I'm not on the same team as Kos. And wouldn't be even if he were a Canadian citizen like me. News flash, Marc: a man who encourages others to kill his fellow citizens and hang their burned bodies from bridges may not be prosecutable by them, and he remains a citizen, but he is NOT on their team.

As for Kerry, recent events show Totten's thesis to be pure wishful thinking. Kerry has given no signs that Totten's predictions will come to pass, and every sign, from his long Senate record to his recent actions, that he sees America's wartime allies as targets and is less than concerned about enabling America's enemies.

After his recent performances, the question one might reasonably ask is not "am I on Kerry's team," but "is Kerry on mine?" They were definitely the proverbial bridge too far for me.

I understand where you're coming from, but when a major political party begins advocating outright defeatism AND attempting to make it happen... then it's entirely legitimate to question that.

If Kerry is elected, he will be the President of all Americans, and entitled to the lawful obedience that entails. American troops and military operations abroad will also remain entitled to their nation's support, regardless of their commander in chief. But many will say that those actively encouraging America's defeat are NOT on their team - and they will be correct.

Joe, you're flat missing my point.

You are on the same team as Kos, and while you may not - as I don't - respect him, the fact is that he's part of the polity I directly participate in, and you do indirectly.

You don't have to agree with him, you don't have to like him, you don't have to link to him. But he is one of "us", and like it or not, we'll stand or fall together.

Once you cross that bridge, I hope my point becomes clearer.

A.L.

> Michael Totten has a good column over at TechCentralStation

As much as I appreciate Michael Totten, the referenced column is actually terrible. Did you somehow miss how much of the article focussed on "the whiners will quit whining" if Bush loses? GMAB, that's handing over our political processes to the most juvenile and petulant among us.

I should add, other than my above objection I think what you say here is very important. The "not my president" meme needs to be driven out of polite society (along with related nonsense like "they're our airplanes now" and so forth.)

It's true - the world, nor even the country, will not end if Kerry is elected. We survived 8 years of Clinton, and 8 separated years of Bush (I and II).

One thing is certain, though, and that is that the Democratic whiners will not cease if Bush is re-elected. They have been whining for 4 years, led by the likes of Moore, Chomsky, Zinn, Streisand, Baldwin, Affleck, ......

Which explains why Kerry is still noticeable in the polls: Bush-haters have had 4 years to nurse their grudge against the guy who edged out Gore, while everybody else has had only 6 months or so to try to figure out who Kerry is and what he stands for. (And after those 6 months, we're still trying. Like, f'r'example, what he's thinking about with his early slam at the "coalition of the coerced", and now his recent brilliant plan to bring on board the EU in our foreign policy decisions (to which the French and Germans just replied, "The heck with you guys. We don't care who gets in, we're not doing anything in Iraq."))

Kerry winning 2004 probably means the Democrats will have to face the music at long last and take all the egg that comes their way, being at the helm in turbulent times. A reckoning will occur for the Dems in '08 as a result---and Hillary probably couldn't run against an incumbent Kerry.

Bush winning in 2004 will probably mark the unravelling of many of his policies, 'neoliberal' or whatever they're supposed to be. 2008 will be a reckoning for the Repblicans if Bush wins this time around, with no obvious heir-apparent.

It seems to me that the 04 election is over-hyped in a way, as important as it is. 2008 is going to be quite something. Hope we're all here for it.

It is a good thing that you guys were not around for WWII, you would have had foaming, epileptic fits at the failures of the politicians and generals during that war. Of course I an assuming you would use the same criteria for success and failure for that war that you are using for the current war.

Can any of you armchair generals give me an example of a better led/executed war with similar conditions that exist in this war?

Other than that I like your writing here very well. I am sure that the "not my president" theme is a way of not taking responsibility for any of the blame. As long as we are americans whoever is president is "our" president.
Personally I would like to see Ralph Nader as president. Bush and Kerry are very much alike and I do not see a change in what is going on no matter which one gets elected.

I don't mean to go off topic but when I saw this I had to let you guys know. There a new movie that points out every fact wrong with Micheal Moores movie it's by Dick Morris and its called Farenhype 9/11 just go to WWW.Farenhpye911.com!!
God I love telling people about this site!

Well that's it for me.

I've got better things to do then peer into the mind of a fence-sitter.

How do I unsubscribe in bloglines?

peaches -

Other than what? - I'd love to know.

and Terence, I'm v. familiar with the history of errors in WW II (and WW I, and the Civil War, and the Franco-Prussian War, and for that matter, the Pelepponesian War).

But at some point someone has to take responsibility for them...

A.L.

AL,

I'm with you on this one. Maybe in the weeks remaining we should all--right, left and center--sign an oath to the effect that whoever wins, come November 3rd, he will have our loyalty, if not our good will and support. Such a pledge has ever been implicit in the act of taking part in an election, and it saddens me greatly that we may now need to make it explicit.

Matt Groenig,

If you're out there, how about having Bart Simpson write on the blackboard
"If my guy loses, I will NOT start a revolution"
the week before the election?

Yeah, I wish you'd just come out for Bush, even though I'm not so sure we can survive four more years of Bush, at least as a democracy or any type of prosperous, fair, equal-opportunity society.

Bush has set us back in the war against Islamic extremism, by (1) not finishing off Al-Qaeda when it had the opportunity to do so, and (2) starting a conflict without a plan to win it, which has created innumerable images of our brutality to be spread throughout the Middle East. Like it or not, unfair or not, the spread of these images and the consequential harm to the standing of the US is a fact and a great recruiter for the terrorists.

For the general non-, mis- and malfeasance, see James Fallows, Bush's Lost Year and Larry Diamond What Went Wrong in Iraq

The idea that there were worse-planned wars in the past ignores the fact that the Iraq war was an elective war and not a war forced upon us, a war whose primary stated reason (apart from WMD, which I never bought as the real reason) was to bring democracy to Iraq and curb terrorism. If the war creates more terrorism and you can't bring democracy because the country plunges into chaos, you have lost the war. If you can't deal with other threats and have no available deterrent to those threats because your armed forces are tied up in Iraq, you have paid a big price in security for your elective war.

Then there is the rule of law question: any president who says he has the right to detain anyone, anywhere, for any length of time, without a lawyer, subjecting them to "physical stress" (remember, "torture" is only when there is death or major organ failure) on their say-so that the person is a terrorist, is a threat to freedom and the rule of law.

Then there is the deficit: you can't spend money without raising it. We fought this battle during Bush I with Tsongas and Rudman and the Concord Coalition. There may be a financial crisis waiting for us.

A.L.,

Clearly, I'm with you on this one - with one caveat. If "my president" and his administration (Bush or Kerry) is actually breaking the law, in a Nixonian way - then this president has crossed the line.

We are close to this with the current President

- Medicare, not enforcing environmental regulations, Plame, Chalabi, etc.

But other than this, yes, you are correct.

Of course, from the people who live in the same town as the President (Crawford, TX) let's hear who they will be voting for:

"Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding Iraq ," the editorial said."

From the Lone Star Iconoclast.

This is more humorous than anything else, but it gave me a smile.

Not to be a broken record, but the only reason we have the "Not My President" problem is because of our plurality elections that, due to Duverger's law, creates a two-party system, resulting in choices that are much more polarized than the electorate. If we used Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Condorcet or Approval, more than two candidates could run without splitting the vote. It also eliminates the need for primaries. So Dean and McCain could run in the election without hurting Kerry or Bush. And Democrats would stop trying to kick Nader off the ballot.

