comandeer any vehicle or building that could be used for evacuation or shelter.

The Superdome was already taking in people with special problems. It opened about 8 a.m. and people on walkers, some with oxygen tanks, began checking in.

In a neighborhood in central city, a group of residents sat on a porch. It was almost a party atmosphere.

"We're not evacuating," said Julie Paul, 57. "None of us have any place to go. We're counting on the Superdome. That's our lifesaver."

She said they'd spent the last couple of hurricanes there. They would wait for a friend who has a van to take them, because none has cars.

At a nearby gas station, Linda Young, 37, was tanking up her car.

"I'm really scared. I've been through hurricanes, but this one scares me. I think everybody needs to get out," she said.

She said they planned to leave Saturday but couldn't get gas, and didn't want to go without it, so got up early and got in a gas line.

In the suburbs, evacuations were under way.

"That sun is shining too bright for this to be happening," said Joyce Tillis, manager of the Holiday Inn Select at the airport in the suburbs as she called the more than 140 guests to tell them the hotel was under a mandatory evacuation. "It's too nice a day."

Tillis lives inside the flood zone in the community of Avondale. She said she called her three daughters and told them to get out. "If I'm stuck, I'm stuck," Tillis said. "I'd rather save my second generation if I can."

UPDATE Welcome Instapundit readers. Click here to get to the main page of my blog: The Bronx Blogger.

UPDATE It also looks like President Bush's team may have dropped the ball. Click here to find out more: What Role Did President Bush Play in the New Orleans Nightmare, Part II?

Michael Yon's latest dispatch

2005-08-25T13:43:00.000-04:00

Michael Yon is an embedded writer and photojournalist in Mosul, Iraq. He has just weighed in with his latest dispatch from the front lines.

And front line really means front line in the case of Michael Yon. His latest report is one of the most dramatic dispatches I have ever read from a war reporter. Go read the whole thing.

The moon and Mars

2005-08-25T02:08:00.000-04:00

I just got back from the roof with my son.

Earlier this evening we were at the Costco store in Yonkers where we noticed a new shipment of telescopes, the Meade DS-2090-AT-TC Refracting Telescope. The telescope comes equipped with a 90mm lens, an Autostar computer-guided slewing motor, a 26mm and a 9.7mm eyepiece, a light but sturdy aluminum tripod, and several other odds and ends.

The price for the telescope is $199. Since the Autostar control device is worth about $80 or $100 just by itself, $100 or $120 seemed like a very good price for a 90mm refractor, and I decided to buy it. And since Costco has an excellent return policy, there was no risk of wasting money by making the purchase.

Once back at home, I assembled the telescope. Telescope assembly was pretty straightforward, except that the instructions provided were more confusing then they had to be. My son and I took the elevator to the top floor of our building and carried the scope up to the roof.

It is clear out, but a little hazy, with a three-quarters waning moon, and Mars shone brightly only a few degrees or so from the moon. I tried to get the moon in position, but for some reason it just wouldn't focus. I was just getting a featureless white smudgy blur.

After fifteen minutes of frustration, I tried switching from the 26mm eyepiece to the 9.7mm eyepiece, but that didn't help. And then I noticed that the eyepieces weren't even staying in place properly. It turned out the 26mm had unscrewed into two pieces, with the silvery metal end lodged in the eyepiece slot. When I reassembled the eyepiece, I trained the telescope on the moon, and there it was! With a little bit of focusing, it looked clear as a bell (with a thin false orange band around the perimeter). The 26mm eyepiece, combined with the optical tube's 880mm focal length, yielded a 34x magnification, which meant the moon looked as if were looming only 7,000 miles away, with mares, mountains, craters in plain view, and the long shadows along the sunset twilight line adding dramatic depth to everything. My son was thrilled and delighted. He was actually pretty pleased just to have seen the bright white smudge before, so seeing a real live sharp image was very special indeed.

The scope has a small red-dot finder mounted on the optical tube. I used the moon to align the finder properly, and used the finder to get the telescope to point at Mars. There were a few faint stars in the field of vision which provided a nice pinpoint contrast to the small but perceptible disk of Mars.

When I switched to the 9.7mm eyepiece in order to get the 91x magnification, the image quality was actually worse. Mars was bigger, but more wobbly and distorted, due to poor weather conditions for viewing.

But when I used 91x enlargement on the moon, the view was great. The moon was hanging out only 2600 miles away! We could move the telescope over the surface of the moon as if we were standing in front of a large window and turning to look this way and that. My son was very impressed with that, even though he was now tired enough to want to call it a night. Perhaps he'll have dreams of touring the solar system tonight.

[The 9.7mm eyepiece view of the moon didn't have the band of false orange color, but it did have a very slender, faint band of purple instead.]

Some of you out there have probably heard that Mars is very close to the earth right now, closed than it has been in hundreds of years. So if you want to take advantage of that, the Meade refracting telescope at Costco seems to be a quick and easy way to go for it. I didn't use the Autostar computer-guided thingie tonight, but I'm looking forward to it. They've upgraded the catalogue of trackable celestial objects from an old total of 1,400 objects to a new total of 30,000 objects.

A Bit of Satire

2005-08-18T01:22:00.000-04:00

I've posted comments in the comment threads of a few blogs that have addressed the merits of teaching something called Intelligent Design theory.

Many people have a problem with how children learn about evolution in science class. They want children to learn about theories that challenge the idea that natural selection is responsible for all the variety and complexity of life on earth.

Intelligent Design is a theory that is often proposed for inclusion in science classes as a way of counter-balancing the theory of evolution through natural selection. It proposes that some rational agent, some intelligent being or mind, intervened in the history of life and somehow directed or added to the flow of natural evolution.

President Bush himself recently gave support to the teaching of Intelligent Design while he was answering reporters' inquiries about the controversial topic.

I have a somewhat nuanced position about it myself.

On the one hand, evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory that has established itself well beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, millions of people believe in either creationism or Intelligent Design, so it doesn't hurt to teach those theories in public school in the context of, "Here is what a lot of intelligent people believe, so what do you make of that?" However, creationism and Intelligent Design definitely should not be part of a science curriculum, especially in a public school, because neither theory is a scientific theory.

Explaining why Intelligent Design, or creationism, is in fact not a scientific theory is not hard to do. Even though Intelligent Design wants really hard to be a scientific theory, it doesn't come close to succeeding.

But explanations have a way of making people's eyes glaze over, especially when someone is predisposed to disagree with you.

So instead of offering an explanation of why Intelligent Design is an un-scientific theory, I will instead post a link to the following late-breaking news story:

Physicists Announce Breakthrough in Quest for Unified Force Theory

In case the link eventually grows stale, I've reproduced the article below.

This story puts into words far better than I could just why Intelligent Design doesn't pass muster as a scientific theory. And the photo that is used as an illustration is pretty good too.

I was directed to the story by a item posted by Glenn Reynolds on his blog, Instapundit.

____________________________________________________________

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

[from The Onion, August 17, 2005]

Salman Rushdie Says Says the Religion of Islam is Too Rigid

2005-08-11T10:37:00.000-04:00

Salman Rushdie is the author who was sentenced to death in abstentia by the religious authorities of Iran in 1989 after his book, "The Satanic Verses" came out.

This past Sunday, the Washington Post published a column by Mr. Rushdie titled "The Right Time for an Islamic Reformation". It's short, and raises some interesting points.

I'm not sure what to make of Mr. Rushdie's recommendations. Does anyone know what should be done?

Bush Post Repeat

2005-08-09T00:54:00.000-04:00

[Note: This was originally posted on February 7th. I'm posting this piece on the front page again in order to highlight it for a comment thread I'm currently participating in.]

Bronx Blog Backs Bush, says Bush Beats Bad Bozos' Butts

I live in the Bronx and grew up in the Bronx.

When I was a wee boy, my neighborhood starting burning up. It got to the point that when I was seven years old, our family moved from where we were in the West Bronx to a nicer, not-burning-down neighborhood in the East Bronx. That neighborhood in the West Bronx was where my mother had grown up, but the switch was definitely a good move because the quality of life in the old 'hood was only getting worse, not better.

The decline of our neighborhood co-incided with the decline of many neighborhoods throughout the Bronx and New York City. And the decline of whole sections of New York City co-incided with similar declines in many other cities across the U.S.

The decline was a multi-faceted thing. Crime rose, arson rose, schools sprouted many problems, families on welfare increased, city services such as the subway system started to get worse and worse.

All this made a great impression on me. It made me very curious as to how things worked, and how things didn't work. It made me skeptical of authority, and skeptical of complacency.

I learned that individual persons could easily contribute to creating problems larger than themselves.

Eventually I also learned that individual persons could also contribute to solving problems larger than themselves. And I also learned that governments and businesses alike could be part of the problems or part of the solutions.

With the power to either participate in the solutions to our problems or to participate in the causes of our problems comes a definite amount of responsibility. We each have the power to choose to use our influence and our resources for good or for bad, and we are responsible for our choices.

That's why I follow and care about politics. We all get to choose our elected officials, and influence the votes of others. It's such a corrupt and dishonest business, though, especially in New York, that it's easy to walk away in disgust and try not to pay too much attention to it.

When I first heard that George W. Bush was going to run for president, I didn't know a lot about him. I voted for his dad in 1988, but I was so disappointed by Bush senior that I voted for Ross Perot in 1992. I didn't hold Bush senior's record against W, but I didn't have any particular reason to be positive about him either, except that he wasn't Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

I think I ended up liking him because he came out for tax cuts and for a humble yet strong foreign policy, and because he wanted to fix public education and was open to the idea of using school vouchers. But even if I hadn't ended up liking him, I would have desperately wanted just about anyone to win against Al Gore.

By the time election day came in November, I still thought that Bush had a good agenda. But more importantly, he seemed to understand the need we had for a president that would be a moral, decent person. This would be the best thing by far about Bush if it were true, and I was greatly relieved when he finally became president-elect.

By the time September 11, 2001, came around, I already was falling in love with President Bush. I didn't know how he would respond to the attacks. But I did know that in the past he had found himself in very stressful circumstances with long odds and come out on top. So I was anxiously optimistic that if there were anything we could do, then President Bush might be able to figure it out.

I was 200 yards away from the World Trade Center when the jihadi hijackers attacked them. Several people that I knew were murdered and pulverised, although none of them were close friends. The building I was in was not evacuated until 11:00 am, and I didn't get home to the Bronx until 7:oo pm.

I had been close to the WTC the first time it had been attacked, back in 1993, by jihadis with an exploding rental van. That had been very disturbing, but once the FBI had snagged the bad guys, it quickly seemed to turn into some manageable kind of business. The bombers seemed more bizarre than threatening, once we knew what they were up to.

But the September 11th attacks were way different. Up to 5,000 people were dead and 5,000 families torn apart, the skyline had a conspicious smoking hole, and somebody somewhere had just successfully declared war on the whole country. Hundreds of firefighters and other emergency personnel, as well as many altruistic office workers had died heroically. Nobody knew what our enemies would do next. And nobody knew what we would, could, or should do next (actually some people did know, or at least had a very good idea, but nobody I knew knew).

Over the next two weeks or so, daily reality took a holiday. And President Bush reassured me and many others that we had found a common purpose and that we would find a common way to deal with things.

If someone reading my account disagrees with me, that's fine with me. I know people had all kinds of reactions, and that is all part of the reality. But I am writing here of my own direct personal experience, and my own evaluation of that experience. I'm not going to pretend I experienced things I didn't experience, and I don't think anyone should expect me to.

