Saturday, October 16, 2004

Jon Stewart Pounds Crossfire



[Update]: B points out that Stewart was lambasting ideologues on both sides of the aisle and, having watched the segment, I agree with him. I do not consider myself a spinmeister (proof: Ann Coulter has never been featured on my blog :-) and refuse to intentionally slant the news towards my guy through cheap trickery. So, watch the segment and judge for yourself.

Click here for Amazon!I'm sorry I missed this startling and uncomfortable exchange. Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's Daily Show, mercilessly pounds Carlson and Begala of CNN's Crossfire. And let me say for the record that I will meet Begala anywhere, anytime to debate John Kerry's fitness to lead this country.

...I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad.

...And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.


...CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show... Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry... You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as -- quote -- "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" ... "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera.

...Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him?

...STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it.

...STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility... I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit... ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.


...STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: Absolutely.

CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.


...I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy...

...I think they believe President Bush would do a better job.

And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.


Jon Stewart pounds Crossfire

Milton Friedman and the Economists weigh in



Click here for Amazon!Leading economists have a message for America: John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people.

That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics - Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry's policies "would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth."


Milton Friedman and the Economists weigh in

Friday, October 15, 2004

Facing our own Madrid



Click here for AmazonFrom Baghdad and Lt. Col Powl Smith:

...In the same way that al Qaeda changed the outcome of the Spanish elections last March with a single catastrophic bombing in Madrid, the enemies of a free Iraq are increasing the tempo of attacks in order to feed the media, and therefore the American people, a steady diet of blood and carnage in order to convince us that "it just isn't worth it."...

...the real target of the increased insurgent attacks--their strategic grand prize--is American public opinion. The real reason for the surge in violence this fall? The U.S. presidential election...

...the truth is, in Iraq today, America is facing its own Madrid. Whether you are Democrat, Republican, or independent, it should anger you to the very core that our enemies are trying to slaughter American soldiers, innocent Iraqis, and indeed, just about anyone they can find, every day in order to frighten us into retreating. Winning this war will thus ultimately require more than conventional military might. It is in ourselves -- as individuals and as a nation -- that we will find victory or defeat.


Facing our own Madrid

MSM at its best



Click here for AmazonFrom WindsOfChange:

So this is what [ABC News'] Mark Helperin means when he says:

"...as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."


Over on ABC's 'Noted Now' website, a quote from my own Governator:

SCHWARZENEGGER SAYS BOTH BUSH AND KERRY EVASIVE IN DEBATES: "Both of them did not answer some of the questions, which I think is upsetting to me. I think it is much better to be straightforward with the people.... You know like Kerry did. Bush did the same thing in some instances, not really get into it and answer it."


So I click along to the linked Reuters story and get this (the deleted words are in bold):

"Both of them did not answer some of the questions, which I think is upsetting to me," Schwarzenegger told KGO radio in San Francisco. "I think it is much better to be straightforward with the people."

"I mean if you get a question about Iran and about the nuclear power and what you are going to do in the future with this nuclear power, and you don't even answer that question, I think it's a mistake, You know like Kerry did," he continued. "Bush did the same thing in some instances, not really get into it and answer it."


ABC: A Biased Conspiracy

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Hugh Hewitt's List



Click here for Amazon!I think fundamentally, this is going to be a race that is a choice, and I think what you see even in the Gallup poll, your poll, when you ask them on the important issues "Who do you trust more, who do you trust more to deal with Iraq?" the public trusts the president more; "Who do you trust more on the war on terror?" the public trusts the president more; even on the economy which has been a signature issue of the Kerry campaign, it is almost dead even. So I think still, fundamentally, this is a race where the public is going to decide who has better plans, better vision, on these issues. And right now, on two of the three biggest issues, we have an advantage, and on the other one it is basically tied.

I put the question to my callers: What is the choice on 11/2. here's a list of their responses:

Churchill v. Chamberlain
Reagan v. Carter
offense v. defense
advance v. retreat
resolve v. dithering
blunt talk v. nuance
England and Australia v. France and Germany
Allawi in power v. Saddam in power
leader v. talker
White House v. waffle house
tax cut v. tax hike
private sector growth v. public sector growth
cheeseburger v. escargot
honest humility v. prideful arrogance
"Let's roll" v. roll over
Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia
September 12 v. September 10
Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya
Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore
Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews
Osama running from us v. Osama coming at us
10 gallon stetson v. the magic hat
Saving Private Ryan v. Gigli
Laura v. Theresa
John Wayne v. Jane Fonda
Ray Lewis v. Jerry Lewis
Safety blitz v. Prevent defense
Global freedom v. Global test
"Blood, sweat, toil, and tears" v. "Peace in our time."
Lambeau Field v. Lambert Field
Old Glory v. white flag
road warrior v. road kill
Sun Tsu v. sun tan
The Great Santini v. Forrest Gump
Victory v. Vichy
Compass v. windsock
Fire power v. flower power
Baghdad '03 v. Dien Bien Phu '54
Monday Night Football v. Sex in the City
USS Missouri v. USS Minnow
Brett Favre v. Ryan Leaf
putting down insurrections v. botox injections
A man who kept his promises v. A kept man who promises
Axis of Evil v. nuisance
Tour de force v. Tour de France
Lawrence Taylor v. James Taylor
Crawford v. Martha's Vineyard
Shock and awe v. hem and haw
Semper Fi v. simpering


Hugh Hewitt's List

Quick debate reaction



Click here for AmazonI think many of us underestimated the president. Informed, glib, funny and self-deprecating, Bush pounded Kerry continually -- and deservedly -- on his twenty-year record in the Senate. Out of the mainstream of American politics, sitting on the Left bank, watching the "...Conservative Senator from Massachusetts, Teddy Kennedy". Kerry, in two decades time, has sponsored virtually no successful legislation of impact and that fact alone had the Senator retreating... hemming and hawing about amendments, names not appearing on bills, and the like. Isn't it time for dinner, Senator?