This would allow more broadly popular candidates to run and win, engendering less bitterness after the election.

JC -

I'd be closer to you in view if we hadn't erected such a complex edifice of law that we're all pretty much guaranteed to be lawbreakers at one point or another.

A consulting client of mine was just sentenced to three years probabtion; I think he did wrong, but that on a fundamental level he did nothing that a dozen of his peers haven't and don't do on a regular basis.

On a petty level, the avergae speed on the 110 freeway (when it isn't stopped) is about 80 mph. You speed or you get run over. And when you speed - you're vulnerable to being cited.

A.L.

And I think that the attitude that denies legitimacy to an opponent - which is not nearly the same thing as rolling over for that opponent on policy issues - is far more dangerous, and will do far more damage to my country than either candidate can possibly do if their opponents most feverish claims prove to be true.

That's the money line for me. I've been struggling with this myself. I almost posted on it last week, stating that I would support whomever got elected, that I would not criticize Kerry's foreign policy if he were elected, so as to not undermine the CIC, which as a result, undermines the troops, and whether people want to accept it or not, does aid and comfort the enemy. On the other hand, no matter who it is, isn't it my right, even my duty, to speak to things that I think are wrong or dangerous for my country?

But as you state, that is the very difference between debate in our country and polarized peoples foaming with hatred to a point where they have no clarity on reality. Rising the level of debate to a civil one, and doing so in a way where we remind ourselves and each other that we have recourse through our elected members of Congress, and that a few phone calls there can indeed make more happen than 20 posts on the net, is one way to make this happen. It's the difference between being diplomatic enough to win people over to your view, vs. alienating them by ranting. It's the difference between a Joe Lieberman and a Michael Moore or an Ann Coulter. It's the difference between you, A.L., and many others which don't choose to have the level of civility that you do when making your arguments.

The Maosit have very long memory for Kerry and Jane Fonda. Don't like 'em anymore?

A.L.,

That's a good point - I suppose it is a matter of degree.

While it is still awhile to election, for myself, I have trouble seeing how Kerry would lose - unless he completely flubs the debates - which given his woodenness, is possible, at the emotional level of the debate. Or, of course, there may be some October surprise.

However, I haven't found anyone who voted FOR Gore in 2000, who plans to vote for Bush now - however, I have found a lot of people who will hold their noses and vote for Kerry, or simply are not voting, on the Republican side.

Again, Bush's hometown paper is a good indicator here. In 2000, the paper endorsed Bush, this year, the paper is endorsing Kerry. And there is a lot of this going on.

Information here on why

So, your point is a good one to make. How will the writers on this site react to a Kerry victory? Robin Burke? Joe? Dan Darling?

. . .while you may not - as I don't - respect him. . .

Funny, would you say the same thing as quickly about Trent Telenko? Or the people who cracked wonderful jokes about the death of Rachel Corrie, or Edward Said?

I call bullshit on this entire line of reasoning. Bush isn't the president of the Bush-haters. Well boo-hoo. He ain't my president either - and not just in the sense of "I voted for Gore", although I did. Even now, with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on the trunk of my sedan, Bush is still not my president. I do not have possession of him. He is the country's president, not the property of this faction or that party, or this partisan or that citizen. He stands in a clear and defined legal position, established by article and enacted in practice.

All this fulminating is utterly, wildly beside the point. If Kerry is elected president - and I vehemently hope otherwise - he will be no more, and no less, "my president", than the current inhabitant of the White House is today. He will be the country's president. And that would have to be enough.

Now shit or get off the pot, AL. There's a line for the stall out here waiting.

JC:

Well I'm an American unlike Joe and if Kerry wins he'll be my president, as is his due. I also don't think that a Kerry victory is going to change all that much about what it is that I do here on WoC, on my own blog, or as a private citizen in as far as my work on terrorism and the like are concerned - it's not like these issues aren't still going to be with us regardless of who wins come November.

To put it another way, I view a Kerry victory through pretty much the same way I saw the Clinton years. I didn't care much for Clinton and still don't, but I come from a military family where loyalty to one's superiors isn't an optional thing depending on whether or not you like that person but rather something done by virtue of that person's office.

So will I be more critical of a Kerry presidency? Likely, but then that depends on what he does while in office. Who knows, maybe he'll surprise me. But in the meantime, I'd just as soon not find out, which is why I plan on campaigning for Bush in my life as a private citizen between now and November.

I hope that helps to answer your question.

I have heard many liberals and moderates caterwaul that "Bush did not plan for victory", what the hell does that mean? How does one plan for victory? At best you plan to defeat the enemy and hope that the innumerable variables in a real war does not make your initial planning totally irrelevant. A true mark of military excellence is when a military organization improvises and effectively counters unexpected enemy actions and as far as I can tell the U.S. military excels at improvisation.

I get real tired of whiney armchair generals who view our victories with ho-hum, blasé “no big deal” responses and view any setback, no matter how minor, as an unmitigated disaster portending dire consequences for the future. Our enemies know that they cannot hope to defeat us in any open battle. They realize that their only hope is to drag things out and hope that the defeatist in this country will win the war for them.

I asked earlier for someone to point out a war (with similar conditions) that was better led/executed than our current war in Iraq, so far nobody has stepped up to the plate. Complaints of our mismanagement of this war would be more believable if someone could point out a good example of how it should be done.

For the past 4 years I've been hearing otherwise intelligent people saying 'Bush is not my president'. And I've thought the less of them for it. But for the first time in any election cycle, I have to say that if Kerry wins, I will not consider him my president. I consider him a lying fraud. Well, maybe most politicians are, but there has to be a line somewhere, and he is just beyond the pale.

This is dangerous. For a moderate like myself to feel this way shows just how far the DNC has gone in alienating people. But I will encourage defiance of 'President' Kerry, and if I had the power would defy him myself. Even knowing that this is damaging to the country, I simply cannot accept Kerry.

A.L.,

David Duke is also part of your polity. So are the leaders of International ANSWER, and various neo-fascist groups. So is John Walker Lindh, and the terror-supporting American Muslim Council. Members of the Communist Party of Canada and the USA were also part of our polities, even as they took orders from Moscow.

So?

That does not make any of them part of my team, or yours. This is going to be a fundamental disagreement between us. My position, so it's clear:

Membership in a polity =/= membership on the same team.

Team members can and do disagree, and it goes way beyond like or dislike. Team =/= party affiliation, and must not become so. It is precisely the "us" and "stand or fall together" that define it... but being defined, it can be violated.

This isn't a line that is crossed easily, and people can cross back later on - but the line CAN be crossed.

The college Professor who said, immediately after 9/11, that "Anyone who bombs the Pentagon gets my vote" - he's not on my team, or yours. The one who wished for "a million Mogadishus"? Not on my team, or yours. They may come around some day, but for now they are what they are: not anti-war, just on the other side. And the sooner we get over it and accept that reality, the better.

One should be very careful of calling someone out of bounds on this, because there's no ducking the fact that you're directly calling them disloyal, anti-American, or un-American (the 3 terms mean different things). But you know, some people really are. Failure to call them on that when it is justified is bad policy, as well as bad politics.

Terence:

"America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished," he said. Despite growing doubts at home and abroad, he reiterated that troops would find weapons of mass destruction, which were his rationale for striking first at Iraq.

Does Iraq really look "liberated" to you? If you think so, you might check out this article on the total lawlessness and banditry on all the roads outside the Kurdish zone. Nor is it common, I believe, to have frequent air strikes in liberated countries. Do you have any counterexamples to share?