I think one thing that some people overlook when they downplay the importance of 9-11 for our foreign policy is that 9-11 is the day that islamo-fascism declared war on our country.

We can pursue Al Qaeda and dismantle it. We can punish the Taliban for supporting Al Qaeda. But that will not stop the islamo-fascist movement. Doesn't even come close.

We need to unleash our secret weapon. It's been in development a long time, and not all the bugs have been worked out. In fact, it's so dangerous, hard-core S.O.B.'s like Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon were often reluctant to use it.

Our secret weapon is liberal democracy. Democracy, with safeguards for minority and individual rights.

If we can infect the Middle East with democracy, and help the freedom bug take over, then islamo-fascism will become as menacing as Italian fascism is today (i.e. not very menacing).

The old dominant school of diplomatic strategy, known as real politik or realism, said that standing by friendly tyrants was more important than pushing very hard for democracy. The new "realism", which has been formulated and promulgated by President Bush, says that the promotion of democracy and freedom is a very high priority national security interest.

Is it possible that the new realism is misguided and wrong and counter-productive?

Anything is possible, but it is not very likely that democracy will prove to be a bad bet. Time will tell. I am optimistic.

It's important to stop the islamo-fascists as quickly as possible.

But it's not obvious what the best way to do that is, and we can only pursue one course of action at a time. So we always need to evaluate what we're doing to see if what we're doing is the best thing to do.

And what makes the war even more compelling a topic to analyze is that it has been so controversial. Here in the U.S., tens of millions of people line up on both sides of the campaign in Iraq. The numbers on each side have changed with the flow of good news and bad news from the battlegrounds.

And as go the fortunes of war, so seem to go the fortunes of President Bush.

President Bush deserves a lot of support. He deserves a lot of gratitude.

He is a trustworthy politician. That's like being a sprinting snail, or a sluggish jet-plane, in terms of defying the conventions of one's peers.

And as if it wasn't enough for him to be a trustworthy politician, he has also proven himself to be a highly competent leader and decision-maker.

If I were president, there are some things I would want to do differently from President Bush. But I suspect there are many more things that I would simply mess up compared to how President Bush is handling them.

I feel lucky that President Bush is our president. Because of that, I am very grateful to him, and I try to take every opportunity to stand up for him and defend his integrity and his record.

Comments Switched from Blogger to Haloscan

2005-08-08T16:52:00.000-04:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

All comments up till now seem to have been lost. I'll try to recover them. Sorry about losing the comments.

What Is True, and What Only Appears to Be True?

2005-08-06T13:57:00.000-04:00

The Belmont Club is a very strong blog about the War on Terror and about international affairs in general. The proprietor of the blog uses the pseudonym Wretchard.

Today he has posted a very strong essay about Joe Stalin and how he was about to conduct a purge, perhaps his greatest purge ever, when he suddenly died under suspicious circumstances in March 1953.

Stalin may have been assassinated just as he was getting ready to consummate one of his greatest crimes. But that is not the point of Wretchard's post.

He connects Stalin to the current War on Terror and poses an important question about the religion of Islam.

Go check it out!

Steven Vincent's execution disrupts his last symposium

2005-08-06T00:30:00.000-04:00

The online magazine FrontPageMagazine.com has just published a symposium evaluating the U.S. coalition's efforts to rebuild Iraq.

The managing editor of FrontPage, Jamie Glazov, moderated a panel of six experts, including Steven Vincent. Before the symposium was able to run to its conclusion, Steven had been abducted and shot to death, and the balance of the symposium was canceled.

I strongly recommend reading the whole transcript of the symposium. Here's a pair of quotes where Steven counters and rejects Jeffrey White's characterization of the coalition's enemies as "insurgents". Jeffrey White is a retired government intelligence analyst who is currently an active think-tank consultant. Mr. White gives advice to the government and to defense contractors.

Jeffrey White: I do not think we get very far by trying to stick a "terrorist" label on the insurgency.

What we are looking at is a composite insurgency, one which combines elements of "resistance" against the "occupation", armed opposition to the Iraqi government, and terrorism, largely but not completely driven by foreign Jihadis and their Iraqi allies. Labelling all those involved in the insurgency "terrorists" is both inaccurate and dysfunctional. Precision in language is critical to precision in thought. We can not get it right in Iraq if we employ sloppy or emotive language.

We have been through "regime dead-enders", are now using the nonsensical "anti-Iraqi forces", and slap a terrorist label on people who are determined, ruthless, and inventive in prosecuting their wars. We also need to stop characterizing what is happening in overly simple ways. The insurgents do not attack indiscriminately, as I heard on TV this morning. They know who they are attacking and killing, sometimes by name, as in targeted killings of "collaborators."

These attacks are the antithesis of indiscriminate action. Violent, sometimes tragic, death and injury are what we see, but they serve various insurgent operational goals. Again, we need to be clear in our minds about what is going on. Let's start thinking clinically for a change.

[ ... ]

Steven Vincent: What's the question? What our personal views of the "insurgency" might be? Then I must admit I found Mr. White's comments a bit chilling.

Perhaps I've been in Iraq too long, but they sounded to me like a doctor telling a cancer patient his tumor is a form of "resistance" against the "occupation" of his body. And though Mr. Munthe is correct in parsing the jihadists from the Saddamites, his points strike me as discriminations that make little difference beyond tactical considerations. Emotions--outrage, contempt, wrath--are exactly what we need to carry on the fight against the anti-Iraqi terrorists.

These are, after all, cold-blooded killers who propose no programs, no alternatives, no vision of a "better" Iraq.

Are the Sunni paramilitaries anti-colonial "patriots?" Why, then, do they kill 20 times more Iraqi citizens than U.S. soldiers? Why don't they join with the Kurds and Shia in a national government and ask the U.S. to leave? What is the point of their bloodshed? From Tikrit to Basra, I have asked pro-fascist Sunnis these questions and have never received an adequate answer. Perhaps its time we consider that there is no answer, that the killing has no point, beyond archaic notions of tribal honor and revenge.

We want to believe that the paramilities have some sort of rational--or at least reasonable goal, as if they were continuations of the anti-colonial guerrillas of the last century. But those days are gone. The true horror of the war being waged against Iraq--whether by Baathi-fascists or Islamofascists--is its utter pointlessness, a fact that robs the dead of even the dignity of martyrdom. This is terrorism.

And the proper response is "clinical" analysis, coupled with Old Testament wrath.

I was directed to the FrontPage symposium by an item on the Power Line blog.

Matthew Gets Cable

2005-08-05T20:31:00.000-04:00

The cableman, Angel, came, installed the T.V. cable, installed the computer cable, switched the phone line over to the internet, and left about a half hour ago.

It was all pretty painless, and now I'm downloading and uploading stuff through the internet much, much more quickly. It's very nice, I highly recommend it.

[That's it, no more to read.]

Islamists execute a good person, Steven Vincent

2005-08-03T16:31:00.000-04:00

Steven Vincent was an art critic and New Yorker who witnessed the deaths of thousands of people in the World Trade Center attacks four years ago.

He decided to become a free-lance investigative journalist.

He ended up in Iraq documenting first-hand what the Iraqi people were doing and thinking in the aftermath of our invasion. He wrote a book about what he observed, In the Red Zone, that came out last November.

His book was particularly valuable inasmuch as he was one of the few American journalists in Iraq not to be embedded with coalition troops. He made a point of seeing and speaking to Iraqis where they lived and worked. His goal was to make an unfiltered Western/American/New York City appraisal of this very foreign nation and culture.

Steven went back to Iraq this past summer and did research for what was going to be his second book on Iraq. He intended to write a thorough-going expose of the situation in Basra and the southern Shiite-dominate region of Iraq. He wanted to bring attention to problems in the south of Iraq that largely go un-reported in our mainstream media.

Last night, Steven and his translator, Noor Al-Khal, were abducted off the street in Basra and subsequently shot and dumped outside. Noor Al-Khal is hospitalized in serious condition, but Steven was killed.

His murder was perhaps in retaliation for an op-ed of his that appeared in this past Sunday's New York Times. The op-ed is highly critical of "Islamic extremists and their Western-trained police enforcers" in Basra. His murder may also have been meant to keep him from writing his forthcoming book about Basra and southern Iraq.

I met Stephen last November one week after his book In the Red Zone was officially launched.

I had the opportunity to talk with him about Iraq and his book and President Bush. He related personal anecdotes about his bold journeys and he gave me his impressions of some of the various Iraqis he got to know. When I asked him about general strategy in Iraq and in the War on Terror, he carefully outlined his conclusions. He impressed me with his ability to entertain opposing ideas and his ability to modify his beliefs as he uncovered more and more information. He told me what he thought the worst difficulties in Iraq were likely to be.

When I was done talking to him, I found myself in the position of disagreeing with him on some important points in Iraq. I had not told him that I disagreed with him. I just made sure to question him about those points so I could extract the most benefit from his analysis and experience.

But it was definitely a strange experience for me. It was the first time I had personally discussed the war with someone and seriously disagreed with him, but still held the other person's opinion in extremely high regard. I had such high respect for Stephen's differing views that I determined to find out a lot more about our area of disagreement. I wanted to re-evaluate my own opinion and see if it was truly justified.

Perhaps in another post I'll talk about where we didn't see eye-to-eye. For now I'll just mention that it was such a big issue for him that it made him lose confidence in President Bush's leadership.

Stephen made a huge impression on me as a person. He was a serious, grounded person with a lively curiousity and respect for other people. He knowingly and willingly risked his life because he had a right to find out what was going on, and he was damned if anyone was going to intimidate him from doing what needed doing.

I hope the bastards who kidnapped him and shot him will regret having done so. Maybe Steven's death will be an event that brings about serious unintended consequences for his murderers.

I miss Steven and wish I had seen him again. The world has lost a very special and noble person.

Update: Here's a great post at the Mudville Gazette military blog.

Update, 8/4/05: The Belmont Club international affairs blog has a post on Steven's murder.

I left the following comment there (comment #63):

I met Steven Vincent last November.

Here's a short post I wrote today in his memory.

He risked his life for all of us, and now he's gone. Actually, he did more than risk his life, he pretty much ended up sacrificing it, like a canary in the Basra coal-mine.

We all owe a debt to him.

Update, 8/4/05: Here's a link to Steven's blog, which shares the name of his book on Iraq: In the Red Zone.
___________________________________________________________

The piece below is today's New York Times article about Steven's murder:

American Journalist Is Shot to Death in Iraq,
Story by Edward Wong

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 3 - An American journalist writing about the rise of fundamentalist Islam was shot dead overnight after being abducted in the southern port city of Basra, American embassy and Iraqi officials said today. The journalist's translator was also shot and is in serious condition at a Basra hospital.

The body of the reporter, Steven Vincent, from New York, was found this morning. He had been dumped outdoors after being shot several times, and his hands were tied with a plastic wire, and a red piece of cloth was wrapped around his neck. He and his translator, Noor al-Khal, were kidnapped on Tuesday evening in downtown Basra by masked gunman in a pick-up truck as they left a moneychanger's shop near Mr. Vincent's hotel, police officials said.

The gunmen may have been in a police vehicle, The Associated Press reported, citing a police official in Basra.

Mr. Vincent was a middle-age freelance writer who recently had articles published in the Christian Science Monitor and the National Review. He told other journalists he was gathering material for a book on Basra. On Sunday, The New York Times printed an op-ed he had written about Basra, in which he sharply criticized the British government for allowing religious Shiite parties and clerics to take control of Basra and populate the security forces with their followers.

