BBC For Kerry

The BBC has long been pro-Arab, scorned the war on terrorism despite Britain's participation in the Iraq coalition, and beatified the Palestinians (a recent study of 17 BBC documentaries over 43 months found one left a favourable impression of Israel, another one was balanced and fifteen either were negative about Israel or positive of Palestine"). Famously, the British radio/television network refers to Osama bin Laden as nothing stronger than "Saudi-born dissident."

Apparently doubling its bet before the U.S. elections, starting Wednesday, BBC2 will air a three-part "documentary" called "Terrorism, Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." The show focuses on the probabilities and destructiveness of Islamic terrorism in general and so-called "dirty bombs" in particular. Even the left-wing Guardian calls it "controversial", because the BBC show,

seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.

Here's BBC's "dirty bomb" threat assessment:

[It] is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media.

So why are citizens still scared? BBC explains:

In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power.

And BBC identifies the real culprits whose differing political philosophies grew to a fight for world domination :

The series tells an epic story, at the heart of which are two groups: the American Neoconservatives and the Radical Islamists. The first film begins in 1949 and traces the lives of two men living in America: Egyptian school inspector, Sayyid Qutb, whose ideas would later directly inspire those who flew the planes on 9/11, and political philosopher Leo Strauss, whose work strongly influenced the Neoconservative movement that now dominates Washington. Both men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together, but both had very different ideas about how to improve the situation.

Hmmm. Sayyid Qutb up against Leo Strauss. The first, an Egyptian Koran scholar who founded modern Islamic terrorism to destroy Western civilization; the second a Jew who emigrated to America and taught political philosophy (relying heavily on ancient Greeks) at the University of Chicago. One was civilized; the other anti-civilized. Both of them decades dead (Sayyid: 35 years; Strauss: 28 years) on 9/11. I doubt they ever met. But somehow--in lower Manhattan on 9/11, aboard the USS Cole, in Embassies--the BCC program will tie terrorism to complex social stratification and capped educational opportunities.

I'm sure the upcoming BBC program will be, well, captivating. But it ignores basic, simple facts: Leo Strauss taught philosophy; Sayyid Qutb coached killing. And the best way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists. If the BBC hasn't figured this out by now, it shouldn't qualify for the U.K. per-television "tax" by which it's funded.

State-by-State: Too Damn Close

With eighteen days left, and the debates concluded, the race is close. On September 28th, I predicted Bush 280; Kerry 232, Toss up: 26. Here's an updated tally.

Nationwide: Recent polls show a narrow Bush lead of between three and two points, slightly less excluding Nader. This is within the margin of error; the national polls are thus essentially tied. Yet, gamblers still predict a Bush victory, both in the Iowa Electronic Market poll (Bush 55 %; Kerry 45 %) and Tradesports (Bush 55 % Kerry 44 %; other 1 %). I now predict Kerry wins the popular vote.


Iowa Electronic Market poll, October 14th.

Electoral Count: The President is selected via state-by-state results, not popular vote. At present, Slate has Kerry ahead (Bush 259; Kerry 268; toss up 11); Real Clear Politics gives the President the edge (Bush 264; Kerry 237; toss up 37).

My count: Bush 285; Kerry 242; toss up 11. Here's my assumptions, designed for comparison with my September 23rd state review.

1. Iowa (7 votes): At one point, Bush had a 7 point lead, but no more--some polls are tied, others give Kerry a slight lead. This trend doesn't look good. But Iowa's still in play. Advantage--toss up.



2. Oregon (7 votes): Kerry's led here since late September. One poll says Kerry's losing support, but don't believe it--the state's overflowing with left-coast, left-wing loonies wearing leg warmers. Advantage--Kerry.



3. Pennsylvania (21 votes):Kerry must win this state to become President. And the state was a toss up until last week, forcing the Kerry campaign to spend time and money to retain support. But Kerry's now ahead by 2-3 percent, though Gallup thinks otherwise. Bush is close enough to keep Pa. in play, but probably can't win. Advantage--Kerry.



4. Wisconsin (10 votes): This state fathered progressive liberalism under Robert LaFollette, and yet Gore won in 2000 by only 5,709 votes. Bush has been ahead here since mid-August. (The recent Chicago Trib poll giving Kerry a 4 point lead looks like an outlier). According to Ramesh Ponnuru in the (subscription only) October 25th National Review, Republicans are benefiting from national trends: Wisconsin is a "disproportionately white state[], and the long erosion of the Democratic party among white voters has therefore hurt badly." Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from southeastern Wisconsin, explains Bush's appeal in long-time liberal land:

   The state likes mavericks: . . . Kerry is too equivocal. "George Bush is really winning the personality/likeability contest in Wisconsin," says Ryan. "That counts for something."

   No doubt Dems call personality and likeability "wedge issues"--because Kerry has neither. Advantage--Bush



5. Minnesota (10 votes): Home to lefty heroes Hubert Humphrey, Gene McCarthy and Walter Mondale (the latter, famously, won only his home state running against Reagan in 1984). Minnesota hasn't voted Republican for President since 1972--a longer span than any other state. According to NR's Ramesh Ponnuru, the state's trending Republican, thanks to stable cities and fast-growing exurban areas. Still, it's not yet enough to overcome rampant "Garrison Keillor"-ism in the liberal Twin Cities. Kerry's up by about five; the President shouldn't waste time or money here. Advantage--Kerry.



6. New Hampshire (4 votes): Narrowly for Bush four years ago, but Real Clear Politics points to "geography more than anything else"--since Kerry lives next door. Polls have been inconclusive; the state's probably tied. This one depends on the ratio between natives and transplanted refugees from Taxachusetts. Advantage--toss up.



7. Maine (4 votes): It's one of those split-vote jurisdictions. Gore grabbed all four votes last time, and Kerry's nearly a neighbor here too. But Bush should capture 1 vote this year, from the second Congressional district. Advantage--Kerry 3 votes to 1.



8. Florida (27 votes): Bush must win Florida to be re-elected. And he's now ahead by 4-5 points--the "aftermath of the hurricanes may have given President Bush a decisive edge there," according to Real Clear Politics. Besides, brother Jeb won reelection by 15 points. Book this one, Dan-O. Advantage--Bush.



