I couldn't have said it better. I am a reformed Democrat. Most people I talk to think I am lying when I tell them I've voted Democrat my whole life and won't be doing it this time.

Why? so many reasons, but the very first came about three weeks into Afghanistan when Teddy Kennedy started yelling "quagmire" and a number of other folks joined the choir.

Then Michael Moore. What is there to say except exactly what you said. Any party that embraced this guy and the moveon.org crowd as part of their base is too damn scary for me to remain a part of.

The killer was when they selected Kerry as the candidate. I went back and read everything about his senate career. I read his biography. His book "the new soldier" and his testimony before the senate in '71. Then I listened to his speeches. There is something seriously wrong with this man. My friends think I'm a traitor to the party but I cannot go against my logical brain that says this man is a pacifist anti-American power hippy left over from Vietnam.

Many of his speeches are rehashes from his early days, including the "two Americas" speec which is part of his "New Soldier" epilogue.

While people decry the followers of George Bush as brainwashed right wing conspirators, I find it more than suspect that they cannot see their own behavior as such. Anyone that accepts JFK as the party representative, even if for no other reason than to oppose Bush, is blind if not dangerously mentally impaired. anyone that looks at the Democrat party today and feels some sort of kinship with it, is acting out of blind loyalty. That party no longer exists and I would vote for my dog before I would vote for any people that currently occupy the top levels of the DNC.

My only question is: where is the next leader of the DNC? At this rate, I would have voted for Hillary as an alternate to Kerry and I can rightly understand some folks conspiracy theories about selecting this guy to run in hopes he'll burn himself and set herself up for the next race.

But that's just a conspiracy theory, The truth is probably very close to reality. The party has lost it's mind and doesn't know where to find it.

Joe's right of course. And I did say I'm voting for Bush---primarily because I believe that Kerry can't save us in this jungle fight because he has compromised his political positions to a Leftist agenda. I certainly don't want him to win.

I suppose that when I wrote my essay I was looking for some kind of consolation in the event of a Kerry victory. I'm not predicting a big change coming over Kerry, but musing that perhaps the stringent realties of the world in the next four years might actually change the man. I'm not banking on it, but just hoping for it. Either that, or I'm going to build a bunker during Kerry's watch, and store peanut butter and water in the cellar.

I do know that this country could not have defeated Nazism and Japanese imperialism with only one party commited to the fight. I'm exasperated that we're in such a fight now, working with half a brain.

Joe

“electing Kerry would finally force the Democrats to face reality:”

The bigger question here is what reality will they be forced to acknowledge?

The reality that the WoT, war in Afghanistan and war in Iraq are primarily ideological in nature and not wars of revenge.

The reality that the world will always have agendas that are not in the best interest of global harmony let alone the US.

The reality that Americans don’t want to be governed or subjected to international organizations and laws.

The reality that extortion by any means doesn’t guarantee harmony and is not to be shrouded in the cloak of diplomacy.

The reality that agreeing to disagree with total world opinion does not ensure security or safety.

The reality that world opinion means more than total European consensus?

The reality that the only economy of scale that can support world financial aid and agendas is primarily US donations.

The reality that the right thing to do is protect American sovereignty and its’ citizens at any cost.

”I even understand the impetus to look at 2 candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing.”

Will Kerry do the right thing when his party can’t understand realities? Is this really the question on the table now? We should all have serious reservations setting up ourselves for an experiment that in my opinion has a high probability of failure. With the grave dangers we currently face, I have little faith in putting these issues to the test of a party that has yet to understand the realities. The hopes of awaking out of coma while we play ring around the roses is not a sand box I want to play in.

First, disclosure. I am a registered Democrat and would characterize my views as being centrist-right leaning Bush—not decided yet. If you think that's inconsistent you don't know much about Chicago. I've never voted for a Republican for president in my life but there you have it. As I've written on my blog I keep hoping that Kerry will give me reasons to vote for him. I'm still hoping.

Now, commentary. My greatest worries about a Kerry victory aren't about Kerry. I think that Kerry on his own would eventually do the right thing. As Churchill said "The Americans always do the right thing when all other alternatives have been exhausted." But I do worry about the people he'd bring in along with him.

Look at the primaries. Democratic primary voters repudiated the policies of Bill Clinton. Not Bill Clinton. His policies. Candidates were rejected to a greater degree the more they espoused Clinton's policies.

Look at the polls of Democratic National Convention convention delegates. Party activists are significantly to the left of Clinton on the issues. Heck, they're to the left of Kerry on the issues.

A President Kerry's opponents within his own party will not be the Eastern seaboard liberals they'll be the Clintonistas. He won't be staffing up with a bunch of former Clintonites.

If President Kerry is like every President of my lifetime (with the exception of Eisenhower) his Administration will be filled with people from his home state. So don't just look at Kerry. Look at the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

How will a President Kerry in an echo chamber of the Masschusetts Democratic Party respond? That's what I worry about.

Cicero, Screw water and peanut butter. Go for single malt scoth - McClelland's highland if you can get your hands on it.

"As I've written on my blog I keep hoping that Kerry will give me reasons to vote for him. I'm still hoping."

The triumph of hope over experience. . . .

"I think that Kerry on his own would eventually do the right thing. As Churchill said "The Americans always do the right thing when all other alternatives have been exhausted.""

Look, I'm a liberal too, but how many attacks will we suffer on American soil, and which terrorist groups will have nuclear bombs, before Kerry has "exhausted all other alternatives"? Can we afford to wait?

Bush isn't perfect, but he understands what's at stake, commands an excellent armed forces and lets them do their job, surrounds himself with good people, has a hopeful vision. Can you say the same about Kerry?

There's no comparison.

Sometimes it occurs to me that pro-war, 9/11-aware liberals are like the so-called 'moderate muslims' we hear about, but never actually hear. I have many friends who are liberals who tow the party line, extolling the virtues of Carter and Moore, etc. It dumbfounds me, and I am continaully in the position of shutting up to keep my friends as friends. It always amazes me how the anonymous format of blogs and the Web reveals far more pro-war liberals than I encounter in daily life, face-to-face.

This whole discussion brings me back to a point I have made not nearly often enough: we must destroy the near enemy before we tackle the far enemy. While there are times I would like to be really violent in that task (sometimes watching the Dem convention, I hoped someone would nuke Boston to help keep my blood pressure in check) I agree with Hugh Hewitt that only a total meltdown of the Dems at the polls gives us any long-term chance of survival: the party of the real JFK will only be able to reconstitute itself if this happens. And then a bipartisan approach to the Jihadi War will be possible.

This whole discussion brings me back to a point I have made not nearly often enough: we must destroy the near enemy before we tackle the far enemy.

That brings up my single largest criticism of GWB post-9/11: he engaged the military without enlisting the support of the American people (if you believe that he did enlist the support of the American people one of us hasn't been paying close enough attention). That's what Johnson did.

I'm not so sure we want to destroy the near enemy. We fought a civil war to do that and millions of Americans died. I think we need to neutralize and ignore the near enemy. Render the near enemy irrelevant.

It's possible that that's what this election will do. I'm not counting on it.

Dave

"he engaged the military without enlisting the support of the American people"

Now we get back to the same issues of woulda, coulda, shoulda which does nothing to solve the crisis at hand. I'll take your woulda, coulda, shoulda and ask how would you have presented it to the populace at large to enlist their support? What yard stick would you have used as a measurement? If we could use Peabody's and Sherman's way back machine and the the American populace at large would support this war would you support it or still fester about it?

Speaking of the triumph of hope over experience, what ever makes you think that George "I Can't Think of Any Mistakes I Made" Bush won't continue to bungle the War in Iraq in his second term?

I'm back, so let's get right down to business: We're in trouble in Iraq. I don't know what is salvageable there anymore. I hope it is something decent and I am certain we have to try our best to bring about elections and rebuild the Iraqi Army to give every chance for decency to emerge there. But here is the cold, hard truth: This war has been hugely mismanaged by this administration, in the face of clear advice to the contrary at every stage, and as a result the range of decent outcomes in Iraq has been narrowed and the tools we have to bring even those about are more limited than ever. [LARGE SNIP] Why? Because each time the Bush team had to choose between doing the right thing in the war on terrorism or siding with its political base and ideology, it chose its base and ideology.