Since the start of the war, the British military has been charged with maintaining order in Basra, a heavily Shiite city run by religious parties.

Mr. Vincent is the first American reporter to be attacked and killed in the current Iraq war. Others have died from vehicle accidents or illnesses. In August 2004, an Italian journalist was abducted and murdered as he drove south of Baghdad to report on a Shiite revolt in Najaf.

"We of course are deeply saddened by it and have already notified the family and have extended our deepest condolences," said Pete Mitchell, a spokesman for the American embassy. "We're working very closely with Iraqi officials in Basra and with the British government to determine who might be responsible for this heinous crime."

Mr. Vincent was married and lived in the East Village of Manhattan. A short, wiry man with a penchant for cigars, he had been staying in the Merbid Hotel in downtown Basra for much of the summer. He was a fixture in the dining room, where he often had conversations with other journalists who were passing through.

Unlike most reporters working in Iraq, Mr. Vincent traveled without any security guards. He and Ms. Khal often took taxis to do interviews. But he also said he was reluctant to spend too much time in public areas such as restaurants or the Corniche, the city's popular riverside promenade.

He told this reporter in mid-June that he had worked as an art critic in New York until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That and the Iraq war prompted him to travel to Baghdad in 2003, a trip that resulted in a book called "In the Red Zone" and a Web log about his experiences. Mr. Vincent had been writing in his blog the entire time while he was in Basra.

Mr. Vincent was particularly incensed about the sharp divide between men and women in the Islamic world, and about the increasingly religious mores in Basra that forced women to wear full-length black robes in public. He said he fully supported the Iraq war, believing it was part of a much larger campaign being waged by the United States against "Islamo-fascism." But Mr. Vincent said he was also disappointed by the failure of the United States and Great Britain to enforce their visions of democracy here in Iraq, instead allowing religious politicians to seize power across the south.

Conservative Shiite parties have strengthened their hold on Basra since the January elections. They include the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was founded in Iran and wields enormous power in Baghdad, and the Fadilah Party, started by Ayatollah Muhammad Yacoubi, a hard-line cleric. The organization of Moktada al-Sadr, the young cleric who has led two rebellions against the Americans, also has great influence in Basra.

In his op-ed in The New York Times, Mr. Vincent wrote that "it is particularly troubling that sectarian tensions are increasing in Basra, which has long been held up as the brightest spot of the liberated Iraq."

Policemen, he said, were responsible for carrying out many of the assassinations of former Baath Party officials, in revenge for the oppression of the Shiites under Saddam Hussein.

"Unless the British include in their security sector reform strategy some basic lessons in democratic principles, Basra risks falling further under the sway of Islamic extremists and their Western-trained police enforcers," he wrote.

Mr. Vincent did not limit his reporting to the city of Basra. He traveled to towns outside the area, including Fao, a fishing port to the south, near the Iranian border. Along with other reporters, he recently accompanied the governor of Basra, Muhammad al-Waeli, on an inspection of an island in the middle of the Shatt al-Arab river, which runs alongside Basra to the Persian Gulf.

In late June, Mr. Vincent said he was lonely and getting tired, and that he appreciated the company of other foreign reporters who were passing through the hotel. But he said he wanted to stay in Iraq to see whether the National Assembly in Baghdad would approve a new constitution by Aug. 15, and how that might affect Basra. He said he intended to take a break in New York and return to cover national elections scheduled for December.

Several journalists staying at the same hotel last week recalled talking to Mr. Vincent about his work.

"He was kind of secretive about the specifics of what he was working on," said Thanassis Cambanis, a reporter for The Boston Globe, which is owned by The New York Times Co. "He told me he was leaving within weeks. He said he felt he had gotten most of the research done for his Basra book, and he was wrapping things up."

The Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, said that as of June 28, at least 45 journalists and 20 media support workers have been killed while covering the war in Iraq since March 2003. Many of those killed have been Iraqis. Insurgents have been responsible for most of the deaths, though some killings have been due to American fire.

[Fakr al-Haider contributed reporting from Basra.]

Horn of Arabia: American Soldier Becomes Iraqi Sheik

2005-08-01T22:31:00.000-04:00

Army Staff Sgt. Dale L. Horn, from Fort Walton Beach, Florida, has been made a sheik of the people of Al Qayyarah, Iraq.

Here is a story about Sgt. Horn from The Salt Lake City Tribune:

U.S. soldier's aid to Iraqis earns him title of sheik.

I was directed to this story by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.

What's Going On in Iraq?

2005-07-30T02:39:00.000-04:00

Michael Yon is bearing witness to the U.S. coalition's campaign to establish a secure democracy in Iraq.

He is an author, journalist, photo-journalist, and blogger who is on the ground in Iraq.

He has named his blog Michael Yon : Online Magazine. He has lots of stories to tell, and he illustrates most of them with photos of soldiers on the job.

Sites Recommended by John

2005-06-04T22:40:00.000-04:00

In the comment section for yesterday's post on Iraq, John left a comment with three interesting links.

One link is to the website Future of Iraq Portal, which is a clearinghouse of links to blogs and websites in Iraq, and to websites that are related to what is going on in Iraq.

Another link is to a discussion forum in Iraq, Baghdadee بغدادي.

The last one is the blog of Husayn, a young Iraqi, called Democracy in Iraq (is here!). Very interesting stuff.

Thanks John!

Hot Tip for Hungry Diners

2005-06-04T00:06:00.000-04:00

Tonight I celebrated my mother's birthday at Roberto's, an Italian restaurant in the Arthur Avenue/Belmont neighborhood of the Bronx.

It's the best meal I've had in the neighborhood.

The restaurant is great. It's in a new location, on the other end of Crescent Avenue from where it used to be. It's about one block from Arthur Avenue in the shadow of the looming fortress-like complex of St. Barnabas Hospital.

The new location boasts a small, elegant bar near the entrance, and a sophisticated yet low-key decor with beautiful accents and exposed-brick walls. I had to remind myself once or twice that I was eating on Crescent Avenue in the Bronx and not on West Broadway in SoHo.

The appetizers, the wine, the bread, and the entrees were tasty and filling. Here's a review that you can peruse, here's a diners' ratings webpage for Roberto's, and here's a webpage for the restaurant that has information such as the address and the regular menu (the pictures are of the old location several blocks away, which no longer exists).

Mangia bene!

Discuss Our War in Iraq with Matthew

2005-06-03T23:21:00.000-04:00

The invasion of Iraq was necessary.

Saddam was a mass-murdering-and-torturing admirer of Stalin. We were very concerned that he might help or arm terrorists who would like to stage a massive, deadly attack against the United States.

After our first war against Saddam, in 1991, we tried containing him in a box. But the U.N. regime of sanctions against Iraq had gotten weaker every year, and it seemed inevitable that far stronger measures would have to be taken.

In addition, we wanted to establish a working liberal democracy in the Arab Middle East, in the hope that other dictatorships would weaken and topple too. If democracy could spread, then both the "root causes" and the state sponsors of terrorism would disappear from the world stage.

Many well-informed and patriotic Americans disagree strongly with this assessment. I invite anyone who would like to comment, for or against, to do so.

Guantanamo Bay: The Story Newsweek Didn't Want You to Hear

2005-06-02T23:30:00.000-04:00

The weblog INDC Journal has a very interesting story, with plenty of links, called "TALES OF HORROR FROM THE AMERICAN GULAG".

The story documents conditions at the American-run prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and describes how many prisoners felt about their detention there.

Here are some interesting quotes from the prisoners:

“Americans are very kind people,” one English-challenged detainee said in the March 4 paper. “If people say there is mistreatment in Cuba with the detainees, those type speaking are wrong, they treat us like a Muslim not a detainee.”

“I’m in good health and have good facilities of eating, drinking, living, and playing,” remarked another. “The food is good, the bedrooms are clean and the health care is very good.”

I was directed to this story by Instapundit and Indepundit.

UPDATE: June 4, 2005

Here's a very interesting story from the weblog of Austin Bay about Koran manhandling and destruction at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp:

Fifteen to Five: Terrorists Beat Gitmo Guards in Koran “Mishandling”

Girls Gets Geography Lesson, Two Weeks Later She Saves 100 People

2005-05-29T02:23:00.000-04:00

Ten-year-old Tilly Smith learned about tsunamis in her geography class last December.

Two weeks later she was in Phuket, Thailand, with her family when the big tsanami hit.

Here is the story of what happened:

Girl, 10, used geography lesson to save lives

Schoolgirl Saves Nearly 100 Lives

Thoughts On "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis

2005-05-22T01:54:00.000-04:00

[Note: This post is the continuation of a discussion started at the blog of Joe Carter, The Evangelical Outpost.]

For several decades, C. S. Lewis taught medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England. He was famous for his literary criticism, his popular novels, and his Christian apologetics.

Lewis' book, Mere Christianity, is a compilation of radio addresses he gave in 1942, 1943, and 1944 on the topics of Christian beliefs and morality.

As a veteran of World War I, Lewis could speak with some moral authority about life, death, and suffering to those soldiers who were going off to fight the nightmare of Nazi totalitarianism. He also wanted to help inspire the whole British nation to find the moral and spiritual strength to survive and strive for victory.

When Germany started bombing Britain in 1940, Lewis became an air raid warden and gave inspirational lectures to Royal Air Force recruits. Since anyone who went regularly on sorties on a British warplane was likely to be killed in action, Lewis spoke about the problems of suffering, pain, and evil from a Christian perspective. Apparently he was very successful at getting his points across, and as a result, the BBC radio network asked him to give 15-minute lectures on the air, and that is how Mere Christianity got started.

Mere Christianity is a very interesting book. It relates the moral and religious philosophy of someone who had wrestled with metaphysics and religious puzzles for several decades. While he displays great learning and a mastery of logic, Lewis doesn't come across as pedantic or condescending. To the contrary, he seems to be a compelling teacher and a warm person.

While Mere Christianity is a very philosophical work, it is not exactly a treatise establishing the truth of Christianity.

Lewis claims that the existence of a conscience in people (and the fact that people are incapable of consistently following their consciences) is evidence that God exists. But he does not actually present any logical argument that leads to that conclusion. He merely asserts the conclusion, that God exists, and moves on to his next topic.

Likewise, Lewis makes the argument that Jesus' moral teachings don't make sense unless he was the Son of God and he had the power to forgive anyone's sins. Lewis then uses this point to claim that Jesus therefore must have been the Son of God, and furthermore that he did in fact rise up from the dead after his execution by crucifixion. Once he has gotten past these points in his book, he spends a lot of time making very persuasive arguments about the consequences of Jesus' divinity and of his resurrection, but he never revisits his crucial assumptions in an attempt to put them on a more rigorous logical or philosophical footing.

Nevertheless, Mere Christianity is a jewel of Christian apologetics. Lewis applies a skeptical, probing logic to the belief system of Christianity, and he builds an edifice that is quite sturdy. His system of Christian belief accommodates a lot of truth about human psychology and sociology.

Lewis never gets around to establishing a rational basis for believing Christianity in the first place, but he does give the believer a coherent and respectable worldview that he may not have received from his previous religious education.

CNN and Other Media Report on Anti-US Demonstrations in Bagdhad, But They Ignore Large Anti-Terrorist Demonstrations

2005-04-20T10:20:00.000-04:00

Arthur Chrenkoff is a Polish immigrant in Australia who has a very interesting weblog called Chrenkoff. He frequently compiles a round-up of under-reported news items from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yesterday, April 19th, he posted a report from Haider Ajina, who is an Iraqi-born American living in California. Mr. Ajina writes about a poll conducted by the Iraqi newspaper Almidhar, which shows strong support for the U.S. coalition troops in Iraq.