Click here for AmazonAs for the polls, KerrySpot has some interesting history. Since the 2000 elections, the pollsters -- for a variety of reasons -- have been dramatically underestimating GOP turnout. Need the stats? On a state-by-state basis, here are the dramatically incorrect results of the pollsters. Based upon these sorts of estimates, a 3 point margin for the president could literally mean a blowout victory for GWB.

Update from Fred Barnes:

Now here's a strange twist on the debate. Bush was the winner in a focus group of uncommitted voters conducted by pollster Frank Luntz last night. The 23 voters thought Kerry, not Bush, won the debate. But they split 17 to 5 in favor of Bush on whom they now plan to vote for (one will vote Libertarian). "They still don't trust what John Kerry is saying," Luntz said, though they thought he said it well.


Never



Click here for AmazonPowerful commentary from the Weekly Standard's William Kristol. John Kerry's track record -- when it comes to national security -- is truly appalling. And there's no perfuming that skunk.

NEVER HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE elected as president a candidate with a record on national security issues resembling that of John Kerry. Consider some of the distinctive national security choices Kerry has made over the years...

...Fall 1984: The American people have never elected president someone who, in his first successful bid for federal office, chose to make support for a unilateral nuclear freeze and for major cutbacks in America's defense programs the centerpiece of his campaign. The freeze and the cutbacks would have weakened U.S.-European ties, emboldened the Soviet Union, and strengthened the hand of hardliners in the Kremlin. Kerry has never said that the position he took at this turning point in the Cold War was mistaken...

...January 12, 1991: The American people have never elected president a senator who voted against an authorization for the use of military force, in this case in pursuance of a United Nations-approved policy to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Senator Kerry complained in 1991 that we were engaged in "a rush to war." It turned out that Saddam had been only months away from acquiring nuclear capability. Kerry now cites the first Gulf War as a success for the purpose of contrasting it with the recent one--but he has never acknowledged that his judgment in opposing that war might have been in error...


Never

VodkaPundit LiveBlogs the Debate



Click here for AmazonEntertaining...

...
8:10. I'd like to hear Bush say, "I'm going to nuke the next motherf'er who even looks at our country sidewise - twice if he's in the French cabinet." And I'd like to hear Kerry say, "I'm going to tax you bastards back to the Stone Age." Something, anything, to generate some sparks...

8:18. "Everything is a gift from the Almighty," Kerry just said. Now, I know every politician panders. But when Bush talks religion, much as it usually annoys me, I buy it. When Kerry says something like he just did, it makes me wish a thunderbolt would hit him, emblazoned with the words, "Take THIS gift, sucker." Because he's treating me like a sucker - and I'm not even religious...


VodkaPundit LiveBlogs the Debate

Links o' the Day



Philadelphia Inquirer: Democrats, with help from media, have waged an all-out war on Bush

The Guardian: God Forbid, a Success Story

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Rating the Moderators - Now, fresher than ever!



Click here for Amazon!Update: I thought Bob Schieffer did a creditable job. In my heart of hearts, I was fearing the worst.

In spite of the fact that Hugh Hewitt retired his old symposium question (rating the moderators of the debates), I plowed ahead just out of casual interest. How did the questions stack up?

I rate each question from 1 to 9, with 1 being skewed towards the challenger and 9 being biased towards the president. An average score of around 5 would indicate a centrist agenda on the part of the moderator. Here are the debates with the most recent one listed first:

Third Presidential Debate - Schieffer

[5] Question 1: Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?
[4] Question 2: we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?
[7] Question 3: how can you keep [taxes] pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we're running up to our children?
[2] Question 4: what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?
[7] Question 5: is it fair to blame the administration entirely for this loss of jobs?
[2] Question 6: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
[9 ] Question 7: NYT reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you... reaction?
[4] Question 8: Health insurance costs have risen over 36 percent over the last four years according to WaPo. Who bears responsibility for this?
[9] Question 9: Massive health plan... where do you get the money?
[1] Question 10: Social Security... has to be fixed. Where do you get the money?
[9] Question 11: Greenspan... SocSec must be recalibrated... aren't you leaving another problem for our children to solve?
[5] Question 12: 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
[5] Question 13: Minimum wage stuck at $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?
[1] Question 14: Appoint Judge... Roe v. Wade?
[1] Question 15: ANG and backdoor draft relief?
[3] Question 16: Congress... extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?
[5] Question 17: Affirmative action: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs?
[5] Question 18: What part does your faith play on your policy decisions?
[5] Question 19: Attitude on polarization?
[5] Question 20: What have you learned from strong women?