As for chickenshits like Oscar (and this goes for Hugh Hewitt too), you guys like to focus on the liberal near enemy because unlike the big scary far enemy we usually don't carry guns. (Maybe Armed Liberal is onto something I should tune into.) That big meltdown you keep predicting for the Democratic Party doesn't look to be happening right now: we're almost even on the Top Line, and we actually look to go plus in the Senate. Maybe you should make your peace with the thought there's something wrong in the way you present your analysis that it's unpersuasive. Stop coopting ideas like you're really JFK's party. Didn't anyone ever tell you that LBJ and RFK came to regret JFK's actions in Vietnam, and there's no certainty that had he lived JFK would have pursued whatever bellicose course you envision? With the distorted image of a halcyon past betrayed by the despised liberals and the love of militarism for its own sake, you sound more like Benito Mussolini than Kennedy, or for that matter Dwight Eisenhower.

AJL

Concerning Mr. Friedman’s article in the NYT on this I agree.

”We have to immediately get the Democratic and Republican politics out of this policy and start honestly reassessing what is the maximum we can still achieve there and what every American is going to have to do to make it happen. If we do not, we'll end up not only with a fractured Iraq, but with a fractured America, at war with itself and isolated from the world.”

I’d be more interested to know if Mr. Friedman thinks the mindset will change (and why) after the elections regardless of winner. From what I can gather Mr. Friedman's prospects are no better for either Kerry or Bush.

More interestingly there are a lot of us here who want to get of the Dem / Rep politics out of the war in Iraq. The serious debate that is raging at the moment is whether or not we believe in a candidate who sees global appeal as the answer versus national interest and survival as means for intervention.

I want the Australian Labor Party beaten as severely as possible in the upcoming federal election, so they never, ever dare to endorse and refuse to disendorse candidates like this again.

I want the Australian Democrats [American translation: Ralph Nader], which I used to be a member of, wiped out, permanently. Not chastened, not reformed: finished.

If I was British, I would vote Tony Blair in a heart flutter, even if I was a lifelong Tory and a keen fox hunter.

If I was an American, I would vote for George W. Bush even if I disagreed with him on every social issue. Ron Silver said it at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.

This is a world war, and the spirit, the moral character, of the enemy we're up against, was demonstrated, with video by the Muslim martyrs themselves, at Beslan School Number One.

We condemn people who didn't oppose the Nazis, who claim "we didn't know!" - but till very late in the day they hadn't seen the equivalent of Saddam's mass graves and other horrors, and we have.

We've got fully international jihad terrorism, and fully international political lunacy opposing every effort to fight or even identify the atrocious enemy, and denigrating those brave souls who are going ahead and doing their inevitably flawed best anyway.

This has extremely grave consequences, like putting theocratic Iran's drive towards nukes into the "too hard basket" even for a politically brave man, which George W. Bush proved he is.

We must beat the terrorists, and we must beat the lunatics trying to stop us doing so, morally and because of the consequences if we fail. It is that simple and that harsh.

There is no paradox here. There is no nuance. There is no silver lining in the cloud if the wrong people win. If you vote in a politician like Zapatero, he does not become sensible because he "has to," if anything he gets worse because - hurrah! - he won. There are no strategies of give and take anymore that mean anything.

It is all winning and losing now, simple and terrible.

USMC:

Now we get back to the same issues of woulda, coulda, shoulda which does nothing to solve the crisis at hand.

This is not about woulda, coulda, shoulda. This is about how you move forward. Bush did not secure a consensus. The Senate vote should have guaranteed a consensus but you can see how that turned out. IMO, the Senate screwed up. Big time.

I am not a neocon. I am not a Wilsonian. I believe that the only conceivable way we could have fought a war to win in the Middle East is with a short, harsh, severe blow. That approach would have precluded Wilsonian hearts-and-minds sorts of goals except in the get-'em-by-the-balls-and-the-hearts-and-minds-generally-follow sort of way.

America has never won a war without the support of the Jacksonians (populist nationalists). And we know one sure way of losing the support of Jacksonians: a protracted conflict with even a low level of U. S. casualties without a clear measure of how you know you're winning.

The different forces in the country ask different questions. Hamiltonians ask "Is it good for business?" (and "What will it cost?") Wilsonians ask "Are we doing the right thing?" Jeffersonians ask "Is is good for the Republic?" Insofar as they ask questions Jacksonians ask "Which way did they go?"

The conflict in Iraq began with support from Hamiltonians, Wilsonians, and Jacksonians with Wilsonians leading the charge. Now they're all going wobbly.

Can good decision making wait until after the election?

Andrew:

Didn't anyone ever tell you that LBJ and RFK came to regret JFK's actions in Vietnam, and there's no certainty that had he lived JFK would have pursued whatever bellicose course you envision?

Well, JFK didn't live, and most of the speculation about what JFK would or wouldn't have done is pure wishful horse feathers.

But back in the "halcyon past" - I wish I'd been old enough to see it - the JFK/RFK/LBJ line on Southeast Asia was pretty straight-forward: Anybody who didn't want to get into a fight over there had no balls. And on top of that (Arthur Schlesinger would add) they were racists too.

Democratic foreign policy ardor has declined somewhat since then. Right down to nothing, in fact. Take a look at the dog-ate-my-homework "Iraq Policy" that Kerry posted at his campaign website. Why bother coloring inside the lines when you'll get a gold star no matter what?

Marcus Cicero: "I have many friends who are liberals who tow the party line, extolling the virtues of Carter and Moore, etc. It dumbfounds me, and I am continaully in the position of shutting up to keep my friends as friends."

Mu heart goes out to you. No kidding. I have no advice to offer, no solutions. If I did, I would have used my solutions myself.

Dave
Thanks for clarifying your position. I’ll also add your definitions of Wilsonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian to my dictionary.

What keyed me off was the following:

"he engaged the military without enlisting the support of the American people"

When you really meant:

”The Senate vote should have guaranteed a consensus but you can see how that turned out. IMO, the Senate screwed up.”

Ultimately meaning that the elected officials in the Senate in no way what so ever represent the American people and their thoughts on the war in Iraq.

”Can good decision making wait until after the election?”

Regardless if it can wait or not (barring some incredible significant event) it will have to. That’s American politics and the MSM at work.

USMC, you might want to check out my post Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians at war, my review and discussion of Walter Russell Mead's most recent book, Power, Terror, Peace, and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk for a little info on the Jacksonian, Wilsonian, Hamiltonian, and Jeffersonian terminology.

My additional point was that I think that there's a cost to be paid for the lack of consensus. It may cost Bush his job. It may cost us the war. IMO the smallest price that can be asked is for Bush to run the risk of losing his job by doing the right thing despite the possibility of it breaking up the political coalition in this country that's carried things along so far. An example of what I'm talking about is the possibility that the need to actually do something about Iran's nuclear weapons program may not wait for the election returns.

Katzman,

Thank you. You restore my faith in at leaset some Democrats. I know Bush has done quite a few things that really offend Dems for some of his more rightwing constituents, but its all peanuts compared to national security. I'm a very staunch fiscal conservative and I would have voted for someone else just to punish the GOP for being wayword on the deficit, but unfortunately the alternative is just not acceptable.

and I can't understand why more Democrats can't see the existential nature of the current national security issues.

Two things I am happy to see said in the comments here.

1. Cicero's comments about "pro-war liberals". I would agree that I see a LOT more of these "mythical" creatures, at THIS point, on the net, than in person.

I say at this point, because before the war, there were a lot of liberals who looked at the war favorably. But after the last year, most pro-war liberals come to view the current events as described in Tom Friedman's article. (Look at AJL's link above.)

The honest pro-war liberals came to regret their position, because of the ensuing events. (No WMD's, no FUNCTIONAL link from Iraq to Al-Queda, lack of troops, mismanagement and staffing of CPA with Republican faithful, initial chance of building larger coalition right after the fall of Baghdad, by restricting reconstruction contracts to a select few, mainly United States, etc.)