9. Colorado (9 votes): It's not close anymore: Bush has a 5-8 point lead state-wide. Who cares if they adopt proportionate voting; let 'um use it this year. This race should be over. Unless the Democrats steal the election; they would never do that, right? Advantage--Bush.



10. Ohio (20 votes): Ohio's a weathervane: the state's supported the winner in every election since 1964. It shouldn't be tough for Republicans--Bush's been ahead from the start, and had a double-digit lead less than a month ago. But Democrats bet the farm on Ohio, and managed to shave the President's lead to a point or two, or possibly move ahead. Bush's popularity has suffered here due to job losses in manufacturing, and an influx of Latino voters, particularly in cities. So it depends on which candidate better "connects" on the stump. And that's simple, says Jonah Goldberg:

    I've always thought [Kerry] was unlikable. . . . He's a fop, he's a dandy. He's arrogant. He talks to you like you need it explained to you that you might find a slice of bacon in a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich.
    
    I always thought that this would be the clincher. Contrary to what the people who think George W. Bush is highly concentrated evil might believe, George W. Bush really is the more likeable candidate.

    Likeable's important everywhere, but especially in the Midwest. Advantage--Bush.

Conclusion: I've long argued the election should be "an easy choice." And Bush remains ahead. Still, I'm frightened that something like half the voters prefer surrender to strength.

The race is close. Too close for me. If you believe the polls, which Jim Geraghty doesn't. Still, it's close enough that the outcome likely depends not on swing voters but on turn-out from party faithful. So the question is: in the states listed above, who has more buses--churches or unions?

Kerry Tales, Part L

John Kerry displayed his smooth diplomacy yet again, this time angering our ally Italy. Apparently Kerry called the Iraqi army so pathetic that "even the Italian army could have kicked their [butt]." As reported in Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino responded: "Senator Kerry, instead saying what he thinks, should think about what he says." (via The Corner)

P.J. O'Rourke's Debate

Don't miss P.J. O'Rourke's 16 questions Bush should ask Kerry, from the Weekly Standard. Here's number nine:

You say I didn't have the answers in Iraq? Well, what were the questions? Was there this bad man? Was he running a bad country? That did bad things? Did it have a lot of oil money to do bad things with? Was it going to do more bad things? If those were the questions, was the answer "more time to let international sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections do their job"? No, the answer was blow the place to bits.

(via Hugh Hewitt)

We're Winning

Still think the war on terrorism is hopeless or lost? It's just not so. The Washington Post disagrees, in a front-page piece headlined "Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah; Locals, Fearing Invasion, Turn Against Foreign Arabs." (Also from today's WaPo, this article details recent progress in democratizing the Arab world.) Stratfor says so as well:

American and Iraqi troops are on the offensive against Sunni Arab and terrorist gangs. Over a year of effort in building up an intelligence network among the population had paid off. Even in the Sunni Arab areas, many people are fed up with the lawlessness and violence created where the gangs operate.

(via Instapundit) And blogger Arthur Chrenkoff provides vast detail of specific progress in Iraq in Monday's Opinion Journal.

It's been even better in Afghanistan. Last weekend,

the Afghan people took another step toward lasting peace and prosperity while dealing a blow to terrorism. Afghan women and men turned out in massive numbers to participate in the first direct presidential election in the country's history.

Despite widespread skepticism by U.S. media, international observers called the election "free and fair," and the losers declined to protest the outcome. A "success story," says Scott Norvell on TechCentral:

There were no car bombs raining body parts all over the polling stations. There were no last-minute assassinations. There were no drive-by shootings. The best they could come up with for "news" was grumbling from hopelessly trailing opposition candidates about washable ink and threats of a boycott. The media's disappointment was palpable.

Turnout was described as "massive." Men in turbans and baggy sharwals lined up in orderly fashion to cast their ballots, many of them with uncharacteristically chipper looks on their faces. One guy I saw at a mosque in central Kabul actually had mist in his eyes.

Yet John Kerry seemingly is indifferent. According to the Senator, terrorism is merely a "nuisance." Kerry wants America to "get back to the place we were."

I remember where we were. Before Bush adopted preemption and regime change, Americans were in terror's bulls eye. Afghans were yoked to brutal Taliban rule. And Iraqis were being planted in mass graves, such as the one unearthed today containing hundreds of bodies:

The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead.

One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face.

Why would anyone--American, Afghan, Iraqi--want to "go back to [that] place"? If they could speak, what would the 3000 innocents murdered September 11th say?

President Bush understands that opposing middle-East terrorism better protects the innocent, Americans included:

A marvelous thing is happening in Afghanistan. Freedom is powerful. Think about a society in which young girls couldn't go to school and their mothers were whipped in the public square. And today, they're holding a presidential election.

The first person to vote in the presidential election, three years after the Taliban ruled that country with such barbarism, was a 19-year-old woman, an Afghan refugee, who fled her homeland during the civil war. Here's what she said: "I cannot explain my feelings, just how happy I am. I would never have thought I would be able to vote in this election." She's voting in this election because the United States of America believes that freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world.

Hugh Hewitt lists Kerry's semiotics (his words, sounds and body language) as: "French, failure, weak, defeat, effete, elite." Neither America, nor the world, can afford such a leader in wartime. Especially when we're winning.

Unfair and Biased

As election day approaches, leftist hypocrisy and media favoritism intensify. Here's two examples.

1. If it's unconstitutional, it must be the Patriot Act. Two weeks ago, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York sided with the ACLU, invalidating a statute permitting law enforcement agencies to subpoena customer records (telephone or Internet) in terrorism investigations. Doe v. Ashcroft, Civ. 2614 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2004). The judge faulted the absence of a provision permitting challenge to a subpoena.

A huge setback for the Patriot Act and Attorney General Ashcroft, pronounced the headlines in the New York Times ("Judge Strikes Down Section of Patriot Act Allowing Secret Subpoenas of Internet Data") and Washington Post ("Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional"). The Post called the ruling as "one of several judicial blows to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies in recent months," hinting the decision re-affirmed the civil rights of targets of FBI investigations.

Nonsense, for several reasons. First, the relevant provision isn't even in the Patriot Act--it's section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, passed in 1986. Second, the issue was whether a phone or Internet company could challenge a subpoena; the Court neither addressed nor questioned the government's authority to examine phone records (or wiretap) without first alerting the investigation's target. Third, the government itself conceded that phone and Internet providers could challenge such a subpoena (Slip Op. at 49-50); the case turned on whether the right to challenge must explicitly be spelled out in the statute (it must, according to Judge Marrero; the Justice Department's practice permitting challenge did not suffice). So the decision neither overturned Bush-sponsored legislation or policy, nor mandated warning investigation suspects (which obviously would foreclose many prosecutions).