Here is Mr. Ajina's account of Iraqi public opinion and how U.S. media characterizes it:

Most of us read, heard and saw the medias report of the April 9th demonstrations in Baghdad. Most of the U.S. media portrayed it as a massive anti American demonstration in the streets of Iraq. I noticed, however, from Iraqi Arabic newspapers that most the demonstrations were against terrorism & calling for Saddams trial & hanging (all these signs were in Arabic). I called my father in Baghdad to confirm this and he confirmed it. My father then confirmed that Al Sadr had asked his followers to demonstrate for the withdrawal of foreign troops, he also said that this group was very small and almost insignificant compared to the rest who were calling for Saddams trial & hanging and those against terrorism. My father said the Iraqi media reported the number like this 'about 200,000 demonstrators of which 8,000-10,000 were Al-Sadr & Sunni supporters' (strange bed fellows). He also said that when he listened to the Iraqi elected officials (on live T.V.) in the assembly, that every one (every one including those Sunnis initially opposed to the elections), every man and woman assembly member, reiterated the importance of foreign and specifically U.S. troops staying in Iraq till Iraq is ready to take over its own security. Most of them expressed their thanks for the troops being there and freeing Iraqis from Saddam. This I did not read, hear or see in any U.S. mainstream media outlet.

These are the people Iraq elected, asking us to stay and thanking us. The poll shows only 12% want us to leave at once. This makes a complete mockery of the mainstream media coverage of the demonstrations. As my wife told me when she heard the coverage on CNN: 'Haider you are going to get mad when you hear this', and I am still mad. Forgive me for rehashing this point. I feel it really needs pointing out. Iraqis are grateful for what we did and continue to be grateful for us being there.

Terri Schiavo Gets Due Processed to Death by Junk Justice

2005-03-23T22:54:00.000-05:00

Ms. Terri Schiavo is a severely brain-damaged woman who had her feeding tube removed this past Friday by order of the Florida state court system.

Anyone who feels like they would like to know more about this woman's story should check out the website Abstract Appeal. The law blogger Matt Conigliaro runs Abstract Appeal and has written many posts about the trials of Ms. Schiavo. He has a special page devoted to the history of her litigation, including a thorough timeline, with links to various documents, of critical events in her life.

One link in particular gives a very good summary of the facts, issues, and laws that have pushed Ms. Schiavo's case along. It's the link to the report of Jay Wolfson, who was appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Ms. Schiavo by the Chief Judge of the Florida 6th Judicial Circuit in October 2003. The report is 38 pages long, but it's double-spaced and written in a very readable style. It is probably the best single source for understanding what took place with Ms. Schiavo up until November 2003.

Here's an excerpt from pages 29 to 30 of Mr. Wolfson's report:

A particularly disarming aspect of persons diagnosed with persistent vegetative state is that they have waking and sleeping cycles. When awake, their eyes are often open, they make noises, they appear to track movement, they respond to deep pain, and appear startled by loud noises.

Further, because ... those brain-related functions [which are controlled by the autonomic nervous system] are not affected, they can often breathe (without a respirator) and swallow (saliva). But there is no purposeful, reproducible, interactive, awareness.

There is some controversy within the scientific medical literature regarding the characterization and diagnosis of persons in a persistent vegetative state. Highly competent, scientifically based physicians using recognized measures and standards have deduced, within a high degree of medical certainty, that Theresa is in a persistent vegetative state. This evidence is compelling.

Terri is a living, breathing human being. When awake, she sometimes groans, makes noises that emulate laughter or crying, and may appear to track movement. But the scientific medical literature and the reports this GAL obtained from highly respected neuro-science researchers indicate that these activities are common and characteristic of persons in a persistent vegetative state.

In the month during which the GAL conducted research, interviews and compiled information, he sought to visit with Theresa as often as possible, sometimes daily, and sometimes, more than once each day. During that time, the GAL was not able to independently determine that there were consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities. When Theresa’s mother and father were asked to join the GAL, there was no success in eliciting specific responses. Hours of observed video tape recordings of Theresa offer little objective insight about her awareness and interactive behaviors. There are instances where she appears to respond specifically to her mother. But these are not repetitive or consistent. There were instances during the GAL’s visits, when responses seemed possible, but they were not consistent in any way.

This having been said, Theresa has a distinct presence about her. Being with Theresa, holding her hand, looking into her eyes and watching how she is lovingly treated by Michael, her parents and family and the clinical staff at hospice is an emotional experience. It would be easy to detach from her if she were comatose, asleep with her eyes closed and made no noises. This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states.

I find this characterization to be unusually frank for someone who does not side with Ms. Schiavo's parents in thinking that Ms. Schiavo should continue to live.

Mr. Wolfson describes Ms. Schiavo as making noises, appearing to track movement, "emulating" laughter and crying, responding to deep pain, capable of being startled, and swallowing her saliva. He seems to be describing someone who is minimally conscious as opposed to truly vegetative. He even seems as if he might be willing to grant this point when he talks about Ms. Schiavo's having "a distinct presence about her."

It is bad enough that the federal judges who have been ruling on Ms. Schiavo's fate this week are disregarding the possiblility that the Florida state judges may have overlooked some minimal state of consciousness or cognition in Ms. Schiavo. That they are doing so contrary to the clear instruction of the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States is disgraceful.

I have really lost a lot of respect for the judges who have refused to grant a temporary stay of Ms. Schiavo's euthanasia by dehydration. It's one thing to stubbornly defend the prerogatives of the judiciary, it's a whole other thing to do so at the expense of a possibly wrongfully forfeited innocent person's life. This gets me angry.

President Pressures Putin to Promise Progress?

2005-02-27T21:19:00.000-05:00

David Adesnik, of Oxblog, has written a very interesting analysis of President Bush's recent meeting and press conference in Bratislava, Slovakia, with President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Here's a link for the story:

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT BRATISLAVA?

Mr. Adesnik is optimistic that President Bush will be able to prod Putin into halting his march towards dictatorship and perhaps reestablish some democratic conditions in Russia.

Here's a quote:

...when Bush says that Putin made a serious commitment to democracy at a private meeting with the President of the United States of America, that is exactly what Bush means. He has put Putin on the record and expects him to live up to his word, the same way that Bush lives up to his.

[...]

rather than give Putin a public thrashing, Bush is trying to secure a much clearer commitment from the Russian.

Based on what I know of President Bush and Mr. Putin, Mr. Adesnik's argument makes perfect sense. But I know a lot more about President Bush than I do about Mr. Putin, so I'm not confident that the Russian president will feel a need to be democratic.

I was directed to this story by a link on Glenn Reynolds' blog, Instapundit.

Bronx Blog Backs Bush, says Bush Beats Bad Bozos' Butts

2005-02-07T23:53:00.000-05:00

I live in the Bronx and grew up in the Bronx.

When I was a wee boy, my neighborhood starting burning up. It got to the point that when I was seven years old, our family moved from where we were in the West Bronx to a nicer, not-burning-down neighborhood in the East Bronx. That neighborhood in the West Bronx was where my mother had grown up, but the switch was definitely a good move because the quality of life in the old 'hood was only getting worse, not better.

The decline of our neighborhood co-incided with the decline of many neighborhoods throughout the Bronx and New York City. And the decline of whole sections of New York City co-incided with similar declines in many other cities across the U.S.

The decline was a multi-faceted thing. Crime rose, arson rose, schools sprouted many problems, families on welfare increased, city services such as the subway system started to get worse and worse.

All this made a great impression on me. It made me very curious as to how things worked, and how things didn't work. It made me skeptical of authority, and skeptical of complacency.

I learned that individual persons could easily contribute to creating problems larger than themselves.

Eventually I also learned that individual persons could also contribute to solving problems larger than themselves. And I also learned that governments and businesses alike could be part of the problems or part of the solutions.

With the power to either participate in the solutions to our problems or to participate in the causes of our problems comes a definite amount of responsibility. We each have the power to choose to use our influence and our resources for good or for bad, and we are responsible for our choices.

That's why I follow and care about politics. We all get to choose our elected officials, and influence the votes of others. It's such a corrupt and dishonest business, though, especially in New York, that it's easy to walk away in disgust and try not to pay too much attention to it.

When I first heard that George W. Bush was going to run for president, I didn't know a lot about him. I voted for his dad in 1988, but I was so disappointed by Bush senior that I voted for Ross Perot in 1992. I didn't hold Bush senior's record against W, but I didn't have any particular reason to be positive about him either, except that he wasn't Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

I think I ended up liking him because he came out for tax cuts and for a humble yet strong foreign policy, and because he wanted to fix public education and was open to the idea of using school vouchers. But even if I hadn't ended up liking him, I would have desperately wanted just about anyone to win against Al Gore.

By the time election day came in November, I still thought that Bush had a good agenda. But more importantly, he seemed to understand the need we had for a president that would be a moral, decent person. This would be the best thing by far about Bush if it were true, and I was greatly relieved when he finally became president-elect.

By the time September 11, 2001, came around, I already was falling in love with President Bush. I didn't know how he would respond to the attacks. But I did know that in the past he had found himself in very stressful circumstances with long odds and come out on top. So I was anxiously optimistic that if there were anything we could do, then President Bush might be able to figure it out.

I was 200 yards away from the World Trade Center when the jihadi hijackers attacked them. Several people that I knew were murdered and pulverised, although none of them were close friends. The building I was in was not evacuated until 11:00 am, and I didn't get home to the Bronx until 7:oo pm.

I had been close to the WTC the first time it had been attacked, back in 1993, by jihadis with an exploding rental van. That had been very disturbing, but once the FBI had snagged the bad guys, it quickly seemed to turn into some manageable kind of business. The bombers seemed more bizarre than threatening, once we knew what they were up to.

But the September 11th attacks were way different. Up to 5,000 people were dead and 5,000 families torn apart, the skyline had a conspicious smoking hole, and somebody somewhere had just successfully declared war on the whole country. Hundreds of firefighters and other emergency personnel, as well as many altruistic office workers had died heroically. Nobody knew what our enemies would do next. And nobody knew what we would, could, or should do next (actually some people did know, or at least had a very good idea, but nobody I knew knew).

Over the next two weeks or so, daily reality took a holiday. And President Bush reassured me and many others that we had found a common purpose and that we would find a common way to deal with things.

If someone reading my account disagrees with me, that's fine with me. I know people had all kinds of reactions, and that is all part of the reality. But I am writing here of my own direct personal experience, and my own evaluation of that experience. I'm not going to pretend I experienced things I didn't experience, and I don't think anyone should expect me to.

I think one thing that some people overlook when they downplay the importance of 9-11 for our foreign policy is that 9-11 is the day that islamo-fascism declared war on our country.

We can pursue Al Qaeda and dismantle it. We can punish the Taliban for supporting Al Qaeda. But that will not stop the islamo-fascist movement. Doesn't even come close.

We need to unleash our secret weapon. It's been in development a long time, and not all the bugs have been worked out. In fact, it's so dangerous, hard-core S.O.B.'s like Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon were often reluctant to use it.

Our secret weapon is liberal democracy. Democracy, with safeguards for minority and individual rights.

If we can infect the Middle East with democracy, and help the freedom bug take over, then islamo-fascism will become as menacing as Italian fascism is today (i.e. not very menacing).