I don't recall Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill ever doing such an egregious job of counting the chickens before they hatched. As a matter of fact, that was a mistake made by the other side in WW2, more than once.

The United States has never been in a war quite like Iraq. If it's sui generis, your demand that I find a similar war that was prosecuted more successfully is a mere rhetorical trick.

Incidentally, I think that your repeated trumpeting of your analysis, presumably from somewhere in North American, that the situation in Iraq is good makes you exceptionally unqualified to call others armchair generals, unless you are either really a general, or you really are in Iraq. Your gaudy epaulettes from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders don't substitute.

JC said I haven't found anyone who voted FOR Gore in 2000, who plans to vote for Bush now

Over here! Yeah, you found me! (c:

Andrew - given your argument via a vis terence above, how does it effect your thinming that virtually all of the feedback from troops and generals in Iraq is consistently saying that things are better than the media makes them out to be?

And that the strongly antiwar here in the West - armchair analysts all - think the press is making things out to be far better than they really are?

A.L.

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders have served with honor and valor in many battles.

I've posted this same comment somewhere else, but I will post it here too.

A question - is there a democratic or mainstream place, where experts, with a good blog voice, speak about national security/defense issues?

It seems that most of the sites - such as Victor Hanson, Belmont Club, etc, tend to be right-leaning, other than Intel Dump (which I read daily). Winds of Change is the only place, other than Intel Dump, where I get a lot of information, and that has a community, although skewed right-wing as well.

But still, it would be great to see a "Daily Kos (in the COMMUNITY SENSE) for security/defense" issues, that hopefully is non-partisan, has an ex-CIA, ex-FBI, anonymous analyst, great categories, etc, and comments turned on.

Does this exist, and I've simply missed it? Winds of Change would do the job, if it wasn't so right-leaning.

Now, back to this site. Really, this site HAS the potential to be the "go-to" community site for security/defense/international news related to defense site. It is doing this:

1. Good blog "voices". Important.
2. A good collection of blogging about daily events related to security/defense.
3. Comments turned on.
4. Different "experts" who come with fresh facts.

The only problem I have (like you didn't see this coming, right), is the ideological bias.

Gary Farber isn't blogging here anymore, as an example.

But say that Phil Carter, or say a counterterrorism guy in the mindset of Richard Clarke or Rand Beers wanted to blog here, would alternative "experts", with a differing opinion be welcome here?

Basically, could this site become a "non-partisan" security/defense community site, or does this site wish to remain close to the AEI, or neo-con line?

Please understand, this is NOT to undermine in ANY way shape or form the unique information that the contributors bring to this site, which I deeply appreciate. And I in NO WAY can criticize, as I would have to have an alternative, which I don't. I value this site for what it is, I'm just wondering...

JC:

You asked:

But say that Phil Carter, or say a counterterrorism guy in the mindset of Richard Clarke or Rand Beers wanted to blog here, would alternative "experts", with a differing opinion be welcome here?

I don't have a problem with it, within reason (i.e. somebody who made remarks resembling those of Kos's would probably not be somebody who'd last to long here, at least IMO) and we put out regular calls for Winds of War hosts who are more than free to write up their own special analyses on any national security subject they want to. Joe was even nice enough to let me and Andrew Lazarus (who I don't think can be described as right-leaning or neocon) debate the Iraq war back in May and has likewise been willing to open things up to Nick and Tony Foresta. Ultimately, it'll be up to Joe as far as what does or doesn't fly here at WoC, but I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.

A Recovering Liberal,

Ok - why?

Why did you vote for Al Gore over George Bush? What were your personal/policy reasons?

Why, now (a leading question, but valid) would you vote for Bush over Kerry, given the actual record?

(Surplus to Largest Deficit Ever, the only net loss of jobs since the Depression, mismanagment of occupation).

Remember, the answers have to be CONSISTENT. This assumes that the reason you voted for Al Gore, has to still be important!

Andrew,
I do not recall President Bush ever "counting his chickens before they hatched", in fact he has from day 1 stated that this war against terrorism will be long and difficult with victories and setbacks. It has been the relentless spinning of Democrats, partisan press and anti-war activists to claim that Bush has said otherwise.

You are right that there has not ever been a war like the one in Iraq, just not for the reasons you have stated. Since you feel compelled to personally attack me for my earlier commentary (in which did I mentioned no names) let me respond in kind – you know those defeatists I referred to earlier?…just look in the mirror. The Bathists and other terrorists really appreciate your support.

Dan,

Thanks for both your responses to both of my questions. Sound good to me.

A.L., are the soldiers speaking on the record (Petraeus's op-ed piece) or off? Big difference, nu?

Many journalists actually in Iraq write that the situation is at least as bad as it appears in the US media. Nor, of course, is the NIE very encouraging.

I think you will be candid enough to admit (although Terence probably isn't) that the situation on the ground now is much worse than you expected, say, twelve or even six months ago. Surely rising casualties and greater geographic involvement in the insurgency are bad signs, relative to those time periods.

Do you think the Bush Administration was prepared for these eventualities? Indeed, do you think they were even on their horizon? Review their manpower and budget requests (note emergency shift of resources from reconstruction to security): when do the Administration and the official reports of the military (speaking to sympathetic audiences) develop a credibility problem? [You might consider Bush's mistaken but unshaken confidence in finding WMD, while you are at it.]

JC,

As for Kerry... well, I'm not an American, so I owe him nothing. But let's pretend that I was a Yank for a minute.

Clinton did a lot of unwise things, but unlike Dan, I don't see the 2 as comparable. I may have disagreed with Clinton, but I never wondered which side he was on. Jimmy Carter, with his endless praise of dictators and weakness in the face of America's enemies, is close. But even he isn't quite in the same place for me.

Still, let's start with the bedrock.

If Kerry is elected, his office is still entitled to respect from all Americans, and so will he be as the holder of it. If President Kerry wishes to commit American troops abroad, then there will be legislative hurdles to cross. Once crossed, it will be incumbent on all Americans not to undermine the troops OR their mission (criticism is legit, but it needs to be constructive and focused on ensuring the mission's success). In that sense, he's everyone's President and Commander-in-Chief.

That's the bedrock.

Imagine Kerry wants to invade Sudan. Argue until the Congressional vote all you want, then support the mission if the vote passes. He orders airstrikes on North Korea, resulting in a war that levels Seoul and kills millions? We may decide later that it was a bad idea, or we may not, but he had the right as President to make that call. Bombs a medicine factory in Syria? He made a call based on his best knowledge at the time, and if he's wrong then he's wrong, not a liar. He wants to implement Kyoto? We've all got our opinions, but it will get voted on and then if it passes, that's the way it is. Gay marriage? Same deal. Pull U.S. troops out of Japan without asking the Japanese? Unwise, but they're not engaged in conflict so if he can make it happen so be it. He's the guy Americans elected, America's President.

But here's where Kerry & co. have stepped beyond Clinton, or Carter, or any sense of "on the same team". And they deserve to - nay, must - be called on it.

When he and his go around dissing governments that have shed blood with the USA, because they choose to shed blood with the USA, it's an attack on America at large, not on the decisions of an administration. It's an act that teaches other countries all around the world never to side with America militarily, or trust American friendship enough to take risks for it. It is the act of an enemy - not a team member, and not a leader. It deserves to be called by its name in public.

When Kerry sets hard timelines for abandoning Iraq without a request for same by the Iraqi government (essentially a form of pre-emptive, time based surrender), while American troops are in direct conflict there... then he's a sell-out and a defeatist. Calling him that would not conflict with any of the bedrock duties owed one's President.