Average: 4.7, slightly skewed towards the challenger, total 94

Second presidential debate - Gibson

[9] Question 1: Sen. Kerry, Are you wishy-washy?
[1] Question 2: Mr. President, do you sincerely believe you had a reasonable justification for invading Iraq?
[5] Question 3: Sen. Kerry, would you have a different plan than the president for Iraq?
[1] Question 4: President Bush, what is your plan to repair diplomatic relations with other countries?
[5] Question 5: Sen. Kerry, what will you do about Iran if the United Nations doesn't take any action?
[5] Question 6 : President Bush, how will you maintain our military strength without a draft?
[9] Question 7: Sen. Kerry, why haven't we been attacked since September 11 and how do you propose to assure our safety?
[1] Question 8: President Bush, why did you block the importation of drugs from Canada?
[9] Question 9: Sen. Kerry, you're concerned about the rising cost of health care -- why did you chose a running mater who has made millions suing medical professionals?
[5] Question 10: President Bush, please explain why your spending plans are superior to Sen. Kerry's.
[7] Question 11: Sen. Kerry, will you pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $200,000 during your first term?
[3] Question 12: President Bush, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist?
[5] Question 13: Sen. Kerry, how can the U.S. be competitive in manufacturing and still pay the wages Americans have come to expect?
[1] Question 14: President Bush, why are our rights being weakened by the Patriot Act, and what was the justification for it?
[7] Question 15: Sen. Kerry, wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without destroying an embryo?
Question 16: President Bush, who would be your next choice for the Supreme Court?
[7] Question 17: Sen. Kerry, how can you assure a voter who believes abortion is murder that their tax dollars would not support abortion?
[1] Question 18: President Bush, please give three instances when you think you made a bad decision, and what you did to correct it.

Average: 4.5, skewed towards the challenger, total 81

Vice-presidential debate - Ifill

[1] Question 1 -- The report you requested said there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
[9] Question 2 -- Would a Kerry-Edwards administration have left Saddam Hussein in power?
[1] Question 3 -- Your plan for bin Laden and other terrorists?
[9] Question 4 -- What did Kerry say about "global test"?
[7] Question 5 -- Is Cheney saying a Kerry presidency would be dangerous?
[3] Question 6 -- Is it naive to try to internationalize Iraq effort?
[5] Question 7- Can any administration get accurate intelligence on terrorism?
[1] Question 8 -- Should sanctions be lifted against Iran?
[5] Question 9 -- What should be done to end Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
[5] Question 10 - What will your administration do to ease joblessness and poverty?
[7] Question 11 - Can Kerry guarantee not to raise taxes and cut the deficit?
[3] Question 12 - How can Cheney support Bush administration's ban on same-sex unions?
[7] Question 13 - What is Kerry and Edwards' stance on gay marriage?
[9] Question 14 -- Has John Edwards, a former trial lawyer, been part of the problem of higher medical costs?
[3] Question 15 -- Is Edwards being personally attacked when Cheney talks about legal reform and the president talks about a trial lawyer?
[3] Question 16 -- What can the government do about AIDS?
[7] Question 17 -- What qualifies Edwards to be vice president?
[5] Question 18 -- Without mentioning [the presidential candidates] by name, how are you different from the other vice presidential candidate?
[7] Question 19 -- Is changing positions bad?
[3] Question 20 -- How can the divisions in the United States be bridged?

Average: 5, right down the middle, total 100

First presidential debate - Lehrer

[5] Question 1 -- Who could best prevent another 9/11?
[7] Question 2 -- Would a Kerry win increase risk of terror?
[1] Question 3 -- What 'colossal misjudgments' has Bush made?
[3] Question 4 -- Who's top target, bin Laden or Saddam?
[3] Question 5 -- How would you improve homeland security?
[4] Question 6 -- Criteria to bring troops home?
[6] Question 7 -- Are U.S. soldiers dying for a mistake?
[3] Question 8 -- What was the 'miscalculation' in Iraq?
[1] Question 9 -- When has Bush misled the public?
[3] Question 10 -- Has the war been worth the loss of life?
[3] Question 11 -- When will the war in Iraq end?
[4] Question 12 -- Would Bush lead another pre-emptive war?
[5] Question 13 -- What is Kerry's position on pre-emptive war?
[5] Question 14 -- Are diplomacy, sanctions effective?
[5] Question 15 -- Why not send troops to Sudan?
[7] Question 16 -- Does Bush see Kerry character flaws?
[5] Question 17 -- What is the most serious threat to national security?
[2] Question 18 -- Did Bush misjudge Putin?

Average: 4, heavily tilted towards challenger, total 72

To answer Hugh's question... which moderator was most centrist:

First place: Ifill, 5.0 centrist
Second place: Schieffer, 4.7 slightly Left
Third place: Gibson, 4.5 centrist Left
Last place: Lehrer, 4.0, heavily Left

Islamist Paintball Anyone?



Click here for Amazon!Daniel Pipes reports on some odd news from Florida. Training exercise... or lighthearted frivolity? I'll leave it to you, my esteemed reader, to make that call for yourself.

When Muhammed Aatique pleaded guilty on Sept. 23, 2003 to being part of northern Virginia jihad network, he acknowledged that the paintball games played by him and his fellow jihadists were "conducted as sort of a military training." Another member of the network, Nabil Gharbieh, told the court how Muslims regarded paintball as a form of jihad.

These admissions come to mind on learning that the Tampa branch of the Muslim American Society is hosting a paintball game today in Ocala, Florida...