What most honest pro-war people have to understand, is that they have to make a decision about the current administration. The current administration is either dishonest, or deeply incompetent.

There was a CLEAR way of how to build a functional coalition. All George W. had to do, is to look at how his father built a coalition. Didn't happen.

There were CLEAR examples of what was needed to keep the peace in a fallen government - provided in the strife prone former Russian satellites. (Troops, etc. Not that it was perfect, actually, but a minimum.) But again this was ignored.

For all the faux anger at the Democrats, remember, it is completely the Republicans who are in power. So all the mistakes made, fall on one administration only.

Myself, it is clear that the administration has been dishonest. This article details some of the manifold ways

Anyone who is really SERIOUS about the Islamic terrorists totalism, will read the article above.

And MORE than that, detail sincerely, POINT BY POINT, what the ACTUAL people in power's mistakes are. Because the concern I read about here, in terms of dealing with Islamic fanatacism correctly, isn't reflected with TAKING APART the current administration's mistakes - those who are actually in power.

Tacitus does this. He has some consistency, at least. He tears the administration a new one, at least on occasion. I have only seen this done by the posters on this site, in a "pox on both their houses" type of way.

And, by the way, USMC, I didn't give a succinct definition of Jeffersonian. That would be "isolationist". The Jeffersonians haven't been heard from too much over the last 50 years or so but I suspect there are more of them around than one might think. Private correspondence with Mead suggests to me that he might consider himself sort of a neo-Jeffersonian.

Joe, I am a keen foxhunter and ::sigh::, I would vote Tony Blair if I lived in England.
This whole election has devolved to a single issue for me. JC, none of your remarks about honesty matter at all. The only question that can be argued is, could Kerry do a better job in Iraq than GW?

"A President Kerry's opponents within his own party will not be the Eastern seaboard liberals they'll be the Clintonistas. He won't be staffing up with a bunch of former Clintonites."

That just isn't true. The Secretary of State in a Kerry administration is likely to be Richard Holbrooke. The Secretary of the Treasury is likely to be Robert Altman. The Budget Director is likely to be Gene Sperling. The Secretary of Defense is likely to be William Perry. All Clintonites.

I certainly think that your prognostications would be better for the Democratic Party, praktike, and I hope that you're right.

Andrew,
"Maybe you should make your peace with the thought there's something wrong in the way you present your analysis that it's unpersuasive."

I'm not persuaded by gay rights activists and feminists who refuse to stand up to millions of male chauvinist Arab thugs who think gays are animals and who treat women like slaves. Very unpersuaded. A real activist puts his or her cause before party politics.

JC,
People who disagree with you aren't by definition dishonest. I'm a prowar Democrat and haven't regretted it for one moment, honest.

"For all the faux anger at the Democrats, remember, it is completely the Republicans who are in power. So all the mistakes made, fall on one administration only."

Oh really? How conveniently we forget all of those Democrats who voted for the war. This is the type of stuff that also doesn't persuade me.

Jinnderella,

Actually, the honesty and incompetence speak to the ability for an administration to do a good job in Iraq.

We're in now. Kerry has said to leave now would be completely irresponsible. The US took down the horrible Saddam regime, and Kerry hasn't ever said that the US would cut and run. He has said that he would like to have troops gone in 4 years - but by contrast you don't see Bush saying that troops will stay there for the next 50 years.

In 4 years, either Iraq will be well on the way to a functional democracy, or as was said by the analyst Colonel Turner (I'm paraphrasing), we will have lost 5000 troops, and have spent $1 trillion dollars, and be in the same situation we are in now.

And yes, I do believe that:

1. Kerry will attempt to get the BEST and most skilled people in Iraq to manage the situation as best as possible. Gone will be the "Republican flacks in Iraq" mess.
2. Kerry will be more flexible with Arabic/Islamic countries, European countries, and will be able to get more security help. (Primarily by giving these countries an economic stake).
3. Kerry will immediately increase the size of the Army, which anyone sincerely interested in the security of the United States (everyone on this board) will agree with. Note the 40,000 troops requested pledged by Kerry, that Bush hasn't pledged.
4. Kerry will do everything in his power to secure ports, and nuclear material, in the world - again, something the Bush administration will be lax in.

So yes, a vote for Kerry is a vote for the person who can do a better job in Iraq, and here - for security needs.

Gee, JC thanks -

"The honest pro-war liberals came to regret their position, because of the ensuing events. (No WMD's, no FUNCTIONAL link from Iraq to Al-Queda, lack of troops, mismanagement and staffing of CPA with Republican faithful, initial chance of building larger coalition right after the fall of Baghdad, by restricting reconstruction contracts to a select few, mainly United States, etc.)"

I'll just assume that my lack of regret comes from a fundamental dishonesty, not a deep and abiding belief that things in the real world (as opposed to, say, TV) are complex, ambiguous, and take a lot longer and are a lot harder than one usually expects.

...thanks for enlightening me. And also thanks for expressing that deep-seated self-righteousness that I see so often on the Left, and which in large part keeps me away from you all. Because blind self-righteousness is deeply dangerous, no matter whose self is righteous.

A.L.

A false premise(or a set of false premises) will inevitably lead to a false conclusion.

Sadly, that's what we've received from Mr. Katzman.

There are far too many false premises to list, so I'll cherry-pick an easy one:

Imagine Kos, MoveOn, Moore, et. al. as the exciting new heroes of the Democratic Party's activist base for helping to bring it to power, then look me in the eye and tell me that the result will be long-term sanity.

Well, we can look at the flipside; imagine the racists and bigots at LGF, FreeRepublic, Malkin, Coulter, and Savage as the exciting new heroes of the GOP activist base......

Plainly, Mr. Katzman wants a war of civilizations. That's fine, it's his preference. He won't get it from a President Kerry. But, guess what--he won't get it from Bush either. Bush has shown absolutely no inclination toward the sacrifices necessary (a draft, increased taxes, making the case for what amounts to a WWII-era effort, etc.) to enact Mr. Katzman's conquest of the ME.

Moreover, I doubt many Americans support Mr. Katzman's desires. To be sure, they may narrowly support some of the larger goals (increased security, etc.) but the devil's in the details. Frankly, there isn't a politico out there who would dare run on what Mr. K espouses.

There was a CLEAR way of how to build a functional coalition. All George W. had to do, is to look at how his father built a coalition. Didn't happen.

I know that my first instinct is to tell those Kerry Supporters how stupid their line of thought really is, but that may not be the best approach. The Left has no rathional thought and when they feel they are being attacked, they will lash out with no regard to what is right or just. They are only concerned with their cause which is to put a Democrat in the Presidency and nothing else.

I had a friend who would constantly start in on President Bush and the Iraq War. I say had because he is not any longer. Whenever he would bring up Politics, I would just ignore him. The problem was that even when I ignored him, he would keep on going. He just would not stop. Finally, I just stopped taking his calls and eventually he got the picture.

These people are not rational and have been somewhat brainwashed into a Hatred that only they understand. After this friend problem was resolved, I read a book by Dale Carnegie called "How to Win Friends and Influence People." If I had read this book before, I might have been able to salvage whatever friendship was left and even build a stronger one. I also realized that President Bush uses similar methods that Dale Carnegie wrote about. Mainly, he will win this election with kindness. Notice how Bush praised John Kerry's Vietnam service. He gave the same type of praise to that woman Anne Richards back in Texas. It worked then, and it will work again.

Now if we look at what Dale Carnegie says will make a person an effective leader, you will have to agree that Bush fits these traits (except maybe #3), much more than Kerry ever will.

Dale Carnegie Be a Leader:
How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment

A leader's job often includes changing your people's attitudes and behavior. Some suggestions to accomplish this:

1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
2. Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly.
3. Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.
4. Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.
5. Let the other person save face.
6. Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement.
7. Be "hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise."
8. Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.
9. Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.
10. Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest.

Just a thought,

SBD

JC, Can't you see that by declaring "we'll be out in four years", or by declaring that "we won't pursue nuclear bunker buster bombs", that we're taking options off the table? I know Kerry is speaking to the electorate, but the world is hearing him. :(

Dave
Thanks for the update and the link to your post. Where I think we are still at odds here though is this.