Chris Hitchens, of course, has more;

Andre, just for grins, could I ask that you answer my question? You may disagree with the premise, and we'll doubtless spend some time doing so, but let's stipulate for a moment that the views of soldiers as expressed in blogs and private emails is that things are better than the media suggest.

Given your claim that discounts the claims of hawkish keyboarders because we're not there, how does that effect your views?

A.L.

George W. Bush is THE President, not MY President, not YOUR President, not ANYBODY'S President.

This is most emphaticly a distinction with a difference and the difference goes to the heart of what it means to be an American. And to the heart of why so many of us are in a towering and permanent rage with George W. Bush, the man (and NOT in a rage, I might add, with "the President of the United States").

I am a "citizen" of the United States of America, not a "subject" of the sovereign named George W. Bush. I am not "his" and he is not "mine". He is a citizen of the United States, too, and, as a matter of law, our private persons are "equal before the law". He merely holds an office.

George W. Bush the man has attempted to run the Presidency of the United States as if he were a sovreign King and not the mere holder of an office. He has attempted to rule rather than govern, abrogating as much power and as much secrecy to his own private judgement as the Congress, the Courts, and the People will let him dare to.

Since we are not used to being "ruled", and since the mechanisms of our government do not work that well when you don't actually govern with them, George W. Bush has generally made policy hash out of everything he has touched in the last four years.

But this is merely incidental, a collateral failing to the collosal personal arrogance of attempting to substitute rule for governance. Were he merely a failure he would be deplorable, but tolerable. As it is he is intolerable, a man whose very failure is radically destructive to the values he has sworn to uphold.

On January 21 either John Kerry or George W. Bush will be THE President of the United States.

Joe, there are two responses to this:

1. There's talking the talk, and walking the walk. What Kerry has been pointing out, along with a lot of other people, is that there is a vast difference between the rhetoric and the reality of the Bush administration. This is where criticism is coming from. If Kerry and his analysts see "happy talk", disconnected from reality, coming from Bush and Allawi, about the Iraq situation, isn't it a patriotic duty to point this out? Doing so is a NECESSARY and VITAL public duty.

-The Bush administration alludes to weapons of mass destruction - turns out this is an empty exaggeration.
-The Bush administration points to ties between Al-Queda and Iraq - again turns out to be an exaggeration.
Bush comes up with No Child Left Behind - and the funds get cut.
-Bush promises Drug coverage - and the actual act is a pork sop to the pharmacy industry.
-Bush administration (at least Wolfowitz) clearly emphasizes the "easy" occupation - turns out to be harder.
-Bush administration advertises the "capture" in the US, of various terrorists, such as Hamdi - turns out they don't have a case, and there STILL hasn't been a successful terror prosecution in 3 years.
-Bush promises that the tax cuts are going to create "new jobs" - this doesn't materialize.

Look, a model house, (or theoretical construct, such as the Bush doctrine) no matter how inspiring, doesn't mean that house has plumbing, water, or electricity. You have to know what you are doing. Kerry has to comment, since he believes that people deserve the facts - and if the facts seem to be betraying the national interest as defined by Bush, well, that's not Kerry's fault, it's bad administration.

2. Priority - rhetorical slip-ups, such as Kerry's wife's - that get seized upon by Christopher Hitchens are NOT more important than is what actually happening in Iraq now, or more important than noticing, speaking, and writing about THOSE failures. THAT is what you should be exercised about.

JC, you asked if Phil Carter, or say a counterterrorism guy in the mindset of Rand Beers wanted to blog here, would they be welcome?

Yes, of course they'd be welcome here.

It would be nice to become what you describe - if that's possible in the current climate. Any thoughts you might have on that score would definitely be appreciated.

From my side... I'm happy to bring in liberal voices who a) Put the War on Terror before the War on Bush; b) Believe it really is a war for stakes that matter; and c) have some background on national security/defense stuff so they know what they're talking about, or at least a strong drive to learn. I ask for all 3, or A & B plus a role focused on non-defense or foreign relations issues.

Indeed, left-leaning members can be valuable additions to this team, due to their ability to look more widely at social factors, environmental triggers for security issues, et. al. They also notice different things, as I've found with Randy Paul's Latin America briefings, for instance.

The problem with my requirements above is that many of those people are now independents or flat out conservatives now, having been driven from the Democratic party in 2 great waves (70s/80s, and post-9/11). Articles by Clinton-era staffers like Heather Hurlburt have explained the Democratic party's general disinterest in these issues, alas, though we're hoping that might change. Come to think of it, Hurlburt is the kind of person I'd enjoy having here.

Other folks who might help people understand what constitutes a fit....

We link Phil a lot, and like him, but he has his own gig at Intel Dump and doesn't really do Guest Blogging. Ditto Michael Totten.

We love and link British lefties like Norm Geras and the crew at Harry's Place, but again - own gigs.

We like and link the folks at worldchanging.com, but don't talk much about the War on Terror.

Kevin Drum has his own gig, and he's much bigger than us so it's a moot point, but... a guy who says that Michael Moore does good work and has a useful role to play for the Democrats is the kind of guy we might link occasionally, but I would never ask to join.

Praktike has his own blog now and we link him, but of course he'd be welcome to Guest Blog here just as he is to comment.

Bob Harmon, former Military Policeman, chair of the Marin County ACLU, and an official in the California Democratic Party. You've seen him here a few times, and you'll see him again.

Lewy14 has generally leaned Democrat, and is now a member here. If I had to guess, I wouldn't put him in Kerry's column this time around, though. He's one of the post 9/11 independents, as is new team member Tim Oren.

New team member 'Cicero' thinks that both the Dems and GOP are badly behind the times and not really prepared for what we face. He may be right.

If you know of any good bloggers and/or domain experts who would fit these requirements and look like these examples, let me know!

Joe, for last comment - cool. Good to know. We are now way off thread, but I would continue this conversation...

Look, if you are saying Kerry's actions are the actions of an enemy who does not want America to succeed, that means you've effectively driven yourself round the bend. End of story. You can come up with all sorts of reasons for why it's valid, but it's still nonsense. The notion that a President Kerry would treat our allies worse than President Bush is ridiculous on its face.

Also, you're earlier statement about Kos being someone who "encourages others to kill his fellow citizens" is also ridiculously untrue, whether or not its a deliberate lie or not is unclear. To try and act as if your exaggerated version of the worst thing somebody has ever said - for which he apologized - is typical and a judgement on their entire character is not honest and not honorable.

These pieces by Drum and Yglesias I think demonstrate who is serious on the war on terror and who isn't.

The most important aspect of the war on terror is making sure terrorists or other hate-filled lunatics filled with righteous certainty do not get their hands on nuclear weapons. George Bush has twice tried to cut funding for the Nunn-Lugar program, and generally has shown no interest in the subject of restricting access to nukes or fissile material. Miltary strikes against Iran ala Osirak are a dangerous fantasy that can not happen, and would not succeed if they did (Pakistan, probably China and now North Korea would share nukes with Iran in a second if the US or heaven forbid, Israel were to try a military strike). We have not done enough on homeland security, and some relatively simple terrorist scenarios which we have not done enough to guard against scare the shit out of me, let me tell you. Only John Ashcroft/FBI's efforts to track and contain potential terrorists around the country deserves respect, though a lot of innocent young Muslim men have also needlessly suffered, hurting PR efforts. Whether on economic or especially on national security grounds, a Kerry administration will be far superior to the alternative. But the choice is yours.

JC, RE: Kerry & Co.