What is this about? Well, the Muslim American Society is the U.S. face of the Muslim Brotherhood – the single leading Islamist organization worldwide and, as I noted in "The Islamic States of America?" the MAS is not terribly subtle about its intention of "establishing an Islamic state" to replace the existing Constitutional order. Add to this the Muslim Brotherhood's six-decade history of resorting to violence and one can only wonder about the purpose of a paintball exercise for "Manly Brothers"...


Daniel Pipes: Islamist Paintball Anyone?

Kerry's Bizarre Discharge



Click here for AmazonPoliPundit links to the New York Sun:

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry’s campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry’s “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves” opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration’s secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry’s discharge as being subsequent to the review of “a board of officers.” This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy’s document, the “authority of reference” this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry’s record was “Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. “This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry’s involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn’t have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry’s status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry...


Still wondering why John Kerry won't release his records? New York Sun

Democratic Registration "Irregularities" Roundup



Click here for AmazonHugh Hewitt had it right: if it isn't close, the Democrats can't cheat.

So far, we've seen reports of voter registration irregularities in Cleveland, Las Vegas, Chicago (surprised?), East Chicago ("Feds: Mayor tied to sidewalks-for-votes scheme"), multiple counties in Michigan, Palm Beach, Nashville TN, Racine, Lake County OH, Denver, New York City-Florida double registrations, Santa Fe NM, Wake County NC, Painesville OH ("Dead man on voter rolls sparks inquiry"), Lake County OH, Summit County OH, Appleton WI, Hartford, Watertown SD, Greensboro AL, Bernalillo County NM and many other cities, counties and states.

Don't let the Democrats get away with it. They almost stole the election last time by calling Florida for Gore before the heavily Republican panhandle had a chance to vote. Make sure your voice is heard on November 3rd!

Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

The Secret Weapon



Click here for Amazon!The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is that he has successfully made himself into being seen as one of us. We see a man who on September 11th had one thing that FDR did not have, a video camera in his face looking for any sign of human weakness. What that camera captured was a man who reacted calmly and effectively in the face of an unspeakable horror. In that few minutes in Florida, he had no way of knowing that this was just a couple of aircraft or that there werent 100 more on their way to hit every major city. He had no way of knowing if it was being done in concert with Chinese Nuclear submarines just off the coast, ready to launch missles to decapitate his government and this great nation. None of us knew. A certain porcine filmmaker wants to make that moment into a moment of ridicule and derision, but what I see when I see that moment is a man, one of us, faced with a nation suddenly gone from peace to war in the blink of an eye, with an unknown and possibly very powerful enemy, looking back at an audience of children who until a moment before had all thought that all that would happen on that day is they would get to tell their parents they sat with the president at school. Instead, for the rest of their lives they will tell their families for generations to come that they were in the very room where the President was told that "We are at War".

We often think about that moment in terms of what the kids saw, but we dont stop to think about what the President saw on that day. He had no way of knowing if that particular classroom of children would be affected directly by the war that was now clearly underway. All those kids had dressed for school in peacetime, but before their lunch recess, they would be in wartime. This war would begin here and be fought here at home. For the first time in generations, America itself, had become a battlefield.

They sat their looking at him and he at them, and I know as a father myself, he looked at every one of those kids and said to himself "Oh good lord, they are all so young..."

He didn't panic, he didn't run out of the room, he didn't cry, and I'm sure he wanted to do all of those things. Instead, he patiently waited for the Secret Service to clear the route, excused himself politely and went about his job, mindful that how well he did it would be reflected in the eyes of those kids on that day.

He could have made the whole event about himself, but George knows that there are more important things in the world than his own ego. The most important things in the world, were in that class, looking right at him from their desks.

The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is the nature of a guy who can laugh at himself and knows that his wife is really the better part of himself. The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is a guy who knows himself well enough to know whats right and wrong without having to take a poll. The Secret Weapon of George W. Bush is the common sense to know that Terrorism is something to be ended, not tolerated as a nuisance.

In last Friday's debate, at the end of the debate the audience of 'undecided' voters , voted clearly their intent by walking to George W. Bush and his lovely wife Laura and waited to have their picture taken. The President and his wife were mobbed, while the other candidate was largely by himself.

The audience of the people of Missouri, simply felt they could walk up to have their hats and t-shirts signed and their hands shook by a guy named George.

Who just happened to be - The President of the United States.


The Secret Weapon

The Return of Zell Miller



Click here for Amazon!Two more notes from Zell Miller that remind me why he's my favorite Democrat (outside of a few members of my family of course, but they'll be Hannitized shortly). Hat tip: Powerline.

NRO: Who will win the presidential election?

MILLER: Bush is going to win and it will be wider than we think right now. As more and more people turn on this election, George W. Bush is going to look better and better and his opponent is going to look weaker and weaker. Who is it we feel more secure with in the White House? The answer to that is President Bush. I have never been more proud to support a president. I admire his leadership and character. I'm glad to have lived long enough to vote for a person like him.


And Zell Miller's op-ed: Iwo Jima, if covered by media today.

Dereliction of Duty: Redux



Click here for AmazonJohn Kerry as Arthur Andersen? (courtesy of Oak Leaf with a hat tip to PoliPundit). This post is dedicated to B.

One day before the presidential debate, the media was aflutter with the Duelfer Report, and Senator Kerry stated “Bush led the nation into war under false pretenses.”

