Didn't that poll have some weird internals, something like a sample that comprised 40% of people who'd voted for Bush last time but only 30% who voted for Gore?

I mean, you checked, didn't you, before writing a dramatic and portentous exegesis on how this single poll proved that a massive watershed has taken place in public opinion?

Mork,

From the article: "In the last few weeks, Kerry campaign officials have been nervously eyeing polls that show an erosion of the senator's support among women"

Emphasis added.

The Republicans have proven themselves a lot more flexible and adaptive.

Not new, Michael. George Owell said the same about the Right and Left in England at the end of WWII. Being useless for real tasks is one of the defining characteristics of the left; I think it's why so many end up in academia.

And Michael, you don't need to apologize for being a man. That PC sh*t is on the way out.

Speaking of 'taking a licking as you were',I could not resist posting the link below which I happened across on Ace's site.Just an attempt to contribute to the elevation of discourse involving the candidate of candidates,JFK #2.

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/roll-over-gene-simmons.html

I think that a lot of women think of Kerry as not far removed from a gigolo. Men who marry for money are perceived as effete. Not the kind of guys you want protecting you from terrorists.

Paying attention to telephone poll results in this day and age - or drawing any conclusions from the results of said polls - is an exercise in futility.

Yes, the world has changed dramatically as a result of 9/11 - but there's also been a gradual shift in behaviors over the last, oh, 30 years or so that's finally coming to a head.

For starters, people don't bother answering their landlines any more - between voicemail, caller ID, answering machines, and call blocking services, it's rare to have people actually answer their own phones in real time to someone they don't know. Do you? I certainly don't, and I know I'm far from alone in this regard.

And there's an entire crop of people using cellular phones as their primary phone line - 169 million cell phone users aren't being tracked by any polling service, anywhere.

Most polls also track 'likely voters' - which excludes those who haven't regularly voted in the last few years, have changed locations, and/or are new registrants - including most 18-25 year olds, an incredibly fluid bunch (and also those more likely to use a cell phone as their only phone line.)

Don't believe me? John Zogby's also weighed in on these factors recently, including in a recent Jimmy Breslin column. He's quoted as saying that "The people who are using telephone surveys are in denial." And as someone who's done some phone banking recently for Kerry, only to barely get any live humans on the phone in what's a Democratic stronghold here in Portland, I'm in total agreement.

Finally, I'd assert that women in general aren't more likely to vote for George Bush now - but rather, the women likely to vote for Kerry are too busy or not inclined to pick up a phone to weigh in.

In short, poll results are garbage.

The big bad news for Kerry is not just this one poll. It's the whole series of polls over the last few weeks that all agree that Kerry is losing ground. The last Washington Post poll had respondents saying they trusted Bush over Kerry on the economy, education (!), and Supreme Court picks (!!). Cheney's favorables now exceed Edwards' favorables, too. Edwards has to be wondering why he accepted the offer of the #2 spot.

Betsy says that poll results are garbage. Were they garbage to the same degree when they showed Kerry doing well?

Betsy -- Mork,

Please continue to cling to that lifeboat of irrational exuberance up to the elections itself.This has all the portents of a HUGE disaster for Kerry and hopefully for a number of the other members of the Party.
As Michael tried to say;it is really not the polls that really matter.It is Kerry's reactions to those polls that matter.The data available to each campaign is MUCH more accurate and detailed than the gross information released to the peons.For Kerry to abandon ALL mention of domestic issues and launch into an Iraq based campaign which is not playing to his strengths,and for the Kerry campaign to have already written off 5 battleground states as of today,indicates that he is major meltdown mode.
But you keep on believing ---- it makes the pending defeat so much more piquant.

Chuck: And Michael, you don't need to apologize for being a man. That PC sh*t is on the way out.

I didn't apologize for being a man. I apologized for using silly political terms. (Comes with the territory on this post, though.) I mean, I don't know anyone who says "I like George W. Bush because he's manly." Or "I'm voting for Kerry because he's appeals to my feminine side." Or whatever. I don't think in those categories and I don't know anyone who does. At least not consciously.

Not to pick nits, but the NYT poll actually still shows a gender gap.

I dont have the internals in front of me, but we can make some inferences. But first of all, a matter of definition.

"Gender gap" refers to the difference in preferences between men and women. It does not refer to the women's vote per se.

The NYT poll that is refered to here shows an overall Bush lead of 8 points. It shows a lead amongst women of 5 points. If we assume that women made up half the sample, then the Bush lead among men must have been 11 points.