”IMO the smallest price that can be asked is for Bush to run the risk of losing his job by doing the right thing despite the possibility of it breaking up the political coalition in this country that's carried things along so far.”

I believe GWB has already put his job at risk. He knew that the minute we set foot into Iraq. What I don’t agree with is that GWB is breaking up the political coalition in this country.

IMO the political coalition was broken apart well before GWB took the helm. Within our political system things have deteriorated to the point of no compromise and any subject is fair game. There is no unifying issue to hold the politics at bay.

The war in Iraq is a prime example. Everyone knew the war was at hand. You don’t stage troops and make threats unless you’re willing to carry it out. Both sides of the isle were more than willing to let this happen. Now that the political season is upon us the war in Iraq and WoT are fair game.

One could certainly argue the unification that we saw after 9/11 was already being undermined by the MSM and political activists at large (IE ACLU Green Peace etc.) I still recall the issues of displaying flags or wearing flag pins. Be it at work, school, or even on the local and national shows we were constantly bombarded with you can’t do that because it isn‘t the PC thing to do.

This with a host of other reasons is exactly why I’m not buying what the Kerry supporters and Kerry are selling.

We both agree on the fact that a statement needs to be sent forcefully and with consensus. I’ve no doubt consensus be damned GWB will deliver on the statement if and when it becomes necessary.

AJL says "As for chickenshits like Oscar, you guys like to focus on the liberal near enemy because unlike the big scary far enemy we usually don't carry guns."
No, I focus on them because they would not stand for us doing what needs to be done in the ME. I may be wrong that absent carping from the Internationalist Left Bush would pursue a more forceful policy, but I am willing to give him a try. As to LBJ, he was a political hack in the Kerry mode, and what he came to rue means squat to me. Also, I note that you imply Eisenhower was more belicose than JFK. JFK was elected because he claimed that Ike was too soft on the "Commie Menace" and had allowed a dreaded Missle Gap™ to arrise which endangered us all. I am probably more belicose w.r.t. the Jihadi's than JFK was w.r.t. the SU, but that is because they are more suicidally inclined than the Soviets ever were.

Back from the final game of the Jays' baseball season. If you think your ELECTION is depressing....

Marcus - The blog world draws from a rather larger population. It's kind of like being a hippie at Woodstock. The ARE defense-minded Democrats. They're currently a minority. But they do exist, and the blogosphere is a good place to find them.

Re: kat's comment - it's interesting that when I talk about "the Tony Blair of the Democrats," people's first thought seems to be "Hillary Clinton." If she has the vision to see the stance through to its end, she'll turn her biggest personal negative into a strong plus and confound many of the VRWC. It has to be more than just a pose, though, and I wonder whether she has the beliefs inside. We'll see, I guess.

Andrew - You ask:

"Speaking of the triumph of hope over experience, what ever makes you think that George "I Can't Think of Any Mistakes I Made" Bush won't continue to bungle the War in Iraq in his second term?"

There's no guarantee that he won't bungle it. The problem is, there's a near-guarantee that Kerry will bungle Iraq, and Iran, and North Korea, and....

It becomes a bet, in the end - a bet between an entity one has limited faith in (we know he will fight, and the rest isn't clear), and an entity one would be foolish to place any faith in (see article above). Hence the phenomenon of a GOP choice that's lacking but no way to bring oneself to vote for Kerry, something you're seeing from a few commenters here who would like to see an alternative - but don't.

JC:

4. Kerry will do everything in his power to secure ports, and nuclear material, in the world - again, something the Bush administration will be lax in.

Oh, you bet. Kerry is going to clean up Russia's nuclear mess - IN FOUR YEARS. All of those rusting missile boats that are festering in Russian ports, with fuel still in the reactors ... all tidied up IN FOUR YEARS.

You know what I heard when I hear Kerry say such things? I hear Clinton, promising everybody in the country a free college education. I hear Gore, promising to make all of our airlines as safe as El Al.

In other words, I hear somebody who doesn't have to do anything because he knows he can talk out of his ass whenever he wants to, saying anything he wants, promising anything he wants - and he'll get away with it clean because when a Democrat is talking we're all supposed to pretend that we have a thirty-second attention span.

Dave Shuler - I am a confirmed Jacksonian myself, but I suspect you will find a lot of Jeffersonians hiding out in the Rep party: trying to get a REALLY GOOD missle defense system up and running is very Jeffersonian: you set up the system, kick out all the foreigners, turn the Mexican and Canadian borders into free fire zones like the East German's used to have (but your guns aimg OUT, not IN), and there you have your Jeffesonian dream. There was a scifi novel I read back in the early 50's (part of an ACE double as I recall) called "Fortress America" about just this sort of thing. Naturally, the system was too isolated and collapsed internally.
But, that is the only reason I can think of for spending big bucks on missle defense.

We can't look at Iraq a narrow mind and with blinders on. There were and are reasons that we are there that go beyond WMD's and Regime change.

Strategically, Iraq is just the stepping stone into Iran where the real fight will have to take place. In fact, what is happening in Iraq is already the beginning of that conflict. President Bush and our military leaders are not as stupid as some people want to believe. Take a look at a map and look at the country of Iran. Now look at which countries are on the border with Iran. Which side should we invade from, I would say they all look pretty good.

But if we invade Iran, the price of Oil will go through the roof and our economy will suffer. Well I guess we will have to protect the Iraqi Oil fields to make sure we continue to fuel our economy.

Now tell me why France and Germany are not trying to stop Iran or for that matter, Iraq. I will tell you, because they don't care about us. They don't care about the terror that America went through on 911. They don't care about what is right and just. All they care about is themselves and as long as they pacify the Terrorists and continue to oppose America, they won't get attacked. The status quo is just fine for them until they get attacked, then they will come with their tail wagging between their legs asking for help again.

There will be no suprise there!!

SBD

A.L.,

Look, perhaps I'm wrong, and if so my apologies. Seriously.

I've reviewed the last 3 months of your posts, specifically. When I have time (since you have developed an "oeuvre", donch ya know") I'll review more.

Theses posts have basically fit in 6 categories -

1. Varous analyses of the WoT. (These I've learned stuff from.)
2. Swipes at Kerry because of his "political team".
3. A few swipes at "wrong-headed" liberals - such as MY, et al, skybox liberalism
4. Cool, slice-of-life stuff. (Your son, etc.)
5. Equivalence posts. (A pox on both your houses, or a plea to both sides to keep their cool. )
6. A couple of posts on labor stuff.

Very little about Bush policy steps, that have HURT the WoT.

Here's a couple of recent things for example.

1. "Extraordinary rendition", pushed by the House, in the "dead of night", so to speak, . Go over to Obsidian Wings for more.

This has been comments on, by RedState, by DailyKos - and this goes to the heart of "Liberty" and "Humanity", but for some reason, nothing here.

2. Bush's election guy, working with Allawi on his speech here. The lack of separation leaves open the charge that Bush is using Iraq for political ends - and works AGAINST unifying the country to manage Iraq effectively.

You are going to write what you want, as you should. But I would think part of being "liberal" even an armed one, would be to not only rip on the Democratic irresponsible "peace at any price" mongers, but also the current administration's actions that inhibit "liberty, discovery, humanity, and victory".

I have to look at the evidence, A.L.

And believe me, I want to be wrong.

Glen W - "Oh, you bet. Kerry is going to clean up Russia's nuclear mess - IN FOUR YEARS".

It might be possible, although Kerry has no clue or care, I am sure. The reason is the Soviets appear to have done a lot of their nukes on the cheap which would require constant rotation back to the "factory" to refurbish a warhead which was no longer usable. I am not sure how accurate this intelligence is, but, if true, there may be a lot less usable stuff out there than you think.

I note that Kerry's ability to create international goodwill is already on display here
here and here
How I wish this clown had resigned his Senate seat...

All of those rusting missile boats that are festering in Russian ports, with fuel still in the reactors ... all tidied up IN FOUR YEARS.