The Administration complained, and the Times and Post issued half-hearted corrections (as always, in small type, without provocative headlines). But both papers outrageously persisted claiming the Patriot Act was at issue; according to the Times:

An article yesterday about a judge's ruling to invalidate some federal surveillance powers referred incorrectly to a subpoena statute that was struck down. While the statute -- authorizing the use of subpoenas known as national security letters -- was amended by the antiterrorism legislation called the USA Patriot Act, it was not created under that act. It was enacted in 1986 and amended several times, including once in October 2001 under the Patriot Act, to expand its application. The judge's ruling analyzed and struck down the statute as a whole, including provisions that predated the Patriot Act.

Wrong again--ruling addressed a single section long predating the 2001 Patriot Act. And although it enlarged the section's scope, the Patriot Act's amendment didn't alter the notification provisions challenged by the ACLU and overturned in Judge Marrero's ruling.

What prompted this news reporting atrocity? Laziness, in part--Judge Marrero's decision is 120 pages. But as Heather MacDonald details in a thorough (subscription only) article in the October 18th Weekly Standard, the error arose because the media "simply repackaged the ACLU spin." The evidence? The ACLU press release on the decision was titled "Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power As Unconstitutional," claiming "a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department's misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans in the name of national security." So the ACLU falsely conflated the Patriot Act and deceitfully intimated the ruling addressed the rights of individuals, as opposed to carriers and service providers. That's bad--but worse is the liberal media skipping fact-checking on stories favoring the left.

Naturally, there's been no follow-up from either paper.

2. Censorship is bad--except from the left. Opposition to governmental restrictions on speech is, thankfully, an issue on which left and right mostly agree. Not today. The papers are overflowing with outrage over an announcement from the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns or manages over 60 television stations, to air a documentary critical of Senator Kerry's 70s era antiwar activities before the election. According to AP, the 42-minute film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,"

chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist Jane Fonda. It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony -- filled with "lurid fantasies of butchery in Vietnam" on the part of U.S. troops -- demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.

Democrats today complained to the FEC and FCC seeking to halt the broadcast, as did 18 Democratic Senators. Indeed, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps--a Democrat nominated by President Bush--already sympathized, according to Drudge, calling the planned broadcast:

an abuse of the public trust. . . [O]ne owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves.

Others call for a boycott of Sinclair.

How quickly they forget. Only 18 months ago, the left was outraged when radio stations and listeners boycotted the Dixie Chicks, protesting the group's outspoken opposition to invading Iraq. Throughout the year, the media's lauded--and broadcast excerpts from--Michael Moore's anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11." The left was silent when Dan Rather repeatedly lied to trash Bush--and conservatives never sued to stop CBS's newscasts. Only last week, a leaked internal ABC memo documented pro-Kerry executives slanting Presidential debate coverage. And, as Charles Johnson notes, "Any objections from the DNC about Michael Moore’s plan to show his falsehood-packed Fahrenheit 9/11 on pay-per-view the night before the election, in a blatant, openly admitted attempt to influence voters?"

Ah, but that's different. How? Simple--the left is certain it's right. And they speak for the "little guy." This justifies different coverage of conservatives, as today's Washington Post unintentionally confirms. The WaPo's front-page Sinclair story suggests a conspiracy:

four men, while shunning the media spotlight, have assembled the nation's largest collection of television stations, a family-run operation that reflects their conservative views and time and again has sided with President Bush.

But another Post story that same day, this one in Style, coincidently reviews an anti-Bush rock concert held last night. Under a headline "Hail to The Boss: Springsteen Plays Politics," the article coos over

Bruce Springsteen, the gruff-voiced bard of the working class, stormed a sold-out MCI Center last night in the hopes of sending one man straight to the unemployment line.

Yep, and the Boss wasn't alone in voicing his displeasure with our country's other notable boss, either: Thirteen of the New Jersey star's fellow pop-music heavy hitters showed up in the nation's capital to try to help rock George W. Bush right on out of the White House.

What's the difference between a rock star's campaign against Bush and a station owner's campaign against Kerry? Not campaign finance laws--or Michael Moore's movie would be a Kerry contribution. Not any "Fairness doctrine"--that was repealed years ago (Syracuse Peace Council, 2 FCC Rcd 5043 (1987), recon. denied, 3 FCC Rcd 2035 (1988)); in any event, Sinclair offered Kerry time to reply (the campaign declined). So why won't the left apply freedom of speech equally to Springsteen and Sinclair?

Still, NY Times Ombudsman Daniel Okrent somehow denies his paper is "systematically biased toward either candidate."

3. Conclusion: According to liberals and their press lackeys, if it's bad, it's Bush. Don't believe 'um. As George Gershwin observed, "It Ain't Necessarily So."

Quote of the Week

Kenya's Wangari Maathai, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize October 8th, quoted in the Herald Sun (Australia):

Some say that AIDS came from the monkeys, and I doubt that because we have been living with monkeys (since) time immemorial, others say it was a curse from God, but I say it cannot be that. In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare. Why has there been so much secrecy about AIDS? When you ask where did the virus come from, it raises a lot of flags. That makes me suspicious. . .

We know that the developed nations are using biological warfare, leaving guns to the primitive people. AIDS (is) not a curse from God to Africans or the black people. It is a tool to control them designed by some evil-minded scientists, but we may not know who particularly did.

Question: Are Nobel Peace Prizes now reserved for anti-American or anti-Western kooks?

Malaise, Part Deux

I wasn't the only one outraged by Kerry's proposal to accommodate perpetual terror. The Senator described terrorism as a "nuisance" which--like prostitution and illegal gambling--"isn't threatening people's lives every day" and can never be ended. Instead, Kerry promised to lead America "back to the place we were."

• Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani excoriates Kerry:

  I'm wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance. Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and the 90s, leading up to September 11?
  
  The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we're going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we'll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry's thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.
  
  It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry's global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone's global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he'd still be controlling Kuwait.