Saying that things are worse than we think in Iraq is criticism. Fine. Saying that Bush hasn't faced that is criticism. Fine. Calling Allawi a "puppet" isn't just criticism, and saying his government is illegitimate isn't just criticism. Making leaving your priority regardless of success or failure isn't just criticism.

Biden can come back and tell Allawi that He will have America's support under a Kerry Presidency. Allawi can't very well laugh at him, he has to smile for the cameras. But I can't believe that now, and I don't think Allawi does either.

Kerry's sister is a campaign official, and hence a spokesperson for that campaign. Nor were her comments in Australia, where she stated that Australia's military participation with America was a mistake (she even blamed the Bali bombing on it even though it happened before Iraq), repudiated by Kerry. And why should he? Isn't he the guy who described Britain, Spain, Poland, and so many other nations who have shed blood in Iraq as "a coalition of the bought, bribed, and coerced"?

This is really serious stuff, and as I've noted, it's an attack on America not on an administration. Kerry and the Democrats need to be called on it. It needs to be really clear that stuff like that is out of bounds, and that doing it has consequences.

I'll add this. I don't like it when people get on Kerry's wife's case for her style. I don't think it's fair. But what she said was not a mere rhetorical slip. It's a trope I've heard in Democrat circles, and heard often. You can read it right here in the blogosphere. All Hitchens did was make the seriousness of that far too casually-thrown accusation clear.

As long as this is where the Democrats sit - attacks on American allies, open attempts to disrupt the existing wartime coalition, and casual accusations of near-treason against the President; as long as that's so, you won't see a serious debate about the war and how it's waged.

A serious debate is there to be had, and Bush could be vulnerable to a credible candidate. But that would requires seriousness on the other side AND a credible commitment to victory. Right now, I see neither - and I see no hope of either. Hence no hope of that debate.

And that's the biggest loss for America in the 2004 election.

Roublen Vesseau's intelligent comment also gives more examples of what I'm attempting to say, but she says it better, of course.

If Bush is SERIOUS:

1. Nunn-Lugar program - why unfunded?
2. Homeland security - funds allocated horribly ($7 times as much funding to Montana as New York??)

Again, the execution of a "War on Terror" - and remember terror is tactic - so this is a priori a bad definition - we are actually at War with, at minimum, destructive apocalyptic Islam terrorist networks, and recognize these are very dangerous when having state support.

Bush isn't fighting the terrorist war that needs to be fought - he just talks it.

As for Totten’s link I have to agree with to agree with Kirk Parker on his assessment of the article. It certainly sounds to me as though he is advocating giving the pacifier to Kerry just to stop the whiners because all they’ll do is continue to whine if he doesn‘t get it.

I have to agree with Totten on one thing though and that is the Iraq and WoT issue will not go away just because he gets the pacifier. Whether or not the whiners will stop will depend on what he does.

Joe

”One should be very careful of calling someone out of bounds on this, because there's no ducking the fact that you're directly calling them disloyal, anti-American, or un-American (the 3 terms mean different things). But you know, some people really are. Failure to call them on that when it is justified is bad policy, as well as bad politics.”

This is precisely what being PC has gotten us. Now I’m not a fan of Bart Simpson calling everyone a butt head because he lacks tact but neither am I a fan of sugar coating the truth or substituting less harsher names for what is reality. Obviously alternative life style and gay are more PC than queer or lesbian but when you force it down my throat I call it as I see it.

AJL

”A.L., are the soldiers speaking on the record (Petraeus's op-ed piece) or off? Big difference, nu?”

Never in my years of service was I silenced with exception to matters of security or privileged information. I think if you read the Stars and Stripes you will find that our military forces and their families are free to speak their minds and voice their concerns just as much as the public at large.

Roublen,

"The notion that a President Kerry would treat our allies worse than President Bush is ridiculous on its face."

No, it's confirmed by his actions. That isn't a prediction now, it's a retrospective assessment.

I might add that I do not consider the French to be America's allies.

As for Kos, A.L. blogged his non-apology apology quite well, I think. Kos said that the murdered men were mercenaries and hence unworthy of consideration. Which means they deserved what they got. Then his "apology" - read:

"I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition. So I struck back."

Oh, I guess it's all right, then.

As for Drum & Yglesias, they are respected bloggers. They have nothing to do with the seriousness of the Democratic ticket on national security issues, or the recent conduct of the people around Kerry.

Roublen, you're right about the seriousness of the issues you raise (though I think the idea of Pakistan or North Korea or China handing nukes to Iran is nuts). I would like to see those things debated. Heck, we've covered Nunn-Lugar and its problems in Russia, but I'd like to see that on the table too. People need to hear what's going on, and have it discussed intelligently. We ain't getting that this campaign, and I've written about it (earth to candidates: we could care less about Vietnam).

But it isn't just a trivial media. When conduct of the type I've described represents the Democrats (and I haven't even begun to touch the letter they're sending out at colleges, warning kids of a non-existent draft if Bush is elected), there's no way a serious debate can be had. And that's a big loss.

Of course, it would be nice if we actually had a clear policy platform for Kerry, too - preferably one that went beyond endless repetition of "stronger at home and respected abroad." Really off to a boffo start on that last bit, John....

Mr. Armed Liberal is saying the right thing here. The Clinton-hatred of the 90s, the Bush-hatred, and now the Kerry-hatred I sometimes see is bad for us all.

We Americans are all on the same team. People need to distinguish between honest criticism of how someone does the job with foaming hatred for the person in office.

(And at the same time, stop accusing the other sides supporters of being "haters" every time someone makes a criticism.)

Ultimately, I'm voting against Bush. I think he's done a terrible job on national security. (If anybody wants to point me to an INDEPENDENT expert on terrorism, Iraq, or nuclear control who thinks otherwise, please do so). And since I'm a social liberal / small government type, you can imagine that I'm not happy with Bush's domestic policies.

Same for my father -- a Florida retiree who has NEVER voted Democratic as long as I've been alive, but he's holding his nose and voting Kerry.

I don't know what the future might hold under Kerry. I definitely have my concerns. And they are more serious than silly arguments that because Kerry's sister said something inappropriate in Australia it proves the world will explode if he's elected. But whether Bush or Kerry wins, he is my president and this is my country.

Matrax,

Keep your shirt on--if the "unthinkable" happens and Kerry does win, you need to just suck it up and do the right thing. It's perfectly OK to oppose any policy Kerry promotes if you oppose the policy in itself, but to be against something just because of Kerry, or to encourage "defiance" per se is to descend to Michael Moore territory.

JC,

If the "mindset" of Richard Clarke includes his ridiculous partisanship then I, for one, would be quite disappointed to see such a one here. IMO, the reason this blog seems right-leaning to you is because the left has been so compromised by its anti-Western factions that it's really hard to put together something that's both (a) left and (b) realistic about national security and foreign affairs. Indeed, isn't that a huge part of what A.L. is on about here?

JC,

Nunn-Lugar... because Russia is taking the funds and not following through or cooperating, hence very little performance for the dollar, and that has to be fixed before the money will do much good. Perhaps Putin's recent experiences will wake him up slightly. But there's also a problem here that has continued under 2 Presidential administrations now, and needs fixing. We've got both reports.

Homeland Security... because Congressional politics never fails to get in the way, and never will. If you can believe it, Americans are better off than Canadians in the regional silliness sweepstakes. And yeah, I know that should be a frightening thought for us Canadians.