The old dominant school of diplomatic strategy, known as real politik or realism, said that standing by friendly tyrants was more important than pushing very hard for democracy. The new "realism", which has been formulated and promulgated by President Bush, says that the promotion of democracy and freedom is a very high priority national security interest.

Is it possible that the new realism is misguided and wrong and counter-productive?

Anything is possible, but it is not very likely that democracy will prove to be a bad bet. Time will tell. I am optimistic.

It's important to stop the islamo-fascists as quickly as possible.

But it's not obvious what the best way to do that is, and we can only pursue one course of action at a time. So we always need to evaluate what we're doing to see if what we're doing is the best thing to do.

And what makes the war even more compelling a topic to analyze is that it has been so controversial. Here in the U.S., tens of millions of people line up on both sides of the campaign in Iraq. The numbers on each side have changed with the flow of good news and bad news from the battlegrounds.

And as go the fortunes of war, so seem to go the fortunes of President Bush.

President Bush deserves a lot of support. He deserves a lot of gratitude.

He is a trustworthy politician. That's like being a sprinting snail, or a sluggish jet-plane, in terms of defying the conventions of one's peers.

And as if it wasn't enough for him to be a trustworthy politician, he has also proven himself to be a highly competent leader and decision-maker.

If I were president, there are some things I would want to do differently from President Bush. But I suspect there are many more things that I would simply mess up compared to how President Bush is handling them.

I feel lucky that President Bush is our president. Because of that, I am very grateful to him, and I try to take every opportunity to stand up for him and defend his integrity and his record.

President Bush Speaks About the Iraqi Elections

2005-01-30T14:42:00.000-05:00

Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East.

In great numbers, and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins. And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government.

Some Iraqis were killed while exercising their rights as citizens. We also mourn the American and British military personnel who lost their lives today. Their sacrifices were made in a vital cause of freedom, peace in a troubled region, and a more secure future for us all.

The Iraqi people, themselves, made this election a resounding success. Brave patriots stepped forward as candidates. Many citizens volunteered as poll workers. More than 100,000 Iraqi security force personnel guarded polling places and conducted operations against terrorist groups. One news account told of a voter who had lost a leg in a terror attack last year, and went to the polls today, despite threats of violence. He said, "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace."

Across Iraq today, men and women have taken rightful control of their country's destiny, and they have chosen a future of freedom and peace. In this process, Iraqis have had many friends at their side. The European Union and the United Nations gave important assistance in the election process. The American military and our diplomats, working with our coalition partners, have been skilled and relentless, and their sacrifices have helped to bring Iraqis to this day. The people of the United States have been patient and resolute, even in difficult days.

The commitment to a free Iraq now goes forward. This historic election begins the process of drafting and ratifying a new constitution, which will be the basis of a fully democratic Iraqi government. Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy, and we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against them. We will continue training Iraqi security forces so this rising democracy can eventually take responsibility for its own security.

There's more distance to travel on the road to democracy. Yet Iraqis are proving they're equal to the challenge. On behalf of the American people, I congratulate the people of Iraq on this great and historic achievement.

Thank you very much.

President Bush's Second Inaugural Speech

2005-01-20T22:58:00.000-05:00

Excerpt:

"Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.

[...]

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, members of the United States Congress, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half-century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical -- and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat.

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.

Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.

America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation -- the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet, rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are -- the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: We honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:

From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom.

And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well -- a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause -- in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives, and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character.

America has need of idealism and courage because we have essential work at home -- the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the GI Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time.

To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance -- preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.

By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character -- on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.

That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards,and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before -- ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today and forever.

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service and mercy and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love.

Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes -- and I will strive in good faith to heal them.

Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as he wills.

We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages, when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty, when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" -- they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled.

History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty.

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still.

America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength -- tested, but not weary -- we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

May God bless you, and may he watch over the United States of America.

A Blog by Two Americans in Iraq

2005-01-18T14:22:00.000-05:00

http://ishouldhavestayedhome.blogspot.com/

It's an excellent blog for anyone who is interested in Iraq, whether hopeful or despairing. Click and see for yourself.

Rather and Mapes Commit Fraud Against Us, and Libel Against President Bush

2005-01-11T09:58:00.000-05:00

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009157.php

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/
Public/Articles/000/000/005/122hkbzu.asp?pg=1

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004784.php

Update, February 21, 2005:

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/02/what_if_the_ras.html

President Bush's Plan for Winning the Peace in Iraq

2005-01-09T02:40:00.000-05:00

Last year, during the presidential election campaign, John Kerry and other very prominent Democrats accused President Bush of not having a plan to win the peace.

I've just found a blogger, Alec Rawls, who wrote, back in October, a good summary of how this complaint is both wrong and disingenuous. He also indicates how some Democratic criticism of the war stepped over the line that separates loyal opposition from treacherous aid to our enemies.

You can find Mr. Rawls short essay at his weblog, Error Theory, at the following address:

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/
2004/10/quiet-george-wins-peace.html

Here's a quote from his piece:

Kerry has repeatedly used this summer's upsurge in Iraqi violence to accuse President Bush of "rushing to war without having a plan to win the peace." As usual, Kerry gets it exactly backwards. The level of violence has actually been a result of the President's plan to win the peace.

Here's another excerpt:

When Kerry played up the Jihadist attacks this summer and used them to charge President bush with not having a plan to win the peace, the President could have explained our strategy--how we made a calculated gamble to let the enemy live today so that we could better win the peace tomorrow, when there is an Iraqi government and army to hand defeated territories over to, but spelling out our calculations would have hurt on the ground. It would have meant telling ordinary Iraqis that a calculation was made to let some of them die now, to avoid larger numbers dying should the peace not be won. By declining to discuss military calculations, President Bush put America's interests above his own partisan interests. This is a constant of George Bush's character.

Prospects for Liberal Democracy in Iraq

2004-12-11T21:10:00.000-05:00

Two Iraqi bloggers, Omar and Mohammed of IRAQ THE MODEL, came to the United States Friday and had a private meeting with President Bush yesterday.

A blogger named Grim went to a reception with them last night, and describes how it went:

http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/
2004_12_05_grimbeorn_archive.html#110272606927806355

Here's a piece of Grim's post:

Omar in particular was adamant about the elections. He is sure Iraq will surprise us. 'Iraqis want to take their place among the nations,' he said. 'We want to help you fight this war against the terrorists.

'The Iraqi people will never disappoint you.'

He means, of course, the ones who have not chosen to join the insurgents. But he is dismissive of them, in spite of all they do. What we don't understand, he said, is that the kind of terror they can create is nothing to the people of Iraq. Under Saddam, terror was systemic. It was daily. It meant every night, listening for the police at the door.

'Compared to that, these insurgents are nothing.'

I was pointed to this post by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

Good day everyone, here's my first post

2004-10-06T14:03:00.000-04:00

Today I am posting for the first time since setting up The Bronx Blogger two and a half weeks ago.

I am posting an essay called "Deterrence" by Bill Whittle. Mr. Whittle is a strong and noble writer with a website named EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!, and you can find the original essay at

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000108.html

Enjoy!

__________________________________________________________

From EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!, by Bill Whittle
October 06, 2004

DETERRENCE, Part 1

Watching the Presidential debates of October 1st, and the subsequent reactions to them, has left me once again with the sad realization that there are many millions of people who prefer a man who says the wrong things well over one who says the right things badly – and in the case of the first debates we are talking about saying very, very stupid things well and intelligent things very, very badly.

Now I don’t mean stupid in a bad way. I fully credit John Kerry with the intelligence needed to analyze, dissect, and evaluate a position and without mechanical aid quickly and accurately use advanced trigonomic functions to determine the most popular position on a wide range of complex issues – a feat that requires a very quick mind indeed.

So it’s not dumb stupid, those statements he made in the first debate. It’s more of an entirely understandable, eminently defensible, very common fossilized kind of stupid that we saw from the Senator. It was the stupid of a man claiming to have new ideas and new plans based on shared assumptions and models that no longer apply to reality.

President Bush seemed stupid in comparison because he seems to only know three things in all the world – and it is our great good fortune that he is right about all three.

In a moment, we’ll look at what both men said, and through a very specific filter: not their Aggregate Presidentiality, or their respective Molar Charm Ratio. We’re going to look at what both men believe in respect to deterrence: whether their positions increase or decrease the likelihood of further attacks on the US.

That’s it. That’s all. That’s the sum total of this election for me. We’ve survived boobs and crooks and idiots and charlatans of all stripes and colors, struggled through booms and recessions, surpluses and deficits, and wars on poverty and drugs and crime and General Public Lasciviousness and come through just fine, and we will again.

But the nuclear destruction of the heart of Manhattan, or Long Beach Harbor, or the Capital mall – these things are serious business and as Sam Johnson once said, the prospect of being hanged in the morning tends to focus the mind.

As I have been willing to accept that George W. Bush is no longer a hard-drinking frat boy but rather a sober and responsible adult, then so too am I willing to allow that John Kerry has matured since his secret meetings with enemy leaders during a time of war. I myself cast my first presidential vote for Walter Mondale. There is no decent excuse for any of these behaviors; and I only wish that my own lapses of judgment had been less embarrassing and more explainable… cannibalism, say, or something of that nature.

So I am willing to put the Moonbat and Wingnut nonsense aside for the moment. and grant that both men – and their supporters -- have in mind the same objective when they talk about national security.

We both look at this:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ /
/ /
/ /------In the original essay, there is a photo here of
/ /------the second plane hitting the World Trade Center.
/ /
/ /
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And we both want to make sure that it – or worse – does not happen again.

We don’t want it to happen again.

We want to deter it from happening again.

And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.

It’s really just that simple.

Now if sociology were a real science, we could set up experiments. We could, in fact, do what just about every one of us – Liberal or Conservative -- has, in our heart of hearts, secretly wanted to do: send that 50% of idiots on the other side packing – I mean, really packing, as in, out of the country, for good -- and let history show we were right after all.

We imagine an America made up exclusively of tough-minded Conservatives would be a far better, a safer and stronger place, than an America composed of nothing but compassion-filled Liberals.

They, of course, think precisely the opposite. And I have, over the past two years, determined that internet comment threads do not hold the answer to this predicament. Theirs, and ours, are usually just cheerleading sessions, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but a soothing reduction in blood pressure brought about by the narcotic high of being agreed with.

We can’t, alas, deport all the left wingers and they cannot, damn it, silence all the right wingers. We are stuck with each other. Each sees the press as biased toward the other, and each gapes in awe and amazement that the other side could possibly feel the same way.

And although we can not run an experiment to look into the alternate futures to glean the best result, to determine the relative benefits of being nice or being mean – for those, ultimately, are the choices, believe it or not – we can at least look back to see which seems to have produced the best results in the laboratory of history.

It all comes down to carrots (liberals) or sticks (conservatives). By the way: if you’re in a rush and need to run, here’s the spoiler: You can offer a carrot. Not everybody likes carrots. Some people may hate your carrot. Your carrot may offend people who worship the rutabaga. But no one likes being poked in the eye with a stick. That’s universal.

I’m a stick man. I wish it were different. But part of growing up – in fact, the essential part of growing up – is realizing that wishing does not make it so.

Folks, it’s time to reach down deep and get in touch with our inner adult.

I used to be a carrot man. Like most larval liberals, I grew up in a life that would be unrecognizable to all but the thinnest sliver of humans that ever lived on this great rock in space – that thin, thin sliver being everyone and everything you and I know and take for granted.