OK, Glen, I'll play. Tell us which boomers are 'festering' in Russian ports. Give us the status of the Northern Fleet's SNF, SRW and LRW.

And, please, enlighten us as to how these boomers rust.

JC — I know Kerry doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about; do you — ?

" 3. Kerry will immediately increase the size of the Army, which anyone sincerely interested in the security of the United States (everyone on this board) will agree with. Note the 40,000 troops requested pledged by Kerry, that Bush hasn't pledged."

Will he now? How? Do you know how long it takes to organize a combat-ready (but green) division from scratch? Try two to three years, minimum. Where will these 40,000 bodies come from? Where is the budgeting for their arms, equipment, fuel, munitions, bases, support for their dependents? Where is the budget to ship them or fly them anywhere? Where are the extra planes and ships to do it? Since the budgeting process for these divisions won't even start until — god forbid — he takes office, that's another year right there, minimum. So you're looking at four years, maybe five. Is that "Immediate" enough for you?

Kerry also said he will "Double" the number of special forces we currently have. This is even more absurd. Where do you find the kind of men who join the special units, the Rangers, the Special Forces, the SEALs, and so on? Do you know how long it takes to train these men? They don't even start, as a rule, until the soldier or sailor has spent several years proving his basic aptitude.

These are fairy-tale numbers that Kerry basically pulled out of his posterior, just like the ten million jobs he promised to create during the primaries (remember them? Wonder why we didn't hear about them during the DNC?).

Kerry's entire platform is moondust. Have you been following the UNSCAM oil-for-food scandal? The leadership of France, Germany and Russia were all stuffing their pockets with Saddam's cash in exchange for their obstruction in the Security Council. And they have repeated, again and again and again, that they will not put bodies on the ground in Iraq. But hey, they'll do it for Kerry? Out of what, peer pressure? Will the American gigolo talk the whores of Europe out of their cribs?

JC-

It’s pretty simple, really.

A.L. views everything through the lens of the War in Iraq, which he considers to be the most important act in the War on Terror. If you are opposed to the war, you will not get A.L.’s support; if you are for it (or started it), you’re his man. Other issues are secondary to this for him as far as I can tell. Such is his own certainty in the virtue of this fiasco.

Everything else is just Blogfiller.

A.L.,

Another way to say this would be "congruence".

Alice pointed out, in a criticism of AJL, the following:

"I'm not persuaded by gay rights activists and feminists who refuse to stand up to millions of male chauvinist Arab thugs who think gays are animals and who treat women like slaves. Very unpersuaded. A real activist puts his or her cause before party politics."

Basically, how can human rights activists be "fine" with violent Islamic religious totalism, which completely destroys said rights? This is an internal contradiction.

I agree with this, although again, the solution of how best to deal ("stand up" is a little vague) is up for debate (containment, total war, etc.)

Tom Friedman (referenced earlier) doesn't have this internal contradiction - he believes passionately in the Iraq democratic experiment, and criticizes strenuously those who are most responsible for making the experiment work. (Which is currently the Republicans.)

As far as the charge of "self-righteousness", again the "suspicion" - and it is suspicion only - is based on the analysis of internal contradiction in your writings.

However, you may have a point - if so this is an "unknown unknown" for me in the Rumseld sense - and if so, my apologies.

JadeGold — try this link re: Russian Sub Problems

More Russian Sub Wackiness, with first-source footnoting

McGraw-Hill

And National Geographic
Y'all let us know if you need anything else...

Kirk Parker,

You may well be correct that Russia and France may have never come on board. But you are forgetting that the United States did not even bring it up for a vote, because they would have lost. Canada, India, and no Middle East country, other than Kuwait was "on board" for this - while there were a lot of countries on board for the 1st Gulf War.

Richard Mcenror,

Two things -

1. You are correct in that adding 40K troops isn't "immediate", but he will START the process immediately.

2. thanks for the link at Mcgraw Hill. Chilling...

JadeGold -

The northern fleet has 88 inactive nuclear submarines, of which more than half still have fuel in their reactors.

That's not counting spent fuel and radioactive waste stored outside of boats. Richard McEnror posted a link to the Bellona report (above) which gives detailed information on that. And that's just the northern fleet - there are another 60-70 derelict subs in the other fleets, along with waste, fuel, old reactors, etc.

How do they rust? You park the bastards and forget about them, and they rust. Check out the photographs on the Bellona site.

The one thing that can sum up this Bush crew is this:

Their own ideology and arrogant belief in their own so-called "transformational" bright ideas causes them to ignore the people whose counsel is most needed. So they lead us to disaster, listening to noone but themselves.

Two examples: (1) Shinseki and other generals on Army troop levels for Iraq; (2) The State Department Arabists who could have helped a lot in Iraq.

klaatu -

Shinseki was not ignored. They listened to his advice, but did not follow it. They were not obligated to follow it, because Shinseki is not the Commander in Chief, and - like Wesley Clark and the rest of Clinton's political generals - he never will be.

As for your Arabists, no thanks. We don't need a bunch of lily-white Edward Said clones advising us to stab Israel in the back, to please their rich friends in Saudi Arabia.

Leave them where they are - sitting around half-tanked at Georgetown cocktail parties, bitching about how Jews are running the White House.

JC -

You raise a reasonable question, and deserve a reasonable answer; it's not the first time I've been asked why I don't devote equal energy to hammering the GOP (I've actually been dinged on this pretty much since I started blogging). The basic reason is simple - limited time and energy. Blogging varies between #3 and #6 on my priority list at any time; I limit myself to about 30 - 40 minutes a day. Given that, I can be a minor voice in an existing strong choir, or I can try and call out stuff that I think is higher-leverage.

Today's Democratic party sucks. The GOP probably suck more, but I know the Democrats, and really don't know much about the GOP (I gave money to a GOP candidate once because I was angry at the way the Democratic candidate had used the national party to wipe up some strong local candidates).

It is migrating toward electoral oblivion (can you imagine a strong Democratic party facing a controversial and less-than competent incumbent and running slightly behind?); it isn't delivering on what is to me it's core charter - to protect the little folks from the big ones - and it is increasibly captive of interest groups and investors who I find despicable. And when I talk to other people, I find that my views are pretty widely shared.

So, as someone who's at most a two- or three-issue blogger, by core blog issue in domestic politics is the reformation of the Democratic Party.

I typically have a pretty long time horizon, and realize that I'm a small voice in a small choir; but I can help build that choir over time, and intend to.

As to the war in Iraql; it's simple. I think I know the character of my fellow Americans, and I think I see that a wave of pissed-off Islamists think they can defeat us. They (the Islamists) don't understand, I believe, the real disparity in power, and I worry that our choices are to act now, somewhat moderately - or act later, immoderately.

Given that I'm describing the war in Iraq as 'moderate', you can imagine what I'm afraid of as 'immoderate' reaction. The lack of competence of the Bush administration, to me, is pretty much at the median of competence in these kinds of things that I've seen in strudying what history I've read. In other words, it's not that I'm blind to what they're doing wrong (of which there's plenty), but that my expectations are so low.

These two issues, to me cycle between priority #1 and #2 in my blogging. If I had a priority #5 or 6, I might devote it to partisan electioneering - actually, I probably will on the initiatives here in California. But there are lots of people blogging the national election. I disagree with most of them in some areas, and don't really see a need to jump into the fray because I don't see a side I'm excited about defending.

You may or may not agree with the basic principles, but hopefully that will explain a bit about how I choose what to blog about.

Alice: "How conveniently we forget all of those Democrats who voted for the war." One of the Administration's well-deserved problems with ebbing support for the war is that neither the American people nor the Senate seem entirely to have grasped what they were getting into. The Senate resolution was, after all, presented as a way of attaining peace. Bush: "America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict."

Now, us leftie cynics knew all along that Bush had a war jones, out of much the same bellicose adrenalin-rush stupidity that informs Oscar's comments (and others'). But the Senate and the American people probably thought that they were voting for, say, tough UN inspections. In reality, they got an Administration that drove the inspectors out of Iraq, essentially at gunpoint (while now they falsely claim that Saddam expelled them) and threatened to discredit them and accused them of being dupes. The possiblity that we were the dupes, in this case of Ahmad Chalabi's rent-a-defector program, never occurred to them. And when we didn't turn up any WMD, the entire public rationale for the run-up to war collapsed.