However, no one has yet to ask Senator Kerry the following important question. “Senator Kerry, in a post 9-11 environment, based on the same intelligence that the President had, would you have gone to war?” My personal opinion as a citizen and soldier, is that it would have been derelict not to go to war in a post 9-11 environment based on the information that was known.

On September 15, 2004, Senator Kerry stated at the Detroit Economic Club, “President Bush’s desk isn’t where the buck stops - it’s where the blame begins.”

Based on that comment it is reasonable to ask, who was responsible to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive branch to make sound decisions affecting the security of the Nation ?

In May 1976, Senate Resolution 400 was passed and the 94th Congress established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The Resolution states, “the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation.”

In all of the investigations and studies concerning both the liberation of Iraq and September 11, 2001, there is one group of people that have not submitted to any inquiry. I am referring specifically to the past and present members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

If Senator Kerry is correct that "Bush led the nation into war under false pretenses", then Senator Kerry, by his own admission, and eight year membership on the Select Committee, has failed the American people no differently than the accounting firm Arthur Andersen failed the investing public in its auditing of publicly traded companies. If he is “correct now”, based on his words, then he is guilty of the greatest possible act of “political malpractice” and should suffer the same fate as the once great accounting firm Arthur Andersen.


Oak Leaf via PoliPundit

Due Diligence



Click here for AmazonThe Washington Post has an interesting article about the on-the-ground support engendered by the two campaigns.

The Republican faithful love their candidate; the Democratic faithful have less such enthusiasm for Kerry but know he is their vessel for defeating Bush -- about which they are passionate.

The difference explains why crowds at Bush rallies, though similar in size to those at Kerry events, have been more energetic. The reception for Kerry is warm at Democratic events; the reception for Bush at GOP events is akin to that of a rock star.


And that is exactly why John Kerry will lose the election come November and, with it, their best chance at slowing the two-decade momentum swing towards Conservatism. The Democrats have nominated a candidate that is a proxy, an empty suit, that represents their desire to defeat President Bush. And represents absolutely nothing else.

The heart of Bush's speech is its second half -- terrorism and the threat to Americans. "We are striking the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home," the president says... Kerry, putting relatively little emphasis on terrorism, typically begins with Iraq...


Furthermore, if there's one thing we've learned in the last few years, it's that national security is frequently cited as the top issue among registered voters. Kerry's nuanced approach to terrorism strikes fear in the hearts of many, and certainly doesn't resonate with the vast majority of voters, all of whom remember that heart-stopping day in September when the United States changed forever.

Is, as Kerry says, terrorism primarily a "law enforcement" problem and not a military issue? Can we, as Kerry says, return to the pre-9/11 days when terrorism was a "nuisance" akin to prostitution and gambling?

Most voters I know aren't willing to find out.

The next day in Philadelphia, Kerry delivered his usual message to a group of black ministers, who reacted politely but not enthusiastically, sitting quietly through his talk. When Kerry finished, Jesse L. Jackson, coaxed the crowd gradually into a standing ovation.


Put simply: John Kerry is unelectable.

Some voters could probably forgive John Kerry's meandering track record on terrorism.

Some voters could probably forgive John Kerry's consistent record of making poor decisions and ending up on the wrong side of history... opposing Ronald Reagan's arms buildup that ended the Cold War without a shot. Backing the Communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua with offers of appeasement and negotiation. Objecting to the raid on Libya after American servicemen were killed in the disco bombing. Voting against the first Gulf War though a "global test" had been passed: the UN had approved military action and a massive coalition had been assembled. Voting against literally every important defense system since he came to office (and unlike Dick Cheney, voting against these systems before the Cold War had ended). Striving to reduce intelligence funding while the threat of global terrorism grew.

Some voters could probably forgive John Kerry's Most Liberal Senator Award from the National Journal. It takes hard work to get to the "#1 Most Liberal Senator" award: a history of raising taxes, raising government spending, advocating gun control, increasing bureacracy, and hamstringing efforts at privatization, though, usually does the trick.

Some voters could probably forgive John Kerry's "I have a plan" pandering: Kerry's plans total over $2.2 trillion in new spending with less than a quarter of that accounted for by higher taxes -- on those making over $200K, he claims -- which, by the way, impacts approximately 900,000 subchapter-S corporations. Those are the same small businesses that create more about 90% of all new jobs.

Some voters could probably forgive John Kerry's troubled past vis a vis Vietnam, even though he has never apologized (unlike Jane Fonda) for tarring all Vietnam Veterans with the same broad brush. ""They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn." And that's without even dealing with the other various charges leveled by the Swiftboat Veterans or the POW/MIA Families against Kerry.

Some voters could probably forgive John Kerry's abysmal record as a Senator: sponsoring literally no legislation of impact over two decades and attending only about 20% of public meetings in his role on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and some have indicated his attedance at the private meetings was even less).

But when you add all of these factors up? We can come to only one conclusion: John Kerry is unelectable. That, in a nutshell, pins the tail on the donkey.

Next time, my Democratic friends, you might want to perform a tad more due diligence on your prospective candidate before nominating him.

WaPo: Diverse Tactics

Monday, October 11, 2004

Nuclear "Nuisance"



Click here for Amazon!The hits just keep on coming for John Kerry. So we hope to treat terrorism as a "nuisance" someday, kinda like prostitution or gambling? When the stakes are nuclear holocaust in our cities, one would hope that a candidate for president would consider his words more carefully. Rudy Guiliani weighs in.

...The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone’s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait...