So 11 - 5 = 6. Divide by two. A three point gender gap.

In 2000, Gore had an 11 point gender gap.

So by this poll, yes, Kerry has lost some of that gap. But it is still there.

Now lets look at another poll.
ARG just finished a massive 50 state poll. 600 voters in each of the 50 states - 30,000 in all.

Overall results - Bush+1.

Gender breakdown -
Women B-42, K-50
Men - B-51, K-42

Thats a gap of 9 on the BUsh vote, 8 on the Kerry vote = 17/2 = 8.5 point gender gap.

So yeah, a little slippage perhaps. Hardly the stuff of breaking news though.
Gotta be careful about drawing huge conclusions from one or two polls.

Betsy, while your arguments are quite sound, with all due respect, the multiple polls conducted by many different organizations do speak of a fundamental trend in opinion. I learned that quite some time ago, when I didn’t believe in polls, and thought – naively – that surely the majority of people could not be thinking along lines I did not.

I tend to agree with Michael Totten. The political landscape is different after 9/11, and the Democratic Party has not been able to adjust its policies, thinking, and strategies accordingly. I’ve always voted Democratic, but for the first time in my life – as an American citizen (since ’82) – I will be voting Republican, simply because not only Kerry, but the whole Democratic Party establishment seems to be without a clue as to how to deal with a world that is filled with anti-American bias and bigotry.

Take it from an immigrant: nothing that America can or would do will change the jealousy and envy for America in the rest of the world. The change has to happen not in America, but within Europe and Asia; - they need to get their act together, in terms of creating successful societies (so far, they’re trailing), that can prove themselves as models for emulation. Unfortunately, both Europe and Asia, - as export-based economies - need to exploit the American worker-consumer to sustain their welfare-state obligations (for Europe) and commitments to social stability (Asia), to such an extent that they are not good role models. The need to access the ultra-capitalistic American consumer in order to make their own idealism work compromises the economic premises for their own societies.

What America needs to do is just look after itself. It has the supreme power to do so (the New York Times’ opinion notwithstanding). Thus I find the Democratic Party’s equivocation in matters of morality and justice profoundly demoralizing and self-defeating, to the point that I’m just plain sick and tired of them. When they decide to give me some “Profiles In Courage”, maybe I’ll go back home to them.

I for one cannot WAIT to get my prolife mitts on the uteresus of American women! Muahahahahaah!!!!!

Tano: So by this poll, yes, Kerry has lost some of that gap. But it is still there

Okay, that's true.

Now that we are clear on the meaning of gender gap - the difference in preference between men and women - I would just issue a general caution about interpretations of data showing a closing gender gap.
There might be an instinct to view that as necessarily an increased prefence of women for Bush. But a closing of that gap could also signify an increase in male support for the Democrat. Either one would close the gap.

If we take the ARG poll as accurate (not that I do, but it is as good or better than any other single poll), then here is some history.

If you allocate the undecideds in the ARG poll a reasonable way, then:

In 2000, Bush got 53% of men. ARG (adjusted) has him with 53% today.

Gore got 42% of men. ARG (adjusted) has Kerry with 44%.

I don't think in those categories and I don't know anyone who does. At least not consciously.

Lots of politicians are tall. They're literally the big guys. I think it matters. Oddly enough, the fact that Kerry throws like a girl also matters to me. True, if he could fight like Sheridan I would overlook it, but it is one of the few things that truly stands out about the guy. That and his weird hair is enough to settle the matter as far as I am concerned.

The Kerry campaign has a special magic that allows people to get in touch with their feminine side, then analyze and repudiate it.

Betsy, Tano, Mork and to whom else it may concern

During the 80's and 90's I did quite a bit of campaign work for Democrats, one thing I did was help with the public relations and working on tracking voter sentiments and how such issues cut politically for our candidate. I found it quite laughable when the article stated…

Mark Mellman, a pollster for the Kerry campaign, said that the campaign was not especially disturbed by the reduced support from women. "I don't define it as a problem,'' Mr. Mellman said. "I define it as an opportunity.'' He noted that a group of widows of Sept. 11 victims endorsed Mr. Kerry last week and offered that as evidence that the women "thought he was better able to protect the country.''