I tend to agree that the GOP talks like we're in a war, but too often doesn't act like it. Legacy of the 1980s - but we don't live there any more. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't believe we're in a war, and they do act like it. Legacy of the 1960s - but we don't live there any more.

The premise of the article is based on the result you want rather than the reality. You want us to all get along and for our government to continue so you construct this requirement that I accept anyone as my President. Sorry but that isnt how things work.

Should I accept someone who while a commissioned officer illegally negotiated with the Enemy? I should not.

Should I accept someone who falsified reports to steal credit for actions so that he could further his political career? I should not.

Should I accept a party that seems with each passing day to come closer and closer to the point of wishing for our enemies to score victories so that they can regain office? I should not.

Should I accept a party that holds up one of the greatest propagandists of our time in a position of honor at its convention, a person who routinely disparages me and my family for being Americans? I should not.

Should I accept a party and candidate who consider no lie too large even when it injures those soldiers who stand on the frontiers guarding my children, wife and myself from harm? I should not.

Should I accept a media that allies with a major party to lie and presnt fraudelent documents to injure the very same President that you purport they should consider to be theirs as well? I should not.

This isnt to say that I am comfortable with the direction of the country. Certainly there is ample reason to fear the direction of the debate. But to ask me to comprimise or accept those who would perpetuate such tactics against a country they supposedly love is to ask me to accept as allies traitors to the country I love.

Do I believe that there are Democrats who love their country? Absolutely, I was one myself, Joe Lieberman is one, Zell Miller was one but none of us control the party now. The people who control the party and as such the opposition are the radical fringe of people who always seem to blame America first.

My freedom comes before my comfort. For if I give my freedom away to the radical fringe I condemn my children to a world less good than was left to me.

Pierre Legrand

Viva Katzman. I have no qualms about accepting Kerry as "my" president but I'll be goddamned to hell before I accept Kos or anyone in this crowd as a member of my "team". Common citizenship does not a "team" make, AL, and I don't know how you can honestly say "we'll stand and fall together" while nonsense like this is happening. To be perfectly honest, after these past three years, I can tell you that I'll never fully trust people on the left again. Ever. One too many smiles from Terry McAuliffe at the Fahrenheit 9/11 premier, y'know? So, so much for teamwork.

I also agree with Kirk Parker. I respect Totten, enjoy his writing, and agree with him far more often than not, but his squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease argument re: quieting radicals by electing Kerry has always struck me as bonkers. If, God forbid, the Klan were to have a renaissance, would it then be a good idea to elect a right-wing candidate so as to neutralize some of their grievances? Ridiculous. So that's one thing. Beyond that, though, step back for a moment and absorb the full significance of Totten's (extremely astute) premise: Essentially, he's saying that the only way the mainstream left will confront its fringe is if they have a president from their own party to protect. I think Totten's absolutely right about that, and I find it absolutely appalling. I don't need a Republican in the White House to see a Klansman for what he is and mainstream liberals shouldn't need a President Kerry to help them see International ANSWER for what it is. Yet, per Totten, they do. Which brings us right back to AL's point about people who aren't really playing on "our" team, doesn't it?

An interesting question might be posed as to whether or not many of Bush's detractors would accept him as president should he win reelection in 2004.

IMO, that's at least as pertinent a question.

Thoughts?

>>And I think that the attitude that denies legitimacy to an opponent - which is not nearly the same thing as rolling over for that opponent on policy issues - is far more dangerous, and will do far more damage to my country than either candidate can possibly do if their opponents most feverish claims prove to be true.

I don't (and won't) consider either candidate to be "legitimate" in the sense that I feel any moral obligation whatsoever to cooperate with him or his agents. Of course the winner will be "legitimate" in that he will control the army and the other machinery of coercion. "I'm hard as &*^% steel, I've got the power" and all that.

Lysander Spooner put it best: No Treason

Andrew -

In one of those wild coincidences, the OJR has a roundtable with some Iraqi bloggers and milbloggers...

A.L.

Allah et al (God, I love writing that...)

The problem is simple. I share a country with Kos and Moore and Co. Like it or not, my fate - and my children's fate - is bound to theirs.

That means we figure out how to play together - or how to pull enough of their fans away to reduce them to the crank-addled crackpot status they deserve (right there alongside David Duke) or we've got a damn big problem.

It's a nice hand-waving solution to say "I won't play with them" but you are and you will. Deal with it. Their votes and campaign dollars are as good as yours, and if you're going to get all "no, I won't work with them because they're assholes" while Willis is all "No, he's not My President" we're going to be standing around playing macho staredown games while the world goes up in flames around us.

My country. Your country. Kos' country. The same damn country. Deal with it and step up.

A.L.

Uh, T.J. Here's part 7 of that URL you quoted

"It is plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason--such principles as we all act upon in courts of justice and in common life--the Constitution is no contract; that it binds nobody, and never did bind anybody; and that all those who pretend to act by its authority, are really acting without any legitimate authority at all; that, on general principles of law and reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody not only has the right, but is morally bound, to treat them as such."

It gets better from there. Suffice to say that this is not the way I understand things. Though you might find some militia types who agree.

And fling93... good idea - pity it probably won't happen, but I know I'd feel lots better if it did. I'm probably not alone.

roublen vesseau #30586
Look, if you are saying Kerry's actions are the actions of an enemy who does not want America to succeed, that means you've effectively driven yourself round the bend.
I don't think that is the problem. The problem is that Kerry is a candidate first and an American second. The First War for him is the War for the Whitehouse. He is not anti-american, it is just second priority.

Joe #30579
Clinton did a lot of unwise things, but unlike Dan, I don't see the 2 as comparable. I may have disagreed with Clinton, but I never wondered which side he was on.
I did. In NK he put his own interests above the interests of our country, with the interminable treaty negotiations that were supposed to net him a Nobel Peace Prize for the history books. He knew the NORKs were having him on. There was IMMINT. I see the same dismal traits in Kerry. Braggadoccio, "I can do a better job, I just can't/won't/don't need to show you how now."

I guess I'm not really a "rethuglican" or a "demoncrat". I'm a scientist. I believe in Bayes Theorem and empirical data.
My dispassionate observation is, the conservatives seem very serious about defense, and the liberals only seem serious about getting into the Whitehouse. What will they do if they get there?

That means we figure out how to play together - or how to pull enough of their fans away to reduce them to the crank-addled crackpot status they deserve (right there alongside David Duke) or we've got a damn big problem.

AL -- We're not going to pull any of their fans away. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

We've got a damn big problem.

A.L.: I hope I possess the self-awareness not to accuse other people of armchair generalship without being cognizant of doing it myself. Obviously, we have a dispute here about whose sources are better—or as I saw somewhere, the country has even divided into red and blue epistemologies. Not all of our soldiers in Iraq see things Bush's way, either—is there any systematic polling, or are we just talking a general impression? The military doesn't seem to have understood (at least, not for public consumption) the dynamic of the insurgency in the past—no one expected the situation to be this confused right now, no matter how Terence spins wildly. Does this answer the question?

Terence: The Bush Administration certainly did give us all that high-flown rhetoric about staying as long as it takes, but from an information-theoretic standpoint, that's pretty much worthless. Can you imagine a politician saying "We're going to leave before doing as much as required."? Of course not. Takes for what—an election in half the country with a pre-ordained result? All the indications are that the Administration wildly underestimated how little of the country would be pacified now, leave alone the optimism of 2003. Just in case you missed it, Bush thus: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished." I repeat, does Iraq look liberated to you? Or is this statement a premature ejaculation?

A.L.