Powerline covers Rudy Guiliani

Someone had it 'all wrong', alright



Click here for Amazon!Ahhh, you've got to love the mainstream media's continual attempts to spin the truth towards the Left. A rude awakening is in store for the Gray Lady and the Post as the abandonment of the old guard continues apace... and scores of independent, new media outlets attract raucous hordes of disenfranchised truth-seekers.

A front-page Washington Post story on the Senate testimony of chief Weapons Inspector Charles Duelfer this week has a headline saying, "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons." And the story, by Post reporters Dana Priest and Walter Pincus, quoted Duelfer as telling a Senate panel, "We were almost all wrong' on Iraq."

But Duelfer never said that.

The Post has now published a correction, with the explanation — if it can be called that — that former weapons inspector David Kay did use those words in Senate testimony last January.

The paper offered no explanation of how Kay's eight month-old quote ended up in Charles Duelfer's mouth.


Brit Hume: Upon Further Review

Sunday, October 10, 2004

The Wrong Man



Click here for Amazon!Jay Carson, a spokesman for the Dean campaign, said: ''When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, (John Kerry's) voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it.''

Vice President Dick Cheney said: "(F)irst, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed--body armor, spare parts, ammunition--they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?''

John Kerry's waffling on the war on terrorism is almost entirely based on politics. Quite frankly, that should scare the living hell out of anybody who cares about the safety and security of the American people. In an age when a failure in the war on terrorism may literally lead to nuclear bombs going off in American cities, can we afford to have a man in office whose first consideration is politics, not protecting our country?

If John Kerry had been in the Oval Office after 9/11, would he have had the guts to pass the Patriot Act over the objections of his base? Would he have allowed John Ashcroft to go after illegal aliens from terrorist sponsoring countries?

Vladimir Putin said: "I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received... information that... Saddam's regime [was] preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.'

...Now think back to great American war leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Were they dovish flip-floppers who based their decisions around telling people what they wanted to hear or men who made decisions and tried to lead people towards what they believed was the right direction?


John Kerry: Wrong Man, Wrong Time, Wrong Message

Iran welcome's Kerry's proposal to give them nuclear fuel



Click here for Amazon!TEHRAN - Iran would welcome a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate Senator John Kerry’s running mate for a “great bargain” to solve the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program, a senior Iranian official said on Saturday.

Vice presidential candidate Senator John Edwards has said that Kerry, a Democrat, would be willing to supply Iran with nuclear fuel for power generation if Tehran abandons its own fuel-making capability - if Iran did not accept this offer, it would confirm Iran wanted to make an atom bomb.

Iran earlier rejected the proposal, saying it would be “irrational” for Iran to jeopardize what it says is its purely civilian nuclear program by relying on supplies from abroad.

But in an apparent policy shift, Hossein Mousavian, head of the foreign policy committee at Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Iran would review the proposal.

"Iran welcomes any constructive proposal from any American candidate," Mousavian told Reuters in an interview. “We are willing to consider constructive proposals from Americans,” he added...


Tehran welcomes Kerry's nuclear proposal

Is the Jihad getting hot enough for you?



Click here for Amazon!An Iraqi man was arrested yesterday in Nashville after purchasing machine guns, hand grenades, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent-with the stated intention of “going jihad" ...


Nashville, TN Jihad Watch

10 million degrees Celsius



Click here for AmazonWhile John Kerry enjoys botox, spray-on tans and manicures, Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, Al Sadr and their ilk are talking about multiple nuclear attacks in our comfortable cul-de-sacs.

And they’re just a little more determined than some caricature of an immoral, lazy, stupid, fat American. Matter of fact, according to terrorist experts, there is a high probability that they already have nukes with our names on them in our neighborhoods. What would it mean for a nuclear suitcase bomb to go off in one of our cities? One terrorism expert, Paul Williams... writes in his book Osama’s Revenge,

[A] nuclear explosion is much more than a simple bomb blast. It consists of four deadly components: an air pressure shock wave, both thermal and nuclear radiation, and radioactive fallout. The effects of such a disaster in a city such as New York, Los Angeles, or D.C. would be cataclysmic. The air pressure wave from [one] suitcase bomb would destroy everything in its path, even heavily reinforced steel-and-concrete buildings.

Such an explosion would also emit intense thermal radiation, creating a fireball with a diameter that would expand to 460 feet. The core fireball would reach a maximum temperature of 10 million degrees Celsius. The enormity of this heat can only be realized when one notes that the heat within the World Trade Center towers never exceeded 5,000 degrees Celsius. Metallic objects within 450 feet of ground zero would vaporize. 1,400 feet from the blast, rubber and plastic objects would ignite and melt, and wooden structures would erupt into flames.

The bomb would expend 35 percent of its energy in the form of radiated heat. An additional 50 percent would be absorbed into the atmosphere to become a juggernaut blast -- a wave ripping through the city at 670 miles per hour. The buildings that survived the melting heat would be twisted like pretzels by the force of the incredible wind. No one within 740 feet of the blast could hope to survive; within minutes everything within three square miles would be destroyed. Over 300 thousand people would die instantly. Half a million or more would suffer severe burns and permanent blindness. Two to three hundred thousand people would be killed or injured by the deadly hail of debris and shattered glass.