What opportunity? To convince the women to come back? First I must say that I agree as usual with miklos and his gentle backhand of Betsy, you can’t have it both ways. Betsy, Mork, Tano and similar thinking partisans, there are two kinds of spin, one kind that seeks to maximize net gains and one that seeks to minimize damage, from you we witness the later. If the polls are really that close why is their a sense of panic among many Democrats? Those seeking to calm the waters are merely doing damage control, and no offense but all of your posts prove you either have no clue, are in denial, or just spinning.

When one follows polls for a candidate and campaign, there are different levels of analysis, for instance... Which issue or issues are front and center in this cycle? Which issues favor my candidate? Now from there if the main issue doesn't favor my candidate... Can we 'bait and switch' with an issue that does? If not.. Can we change our candidate’s stature relative to his opponents on the issue we lack advantage on? Now the last question is done by negative and/or positive means.

Based on all this the Democrats first choice was (rightly so)the economy… that failed. Second, they tried to neutralize the big advantage the President had as a Commander and Chief… That failed. Third they have tried to wear him down where he is most vulnerable, as a wartime leader. This is very dicey and wrought with danger because it attacks negatively our actions in Iraq. Paint it as a quagmire, sequel to Vietnam, the jury is still out. Lastly where they stand on the character issues…

Bush beats Kerry on likeability.
Bush beats Kerry on leadership.
Bush beats Kerry on honesty.
Bush beats Kerry on strength of character.

Don’t get mad at me it is just the facts as they are perceived by the public. These must change or Kerry will not only lose but lose in a huge landslide. The Democrats that are despairing are looking at those distressing facts, and know that all the issues that are in their favor are back burner and their ability to change that dynamic is long past. Worse is the stars are lined up very much against them on virtually al fronts. Democrats have many more vulnerable Senate seats open in this election and the battleground States seem to be cutting Bush’s way. Basically this means we are at aminimum looking at 2000 except Bush is fairing way better in more of the battleground States.
The News cycle, National Guard/CBS have helped Bush and have sucked the oxygen out of the air for Democrats. The Swift Boat Vets are not going away and are killing Kerry.

Now I am sure you Partisans will desire to argue with the above items pointed out and what they really mean, I say you are wasting time. Damage control and spin isn’t enough, maybe it makes you feel good but if you three I mentioned re-read your posts I’m sure if you were honest depth and profoundness wouldn’t be your claim. Here is your true hope, the rest you say is meaningless (well actually worse, but I digress), Bush was 10 % down at this point in 2000, yet he came back to win. That was one of the biggest turn arounds in history. How did he do this? The debates! Your partisan spin is silly, your hope truly is alive but it solely rests on this. (barring unforeseen catastrophes) And there isn’t a damn thing Kerry or his supporters can do about it. Either Bush falls on his face in those debates or he doesn’t. Save the spin.

MICHAEL...

Okay, to a certain extent, I think you're wrong on this one.

I don't think people consciously associate "manliness" or "girliness" when it comes to these candidates and politics in general, but psychologically they do. Chris Matthews, I believe, coined the terms "mommy party" and "daddy party" in refering to this idea.

Democrats are more nurturing, ideologically, with their embrace of welfare spending and tolerance for differing lifestyles. They approach governance in very much the same way a mother would approach her children. Republicans, on the other hand, ideologically, are much bigger fans of tough love, personal responsibility, and physical security. Their example of good governance is more similar to the way a father would approach the children, instead. The "mommy party" gives you treats and is there to tell you how wonderful you are when you do good. The "daddy party" is there to keep you safe and kick your ass when you act up.

One of my ex-girlfriends once told me that one of the things she loved about me the most of all was that, when I held her, it made her feel "all warm and fuzzy" but also "safe and protected" at the same time. This girl happened to be bisexual and said that I offered "the best of both worlds" in those moments, funny as that may sound, which no one else had ever managed to do for her before. I'm telling you about this because it's HUGELY pertinent to what I'm getting at. There's "mommy" love (sensitive, nurturing, warm and fuzzy) and then there's "daddy" love (strong, steadfast, protective). We incorporate these concepts into our political behavior, believe it or not, and into our ideas of the proper role of government.

Thing is, my ex-girlfriend also once told me that she'd never quite been able to develop a truly long-lasting and serious relationship with another woman because there would always be times that she'd need to feel protected and that men just did that better.

Politically, we're living in one of those times she was refering to: where we all (even and especially women) just need to feel safe and protected. If John Kerry was a much more muscular liberal, one who played upon "daddy" themes and spoke in those terms every now and then, he'd be cruising to a landslide victory. This is the season for muscular liberalism, quite frankly, but a muscular liberal John Kerry is not.