Reality – meaning the wolves – have never been so far from the door as they are today. So believing in the power of goodwill and friendship, of handshakes and agreement and compromise, of trusting to the good and noble in mankind was easy for me, for the consequences of being wrong in that belief cost me nothing at all. I’d never been robbed, raped, beaten or victimized in any way. That belief in goodwill, compromise, concession and trust grew as a result of being surrounded by decent people in a well-ordered, lawful society, with a long history of compromise and cooperation.

I can remember saying, in college, that if someone broke in to my house and stole my television, well that was fundamentally just, because after all, I was white, male, educated and could make enough money to afford an endless line of televisions.

This view of the world was tempered somewhat, when, a few months later, I awoke to the sound of my window being opened and the sight of the upper torso of a man climbing in over the sill. By the way, it was only later that I realized that it wasn’t my TV he was there to steal. He was there to steal my dad’s TV – he paid for it, not me. Once I had to go to work and earn money to pay for things my mood changed somewhat. I put in forty hours of misery, boredom and early mornings for that TV, and some yayhoo just walks right in and takes it? Screw that! You want a TV? The McDonald’s on 13th and University is hiring.

Folks, some people who steal and rob are not fundamentally bad people. Some of them are desperate, some of them are stupid, and some of them are just plain lazy. Some of them, though, are psychopaths who’d kill you for a nickel and think nothing more about it – they’d trade your life, and the welfare of your spouse and children, for two hours of getting high and it would not bother them in the least.

Nations are governed by people. People are noble and base, honest and corrupt, brutal and gentle and all the adjectives in between. Yes, even Americans! The success of democracy, it seems to me, is that there is always a counterweight to the most mendacious and the most harebrained of human activities. It’s harder to fool all the people all the time.

Dictatorships, on the other hand – well, you’re down to the limits of one man’s sanity, ego, vanity and judgment. And when you consider the kind of person it takes to rule absolutely and totally the lives of millions of others – many of them more intelligent, educated and capable – then what you are left with is a giant, enormous, destructive Iron Giant – a state – with a tiny, desperate, paranoid, perpetually fearful psychopath pulling the levers. Dictatorships put the power of millions, the muscle and capability of entire nations, behind the guy with the gun in that dark alley.

It is a prospect to make sane people shake with fear. Surely we can agree on this much. Surely we can agree, no matter our political persuasion, that there are mean, bad, violent people who care nothing for inflicting violence on the innocent in order to get what they want. And since those people exist, we should also be able to agree that such people can – even in the heart of people as civilized as the Germans – ride to power and employ that hatred and reckless disregard for human happiness multiplied by a hundred million.

That’s reality. It’s undeniable. I wish it were not true…but wishing does not make it so. Paging the Inner Adult…white courtesy telephone, please.

It would be nice to live in a world full of liberals. I say that as a staunch conservative. It would be nice to live in a world that behaved like a Hollywood party or a university campus, filled with kind, educated people with lots to lose, who cherish reason and responsibility and are incapable of brutal, violent acts. If all the world were filled with decent, compassionate, rational people, life would be a bouquet.

But it’s not. There are bad people who do bad things, and there are bad countries run by bad people who do bad things who eat the kind and gentle people for breakfast. There is no denying this. Therefore, liberals are insane. I speak from experience here.

It’s a damn shame, it really is.

Reasonable people can take the most cursory look into the world – the Western world, anyway -- and see successes everywhere, but perfection no where to be found at any price.

Because I try to be a reasonable person. I don’t fault the government for not preventing 9/11 only because ultimately the government is made up of ordinary people, and ordinary people, like me, could not fully imagine or grasp what we were seeing that day even while we were seeing it.

I tuned in when the first tower had just gone down. The first images I saw that morning were of one tower and a cloud of smoke. Funny, I remember thinking, I thought there were two World Trade Center towers. I was sure I had remembered wrong. I didn’t see the first tower go down. Skyscrapers don’t just disappear.

Vapor lock.

When I saw the replay of the first plane hit, the first words I said that weren’t mumbled, awestruck and unpublishable were simply these:

There’s no way airline pilots did that. Those were not our pilots.

That was the only coherent thought I had for six hours.

We like to say that the world changed that day. What a ridiculous, self-centered thought. The world didn’t change. Our illusions about the world changed. The scales had (mostly) fallen from my eyes in the years leading up to that morning. But many, many conservatives (as I define myself) were born precisely at 9:17 am EDT, when United 175 flew past the burning North Tower – an accident? – and exploded through the second, on the morning of September the 11th, 2001.

And everything we thought we knew about deterrence changed at 9:17 too – although I am sorry to say it hasn’t fully sunk in on certain people.

Nineteen people – some barely literate -- killed almost three thousand of the most highly skilled and productive citizens on the planet. I told my Dad that morning I just saw our Pearl Harbor.

He immediately replied, “No you didn’t. After Pearl Harbor we knew who to attack.”

He was right. That’s the point of terrorism, of course. Deniability. 9/11 was an attack on the US by Islamicist fanatics, orchestrated by Egyptian strategists, staffed with Jihadists recruited from around the Arab world, and paid for largely by Saudi religious zealots. So why not launch an attack with elements of the Egyptian and Saudi air forces? Because within six hours there would have been no more Egyptian and Saudi air forces, and within six weeks, no Egyptian and Saudi governments, either. Our deterrence against conventional attack, or even nuclear attack from a nation-state, is so credible and muscular that such a thing has become literally unthinkable.

But how do we deter people who want to die? How do we deter people who need only the skill and the means to push a button on a briefcase, or open a box cutter and be prepared to do bloody work with it? How do we deter the assassin lost in the crowd at the Superbowl? How do we deter enemies who are so dispersed, so ethereal and fragmentary, that hostile governments can arm and shelter them knowing full well that we will not retaliate with a nuclear attack against millions of genuine innocents in Cairo, or Tehran, or Riyadh?

If a suitcase nuke detonates in Times Square, or Long Beach harbor, or outside the Capitol building, what do we do? Nuke Mecca? Incinerate Damascus? Because – so help me God, I tremble to say it – that is exactly the response our enemies would hope for. They care not a whit about their own people because they have no allegiance to anyone but themselves and their vision of a vengeful and bloodthirsty Allah. A million, ten million innocents under American mushroom clouds are just that many more martyrs gone to paradise. It is they, not we, who dream of a clash of civilizations, with its promised sweeping away of the decadent and godless by the blood and faith of the Believer.

We might yet be able to stop this on the cheap. If we do not, I fear the day will come when 3000 civilians and 1000 American soldiers will look like a very, very small bill to pay.

What we learned on 9/11 is that there are people out there who are not deterrable. Given the chance – given the weapons – these people will strike without any regard to consequences. The ultimate horror of a world enveloped in nuclear fire is just peachy keen with them if it will bring about the New Caliphate. We love death the way you Americans love life, they say. They are not kidding. They are serious. You can pretend otherwise, but that will not make it change. There are people who are determined to kill us for who we are and what we believe. They can not be deterred.

But they can be defeated. And the people they depend on for survival can be deterred.

I initially had many doubts about George W. Bush. Actually, that’s not quite fair. The truth is, I despised the man. But then something happened.

I was walking across the studio lot to my car on the night of September 20th, 2001. I ignored the NOT A WALKWAY! signs in the grip and lighting department: cutting through the building saved me having to go around three giant sound stages to get to my car. Barricades had been put up on the back gate, and security guards were checking our trunks for explosives and running a mirror under every vehicle that drove onto the lot. And you couldn’t hear a jet fly over without wondering... what if? What now?

You may remember those days. I do.

It was getting dark as I walked down that narrow corridor, flanked by enormous movie lights and innumerable c-stands. And there, at the desk, was a group of six or seven grips watching a small color television in perfect silence: an ancient TV, the greens and oranges radioactive and bleeding --- the Acid Channel.

I watched George W. Bush give the best speech I have ever heard: better, by far, than FDR’s Pearl Harbor address. Better, even, than the tinny, lilting, lisping sound of Churchill’s immortal call to fight them on the beaches.

As I watched that speech unwind, I knew, instantly and unequivocally, that this President understood what we were up against, the moment he said:

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Yes, precisely: not desperately aggrieved parties, not freedom fighters, not anything more than thugs and murderers who want to impose their way of life on the world. Fascists. Ruthless, fanatical bastards sworn to our destruction.

Then, three paragraphs later, this:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

This line, this doctrine – either you’re with us or the terrorists – has drawn derision and scorn from the nuanced sophisticates from around the world. What they refuse to see is that in one brilliant stroke it cuts the camouflage away from terror, and in effect neutralizes the very lever that makes International Terror so effective a tool: deniability. More on this in a moment.

I sat amazed at the confidence and the vision President Bush outlined in that speech. I remember saying out loud, to no one in particular, “I was wrong about this man.” A few of the grips nodded in silence. None of us took our eyes off the TV screen.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

And there stood a man I had not seen before – and sadly, have not seen often since – holding the shield of a dead hero in his hand, promising not to tire, or falter, or fail, until this vague and mysterious war was won. And I swore to myself, right then and there, that I would support this President, come what may. And in the intervening years, as the criticisms and hysteria rose in pitch to the point where only dogs can hear, I have stood by him and his policies, and I do so proudly, to this day.

But time and again I have wished and hoped to hear that music again, that calm, unruffled, determined voice. By now so many small people have carried so many lies so far -– BushHitler! Halliburton! Yellowcake! No Blood for Oil! AWOL! -- that we awake as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice to find the broom shards have filled the cellars with an ocean of poison to debunk and to drain.

During the past two years I have been angry with the President; angry that common amateurs in their pajamas (I favor a smoking jacket, fez and calabash pipe when I dash off these little gems) have to rise and defend the policies that we wholeheartedly agree with but which have been appallingly poorly defined and defended by the White House.

And then I had a bit of a revelation. Like Col. Kurtz, I felt I had been shot through the forehead with a diamond bullet. This happened last night.

I tried to enlist on September 12th, 2001. I knew a little about airplanes; maybe the Air Force would trust me to wash them or something so as to free up useful people. They asked how old I was, thanked me, and told me they’d give me a call if they needed me.

So here I am: feeling useless. But President Bush warned that this was going to be a different war – something unlike anything we had ever seen. The front line now, at this critical time, is in the hearts and minds of our own people. That’s where the real battle is now. That is our weakest point, our breach, our point of failure. We have not made the case to enough people and time is running out.

So maybe now, at this absurd point in this new kind of war, we’re the crack troops, we old and useless pajama patriots reduced to printing up pamphlets to sell war bonds to the weary, to make the case for holding on to an unglamorous, uninspiring, relentless grind because that – not Normandy and Midway – is the face of war in this gilded age of luxury and safety and plenty.

Maybe that’s our job. Maybe we can help cover some small gap in the lines.

We’ll see. But for now, I will take up the sword of the pajamahadeen, and rise up: just another citizen-wordsmith, trying to put words and ideas where they are needed: into the stumbling gaps, exasperated expressions and defensiveness of a brave and exhausted man under a lot of pressure.

John Kerry has spoken now in front of the nation. We have, at last, a position that can be analyzed. I could use exerpts from their first debate to show that he is better spoken, or nicer, or taller than President Bush. I care about none of that. I am interested in one thing only from these two men: who will best deter the enemy? Who will best be able to stop a thousand 9/11’s in a millisecond of religious ecstasy? That’s all I care about.

We’ll review the debate in the order in which it occurred.

Let’s roll.

[Part 2 continues below]

Posted by Proteus at October 6, 2004 03:02 AM

---------------------------------------------------------------

October 06, 2004

DETERRENCE, part 2

SENATOR KERRY: I can make American safer than President Bush has made us.