Joe: Isn't it too late to speculate whether George Bush will bungle it? He has bungled it. The only question is if he has bungled it so badly the Messiah couldn't straighten it out any more (cf. Humpty Dumpty). Time isn't reversible and many of our opportunities are lost forever. You may want to look at this column from R. Marc Gerecht, because it takes much the same position that you do: while cataloging the terrible mistakes Bush made, starting with allowing the looting of Baghdad, he nonetheless concludes that since Kerry's strategy is much worse, the outcome must be better under Bush. Even granting temporarily, arguendo, the premise, that's a non sequitur. There's every possibility that Bush will leave us with an exhausted military and a failed, terrorist-ridden Iraq in civil war. How much worse could Kerry do—bring Sharia to America?

Glen: Did you have any particular State Department Arabist in mind as saying the White House is controlled by Jews, or did you just dream this libel up? The irony of complaining that the Arabists are helping their friends in Saudi Arabia is hysterically funny: do you know who Bandar Bush is? By the way, the point shouldn't have been to reject the Clinton political generals' advice that looks so good in retrospect and then to lead us into disaster to spite them, and I don't know why you are so proud that this seems to have happened.

Oscar: Pretty soft berth you've taken for yourself, relative to the Great Transformational War you have in mind.

JC,

I've read and researched widely about intelligence, and I have some bad news. You're likely to find that the description of general proceedings in the article you linked is distressingly normal for intel assessments on difficult questions. This won't make you feel better, but there it is. The CIA delivered a National Intelligence Estimate in 1962 that said they didn't believe there were missiles in Cuba (Codevilla, "informing Statecraft").

In the end, policy makers always have to judge, ad then make decisions in an uncertain environment. It ain't CSI out there, there are usually conflicting interpretations, and knowing that intelligence not only can fail to find evidence or warn of real threats, it often does fail - all that is part of the policymaker's risk calculation.

This isn't dishonesty, this is the way the system has always worked and always will. No matter which party is in the White House.

Then you say:

"There was a CLEAR way of how to build a functional coalition. All George W. had to do, is to look at how his father built a coalition. Didn't happen."

Huh? That's like there's a CLEAR way to raise kids, all he had to do is look at how person X had done it. When you've got kids, you know it doesn't work that way. Or saying "there are CLEAR rules for any negotiation, all businessman X had to do is look how someone else had done it, and he should be successful." Again, doesn't work that way.

There are no hard and fast templates for this stuff, dude - this is politics. Each situation is different, and the primary factor is the respective countries' interests, not America's plan. Assuming otherwise starts to cross the line of Americans who see the whole world as one big bumch of props who revolve around them... and I know JC is too smart for that.

I'll add here that the proposal for Iraq for 2003 was very different from the proposed goals of the coalition in 1991, and that one had a different group of leaders in power. What do those changes do to the logical expectations?

"There were CLEAR examples of what was needed to keep the peace in a fallen government - provided in the strife prone former Russian satellites. (Troops, etc. Not that it was perfect, actually, but a minimum.) But again this was ignored."

Um, read that again. Are you really going to tell me that the programs similar to that undertaken to help the Soviet satellites after the USSR collapsed would have been all it took to ensure quiet in Iraq? Really?

I don't see these situations as resembling each other much, if at all. Consider what effects the differences have on the comparison involved.

Shorter A.L.

Given my limited time, my greatest contribution to reforming the Democratic party as a Naderite is to help find new ways for Republicans to attack them.

Glen Wishard:

Well, it a bit tautological to say that it was right not to follow Shinseki's advice because they didn't have to follow his advice. Who's denying that? But those in charge bear the responsibility.

I'm sure that's what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz told Shinseki: We're in charge and we don't have to follow your advice, so STFU. By the way, your request to retire is approved.

Doesn't make Shinseki any less right, though.

On the matter of the State department Arabists, I assume that you have some evidence before you write calumnies about entire group of Foreign Service professionals. Even assuming that some of them did not subscribe to the full Likud program, that did not necessarily make them any less capable of helping in Iraq.

Shorter VT -

Heaven forbid anyone should point out that we're marching progressivism over the cliff; they're just lending aid to our enemies who ... ooops!

A.L.

Funny.

klaatu:

Well, it a bit tautological to say that it was right not to follow Shinseki's advice because they didn't have to follow his advice.

I didn't say it was right not to follow Shinseki's advice. But Shinseki was not ignored, he was overruled, and there's a big difference. Generals, of course, are subordinate to the civilian leadership. So are advisors like Richard Clarke, though some of them seem to feel they are entitled to call the shots and become very resentful if they are not allowed to do so.

On the matter of the State department Arabists, I assume that you have some evidence before you write calumnies about entire group of Foreign Service professionals.

Oops, forgot to use the CODE WORD! I should have said "sitting around half-tanked at Georgetown cocktail parties, bitching about how NEOCONSERVATIVES are running the White House."

AJL -
"Oscar: Pretty soft berth you've taken for yourself, relative to the Great Transformational War you have in mind." While the cartoon is cute, I am not sure what 'Great Transformational War' you are talking about.

This idea that electing Kerry to deal with the realities of the world, in order to transform the Democratic party toward sanity, is backwards. We should be thinking "Tough love". Only a resounding defeat, with a landslide victory in favor of Bush's unelegantly and repetitively expressed foreign policy will snap the Democrats out of this. All of us should be pushing hard for a Bush mandate in order to save the Democrats for 2006.

What the hell is the Bush adminstration's position on Iran, if not "passivity and illusion"? All that have done is fume on the sidelines, and that is all they have to offer in the future. That particular method has failed with North Korea. Whatever you think of engagment, it is a objective fact the 1994 agreement delayed the North Korean bomb by a decade. And with Iran's demographic realities and halfway democracy, a similar strategy to buy time may be all that is required.

Terrorists are bad. Terrorists with nuclear weapons would be catastropic. Eyes on the prize, folks.

The reality is that Iran has huge political leverage in both Afganistan and Iraq. With elections about to be attempted in both countries, a near term offensive against Iran would be desperate lunacy. And invasion? Iran is five times the size and three times the population of the country whose occupation has stretched the U. S. military to its breaking point. It's not gonna happen.

At least Kerry is proposing something to shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program. All Bush can do at this stage is fling increasingly rare insults.

Duncan (and everybody else),
Very interesting. When I am most upset about the sad state of our two major political parties, I comfort myself with the idea that it's better than the chaotic coalition porn of parliamentary governments. The LePens and half-ass Godwinites that pop up regularly in Europe, allied with Christian somethings, are to be avoided. Anyway - the most glaring nit that I'm forced to pick:

"it is a objective fact the 1994 agreement delayed the North Korean bomb by a decade"

Huh? I'm looking for an expletive version of "huh" stronger than WTF, and not finding it. This sounds like a ridiculous assertion, and while I don't deny the possibility that it is true, I don't know why you are certain of it or believe that it can be proved.

Also,

(i) If true, is it objectively a feature? Unintended consequences:
* 10 more years of cannibalism in death camps
* a precedent set for bribing dictators (if they promise to enslave only their own for the next 10 years or so)
* a precedent set in the Western political psyche that horrible problems can be bought off, or at least put off (not that we need any encouragement)

(ii) And you're supporting the guy who wouldn't consider the most obvious last-resort remedy? Everyone should check out Hughhewitt.com 's Symposium on nuclear bunker busters from the weekend.

Post #31111, way back at the top, (sorry, I come to this discussion very late!) which talked about liberal friends who "tow the party line" but in the anonymity of the internet are "far more pro-war liberals than I encounter in daily life, face-to-face" really struck a cord with me.