The country seems to be calling out for pre-Vietnam-style muscular liberalism, right now. It is "the best of both worlds", afterall, and the ideal counter to "compassionate conservatism". The Democrats will catch on to this soon enough and start moving in a more John-Kennedy-type direction, I think.

John Edwards speaks the language of muscular liberalism, if you haven't noticed. A certain line from his speech at the Democratic Convention comes to mind...

"We will have one clear and unmistakable message for Al Qaeda and these terrorists: You can run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you."

I was really impressed to hear Democrats talking like this and damn near cheered when he said it. This is what John Kerry isn't saying. He never talks like this. And that's what I'm getting at.

And Samuel is right, as is usually the case, about the debates deciding this race. Kerry can still turn this thing around. It's entirely possible and might even actually happen if his recent speech in NYU is any indication of where he wants to take the race in the last few weeks.

But he'll have to start talking "daddy" talk, which just flat-out isn't in his nature to do. It could happen. He could finally find his voice in staring down George Bush across the room. But I, for one, won't be holding my breath.

Grant

A Big Affirmative! Especially since I’ve knocked you on the head a few times lately. :^)

The debates are where there is hope, if any, for a Kerry supporter. Like I said Bush was down 10 points and the debates are where he made it up. Had Gore finished him off and won those debates, Bush would have never had a chance. It is the same now but like it was for Gore then it is for Bush now, it is mostly his to lose more then Kerry's to win. Gore LOST the debates more then he was beaten. The same will need to happen now.

In 1980 (Grant were you even born? I'm pretty sure Tano was) I was voting for Carter and the polls were close. During the debates Reagan did his… "There you go again Jimmy!" line delivered with the timing and confident wit so unique to him. This was worth about ten points, the eventual margin of victory. Unfortunately Kerry is not Reagan and Bush is much stronger then Carter was. But still, while it is a long shot for you Kerry supporters, it is very doable. But make no mistake all the talk of Kerry and Bush being even is not the true underlying flavor and story of the polls. In truth margins of error are fixed and set to break for Bush and break big if things don’t change and change big. That is why Kerry operatives are nervous and Bush's aren't. They are professionals, they know. For Kerry people that is your hope. Now Grant…

This actually gets back to what we had originally talked about long ago. I believe 2004 is still (despite the comparisons to 1972) like 1964 had Kennedy lived. Of course Bush being alive, modern communication and other factors do play some havoc with this example, but at some extent we are repeating history. That election wouldn't have had near popular vote taking LBJ had as he had a hold on some states Kennedy never would have, but make no mistake, Kennedy would have won. I think the Democrats after this election like the Republicans in the 60’s will be looking at increased Republican Party affiliation, but as the Democrats suffered a split in their base (Civil Rights/Segregation), the Republicans as their majority increases will be stressed from a potential (Social Conservative/Libertarian) fracture. Where we Neo-cons end up is a tough one as we are in between the two camps for sure. We are moralists and hawks, we get much support from social conservative by appealing to their sense of right and wrong but there are potential problems as well. Many libertarians are isolationist and somewhat amoral, a death knell for us. I don’t look forward to that day. But for sure, a smaller and united Democratic Party like the Republicans in past days can more easily ‘split’ the Conservative base while holding their own together, we will see.

But for now the WOT puts much of this off the table and the Republicans are spared. Security (Daddy) trumps Healthcare/Education (Mommy), and the Economy is fairly split and a wash in my opinion because even if Bush is held more negatively he holds the trump card (taxes). I said Bush has the Commander in Chief image all but sewn up because he has proven to have a big ass kicking boot. The Wartime part is where he is more vulnerable because that is about policy, but it is very dangerous, very tricky, Kerry better take care.

I’ll add one last thing. To you partisans, be partisan, there is nothing wrong with that, but sometimes I wish I’d see you give more honest to God non-tainted perspectives and every now a again leave the damn axe grinding at home.

MJT,

Like it or not, women have a biological response programmed by evolution to want men who will protect them and their children. Gender isn't a socially constructed reality. It is hard coded in our genes.

So women in this election will vote depending on their perception of two key questions. Are we threatened? If so, who will most aggressivley defend us?

Women who feel that the threat is hyped will vote according to their views on other issues. That is why Democrats continualy downplay the threat facing this country and the world. Women who realize the extent of the threat will move on to the next question.