The survivors of the initial blast would be exposed to intense bursts of ionizing radiation that would devastate their immune system. Those exposed would die in a matter of days. Then comes the fallout … the contaminants … which would then expose those in the area to deadly radiation poisoning, with 50 percent dying in the subsequent weeks and months. If this happened in a place like New York City, it would be an uninhabitable wasteland for hundreds of years. Then comes the other stuff such as the end of our culture, the crippling of our economy, the loss of millions of jobs, and an unprecedented health care crisis. Within days, Americans and much of the world would be tossed into a depression from which it would take hundreds of years to recover...


This description of the potential apocalyptic effects of a nuclear bomb going off in one of our major cities is not the hokey ravings of a doom and gloom prophet but a real description of a real threat which we really face from Muslim terrorists. OBL and his apprentices will, as he has proven, attempt to slay us with anything he can get his hands on and according to intelligence sources, he has his hands on anywhere from a half a dozen to three dozen of these compact nuclear death dealers and they are earmarked for us...


Believable Bush, Questionable Kerry

No Free Pass



Click here for Amazon!Email conversation between B (blue) and I (red). Portions excerpted for clarity.

What's missing from Bush's vocabulary?

"I made a decision based upon poor intelligence (or I lied)."

""The problem is: I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam," Bush said, adding, "The world is a better place with Saddam in prison, not in power.""

Those statements would have earned him my vote. His Texan swagger and inability to even consider that he has erred scares me more than Kerry's 20 year record.

I thought it was telling that Bush couldn't answer the last question in the debate. For some reason I respect someone that can admit a mistake and tell me what they are doing to correct it. Bush is incapable of either.


Sorry, but you know very well he no more lied than every other world leader, intelligence agency and pundit that said the same thing he did. Have you heard Edwards' quotes from 2002? Should he apologize for that? Of course not. And neither should Bush. That's what every intelligence agency in the West reported.

Bottom line: on September 14, 2001 George W. Bush promised the American people that we would pursue terrorists and those who harbor them to the ends of the Earth. In destroying Hussein's regime, he followed through on that promise. Of that, there is no doubt.


This isn't about Edwards. Stop changing the topic. Edward's isn't the president of the United States that lead this nation into an unnecessary war against a foe that wasn't an immediate threat. This isn't a point about Edwards or Kerry. It's a point about Bush. Stop changing the topic and try to focus. Talk about Bush. I haven't seen a single comment on your blog that critically evaluates Bush, his cabinet, or his decisions. You seem to be perfectly happy to jump to the 6 year old's excuse of "all the other kids are doing it" or "he did it first". Have you ever heard of groupthink? That's exactly what happened with the pre-war Iraq intelligence and those that requested the intelligence are as culpable as the intelligence agencies. Fact: Bush's administration was planning for the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Fact: intelligence was sought to support that position.

Even your musings lately show that Saddam was years away from having any capability to theaten Isreal, let alone the U.S. and my family (not that I care about threats to Israell, since I'm an AMERICAN and I care about the U.S., not some sandtrap in the middle of a desert on the other side of the planet).

Bush wants to justify the war in Iraq after the fact and it won't succeed. The ends do not justify the means. The reasons for entering into the engagement cannot be rewritten after the fact, even if there is some newly identified benefit. Even the average American can understand that.

Bottom line: on September 14, 2001 George W. Bush promised the American people that we would pursue terrorists and those who harbor them to the ends of the Earth. In destroying Hussein's regime, he followed through on that promise. Of that, there is no doubt.


First, a faulty policy, so I don't agree with the fundamentals of your bottom line. Further, the policy has been inappropriately applied making it doubly in error. I'm suprised that mature adults in this nation buy the simplisitic statements of a simpleton. Likes attract I suppose. Unfunded mandates like no child left behind (better named no child left ntested) will enable another generation of people ill-equipped to participate in our democracy. That's a good thing if you're an oligarch.

Look, "terrorists" aren't a threat to us. Specific terrorists are. They should be called out and held accountable. Iraq wasn't in that class. They may have had the ability years later, but not when we invaded them. Others have it today! The priorities were misplaced after Afghanistan. Iraq was not an immediate threat and we were put there based upon faulty intelligence at best, lies at worst. It will continue to sap our strength and attention. Its only value to the U.S. is that it may perhaps redirect the islamic fundamentalist away from the homeland.

Either way my government owes its people an apology. Don't even get me started on the apology that is owed this nation for 9/11. Heads should roll but they won't because of the bureaucracy and oligarchy. This is the shame of both parties. How about a few comments on that in your blog? Oh, no, don't speak the real truth as it might tarnish your glorious leader!

...Context: That appears to be biggest difference between the two camps. Kerry seems to understand that the world is not a black and white place where decisions can be made in an instant based upon simple policy statements. The context of the decision is important and needs to be considered. Bush apparently lacks the ability to think beyond the simple set of axioms that govern his worldview. This is why he gets pissed off when people say things that are counter to his viewpoint. If you share his simple-minded axioms and have a modicum of logic, you have to think as he does...as long as you discount context and reality. Policies are a model for the real world. They are an approximation, not reality itself. They need to be evaluated in the context of their application and discarded from time to time if they don't fit. They didn't fit with Iraq at the time. They may have in a future that will not exist. They do fit in other places TODAY, but can't be applied because our attention and resources have been diverted. If I hold as true certain axioms that are absent any evaluation of context, simple logic will lead me to decisions that are erroneous in a given situation. Bush's implementation of policy is a glaring example of this.