When it comes to Moore (and probably Kos as well), I'd pick option B if I were you. Otherwise you'll end up playing on their terms, and then you and your kids really will have a damn big problem.

Especially since you live in one of America's top 3 bullseyes.

But don't worry, Michael Moore will make a movie afterward showing the melted metal and smoking ruins, and find a way to explain how it's all America's fault.

"That means we figure out how to play together - or how to pull enough of their fans away to reduce them to the crank-addled crackpot status they deserve (right there alongside David Duke) or we've got a damn big problem."

Moral of the story: yes, you have to play together in the sense that you all live under the same laws and Constitution. Beyond that, you'll want to be very careful about setting and ensuring the terms and framework for that play. Achieving this could be a long battle - but it's a very important one. Maybe the most important one. My #1 issue with your "my team" formulation is that it has no boundaries of behaviour or belief - which means that it abandons this field entirely.

The boundaries will thus be set by your most aggressive opponents, to your detriment. Not good, not wise.

Andrew, you had me until "...no matter how Terence spins wildly..." People can legitimately disagree with you and argue with you - and when you dismiss their arguments as 'spinning', you kind of undermine the point of my whole post. Can you credit him with having an opinion different than yours, and work to deconstruct that opinion and its basis and argue against it without the dismissive namecalling?

A.L.

Here's the issue: If we weren't in Iraq, where would Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh be, and what would he be doing? I can assure you that he wouldn't be running a day care center north of Amman. Regards Keith

>>It gets better from there.

Oh yes, it certainly does.

>>Suffice to say that this is not the way I understand things.

Where are the logic flaws in Spooner's reasoning?

>>Though you might find some militia types who agree.

The problem with the militia groups is largely one of tactics. Confronting the State through violent resistance doesn't work very well -- it's playing to the State's strength. Armed resistance to state authority just invites the state to take action to maintain it's "credibility." The rioters get hosed and fear of the state increases. That's why black-bloc anarchists, militia groups, terrorists, the vast majority of armed revolutionaries, etc. run into trouble -- they haven't thought these things through well enough.

Just look at Iraq for example. If the anti-US forces were smarter, they'd chill out and just wait for the USG to get distracted and aim it's attention elsewhere. IMHO this might be part of Sistani's game plan. And if 9/11 was designed to get USG forces out of the region, well it sure did a great job, right? Just because I complain about the dumbass of the USG a lot doesn't mean that I think the USG's adversaries are any smarter.

Keith:

Mr. al-Khalayeh was in Iraq, Saddam-controlled and otherwise, prior to the war.

That was part of the problem.

Andrew Lazarus:

Can you imagine a politician saying "We're going to leave before doing as much as required."? Of course not.

Actually I can. John Kerry just said it. Draw down troops within 6 months, full withdrawl in 4 years, without regard to the facts on the ground.

A.L., I can understand that Terence and I can have a difference of opinion, say over whether Willie Mays or Barry Bonds is a better ball player.

I think at the moment, it's possible to have a difference of opinion about how well we're doing in Iraq, although (as with the forged memos) I think the evidence is starting to tip.

I don't think that concerning the claim the Administration wildly underestimated the difficulty of the Iraq Project. Their own budget projections tell the story. Or their leaks. (Nor was the right-blogosphere immune.) I'm not going to knock scrapping things that don't work for improvised successful solutions, but a fascinating mark of this Administration and its suppoorters is to insist that all of the failed programs were successes, too. That's gone past "opinion" into spinning away the inconvenient history.

Kerry will not be my President.

If he gets elected his first major error stemming from his policies is going to get me working day and night for his impeachment.

If Kerry wins I hope Bush does what Lincoln was planning to do in the days before the hand over had he lost to McClellan: take the war to the enemy.

In any case a Kerry win would not be a total disaster. As long as the Republicans can obstruct his program.

I'd like to point our that there are big troubles brewing in Iran.

AJL,

When learning to adapt to circumstances failures are successes. As long as they are not repeated.

Every learning experience is a success. Provided you learn.

AJL,

The war not going well? Of course it isn't.

WW2 didn't go well at all either.

I have written a piece on that very subject a few days ago:

He that stands it NOW

The winner of most wars is the one that can best stand the losses until the other side gives up. That was certainly Washington's strategy in the 1770s. It was N. Vietnam's strategy in the 1970s.

Kerry wants to relpay 30April '75. I do not think after 2 million dead in Cambodia, boat people etc. America will buy it a second time.

Allah,

If the Klan had a resurgence there would be no need to elect a Republican to show sympathy. R. Byrd is available and he is a Democrat.

The Democrats were the party of the Klan. David Duke is an abberation.

Look up W. Wilson and the Klan.

A.L.
It doesn't look like you've talked a lot of people on board :-)

I was an inveterate Clinton basher (acceptance is the first stage to recovery), and in hindsight I can't say Clinton deserved it. I don't like Kerry, but I also don't think he will be a disaster. Presidents are only one cog in our gov't.

The past Clinton bashing, and the current Bush bashing, gets everyone focused on personalities instead of policies. And if we were to focus on policies, I believe you summed up the results nicely in your post:
"They can choose to define themselves by their differences or by what they share - which is actually a lot."

Bill Clinton was my President. I didn't vote for him and I didn't want him, but he was my President - at least, when he wanted to be he was.

He was my President when he sent our people to the Balkans, an action which I supported and still would support, in spite of mistakes that were made. He was my President when he invaded Haiti and restored Aristide. I was much less supportive of that, as I thought it could have turned into a real bloodbath of Haitian civilians if the junta hadn't backed down. But the junta backed down and there was no bloodbath, only the unfortunate return of the distasteful Aristide.

He was my President when he plastered sundry targets in Iraq and elsewhere with Tomahawk missiles. This had no apparent beneficial effect except to (strangely) elicit cries of enthusiasm from Hollywood liberals. It worried me because it seemed that Clinton thought he could push a few buttons - any time, any day of the week, whenever he felt like it - and "win" a "war" without any Americans getting hurt.

He was my President when we descended into the whole stained-semen, perjury and impeachment mess - even though he accused people like me, who were criticizing him, of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy that had been out to get him his entire life. (We thought that was funny and we made a grand joke out of it, which tended to obscure the fact that it was a pretty disturbing attitude for the President of the United States to take.)

So in spite of all the invective I threw at Clinton, he was still my President and I feel I gave him the respect his office deserved - though I have little respect for him as a person. I gave him support, not only when he deserved support, but when my country needed him to have it.

I find Bush much easier to like, of course. Bush has faults and he makes mistakes, but in the current conflict, most of his "failures" have been the result of unrealistic expectations - the unrealistic expectations of both friend and foe.

The WMD intelligence, for example, was a mistake. Failure to see past this mistake to the larger context, however, is worse than a mistake. It's moral abdication. Kerry might or might not go along with this - Kerry does not make it clear what he will do - but he toys with it and his supporters openly advocate it. Unacceptable.

Bush should have your support in this, whether you think he personally deserves it or not.

Terence, I'll give you two examples of well-planned victories: Germany and Japan.

In the Fall of Berlin 1945, Anthony Beevor wrote about the Soviets' dismay at learning just how huge and detailed US occupation plans and resources were, and how they had to scramble to do something to relieve the population of the eastern zones in response.

The US had extensive plans to reconstitute ministry functions in Germany and Japan. Marshall's staff began working on the plans in 1942.

Were there bumps? Sure, but nothing like what has been happening in Iraq: a growing resistance which threatens to turf us out of the country on any given month. So please don't trot out your pessimistic 1946 newspaper reports in response, unless you answer this question: How many attacks were there in Berlin on occupation forces in 1946?