I think the reason for this behavior is because the MSM and the democrats have succeeded in demonizing conservatives so much over the last decades that some people don't want to call themselves conservative for fear of being demonized and marginalized. My younger sister (she's 33) graduated from college and got a job several years ago. She was, as she put it, "proudly liberal". Yet when I talked to her about various issues, hell, she's as conservative as I am! Even now, she will call herself a liberal, if you ask, because as she tells me, it just avoids a lot of arguing with her friends.

That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm sorry if it repeats any of the other posts on this topic. I didn't have time to read them all.

>Iran is five times the size and three times the >population of the country whose occupation has >stretched the U. S. military to its breaking >point. It's not gonna happen.

There is a reason why much of our regular Army is not being used in Iraq. Our military could overthrow the Iranian Mullahs in 4 weeks...if it is not too late already (nuke in NYC). I see a naval blockade of Iran by Christmas if not an Iranian Counter Revolution by that time...assisted by Special Forces and our Air Force and then maybe even a UN Peacekeeping Force: if Bush wins, his mandate will ring around the world and a lot of anti-Bush people will change their spots.

First, we need Howard to win in Australia. It is likely. Then we need Bush to win on November 2nd. Also likely. Then Iran's mullahs will know they are cooked. Syria is already changing sides as they look at Kerry's poll numbers.

Our war on terror has taken an 18 month pause to deal with the enemy within. It will soon deal with the outside enemies more forcefully. Iran will be liberated. The ME will be democratic. And I am a Gore Democrat.

Glen:

Oops, forgot to use the CODE WORD! I should have said "sitting around half-tanked at Georgetown cocktail parties, bitching about how NEOCONSERVATIVES are running the White House."

What the State Department people were probably bitching about was how FOOLS were running the White House. I don't think that's a code word for anything.

In answering the question, "Would Kerry do the right thing, once in office?" the article omits two important points.

First, as the fates of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt in the Democratic primary show, a majority of Democratic primary voters are profoundly anti-war. How else to explain the rise of the previously unknown Gov. Howard Dean. Initially, Dean, alone among the Democrat contenders, took the forthrightly unambigous position that the war in Iraq was wrong. Riding that message, Gov. Dean left Lieberman and Gephardt in the dust. Sen. Kerry's fortunes rose only when he adopted Dean's anti-war stance, and the party establishment -- led by Sen. Edward Kennedy -- perceived him as more electable than Gov. Dean. If Kerry is elected, those people will rightly claim that they are the ones who put Kerry in office . . . and they're unlikely to be patient for 4 years while Kerry seeks "peace with honor" in Iraq. Nor are they going to support Kerry if he tries to initiate military action elsewhere in response to some new manifestation of the Islamic terrorist forces.

Secondly, is the nature of today's Democratic party itself. For those too young to remember, let us recall that the Democrats split violently over the Vietnam War in 1968. LBJ withdrew from the race in the face of the Gene McCarthy--RFK--George McGovern antiwar insurgency. But the old "Cold Warriors" still had their hooks in 1968's Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey. Until very late in the race, Humphrey was ambivalent about Vietnam. George Wallace's third-party candidacy split the formerly "solid" Democratic South, and antiwar Democrats stayed home in November. The man who only six years earlier had told the press "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around any more" (after he lost the California gubernatorial race to Pat Brown) won the presidency. The result of that was a general purge of Cold Warriors from power in the Democratic Party, such that the anti-war people were in the ascendant. In 1972, they nominated their candidate, George McGovern. Nixon buried him in a landslide. Understanding that the public would not elect such a dovish candidate, in 1976, the Democrats nominated Jimmy Carter, a perceived Southern centrist. In the general disgrace of the Republican Party as a result of the Watergate scandal (although, paradoxically, it was the failure of Repulican members of Congress to support Nixon that led to his resignation) and running against the country's first appointed President, Carter's victory seems inevitable. However, Carter and his Georgians found very quickly that the liberal Washington Democratic establishment demanded a very large voice in Carter's policies, which, I think, produced the most feckless administration (in foreign policy) since before World War II. The point here is that Sen. Kerry is a Democratic politician who was politically born into the anti-Cold War insurgency that commandeered the Democratic Party in the early 1970s and he comes from Massachusetts, the only state that consistently supported Democratic presidential candidates, even in the Republican landslides that happened after 1968. Sen. Kerry's voting record thereafter is consistent with his antiwar Congressional testimony in 1971 and with the McGovern view of foreign policy that he obviously formed at that time.

So, I think there are two reasons to believe that a President Kerry would not "do the right thing" as "pro-war liberals" might hope: (1) that is inconsistent with his entire political career and (2) even if he were inclined to be more aggressive, the bloc of pacifist Democratic voters who put him there would not allow it.

I am constantly struck by that attatchment certain analysts have to both the bunker buster nuclear technology and missle defence. You hvae been told over and over again in respected scientific publications that missle defense excedes current and near future technological capabilities. The same problem exists for bunker buster weapons. There is no reason to believe that a small nuclear device could be used to destroy a deeply buried underground facility. The key problem is that the cost of countermeasures to the technologies are always cheaper than means of neutralizing the counter measures. They range from deeper or more distributed bunkers to saturating any possible defence with decoys. The U.S. has had a counter force capability in our thermonuclear weapons since the 60's. Thats the apocolypic option and the only real way to defeat a nation state level WMD threat

Anyone who thinks sending in more troops would have somehow defused the entire situation needs to have his or her head examined.

Did we really need more supply convoys being ambushed?

The War on Iraq, as conducted by the Bush administration, has weakened the national security of the United States perhaps more than any other event of the past 25 years. Hence, if you are for continuing these policies you are objectively in favor of weakening the national security of the United States. Doubling down on the already failing bet by invading more countries means you are in favor of damaging your country even more severely. Fortunately, John Kerry is patriotic enough to want to help his country and change these failed policies. Why do you guys hate America?

"Anyone who thinks sending in more troops would have somehow defused the entire situation needs to have his or her head examined."

Paul Bremer needs his head examined?

P.S. apologies for the rhetorical question at the end of the last post, which went over the line into trolling. But...I just cannot fathom how people can look at the Iraq disaster and want to dig the hole deeper. Such a policy really does harm this country. While Kerry's policies are quite close to the ones that actually won us the Cold War.

I believe the military has already begun forming 2 new divisions as well as a new marine division, it is being paid for in the supplemental pentagon funding.

I said this the other day in another forum, but I think it bears repeating here. The left seems to think that Bush being allegedly stupid implies that everything his administration does is stupid. They do make mistakes, but many of them are very smart. Smarter on average than the Clinton Administration, as Mr. Clinton rarely hired anyone as smart as he was himself.

So, assuming that Iran is not being addressed is more than likely not accurate. Why? Someone pointed out the geographic realities. We could have military access to Iran from most any side. But we are not massing troops on its borders. And probably won't.

Why? Because we are doing the best thing we could right now in Iran. The country appears to be formenting toward revolution - in our favor. The young Iranians love us - probably mostly because we are being opposed by their ruling theocracy. Last week there were major distubances, and there are rumors that executions are becoming common place. In other words, a regime under seige.

So, what should we do? If we were to invade right now, there is a real chance that the Iranians might come together against a common enemy. If we pull out of Iraq right now, these dissatisfied Iranians will lose trust in us.

No, what it appears to be our policy right now is to add a little fuel here and there to the fire in Iran, while trying to maintain their respect. And part of that involves how we treat the Shiites in Iraq. We did not go in and blow up their Mosques, etc. Rather, we dealt with Sistani, and he brokered a peace (of sorts). It wasn't because we were scared, but rather because we need the Iraqi Shiites on our side, both in Iraq, and if there, in Iran.

I don't see us going into Iran unless we are asked to do so, either by a lot of Iranians, or more likely, by Sistani. Of course, this could change if they get a lot closer to nucear weapons. But my expectations are that Iran will implode first.

The Sunnis and Baathists are a different story. The Shiites can see winning in a democracy. Many of the Sunnis, esp. the Baathists, see losing. But what we need to succeed there is investment. I am using this as a psychological term. The Iraqis need to be on the forefront of this. And they are starting to, as witnessed by their successes this last week. The vast majority of Iraqis are not Sunnit Baathists, and they have a long history of reasons to not like them, including much murder and torture during Sadaam Hussein's reign against them. Those four provinces will be pacified, and it probably won't be pretty. And we will be there for the heavy hitting when needed, but we need the rest of the Iraqis invested in this, and they are getting there.