And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe. I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.

I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.

This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.

I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better.

Four years ago, I would have voted for this policy in a heartbeat. This is what I mean by not stupid in a dumb way. But it is stupid in an ignorant way.

It’s stupid because it is a precise example of how to fight the last war. We are in a World War right now. It is being fought all across the globe and the consequences of winning or losing this war will effect every person on the planet. It is World War IV. If you can’t see that then you are either not paying attention, or are mollified by our spectacular successes over the past three years.

I credit John Kerry with the genuine desire to protect this nation, because the alternative is the back alley short-cut to insanity. He has, in mind, precisely the correct formula used protect the ideals of Liberal Democracy and ensure its victory in WWI, WWII and the long twilight fight of WWIII.

Allies and alliances defined the Great War. After four years of mind-shattering horror, the European powers had fought themselves to utter stalemate – and those trenches might yet today mark the borders between Germany, Belgium and France were it not for the arrivals of the American allies. Don’t misunderstand me – we did not win that war on the battlefield. That credit goes to the British and the French. But the endless supply of American troops disembarking, full of confidence and optimism and raw heroism, convinced Hindenberg and Ludendorf to desperately roll the dice on the spring 1918 offensives before they faced a million fresh American troops, full of fight. But defense was king in that war, and the Ludendorf Offensives failed. The counterattacks succeeded. The alliance won that war.

The alliance won World War II – that is beyond dispute. Without Britain hanging on during the lonely and dark opening years, where would the Western invasion have come from? Soviet Russia defeated almost 70% of the strength of Nazi Germany, and the United States defeated Japan single-handedly at sea, and with a great deal of help from the British and Australians and New Zealanders in brutal island jungles. An Alliance won that war – not us. Not us alone.

For almost fifty years, the most successful alliance in history had the guts and the commitment to put American cities on the line in order to prevent Soviet tanks from crashing through the Fulda gap. American, and to a deteriorating degree, European taxpayers built and maintained the armed forces needed to keep half of Europe free while the other half slowly rotted under the weight of an ideology so corrupt that it can now only thrive in the hothouse environment of the western coffee shop or faculty lounge. That, too, was an alliance victory.

If John Kerry were running for president in 1916, or 1940, or even 1976, he would have my enthusiastic vote, for the alliance of the US and the European powers is what saved Europe and the world not once, or twice, but three times in a single lifespan. One might expect some gratitude and respect for this, but as I say, the scales fell from my eyes some time ago.

But this is not 1916, or 1940, or 1976. Europe, ruler of the world in the first war, had become a military freeloader by the end of the third. Europe was not able to muster the military muscle or political will to extinguish a genocide within Europe – and things have gotten worse since them. The French nuclear carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, returned from her sea trials with a reactor room flooded with five times the allowable level of radiation and with one of her propellers at the bottom of the Atlantic. She borrowed a screw from her predecessor, the Foch – which was faster – and now sits in port making impressive appearances during national holidays and furthermore showing that if God exists he has both a sense of justice and a sense of humor.

The Germans cannot deploy an effective force beyond her own borders. The Russians – the mighty Russians -- could not call up so much as one decent ten-man special ops squad when she and her children needed them the most. Japan has constitutional restraints – drafted in American English – preventing her from deploying her defense forces overseas: a fact that has given me many nights peaceful sleep. And as for China… even if she decided, out of the kindness of her heart, to commit her forces to help her arch-rival…who do you think, Senator, would benefit the most from us sharing our weapons, tactics, logistics and intelligence with China.

But liberals are defined by their wishful thinking. An alliance would be nice – if the allies could shoulder some of the burden. But the sad, inconvenient, disappointing fact is that there is only one army on the face of the earth that can fight on the same battlefield with the United States; whose forces, technology and training rival ours in quality if not in scale, and whose trust has been forged by three world wars when we have stood alone, together. That country is Great Britain, one of the members of the “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”

The sad fact, the unpleasant reality of 2004 is that there is only once nation in the world that is of any strategic value on the battlefield, and that ally is with us as she has always been, a staunch friend through many dark nights who deserves something better, I perceive, than slander from a man proclaiming himself the greatest diplomat since.. well, since himself. I will say this for John Kerry: he is a man unrivalled in his own esteem.

An alliance of European powers is a chimera that no longer holds any significant value. That is a critical point. It is an essential point of delusion embedded in Senator Kerry’s world view. He waits for rescue from a knight long dead and moldering, sitting beneath a withered oak tree in rusted armor.

That’s point one.

Second, you cannot even throw the cloak of wishful thinking over Senator Kerry’s strategic nakedness, because as those of us in pajamas are well aware, the governments of the Grand Rescue Alliance – that is, Germany and France – have both announced publicly and in the most clear language available that regardless of who wins the election in November, they are not coming to Iraq.

That is not my opinion, that is not a product of the Republican Smear Machine…that is an official statement from the governments of the nations in question, stating unequivocally that they are not going to be a part of a coalition that is against their interests even if it is lead by an American who went to Swiss schools and speaks fluent French.

Is it possible to put this any more plainly? They do not have any meaningful capability, and they are publicly pledging that their lack of meaningful capability is…not…coming.

As a final thought on this essential issue, consider this, from your own personal experience: I have found that the only thing worse than doing a hard, dirty, thankless job by yourself is depending on help from someone who will not be there when you need them. We have a few good friends in this fight: Britain, the Aussies, God bless them, the Poles and the Italians and a few others – 4am friends who will drive 300 miles in a snowstorm to help us when we are broken down on the side of the road. Those are friends. Those are the people we need in a tough and dirty fight. Those people deserve gratitude and honor, not scorn and mockery.

Senator Kerry, your powerful allies don’t exist, and even if they did, they have plainly told you they are not coming. Welcome to 2004, John. It sucks, I know. That’s just what we’re dealt.

SENATOR KERRY: I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

I’d consider voting for this policy. But John Kerry has a 20 year record of having voted against every significant weapons system the US has deployed during his term in office. This is an assertion on the Senator’s part; words from a man who has been steadfast, constant and consistent in his ability to say what he thinks his audience wants to hear. His voting record – the put your money where your mouth is record -- is the polar opposite of this assertion. I’m taking the walk over the talk on this one.

Now, assume for a moment, that you are one of the Islamicist enemies of this nation. President Kerry has outlined a plan to reach out to the Muslim world and isolate you. President Bush, on the other hand, predicates his reelection on the premise that he will

…pursue(d) al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we're after them.

By the way, for about seventy of that seventy-five percent, you can go ahead and substitute the word “killed” in place of the more delicate “brought to justice.”

As a deterrent, I honestly and regretfully don’t think our terrorist enemies are much deterred by the thought of dying. I think they are fully ready to die. People who are fully ready to die in order to kill you and your family, who are undeterred by death, are likely not to terribly concerned by the thought of being isolated in a more sensitive approach to John Kerry’s sworn mission to hunt down, and isolate, chastise and severely reprimand terrorists.

Terrorists don’t seem to be too afraid of stern language. But I do notice, that while the fear of death does not seem to deter these people, the fact of being dead does significantly decrease their operational effectiveness. That’s a casual observation on my part – no real Harvard study to back it up. More of a hunch, really.

75% of known pre-9/11 al Qaeda killed in three years. Where’s my calculator…? 75% dived by three equals uh…25% a year. Well I’ll be a blue-blooded socialite! Why, at the rate of 25% a year, I calculate that ol’ Dubya will have bagged the whole lot of em in …one more year!

I say let’s give him the chance.

Quagmire! Quagmire!

No, not this season’s fashionable entry: I was referring to last seasons’ quagmire, Afghanistan.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.

The fact is that liberal feminists, when all is said an done, would rather have a man who can turn a witty phrase over a nice Cabernet Sauvignon than one who liberates a nation of women, and gives then the vote, to boot. What refined morality they possess.

You know what our enemies really fear? Women. Women scare the hell out of them.

Hey, there’s no shame in that: women scare the hell out of me, too, only I don’t shoot them in the head in their burkas in front of a cheering crowd in a soccer stadium. And in that regard, I find I am exactly like the Taliban…because they're not doing it either. They are dead or in caves. Has this president deterred atrocities coming our way from Afghanistan, home of the International Jihad 2001 Road Tour? You’re damn right he has. I have a word for how that makes me feel. It’s an archaic, old English word, no longer in common usage. It’s pronounced, “GRAT-eh-tood” .

You liberate the women of the world and Islamic Terror evaporates. They fear this the way we fear interruption of our Cable TV service. It is the death knell for their tradition of dominance and brutality, and it is not just the sight, but the very idea, of liberated, independent and unafraid women that causes them such hatred and revulsion when they look to the West.

Ladies, President Bush has freed the women of Afghanistan, and shut down the state-run rape and torture of women in Iraq. And for every one of those women who was raped and tortured to death, remember that half the entire country lived in daily fear of being spotted by some Ba’athist pig with too much time on his hands as he hid behind the tinted windows of his limousine, cruising the streets of Baghdad or Mosul or Basrah looking for a little fun.

Senator Kerry, on the other hand, has not only said, he has promised that he will do no such thing.

SENATOR KERRY: But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Somewhere, in an infinity of alternate universes, there must be a place where at this very moment, Ben Stein is wandering the wasteland of Tora Bora with clipboard in hand, stumbling over the rocks, never looking up, and saying, "Osama.. ? Osama.. ? Osama.. ?"

God, the restraint that the President must have when that murdering bastard’s name is mentioned in derision as a sign of Bush’s incompetence. It’s practically superhuman.

First of all, you may recall that three years ago, the President -- correctly, in my estimation -- pointed out that this was not a criminal manhunt for Public Enemy Number One, but rather,

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

“Secret even in success…” An interesting phrase, that. What does that mean?

Osama bin Laden has not been seen since the battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001. Remember now, this is not someone like Abu Nidal, a genuine terror mastermind described by the US State Department as having carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988.

Abu Nidal was rightfully phobic about being photographed. Anonymity was camouflage to him: incredibly tight operational security, even plastic surgery. The man wanted to remain unseen. In fact he did remain unseen, retiring in his golden years to a nice apartment in Baghdad until he was assassinated by Saddam just before the war to maintain the well-established fact that Saddam had no ties to terrorism. No living ties to terrorism. Well, to that terrorist. It’s all very nuanced and sophisticated.

Contrast this behavior to that of Osama bin Laden, who did not operationally plan the 9/11 attacks (see dead underlings, above) but was rather the figurehead for an international organization of many thousands of fanatics, their numbers much thinned now.

Osama made endless videotapes. Lecturing, preaching, instructing, firing an AK-47: all the things that make young jihadis feel funny in the pants. After 9/11, he wowed ‘em in several tapes gloating and laughing over the attack and its aftermath. He was reliably heard on the radio during the final phase of Tora Bora, then…nothing.

Maybe he escaped. It’s possible.

Then came the videotape condemning the Israeli incursion into Ramallah and Jenin…only it didn’t. The US corporate scandals? Silence. Anniversary of Holy Tuesday? Cue the tumbleweeds.

The freaking invasion of a Muslim country by the Great Satan, and this new Caliph, the Leader of the Oppressed, cannot bring himself to shoot a crummy VHS in front of a white wall condemning this outrage? This glory-seeking egomaniac, the New Saladin riding the White Horse across the desert, who practically put out a 10 DVD commemorative set every time the US so much as hiccupped, is now suddenly silent, and has been for three years?

You may call that a Terror Mastermind. I call it a greasy wet spot on the wall of a cave in Afghanistan.