The difference between WWII and Iraq is that the WWII occupation officials were drawn out of the New Deal. They believed in the positive power of government. Many of the Iraq occupation officials were conservatives who just took it on blind faith that the free market would solve all problems. Thus, we had an understaffed occupation, with no policies, procedures or programs in place when it started in May 2003.

We didn't have a public communications plan, so the Iraqis went for months without any idea what our intentions were, only the locally generated products of the local PSYOP unit with vague pronouncements about freedom. You'd think that Americans, the great communicators, could have had a ready-made 24/7 broadcasting capability, some slick production values. No.

We didn't even have the troops to secure and dispose of the tons of munitions in Iraqi ammo supply points, which is why the bad guys have so much.

We didn't have funding to start with: 95% of all relief projects were funded from seized Iraqi assets and from oil sales. Resource allocation and the identification of projects was haphazard and depended on the CPA or military staff members own initiative. There was no funding for large infrastructure projects, just band-aids.

If your don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Tom Ricks and Dana Priest.

For precisely these considerations I have been disgusted by the widely repeated claim that the result of the 2000 Presidential election is illegitimate.

Furthermore, I'm disturbed by the apparent intention of my former party to contest this one if at all possible.

Bush basicially stole the election when his brother enegged in massive vote fraud in Florida. Since then he has made an utter mess of everything he has touched. No, he is not and never will be my president. Re-defeat him.

"Furthermore, I'm disturbed by the apparent intention of my former party to contest this one if at all possible."

How dare the Democrats contest the election if possible!

John Eisenhower has endorsed Kerry.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry. The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

'Nuff said.

A.L., you repeat the point here about being on the same team. Of course we can argue if a particular action is or is not treason, but it almost sounds like you're saying treason is not possible. Somehow I doubt you mean it that way...

Well, AL, I'll join you. I have no problem saying "President Bush" or "President Kerry", and I make an effort to address both of them by their correct title the first time that I mention their name. If combat troops are sent into harms way, I will hold back any criticism that would undermine their efforts.

Will I be critical? You bet!

Too many people seem to think that "being my President" means he gets free ride -- immune from criticism. Guess again. I never attacked President Clinton in low, personal ways, but I did point out that he had policies that I did not agree with, and I pointed out that he and his adminsitration did things that were unethical or illegal. His adminsitration will go down in history as a caretaker government in dangerous times. He did nothing while Islamic fascists declared war on us and killed us. He did nothing to resolve the financial and accounting crisis that hurt our economy. He energy policy was basically "Buy more foreign oil." We survived eight years of his administration, but he hurt us big-time.

Do I like President Bush? No. I think he spent too much money. I think he's been too soft on internal security. I think that he's been too timid in fighting the war agains Islamic fundamentalism. With Bush at the helm, our ability to win is, maybe 50%, but the long-term future of the country is guaranteed decline.

Do I think that Senator Kerry will do any better? No. He has no leadership or management abilities, so his administration will be a disaster similar to the Carter administration. He'll try to spend money, but the GOP congress won't let him. He doesn't understand what the war is all about, and he'll give up our strategic advantage in Iraq by working to withdrawl troops during his first (and only) term. The Islamic fundamentalists will win. Iran will have the Bomb. America will have another Vietnam, and will never be able to go to war -- even if it's life depends on it (and it does). With Kerry at the helm, American decline will accelerate, but perhaps a person like President Reagan will emerge in 2008 to save us.

Neither of these men will do.
Ellison once said that in a democracy we have the government that we deserve. I don't know what we did to deserve this mess, but it must have been pretty bad. Our politics are very sick.

Part of the problem is that there are those on the Left who really aren't Americans any more. I used to be a liberal Democrat, back when that political party had principles and new ideas and bright, informed people to acticulate those views. Now my party is a collection of special interest groups whose only principle is, "The GOP is evil." The Left has given up on serious debate. They plan to use the mainstream media to further their cause. They are increasingly using violence and intimidation to get their way. And they appear quite willing to use voter fraud to steal elections.

Also, my team is America, and many on the Left don't want to be on that team. They believe that the US armed forces should only be deployed abroad under UN control. They want to surrender US law to the UN. And the knee-jerk view seems to be that the US is always wrong unless the UN tells us we did something right.

(Bascially I'm a Zell Miller Democrat. I didn't leave the party; they left me.)

This is not a political climate in which we can make progress as a country.

A.L.

I agree whole-heartedly with your post, but would take it a step further:

My opinion is that both the far left and far right are waging a propaganda war against centrists, moderates and anyone who is willing to openly consider the viewpoints of all sides.

The GOP started it by replacing legitimate debate with unrelenting Clinton-bashing/hatred. The far left, while mostly underground before 2000, now runs around with a lot of "see, I told you they are eeeeevil!!!!!"

I don't think that it is about "getting along" or "not getting along" with those you disagree with. This movement toward singular thought is anti-democracy. Totalitarian regimes tend to fail because, once the opposition is jailed and/or assassinated , no one is around to tell the dictator what he does not want to hear. (Like, "uh, we're losing.")

Democracies, on the other hand, survive precisely because we rely not on the expertise of the few elite who are born into power, but on our whole population, and the wisdom of many eyes and minds.
We educate the poor, and promote on merit.

And please, what is with all the France bashing on the right? It is as baffling to me as the Israel bashing on the left. France and Israel are DEMOCRACIES! The leadership will change! Democracies are our ALLIES even when they disagree with us.

sivert:

RE: What's with the French bashing on the right?
For starters, the French were selling advanced weapons technology to Iraq in violation of UN treaty, including Roland missles delivered even as the United States and its allies -- its real allies -- were gearing up to invade.

Another reason is that the French are hip deep in the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. The French have routinely asked to have the UN sanctions lifted no matter what Saddam did. France and China voted against us in the failed resolution just before the war. And there is the information by Tarik Aziz [sp?] that France and Russia told Saddam that the US would not invade because they would see to it that the path through the UN would be blocked. No wonder diplomatic efforts failed: Saddam didn't believe we'd actually follow through on our threats.

To the casual observer it appears that the French government will supply weapons and support any regime that can pay for it. The US and its allies are trying to make the world a better place, and the French just want to get rich undermining our efforts.

Doing the right thing isn't that hard.
If France isn't doing the right thing, then they deserve to get "bashed", even if they're allies.
If you and I are good friends and I start mistreating other people, you aren't going to say anything about it?

Kevin,

My point is not that we should avert our eyes to any misdeeds of France or any other ally. What I have a problem with is hysteria about France and Germany being our "enemies" and how we can't trust them, they are not our allies, etc., etc.

I could come up with a laundry list of misdeeds for just about any country. That does not excuse French misconduct, it just means don't overreact. Responsible citizens should discourage over-the-top rhetoric that would turn the french population against us. They are the ones who will choose Chirac's successor.

JC:

My apologies for not responding sooner. Perhaps the moment is gone, but just in case...

Simply, I voted for Gore because I am a Democrat and he was the Democratic candidate. At that time in my misguided youth (heh), Republicans were invariably eeevil.

Now I will vote for Bush because he is willing to fight Islamist terrorists. Kerry is not willing to fight that threat without obtaining world approval, and that's just silly.

Kerry also has not proven to me that he's qualified to lead America. He made a big deal out of his four months of service in Vietnam and hasn't said much about his anti-war activities or, more importantly, his 19 years in the Senate.

Hello! Nineteen years in the Senate! Shouldn't he