• UCLA Law Prof Eugene Volokh supplies an interesting thought experiment demonstrating both that Kerry's crazy and that the media, which largely has ignored Kerry's admission, is thoroughly biased:

  Let's say that in response to a sharp increase in the number of rapes, or of racist anti-black violence, or anti-Semitic violence, a President John Kerry had declared War on Rape / War on Racism / War on Anti-Semitism (a somewhat more metaphorical war than the War on Terrorism, but still close enough).
  
  Let's also say that Governor George W. Bush, who was challenging President Kerry in the presidential election wanted to argue that this is a different sort of war, one in which we can't expect total victory. He certainly wasn't arguing that nothing should be done about racism, anti-black violence, or anti-Semitic violence. He had his own proposals, though ones that Kerry's supporters thought weren't tough enough, and were otherwise misguided. But he wanted to point out that we should be realistic about this: We shouldn't talk the rhetoric of total victory, where we had to realize that some background level of rape, anti-black violence, or anti-Semitic violence was inevitable. And let's say that this is how he made this point:

  We have to get back to the place we were, where [rapists/ Klansmen/ anti-Semitic attackers] are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.

  Volokh's questions: Would you accept this argument when made by a Republican? Wouldn't the media call it a gaffe? If so, isn't Kerry's version necessarily dangerous and a blunder as well?



• Columnist/blogger James Lileks shreds Kerry's analogy:

  Tony Soprano doesn't take over schools and shoot kids in the back. The doxies of the Bunny Ranch don't train at flight schools to ram brothels into skyscrapers.
  
  A nuisance?
  
  A nuisance? I don't want the definition of success of terrorism to be "it isn't on the rise." I want the definition of success to be "free democratic states in the Middle East and the cessation of support of those governments and fascist states we haven't gotten around to kicking in the ass yet." I want the definition of success to mean a free Lebanon and free Iran and a Saudi Arabia that realizes there's no point in funding the fundies. An Egypt that stops pouring out the Jew-hatred as a form of political novacaine to keep the citizens from turning their ire on their own government. I want the definition of success to mean that Europe takes a stand against the Islamicist radicals in their midst before the Wahabbi poison is the only acceptable strain on the continent. Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.

  Lileks also highlights the peril of Kerry's proposal to take America "back to the place we were."

  [W]hen we were there we were blind. When we were there we losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we've learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don't want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nightmares are their dreams.
  
  We have to get back to the place we were.
  
  No. We have to go the place where they are.

Kerry once said he had a "secret plan" for Iraq. Well, secret no more: Kerry wrongly believes America can return to September 10, 2001 and ignores the certainty that retreating from terrorism in the Islamic world would encourage Islamic terrorism here.

There's a word for Kerry's policy: appeasement. It didn't work for Clinton or Carter. Indeed, appeasement's never worked at all.

It won't work now. I cannot imagine an idea, or Presidential candidate, more hazardous to our homes, our families and our country.

More Malaise?

A new Bush campaign ad addresses the key issue in this election--anti-terrorism. The ad, called "Worldview," is a rapid response to Matt Bai's lengthy pro-Kerry puff-piece in today's New York Times Magazine:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

This is insulting and insane--as Captain's Quarters says, "Kerry thinks he can woo the dictators and Islamic terrorists with summits and sanctions, a selfish fantasy that puts our lives at great risk."

Bush understands, and the new ad is another homerun:

First, Kerry said defeating terrorism was really MORE about law enforcement and intelligence than a strong military operation...

More about law enforcement than a strong military?

Now Kerry says... We have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution... we're never going to end them.

Terrorism... a nuisance?

How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?

The Senator's quote confirms he's no John Kennedy; Kerry's channeling another Democrat former President, says Powerline:

John Kerry promises a restoration of the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter -- the looming presence left unmentioned in the Bai article.

We saw a preview of the futility of Carterism in the face Islamism in the Iranian hostage crisis that terminated the Carter presidency. For those who learn from experience, the case for Carterism is even less compelling in 2004 than in it was in 1980.

Months ago, I wrote:

A President Kerry would be as decisive as President Carter. Given current U.N. incompetence, nuclear proliferation and global terrorism, America needs a leader, not Jimmy's second term.

(via Hugh Hewitt)

Howard-Again

Australians overwhelmingly voted Liberal-National, retaining Prime Minister John Howard. In what was widely seen as a referendum on Howard's steadfast alliance with America in particular, and aggressive anti-terrorism in general, the Prime Minister increased his (conservative) legislative majority to more than 30 seats. This is hugely significant for Bush, as the Belmont Club explains:

[I]n an election that he press predicted to be close, but which in fact turned out to be a rout. Not only did the opposition Labor Party fail to gain the 11 parliamentary seats they needed to win power, Howard actually increased his majority and may actually win control of the Australian Senate. Howard's opponent, Mark Latham, had hinted that he would re-think the Australian commitment to the War on Terror then retreated from that position under heavy political fire. Had Latham unseated Howard, Australia would almost certainly have scaled back its commitments to the US alliance. But Howard's win not only obviates this possibility, it also underscores the depleted nature of Leftist politics.

John Hillen at the Corner has more:

This is a very big deal, one that won’t make many headlines over here but is important for President Bush. Howard’s opponent ran on a Dean/Kerry type platform and really tested the Aussie electorate with an appeal to implicit anti-Americanism and explicit anti-Bushism.

Pat, at Kerry Haters, is more blunt:

This is a win for the coalition, a win for the President, and a win for the Australians. The losers are the backsliders, the folks who want to go back to chasing terrorists with subpoenas instead of killing them.

A great portent for Bush and model for U.S. voters. Especially because most Americans would rather get smashed with an Aussie than with a Frog.

Debate--Kerry Tales, Live

1) I've never changed my view on Iraq. (uh, no)

2) Shinseki was fired as Army Chief of Staff (Jonah Goldberg: "Was not canned for saying we need more troops. He said we need more troops because he was canned. Why can't Bush say that?")

3) I don't think you can rely just on sanctions (to deter Iran)

4) Does Kerry favor the draft?

5) Reason America hasn't been attacked since 9/11--tax cuts?

(ARRRGG--why mention Patriot Act?)

6) Bush's prescription drug plan is a subsidy for the drug companies.

7) "We both believe, as lawyers--I'm a lawyer too. . . "

8) "John Edwards and I support tort reform."