...A hidden (or not so hidden) agenda does not remove the fact that Bush needs to take responsibility for his actions. This is a discussion about Bush, not the media, not Kerry, not Edward, not you, and not me. Bush. He's the president and should be able to admit his errors. Even Nixon, Blaire and Clinton did that when they were finally cornered. Admission of error is the sign of true maturity and would earn my vote. Without that I'll be voting against him.


I am going to loop back to Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards for a moment and I will explain why. You are, for whatever reason, willing to blithely ignore their role in the march to war. Let's examine Messrs. Kerry and Edwards in context.

These gentlemen were both members of an exclusive, one-hundred person club that helps set the direction of the United States government called the Senate. Furthermore, both were members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Not only were they among the most important decision-makers in the land, but they were also privy to highly classified intelligence reports on Iraq to which only the top echelon of government officials had access.

Furthermore, in these positions of leadership, both Kerry and Edwards were beating the drums of war.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country, and I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat." - Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), 2002, CNN

Cite: Democrats on Iraq


In their positions as Senators and members of the SSCI, they were among the leaders of an overwhelming groundswell of bi-partisan support for military action against Iraq.

Did, as you seem to imply, some malevolent neocon cabal furtively plan and execute the war on Iraq? No. The entire government -- both parties -- constructed the case based upon wide-ranging evidence collected over decades from thousands of sources.

The conclusions of the comprehensive bi-partisan review (Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq) indicated the following, "the [CIA] reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. [Other portions redacted]".

Yes, you heard that right. The July 2004 after-action report, by a bi-partisan committee, indicates that not only was it a major concern that al-Qaida and Iraq were cooperating, but -- even more ominously -- the major topics of their intercourse were WMD's.

And along the road to war in Iraq, John Kerry and John Edwards stood together, beating the drums of war, until Howard Dean's poll numbers reached their zenith.

Clinton-appointee George Tenet? Janet Reno? Louis Freeh? If we are seeking apologies from our officials, I'd want to start with them, not George W. Bush. Bush inherited nothing less than a viper's nest of terror cells (including one in Columbus, Ohio - is that close enough to home for you?) that were methodically planning the execution of 3,000 American civilians for over half a decade.

You'll get no apology from George W. Bush. He has done exactly what he promised to do on September 14, 2001. John Kerry and John Edwards stood with him then, applauding. They get no free pass on this war from me. Nor should they from you.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

What's Missing From Kerry's Vocabulary?



Click here for Amazon!...FFor about 9 months, I've been listening to Kerry. I've been trying to put my finger on something thats been bothering me about Kerrys vocabulary and I think I finally figured it out what it was.

Earlier this evening I noticed a parallel between Kerry's Senate testimony in 1971 and something he said today.

In 1971, he said this:

We cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now.

Now, bear in mind that when he said this, this was the prevailing world opinion. Communism was something to be tolerated. We had to maintain the status quo.

A great many learned men believed that this was so. It took one man of faith and another of conviction to free the world of the foolish idea that Communism was something that should be tolerated. Today we accept it as a given that Communism has as much relevance in the world as does zoroastianism, but it wasn't always that way.

Today, Kerry said this:

There are 60 countries around the world with al-queda cells in them. Many of these countries have clearer ties to alqueda than did Iraq. Did we invade Russia? Did we Invade China?

Now, to my mind what Kerry was trying to say was obvious. What Kerry said in that little line was the 2004 version of his 1971 defeatist statement.

To paraphrase:

We can't fight Terrorists, and I would have thought we would have learned that by now

Kerry went on to say that sanctions were working and that they did not have to be lifted if we had used the "good diplomacy".

"Good Diplomacy", who talks like that?

And then it hit me, the little nagging thing that had been bothering me for 9 months. It was the word I never heard Kerry use in the context of the Jihadi War.

Kerry does not talk about Victory.

Oh sure, He uses it it terms of himself prevailing over "the evil Bush", but Kerry never discusses the word or the concept of Victory by the Western Democracies. Kerry has said that he would "fight the Terrorists", but Kerry does not use the word "Victory". He has given up before he has started.

Kerry - doesn't believe in Victory. Kerry doesn't believe in us!

...Kerry believes only in Kerry and says so with his every breath. To Kerry, There's no enemy of America worth fighting and no virtue in America worth defending.

From now till election day, We need to buck up our spirits by playing the first few notes of "Beethovens fifth" we need to flash the "V for Victory". We need to remind everyone what our goal is, and that is Victory. It is only by being victorious over the Jihadis that can we have peace. There is no co-existance possible with these murdering parasites. Senator Kerry has said his strategy is to have a "Summit". I say the only "summit" we should have is on the deck of the USS New York after the last Islamic country has had a free election.

Then, and only then, can we have peace...

I need to find some paratooper crickets, I'm getting a real "Longest Day " vibe going here. Bumper stickers? I want to go into a grocery store and hear paratrooper crickets from every corner, and know what it means while the democrat defeatists shake their heads and wonder what that sound means...


What's missing from John Kerry's Vocabulary?

NYT: The Report that Nails Saddam



Click here for Amazon!Today's New York Times op-ed is well worth a read. Even the "Gray Lady" makes a compelling case that taking out Hussein's government was exactly the right thing to do. Any questions?

Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation.

They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means.

Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction... With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter... both Israel and America.

But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before.

The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.

Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions...

Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.

It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.

France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.

With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."

And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.

But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.

But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.

We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.


The Report That Nails Saddam