Mr. Kerry also made some stupid statements about North Korea during the debate. Why did we pick multilateral talks, instead of the unilateral talks that Kerry and the North Koreans want, and we rejected? Because all we could bring to the table would be military might. The other four countries bring quite a bit more. Most notable is China. Remember, North Korea was rapidly losing the Korean War, until China intervened. Then we fought to a bloody standstill. First, the Chinese have much more power over the North Koreans than we do. Economically. Militarily. And they are touchy about their national pride. Think of it as their Monroe Doctrine of the Far East. We want them helping us, instead of cladestinely helping the North Koreans in order to give us a black eye. Similarly, the Russians. As to the South Koreans and the Japanese, both again have much more on the line than we do, and have a lot more economic clout there than we do also. After all, who would get nuked by the North Koreans? Answer - most likely South Korea, and after that, Japan. They are not about to launch against the United States proper, even if they could, as our missle defense would probably take their few missles out, and regardless, we have enough boomer subs offshore to turn the country into a parking lot.

Of course, this is another reason to vote for Bush. The ruler of North Korea may be delusional, but is more than likely not stupid enough to launch nuclear missles against us, knowing what the cowboy in the White House is likely to do.

The problem with nuance and straddling in these times of peril is that the other side is more likely to make mistaken assumptions about what we would do in retaliation. Arguably, Iraq invaded Kuwait because of mixed signals from Bush (41) and Reagan before him, and got invaded this time by assuming that Bush (43) was like his father.

No one in the world is making that mistake any more. If Bush (43) draws a line in the sand, no one outside this country is going to cross that line, knowing that Mr. Bush is likely to use extreme force. But Mr. Kerry? Who knows? And that is why his election would be dangerous.

"At least Kerry is proposing something to shut down Iran's nuclear weapons program. All Bush can do at this stage is fling increasingly rare insults."

What he has "proposed" has already been loudly ridiculed by Iran. His proposal, along with the rest of his "plans" are so bereft of actual political merit that I am in disbelief that anyone can take him seriously. It is understandable to some degree because he is telling people what they want to hear. That things will be solved by a “summit”. That things will be solved by diplomacy (bribery). That we only need to find Osama and then the war will be over. That he will do only “smart” things and the Islamofascists will play right along and all the various economic, cultural, ethnic, and political factors in play will all magically resolve themselves because of his “smart” policies.

And what evidence does he give in support of these claims? His sterling Senate record in which history has proven him right on positions taken over the years? His many years of executive experience in which he has shown the ability to make tough choices when facing options that all have serious drawbacks? His diplomatic engagements over the years (beginning with his famous meetings with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1971)? Exactly what credibility does this guy have?

Odds are that these positions are just another example of Kerry’s political opportunism. What would be more scary is that he actually believes some of this pabulum. If so, it reveals someone who is dangerously naïve & wrongheaded about political realities. Bush may be mind numbingly ineloquent but he seems able to see the essential big picture. Despite all the BS about Kerry’s nuanced thinking I see no evidence of a superior strategic or political intellect. He is a reflexively left leaning anti-military Eastern Seaboard politico with an inflated sense of himself and a disturbing tendency toward self-aggrandizement & blaming others for his mistakes (the “SOB” Secret Serviceman who made him fall, his speechwriters for his political gaffes, the President who misled him into voting for war, etc.) I sat out the last presidential election because I couldn’t get enthusiastic about either candidate. This time the stakes are different and Kerry represents a regression from even the Clinton policies which were proven to be ineffective.

"... It is a measure of Bush's lack of competence as a campaigner and persuader that these illusions have not been utterly shattered, and that Kerry is still in the race."

I wonder how much is due to media filtering as opposed to a genuine "lack of competence" on the part of President Bush.

JC 31130 said this -

(No WMD's, no FUNCTIONAL link from Iraq to Al-Queda, lack of troops, mismanagement....

..What most honest pro-war people have to understand, is that they have to make a decision about the current administration. The current administration is either dishonest, or deeply incompetent.

-------------------
1. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's, even Saddam. Don't blame the cop for shooting someone pointing a fake gun. ( I don't believe Saddam disarmed BTW).

2. Removing Saddam would have been justified prior to 911. Don't forget that we were overflying most of Iraq nonstop since the end of Gulf War One.

3. Iraq was the easiest to win, it's also flypaper attracting the snuggly jihadi's and keeping them from fighting U.S. here. Perhaps a strong man instead of democracy would have been smarter in Iraq but would have been a target of criticism too.

4. Monday morning quarterbackers could also have called for our immediate exit from the 'failed' Normandy 'fiasco'.

5. There is a decision to be made. Choose the leader who has shown his cards or the politician who has yet to mature.

This election is about whether we want to back to the path we walked before 911 or continue on the one W has chosen since. I do not want to follow Kerry with Carter types protecting the rear.

The problem as I see it:

I agree with Bush's policy on the WOT -- I think much of the execution of said policy was mismanaged (and I think his admin is asking the American public to ignore the mistakes made, instead of owning up to them).

I think the Repubs are horrible on most domestic policies.

I think John Kerry is wrong on foreign policy (well, from what I can gather IS his foreign policy). I'm not great-guns for his domestic policy.

So, I'm faced with voting for someone whom I think has the right foreign policy, but can't seem to execute it competently. And, I think his party is fundamentalist and greedy, and on the road to bankrupt the nation. Or I vote for someone who claims to be able to have done it better, but doesn't address what he would do now -- and who I think will kow-tow too much to foreign nations. I think he, too, will bankrupt the nation -- but possibly more "goodies" will trickle down my socio-economic-class way before the next Great Depression hits.
I feel like I have to base my vote on whether I think the "next big attack" will be via foreign terrorists (and really, what will either party do to prevent that?) or via special interests and money-grubbers raping the resources and freedoms of this country.

Actually, I feel like I am awash in a corrupt political system, the major parties of which offer me no acceptable choice.

Added to which -- I'm from Kansas. So my vote for president is almost negated, given the Republican majority in my state. I'm fighting against fundamentalist Republican state candidates for senate, rep, and school board (who perennially joust to have creationism added to the curriculum).

I am the poster child for voter apathy. For the first time in my 41 years.

Plainly, Mr. Katzman wants a war of civilizations. That's fine, it's his preference. He won't get it from a President Kerry.
************************************************
We HAVE a War of Civilizations. Mr Katzman's desires have nothing to do with this fact.

But it is probably correct that a President Kerry would do nothing much about this.

Used to be Hawks and Doves. I do believe we have a new paradigm.

Hawks and Dodos.

Dodos had no conception whatsoever that anything could really be a threat so they would stand dumbly standing while men walked up with sticks and beat them over the head.

Now they are extinct.

A Dove President would be bad enough, but a Dodo for President?

Joe, answer good thread's question, because I wanted to ask it myself. Why would Bush be any better on Iran? How is he going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? At least Kerry wants to increase sanctions, and he has a much better chance of getting Europe to go along than W does.

"Why would Bush be any better on Iran?"

Thanks to the Iraq "fiasco," we've got a powerful army on Iran's Western border. As the insurgency weakens and more of the rebel groups join the political process, prospects brighten for indigenous Iraqi forces to provide security for the elections.

In January, we'll have a strong force on Iran's border with fewer distractions. We also have a military presence on their Eastern border (Afghanistan), and have set up a regional defense alliance (the Caspian Guard) aimed at containment. At that point, we can exert some serious pressure on Iran. Or, we can bring all the troops home, have Chirac grade our "global test" and negotiate for a year to install the same sort of sanctions regimen that was so successful in Iraq. Seems like a fairly clear choice.

If you think having the world's "most active terror sponsor" having nuclear weapons is acceptable, or that we can talk them out of it without a credible threat of military force, then Kerry's the man. If so, though, I'd suggest finding a way to inspect every single container on every ship coming into NY Harbor, before they get into the harbor. Soon.