(Bush HOME RUN: "We have a deficit because we went into recession. . .and because we're at war. And I'm going to spend what it takes to win that war.")

(how come no one asks Kerry why he lied about where he was on Christmas eve 1968?)

(This is your President; this is your President on speed.)

9) "This president declared [the Kyoto treaty] dead. . .and does nothing to try to fix it." Compare Kerry's own web site:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer.

The Senate, including John Kerry voted against Kyoto 95-0.

10) "I believe in the Patriot Act"

(WOW--great question on stem cells from Elizabeth. The Corner agrees.)

(George Bush--not a Constitutional lawyer, especially about Dred Scott)

(Tough last question to Bush--decisions he regrets. Bush talks about what he did right, and avoids criticizing bad appointments (Paul O'Neill? Telegram for Paul O'Neill?). But no answer would suffice.)

11) Kerry answers as if the question was about Bush's bad decisions, not Kerry's. "Look into your gut; gut-check time."

12) "I'm an optimist." ??? If Kerry's an optimist, I'm a Marxist.

CONCLUSION: Bush was both more rested and relazed--and more "up"--than the first debate. ("Coffee--picks you up and relaxes you.") He effectively deployed humor that resonated with Americans. Unlike last time, Bush knew his facts (except on Constitutional law). And he hit Kerry's flip-flops, weak Senate record, "global test," and the Duelfer report. Last debate he look pissed; this time, Bush was strong.

Kerry looked uncomfortable. He was flatly wrong several times--see numbers 1, 2, 6, 9, above. And he repeated answers from last time.

This was a huge win for Bush.

New JibJab

The latest flash from Gregg and Evan Spiridellis--also known as JibJab--"Good to Be in DC".

Their previous, even funnier, short "This Land".

Who Said It?

Today's quiz--identify who, in December 2003, said this:

Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.

The prize for the correct answer--a well-deserved four-year contract extension.

Spinning Duelfer

The liberal media can't read. That's the only explanation for two days of absurd coverage of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report, chaired by Charles A. Duelfer. As I noted yesterday, the findings strongly support President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Yet Kerry's press partisans are in denial, as many in the blogosphere point out. Still the media is unembarrassed, according to today's NY Post and Washington Times:

"Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. It also concluded that whatever illicit weapons Saddam Hussein did possess were most likely destroyed just after the 1991 Gulf War in accordance with U.N. sanctions. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."

Facts don't matter to the biased press: today's AP story claims Saddam "had no programs to make either them or nuclear bombs, and had little ability - or immediate plans - to revive those programs."--exactly the opposite of the ISG report's findings! (See Powerline's fisk of yesterday's AP fairy tale.)

And nothing will change the crazy 42 percent of America convinced that "Bush = Hitler," writes Jonah Goldberg:

[T]here's no denying that the Bush administration has offered several different rationales to bolster its case for the Iraq war.

Oh, wait, it can be denied. In fact, it's being denied zealously now that the Iraq Survey Group has concluded in its final report that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction when we invaded. The president's critics now insist that Bush made only one case for war.

To his critics, it seems, Bush's error is that he offered too many reasons to go to war, except when he offered too few. When the news is that no WMDs have been found, WMDs become Bush's only reason to go to war. Back when the WMD angle had yet to be verified, the problem was that Bush offered too many rationales. Which is it?

Pundit Mickey Kaus is confused:

I don't understand things everyone else seems to understand! For example . . . If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that? Why doesn't Bush make that argument--talking about Saddam's actions in the years before the U.S. invasion instead of Saddam's "intent" to have WMDs at some point in the future? (It wouldn't necessarily make the Iraq war prudent, but it would make Americans feel more comfortable about it than what Bush has been telling them.)

John Kerry can't read either. The Senator's spinning Duelfer too--but he can't claim ignorance of the facts. According to Jonah Goldberg, that makes his spin even more outrageous:

Bush "lied" because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush "lied" even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq "imminent" -- something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied. How could he have known there were no WMDs? No one bothers to wonder why Tony Blair isn't a liar. Indeed, no one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars -- they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores.

The media and the Democrats are too lazy and too biased to consider a serious and documented report confirming Saddam's longstanding efforts to acquire WMDs. It's easier for them, and Kerry, to blame it on Bush. And that's a disgrace.

Kerry's Foreign Policy--Gone With the Wind

I've long argued this election is a foreign policy referendum. The choice is between George Bush's preemption strategy and John Kerry's proposal for closer relations (and concurrence) with America's traditional allies.

Of course, as any serious person knows, the Democratic candidates' current positions--no to the Iraq invasion, yes to the U.N., Bush is "distracted" from the war on Al Qaeda--are newly minted. Bush's policies previously were backed by both Kerry and Edwards. But forget the flip-flops for now--the issue is whether the Kerry/Edwards alternative would work.

Not a chance.

1. Kerry's "allies" aren't acting in America's interests. Liberals--politicians and performance artists alike--insist that global opposition to U.S. anti-terrorism demonstrates Bush's approach is wrong. Nonsense, says Claudia Rosett in the WSJ:

   Apart from rare spells of relative world peace, or joyous interludes in the immediate aftermath of American troops liberating nations such as France, or more recently Afghanistan, the answer from various quarters over the years has often been no. The worst friction tends to come at precisely those times when America stands up for its own principles, looking less to win love than to defend liberty.

   In particular, Democrat nostalgia for the "peace" of the Clinton years is a dangerous mirage--Clinton's failure to confront Islamic terrorism cost American lives in embassies and ships, and emboldened Al Qaeda to attack us at home. America unquestionably is safer today because Bush rejected the same passive foreign policy now promoted by Kerry.



2. Kerry's "allies" can't be persuaded. So far, Kerry's been a lousy diplomat--he's angered practically the entire anti-terror coalition, especially Iraq and Australia. And Kerry's specific plans already got a "thumbs down" from France and Germany. Even Kerry concedes his approach has failed.
   
   So the left is left claiming the Administration's angry unilateralism poisoned the well. This too is a fantasy--France, Germany and Russia opposed the U.S. because they were bribed by Saddam according to several recent investigations:

   The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action. . . . The report, marked "highly confidential", also finds that the private office of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, profited from the cheap oil. Saddam's regime awarded this oil during the run-up to the war when military action was being discussed at the UN.