The man is dead. Dead, or just possibly captured. The likelihood of him having been killed at Tora Bora by US “outsourcing” was rising with his deafening silence concerning each American counterstroke and became 100% when nothing was heard from the late Osama after the US invasion of Iraq.

Does President Bush know what became of him? I would say, very likely. We know what did not become of him: he didn’t become a Martyr. He did not become the symbol of Glorious Death resisting the Great Satan. He did not become a Symbol or a Cause or an Example to Them All.

He became, if you will pardon the expression, AWOL. Bugged out. Handed in his walking papers. Fizzle….poof. Gone.

Brilliant.

Unfortunately, I do not have fake (but accurate!) documents to back this claim up. I just have common sense, a psychological history, and the ability to see Naked Emperors. The man is dead – just possibly captured; he has been for years.

Now, do I fault President Bush for not announcing this? I do not. For the President to not disclose something so beneficial to himself, politically, must mean that there is a reason of great magnitude behind the official silence. Are we, the American People, entitled to know what this secret is?

We are not.

We are not for the same reason we were not entitled to know that allied cryptographers won WWII by breaking the Japanese and German codes and having the good sense to shut up about it. But don’t dare breathe such sentiments to the current editors of The New York Times. Had those people been running the paper in 1943, tomorrows headline would have read:

AMERICAN AND BRITISH CRYPTOGRAPHERS BREAK JAP AND NAZI WAR CODES – ALL FUTURE ENEMY MOVEMENTS NOW KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY BY ALLIED HIGH COMMAND.

I suspect that if I live another ten years, I’ll be sitting watching the History Channel some night in my pajamas and all will be revealed to me. Until then, I’m happy not to know. I know some people have a hard time with that. Go to hell. This is serious business. Not everything is about you.

Has President Bush deterred bin Laden from repeating his attack on the US? I don’t honestly see what Osama can do these days, what with him being in several thousand crispy pieces and all.

One nice thing about those hyperbaric bombs, developed by that Vietnamese immigrant who fled to the US after certain people’s ideological heroes overran her country and likely killed most of her extended family: they make a small boom, release some nastiness, and then make a much louder boom.

I hope that son of a bitch knew what the sound of that first little boom meant.

And now, finally, the piece de resistance, the Main Event.

Iraq.

SENATOR KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections…

…And we pushed our allies aside.

Yes, after only thirteen brief years of Iraq’s causus belli of repeatedly and energetically violating every clause of the cease-fire agreement that stayed the US hand in 1991 when he was down, out and routed, and after only fourteen barely-have-time-to-pee months of non-stop, back-to-back UN sessions, resolutions, meetings, condemnations, threats, blocked inspections, harsh language, sanctions, embargoes and Saddam’s willful disregard of international protest, the Smirking Chimp ordered the raring-to-go German, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Belgian armored divisions out of theater so that he could have his unilateral war.

Thanks for clarifying that opaque moment in history, Senator.

And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.

The inference being, I suppose, that a more sophisticated foreign policy and lack of Texas accent could have persuaded France, Germany, Russia, indeed, the entire UN – all with their hands deep in the oily pockets of Saddam – to put their billions back on the table and step up like good fellows to trade their cash for some decent-sized share of the casualties…three or four hundred killed, perhaps, something in that ballpark. Yes, exactly: the Kerry team, using the same impeccable diplomatic finesse they displayed in calling the desperately courageous leader of Iraq a “puppet” and our true, abiding friends a rabble of bribed, coerced, bought and extorted lapdogs, will convince the most selfish, perfidious and unreliable “ally” in human history to step up and do the right thing because he is asking them?

And Bush is arrogant?

But wait! There’s more!

John Kerry, in his bones, cannot envision winning a tough fight. He supported the effort in Iraq when we had a three-week victory, just as the anti-war activist and enemy collaborator is now John Rambo gunning down commies in a hail of bullets. But now that things are just a dirty, nasty, slugfest – a war that is nothing more or less, in fact, than the French premier Clemenceau’s description of a series of catastrophes that results in victory – as it has in Afghanistan, and Germany, and Japan, and the Confederacy and as it most pointedly did not in Vietnam, he says he alone can save us from the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place?

US marines are killing Ba’athist remnants and Syrian and Iranian mercenaries at a ratio of something like 600 to one, which, I might point out, is a damn sight better than the 150 to one against us that those 19 hijackers pulled off on 9/11. The insurgency in Iraq is burning casualties at an absolutely insane and unsustainable – indeed, ruinous pace. Why? Well, they have been paying close attention to Senator Kerry and his history, and saw how unsustainable, devastating, insurmountable NVA and VC losses during the Tet offensive bought victory because we decided we had had enough. Because we were told we were nothing more than a modern day horde of Ghengis Khan and the people whose freedom we were fighting for did not have the guts or the spine to stand up for their own defense. Today, that nation – Vietnam -- remains a basket case while the rest of Asia rocketed out of the stone age.

That is the model Senator Kerry has for Iraq. I’m not claiming he’s malicious. Not at all. I genuinely don’t think he gives much thought to Iraqis or Vietnamese at all.

I do know what he does give a lot of thought to, and that is the melodious sound of the phrase, President Kerry.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

Yes, almost got it, Mr. President. But what the hell does this policy say to our enemies? Does this deter attacks on our troops? Or does it say, in the clearest and most unmistakable terms, that as long as you blow up our men and women President Kerry will begin plans to pull them out as soon as the hand comes down on Inauguration Day?

Does it not ultimately say that this “mistake” was another War Crime? That it was an unjustified and unwarranted attack on an innocent and harmless nation? Does this not make any future preemptive action on the part of President Kerry for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve? Does this “Global Test” nonsense mean every single nation in the world must approve of our pre-emptive actions, including the one we mean to invade to defend our people? No? How many then? 90% of the globe must agree? Fifty percent? France? Who?

But of course, there’s a four point plan at www.JohnKerry.com that will “change the dynamic on the ground.” Yes, this plan on a website will stop Improvised Explosive Devices from detonating. This plan will bring the sworn enemies of this nation into a series of binding arbitrations that will convince them this is all one jolly misunderstanding. This plan – unlike any military plan in human history – will survive contact with the enemy, and his intentions, his will and his capabilities will melt away like the morning dew because Senator John Kerry has a four-point plan at www.JohnKerry.com.

Finally, and most tellingly, Senator Kerry says that Iraq is “a long, long way from the fight on terror.”

Senator, you might chose to read some history: it might broaden your perspective. The last time this country was attacked, it was by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy, whose capitol city was Tokyo.

The first land battle the US Army fought was at Kasserine Pass. Kasserine Pass, Senator, is in Tunisia. Tunisia is in Africa. Africa is a long, long way from Japan.

Tunisia did not attack the United States, Senator Kerry. Tunisia, in fact, was a far, far more innocent battlefield than Iraq, which had spent the preceding decade, and then some, committing overt acts of war against British and American aircraft flying missions to enforce UN mandates.

US troops fought in Tunisia – and they fought badly; infinitely worse than they do in Iraq – because people of vision and courage and great intelligence perceived that this was the first, best front against an enemy that straddled the entire globe. We did not begin our war by launching an armada of landing craft filled with Marines on a suicide mission from Midway to Tokyo. We did not send fleets of transports to get shot down over Berlin carrying fifty divisions of paratroopers.

We attacked in Tunisia because it was the soft underbelly of a powerful enemy. There is a word for this type of action, Senator Kerry, and that word is “foothold.” It is a place where the enemy is weak. It is a place we can capture, fortify, defend and launch further attacks from. As Tunia, so Africa. As Africa, so Italy. As Italy, so Germany.

We were not attacked by the natives of the Marianas, or the Solomans, or the Marshall islands, and yet these innocent people died along with our troops. It was part of a strategy for victory, Senator. I know you understand the term ‘strategy.’ It’s the other term that seems to me to stick in your craw as I examine your entire career.

Here’s something you might want to read up on aboard the campaign jet: bright people have done studies on what the operational limits of a terror cell are. It’s actually kind of…biological. See, as a terror cell grows in members, it gains not only mutually-reinforcing enthusiasm, but capability. However, the bigger the cell, the less secure it becomes.

Zarqawi’s cells having been fighting us from the day Saddam’s statue fell. So I ask you, Senator: if there were no terrorists in Iraq, where did these organized units come from? Did they parachute in? Saddam’s Fedayeen are not and did not behave as a defeated military unit, but as an organized, cell-based structure. Where did they come from? And poor, unlamented Abu Nidal? And how many others?

When operating outside of rogue nations, law-enforcement pressure limits the cell to about 80 members, and the operational center is much smaller. Any larger and the cell fragments into smaller, more secure, but less capable splinter cells.

However, when protected by a nation-state, such as Syria or Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan having been wiped off the blackboard in this regard in a puff of chalk dust, and Libya having suddenly found religion – there is effectively no limit to how large and capable a terror organization can become, since there are no law-enforcement pressures limiting its growth.

Putting a democracy – even a very bad democracy – in the heart of the middle east is a dagger at our enemy’s heart. It is as if Canada were overrun to the degree that Afghanistan once was: intolerable. It draws all the enemy’s resources. It provides a mortal example that people of Arab lands can live in freedom, and eventually, prosperity. A free Iraq is a fatal, deadly poison to the Ideology of Death that threatens this nation and the world.

The essence of deterrence, Senator, is to cause uncertainty in the mind of your opponent. The missile defense system, which you oppose, does precisely this. It doesn’t matter if it has a 3 out of 5 success rate. Fifty such anti-missile installations enormously, in fact fatally complicates an enemy’s ability to plan a first strike or, far more likely, to issue nuclear blackmail.

You have made it clear that you would cancel the bunker-busting bombs that cause uncertainty – deterrence, Senator – in the minds of unstable lunatics like Kim Sung Il and the Iranian Thugocracy.

They do not have to guess what you will do, Senator: you have already given that away, in the same way you gave away the atrocity fictions the Vietnamese Communists were torturing your “Band of Brothers” to obtain, without success.

President Bush believes that a free and democratic state provides a shockingly clear example that there is another way for Arab peoples to live. He believes, as I do, that all people want to live free and determine the course of their own lives. You claim that this is a mistake. You seem to be determined to fulfill that prophesy.

You lack the vision, Senator, to see this as a many-front war. You lack the insight to see how the sight of Saddam crawling from a hole inspired an identical self-possessed lunatic to give up Libya's nuclear weapons program. Iraq deterred Libya, you eternal defeatist. And all of the rest of the former free-range dictators now hang on the results of this election to see whether they will get a man who has capitulation in his very marrow, or one who has weathered inbelievable pressure, slurs and insults, and very likely thrown away his second term, to face reality and do something. Something unpopular. Something that he knew would make his poll numbers go down.

I know. I know John. Inconceivable.

Senator Kerry, I do not desire to be President of the United States. I will settle for being the head coach of the Florida Gators. I have a four-point plan on how to win against the Tennessee Volunteers. My plan is foolproof, and it will change the dynamic on the field. I place little weight on the fact that that game was played several weeks ago: that is why my four-point plan is so perfect! I have analyzed all of the Florida errors, and they will not be repeated when I replay that game in my mind.

And I might add I have won every Monday morning game I have ever quarterbacked.

Vote for me.

My friends, if any of you think this may in any way convince people unsure of what to think about this critical election, for God's sake print out as many NON-COMMERCIAL (Short form: that means, no charge) copies as you can and drop them out of airplanes if you are able. This election is entirely too close.

Posted by Proteus at October 6, 2004 03:01 AM