   According to the Times of London, "Saddam 'bought UN allies" with oil." In the face of billions in bribes diverted from the Iraqi people, no diplomacy--Republican or Democrat; no matter how sweet--could work.



3. Kerry's "allies" can't help. Terrorism is a serious and global threat. And only America--with a defense budget bigger than the next ten nations combined--can lead the fight, as Bill Whittle explains in a masterful two part essay:

   Europe, ruler of the world in the first war, had become a military freeloader by the end of the third. Europe was not able to muster the military muscle or political will to extinguish a genocide within Europe - and things have gotten worse since then. . .
   
   An alliance would be nice - if the allies could shoulder some of the burden. But the sad, inconvenient, disappointing fact is that there is only one army on the face of the earth that can fight on the same battlefield with the United States; whose forces, technology and training rival ours in quality if not in scale, and whose trust has been forged by three world wars when we have stood alone, together. That country is Great Britain, one of the members of [what Kerry calls] the "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." . .
   
   An alliance of European powers is a chimera that no longer holds any significant value. That is a critical point. It is an essential point of delusion embedded in Senator Kerry's world view. He waits for rescue from a knight long dead and moldering, sitting beneath a withered oak tree in rusted armor.

   Defense, not Don Quixote, is the answer.



4. Even non-allied nations disagree with Kerry. Bush's diplomacy has worked elsewhere, most notably persuading Libya to drop its WMD program. The President abandoned Clinton's failed unilateral approach to North Korea. John Kerry favors returning to the prior one-on-one strategy. Yet China disagrees, preferring George Bush's five country talks. And Iran already rejected Kerry's proposed solution to their dangerous nuclear build-up.



5. Kerry's plans can't survive the recent Iraq Survey Group report. Never mind the biased press spin (WaPo--report "contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials"), the ISG results confirm the President's policies:

   Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible."
   
   Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

   The ISG report demonstrates that re-constituting a WMD would have been easy, according to Powerline:

   A major theme of the ISG report is Saddam's continuing determination to acquire WMDs. This passage is typical:
   
   

   Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW [chemical weapons] agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard - if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment.
   
   Imad Husayn 'Ali Al 'Ani, closely tied to Iraq's VX program, alleged that Saddam had been looking for chemical weapons scientists in 2000 to begin production in a second location, according to reporting.

   If Saddam could produce mustard gas within a few days, or at most a few months, then the existence or non-existence of stockpiles is a moot point.

   The strategy of the left--further negotiations or sanctions, or the repeal of sanctions--would have aided Iraqi deployment of WMDs. As Tony Blair concluded today:

   Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working.

   Confounding liberals' assumption about his candle power, Bush--like Blair--"gets it" in a more accurate reading of the ISG report:

   [W]e were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies. Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror, operating in the world's most volatile region. In a world after September the 11th, he was a threat we had to confront. And America and the world are safer for our actions.

   The bottom line according to the BBC:

   Saddam Hussein never abandoned his intentions to resume efforts in chemical weapons when UN sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favourable.

   Charles Johnson is right: "Mainstream media is universally spinning the Duelfer Report against George Bush, but the report is far more damaging to John Kerry." Ignore the biased headlines, advises Glenn Reynolds; the ISG report represents "the complete collapse of John Kerry's foreign policy case."

Conclusion. The November 2nd referendum is between (1) a strategy that forestalled further attacks on American soil since 9/11 and (2) an action plan Kerry admits already failed. Why isn't this an easy choice?

I'm Back--As Are Satellites

From three crazy days strategizing about and then assisting media coverage of Howard Stern's move to satellite radio. In my day job, I've been representing Sirius Satellite Radio from its inception. It's been consistently exciting--and consistently frustrating. Not the company--the problem lies with the administrative process.

Congress established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review and grant licenses to use radio frequencies. 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 301, 307, 308, 309 (2000). And "to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public," Congress directed the FCC to "determine whether any new technology or service proposed in a petition or application is in the public interest within one year after such petition or application is filed." Id., Section 157. Sounds like good policy--and it is.

But it doesn't work in practice. Sirius first applied to build a satellite radio system in May 1990, 14 years ago. It was licensed in 1997. The intervening seven years were a battle with traditional broadcasters, who argued that satellite radio would reduce their audience and profitability. The hearings and fair treatment mandated by U.S. administrative process gave incumbent licensees "an anticompetitive tool to delay the entry of new stations." Detrimental Effects of Proposed New Broadcast Stations on Existing Stations, 3 FCC Rcd 638, 640 (1988). Terrestrial broadcasters had no hope of prevailing--the Communications Act "does not entrench any particular system of broadcasting: existing systems, like existing licensees, have no entitlement that permits them to deflect competitive pressure from innovative and effective technology." Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 1984). But they could--and did--stall.

The broadcasters were particularly effective because satellites are expensive (Sirius spent billions on its three-spacecraft system) and construction takes 3 years. In this environment, delay can be fatal:

In this dynamic and technologically innovative industry, a proposed venture may become obsolete in just a few years. Even without regulatory delay, a satellite firm is faced with the daunting prospect of time-consuming research and construction, which entail advance planning and risky lead time--and which may lead to naught. To delay a proposed project six months will increase capital cost and diminish technological advantage; to delay it a year or more may destroy its attractiveness as an investment.

United States v. FCC, 652 F.2d 72, 95 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc).

Due process and administrative law postponed the public benefits of satellite radio for a decade. And broadcasters still squabble, recently insisting that the FCC and Congress forbid Sirius from transmitting traffic and weather reports to subscribers.

The administrative process was established for the best of reasons. But it's abused to freeze markets and technology. As Forbes Magazine said about the broadcasters, "If you can't compete, get a bill to outlaw the competition."

It's great for my job security. But Hayek was right--Administrative agencies can be the Road to Serfdom.

Foreign Leaders to Kerry: Drop Dead!

Kerry claims he's the superior diplomat, promoting increased support from America's allies. I don't think so!--Mudville Gazette assembles a tremendous compilation of Kerry quotes and the response from abroad. Example:

John Kerry:

I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.

French Foreign Minister Barnier:

Even though Nato last week overcame members' long-running reservations about a training mission to Iraq and agreed to set up an academy there for 300 soldiers, neither Paris nor Berlin will participate.

Michel Barnier, the French foreign minister, said last week that France, which has tense relations with interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, had no plans to send troops "either now or later".

Germany's Gert Weisskirchen [foreign policy expert from ruling party]:

I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president.

Read the whole thing. (via KerryHaters)

John Miller and Mark Molesky say the same in Monday's New York Post:

Kerry may want to bring the French to the table, but guess who's coming to dinner with them: terrorists and rebels now attacking U.S. soldiers and slaughtering Iraqi citizens. Chirac and Barnier, in short, want a recipe for failure: An international conference that either flunks Kerry's "global test" because of France's refusal to attend, or one that features the credentialed henchmen of Muqtada al-Sadr demanding resolutions for the immediate removal of American troops from Iraq.

And beyond America's nominal allies, Kerry's already been rebuffed by America's enemies:

Iran on Sunday rebuffed a proposal by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry who has suggested supplying the Islamic state with nuclear fuel for power reactors if Tehran agrees to give up its own fuel-making capability.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

John Kerry's foreign policy is DOA--25 days before the election! How is this better than Bush?

VP Debate

If Edwards were a Republican, the media would conclude he's less experienced than Dan Quale. Simply put, Cheney kicked the Senator's butt--by raising all the arguments Bush should have last week. Blow-by-blow live blogging at The Corner, Hugh Hewitt and Captain's Quarters. Plus, don't miss Vodka Pundit's "Drunkblogging".

Best summary from KerrySpot:

If I ever need to sue somebody, I’ll call John Edwards.

If I ever need somebody killed - like, you know, terrorists trying to kill me or my family - I’ll call Dick Cheney.

If you've got a vote, you don't want two evasive lawyers.

Left-Wing Journalists for Bush

I'm confident of a Bush victory--but a pessimist according to Slate: they predict a Bush landslide, 348 to 190!

Scenes From the Campaign

The nuts are getting crazier:

An unknown suspect fired multiple shots into the Bearden office of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign Tuesday morning. . . According to Knoxville Police Department (KPD) officers on the scene Tuesday, it is believed that the two separate shots were fired from a car sometime between 6:30 am and 7:15 am.

One shot shattered the glass in the front door and the other cracked the glass in another of the front doors.

Kristallnacht in Knoxville? I'd advise against pro-Bush signs, based on this madness in Madison and violence in Vail. (via Instapundit) Especially with NBC morphing into Leni Riefenstahl.

Of course, according to the left, Bush = Hitler.

Polls, Religion and Predictions

I'm still expecting Bush to win, despite Sunday's CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll giving the President with a shrinking 2 point margin. That's because two polls released today show Bush's support essentially unchanged since Thursday's Presidential debate: The Washington Post has Bush ahead 51-46 among likely voters; Pew predicts a 7 point lead (48-41) for registered voters, and 5 points (49-44) among likely voters.

The Economist says the election turns on the relative turnout of the faithful, as opposed to the skeptical:

[In 2000] Karl Rove, George Bush's chief political strategist, thought then that his man was coasting to victory; but the Democratic turnout was suddenly better than expected, and the Republican one worse. Mr Rove is particularly obsessed by the idea that 4m evangelical Christians who should have pulled the lever for Mr Bush simply stayed at home. Since then, he has done everything in his power to boost turnout among "people of faith" in general and evangelical Protestants in particular. . .

Mr Rove's strategy of galvanising people of faith risks provoking a backlash from people of a more secular persuasion. . . [I]t is easy to underestimate the power of secular America. The number of Americans who claim they have no religion has doubled over the past decade to 29m.

Regardless of the outcome of Mr Rove's strategy, America looks ever more divided along cultural lines. The Republicans are becoming the party of committed Christians, the Democrats that of committed secularists.

This over-simplifies--Republican voters tend to be religious in general, not just Christians. Among that group, doctrinal differences are minor, says Mark Steyn:

The American Right . . . is supposed to be split from top to toe between 'neocons' and 'paleocons', the latter being the isolationist Right and the former being sinister Jewish intellectuals who've turned the Bush administration into an arm of Israeli foreign policy. One problem for those who see conservatism in terms of this epic struggle is that one side doesn't exist. The 'paleocons' boil down to a handful of anti-war conservatives, the most prominent being Pat Buchanan, who in the 2000 presidential election got 0.42 per cent of the vote. . . . The real divide is between the neocons (for want of a better term) and the 'assertive nationalists' - that's to say, those who think we ought to bomb rogue states, smash their regimes and rebuild them as democratic societies, and those who think we ought to bomb rogue states, smash their regimes, and then leave them to stew in their own juices, with a reminder that if the next thug is foolish enough to catch Washington's eye, then (as Arnie says) 'Ah'll be back!' This difference can seem like a big deal -- those who think we need to win their hearts and minds vs those who think they're mostly heartless and mindless, so who cares? But in truth it's only a difference of degree.

Still, the Economist's dichotomy is correct in a larger sense: the difference between left and right turns on the existence of and response to evil. Republicans say evil exists and must be resisted. Today's Democrats discount evil, except as embodied in America, and eschew force either way. Bush concluded Saddam was evil, and so toppled him. Liberals feared the Administration more than Saddam and so:

protested or stripped naked within easy driving distance. Rallies were confined to countries free from torture or extra-judicial murder--places where freedom of speech and assembly already are guaranteed. Admonishment of Iraqi atrocities was brief, invariably punctuated by "but," which in turn summoned endless scolding of America.

So the 2004 election is both a referendum on foreign policy and a test of faith. Not just (or even necessarily) in God, but in our nation. Because, unlike Democrats, Republicans are united by a conviction America should challenge evil and faith in our ultimate success. Put differently, a second Bush Administration understands that America is and can continue to be a force for good in the world.

I believe, I believe. And because I believe a majority of Americans believe, I believe in four more years.

Why Johnny Can't Think

Shiba Pillai-Diaz, a teacher at Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, added a picture of President and Ms. Bush to a "small bulletin board near the American flag and also with a poster of the Declaration of Independence." The result--a textbook display of liberal group-think. According to WABC TV New York,

three parents confronted her. . ., insisting the teacher either add John Kerry's photo to the montage of presidents or remove the Bush photo. When Pillai-Diaz refused, she says the school's vice-principal threatened her job. . .

Pillai-Diaz ultimately removed the entire bulletin board and says School Principal Jim Warfel told her she disrupted the school with her "inflammatory politics". She says he then ordered her out of the building.

Ms. Pillai-Diaz--a Bush supporter--claims she was ordered "to hand over the keys" to the school. Photos here.

This is leftist tolerance? Sounds more like inoculation than education. "Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone!" (via The Corner)

Flunking the Test

George Bush radically changed American foreign policy. Following the September 11th attacks on America, the President abandoned tactics that defeated the Soviets; Bush unveiled his new "preemption" approach in a graduation-day address at West Point, June 1, 2002:

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)

Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they're prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.

Kerry was questioned about preemption in last week's debate--and equivocated:

The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

As I predicted, Kerry's proposed "global test" prompted derision, confusion and mirth. For good reason--the Senator insists he would never "cede. . . the right to preempt" to any other country; his next sentence would forbid U.S. military action abroad unless it "passes the global test . . . . prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Not sure?--neither is Kerry! He favored preemption in October 2002, but flip-flopped a year later.

Still, assuming Kerry's weathervane swung for the last time, the election suddenly offers a clear choice: preemption or global testing? We know Bush's approach--which has its own limits, but is as protective as possible. Whereas Kerry's alternative seems powered by hope more than safety.

America's not perfect. Injustice endures; there's room for improvement. But only if America survives as a nation. Which we won't should Islamic terrorists give us the dirty-nuke-of-the-month-club for Ramadan. (Russia's seemingly already signed up for the children's version of this horror.) So remember, says James Lileks:

[I]t's the war. That's what counts. If I had a choice between an isolationist Republican who would withdraw all American troops from everywhere and cast Israel adrift, OR a Joe Lieberman Democrat who understood the threat and wanted to take the fight to them - and nevermind what our valiant allies thought, like Russia - I'd pull the lever for the D. As I've said before: we can argue about the future of Western Civilization after we've ensured Western Civilization will survive.

Quote of the Week

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, meeting with the head of the Figaro press group about the recent kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq, and expressing confidence they would soon be freed:

The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.

Quoted in Amir Teheri, The Real Struggle for Iraq, New York Post, September 29, 2004.

The Debate: A High-Quality, Biased Tie

Debates are over-rated. Hardly free-wheeling, they're overstructured and under-fed. True, a candidate can lose a debate: Nixon in 1960 assuming TV make-up's for sissies (Nixon 1960); Ford in 1976 denying Soviet control over Eastern Europe; and Gore's 2000 testosterone fueled eye-roll/sigh combo. But debates normally are a draw. Hard to get civic-minded-choked-up about a tie (take note Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America--it's not a sport unless it produces one (or multiple) winner and loser).

In a Weekly Standard article posted Tuesday, Mike Murphy predicted:

What actually happens in the debate, barring a highly entertaining Tourette's style meltdown by one of the candidates, really doesn't matter. This is the first campaign debate in George W. Bush's career where he has entered with performance expectations, a troubling burden. While I expect the president will actually do well, that expectations game and the comeback narrative will combine, through the media's funhouse mirror, to put Kerry back in the race. Even though it may ultimately be simply an optical illusion.

So four questions: was the debate important?; fair?; funny?; and--games in America must end before Leno--who won?

IMPORTANCE--SOME: The initial scan of the transcript does not impress. Sounding a bit disappointed, the Washington Post concluded: "There were no glaring mistakes by either candidate during the 90-minute debate."

But most others praised the 90 minute show, including New York Times, National Review Columnist Jonah Goldberg and Blogger-in-Chief Glenn Reynolds.

FAIRNESS--NONE: Early in the program, Jim Lehrer's questions either favored Kerry or were softballs. Kerry wasn't asked about his foreign policy flip-flops. Instapundit tracks the issue; Hugh Hewitt's debate scorecard has the details.

HUMOR--SOME: Well, a gaffe, anyway. Kerry's channeling Howard Dean again, when asked about preemptive war in the future:

The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

The global test? To save America from nukes, what proof would Kerry require? And who would have to concurr? Hint--there's plenty of cheeses there.

AND THE WINNER IS: Bush, according to Hugh Hewitt, but his scoring is. . . ah. . . odd. Slight nod to Kerry, according to the Washington Post and Fred Barnes. But a tie goes to the incumbent:

Kerry did the best that could be expected of him in the 90-minute debate, he didn't elicit the sort of gaffe from Bush that might have altered the race. . . . But that's not enough, by itself, to lift Kerry back to parity with Bush. What Kerry needed was some embarrassing moment for Bush, a clumsy statement perhaps or an unpresidential moment of indecision, that would be played over and over again on TV news shows for the next few days. That didn't happen. Kerry annoyed Bush, even exasperated him at times. But he didn't force Bush to make an error.

I thought the debate a tie (good Bush first half; Kerry rallied late), as did a few bloggers and some guy named Lockhart who works for Kerry. Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard also scored it even. But recent U.S. citizen John Derbyshire (National Review) summarizes best:

John Kerry plus: He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be.

John Kerry minus: His positions don't hold together in any coherent way.

George W. Bush plus: He has an air of authority, experience, and purpose I don't recall from 2000.

George W. Bush minus: The President is a dismally poor public speaker.

More:

Former Reagan White House Counsel Fred Fielding: "You know how I knew Bush won the debate? When I woke up this morning, and the headline didn't say 'Bush Loses Debate.'"

Kerry Tales, Part XLVIII

• Flip. John Kerry, March 16, 2004:
  

  I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.

  (video, called "Searching," here).



• Flop. John Kerry, today, asked to explain himself by Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America:
  

  It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is I thought to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted, and that's what I did.

  Got that? Neither did I. Anyway, Kerry's lying: His remarks in March, according to the Washington Post, were at a "noontime appearance at Marshall University." (via Jonah Goldberg)



• Flip. John Kerry, March 16, 2004:
  

  In an interview with a local radio station, Kerry said he disagrees with the decision of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's newly elected prime minister, to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq after terrorist attacks that killed more than 200 people. "In my judgment, the new prime minister should not have decided that he was going to pull out of Iraq," Kerry said. "He should have said this increases our determination to get the job done."

• Flop. John Kerry, also on ABC this morning:
  

  My goal is to get our troops out of Iraq.

  This one's simple--Kerry's a quitter.



• Questions:
  
  
  1. Can John Kerry tell the truth about anything?
  
  
  
  2. Does John Kerry have consistent views about anything?