Women will vote for Kerry if they are convinced that Bush has bungled Iraq, and Kerry can handle it better. Women will vote for Bush if they don't feel that Kerry's post-Vietnam record indicates weakness.

So I have two questions for women. First, do you trust a man like John Kerry to be commander in chief who while still in the military travelled to a foreign country in a time of war, met with the leadership of the enemy and then returned to this country and advocated unconditional acceptance of the enemy's terms of surrender? Second, do you trust a man like John Kerry to be commander in chief who's plan on dealing with Iraq depends on unamed foreign countries sending non-existent armies to bail us out?

Here are my answers. John Kerry's unauthorized meeting with the Vietnamese communist leadership while some mothers' sons were being tortured by communist forces violated at least two laws and is an absolute disqualification for commander in chief. Furthermore, Kerry's so-called "plan" for Iraq doesn't even pass the laugh test. The French and the UN are not going to fix this. The goal of the French and the UN is to undermine our efforts in Iraq. John Kerry is promising that the very people who want us to fail in Iraq will help us in Iraq. John Kerry would put our childrens' futures in the hands of our enemies.

Bottom line for women: America and the world will be safer under the leadership of George Bush. The world will head toward disaster under John Kerry.

The question is whether women will be able to accuratley assess the situation in a world where most get their information from the dominant illiberal media. CBS has proven that they are nothing more DNC agents. If women are fully informed, they will vote for Bush. If not, they will vote for Kerry. And all our children will end up paying the price.

I came across this quote from Thomas Paine the other day over at Powerline:

"If there must be trouble let it be in my time, that my child may have peace."

Women, don't trust you're childrens future to John Kery. You'll regret it. That is why I'm voting for George Bush. I want to deal with with these troubles in my time, not my childrens.

HA
Thats pure comedy. Really and truly.
Wake up the lot of you, Iraq is a disaster, caused by the Bush WH approach to it. Bush is a coward for not been able to see his mistakes, act to change his mistakes or admit them. In Yorkshire We call that cowardice.

If, and I hope its not a when, Iraq slips fully into civil war, will you open your eyes and see a just and noble cause destoyed by the vanity and stupidity of Bush and his co-horts.

I find the Democratic approach of focusing on issues that, in Michael's phrase, "are not front and center this year," to be the wiser of the two currently operating. This morning (or maybe it was yesterday), the Today show ran a poll that indicated that 58% of people planning to vote for Bush wanted him to make major changes in his policies during his second term. This indicates two things to me:

1) Yes, people are voting for Bush because they're scared, or because they like his squinty smirk and his dropped "g"s.

2) These people are self-deluding idiots.

Kerry is running a campaign in which he hopes the country will wake the fuck up and realize that

1) everything Bush has touched has turned to shit, from Iraq to the economy, and

2) Bush has no idea how imbecilic, short-sighted and destructive his policies are. Like Kerry said in Florida the other night, "I drove past Fantasyland yesterday. The difference between us is, I drove by. Bush lives there."

Trouble is, you can't run that campaign when you're trying to appeal to self-deluding idiots who think a guy whose whole campaign is about how, facts be damned, he never changes course or changes his mind about anything once Jesus has helped him make it up (except of course when he does, like when he decided maybe stonewalling the 9/11 commission he never wanted in the first place wasn't gonna make it go away after all) is somehow gonna reverse course and become a good and wise leader in his second term.

Come on. Stop fooling yourselves. The simple truth is, if Bush wins, he will be Bush unchained. Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum will move into the White House and sit at Cheney's right hand, and all the fucked economic and social policies of the first term will be operating at full speed and triple strength. Go ahead; vote for Bush because he struts and looks tough. Wait and see if you've still got a country worth living in by 2006.

Grant McI: did Edwards say destroy? My mistake. I thought he said "We will sue you." Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Samuel said "but sometimes I wish I’d see you give more honest to God non-tainted perspectives and every now a again leave the damn axe grinding at home."

HELL YES!

Partisan politics are bad for everyone, on either side. Partisan thinking blinds you to other possible solutions to problems. Your Party is Not Right All The Time (whichever party you tend to subscribe to).

Americans are electing a commander-in-chief this November, someone who will try to "keep them safe." Kerry's windsurfing on Iraq has killed him. I think most Republican attacks on Kerry have been reprenhensible, but the windsurfing ad is spot on. Makes him look rich, pampered, invulnerable to the concerns of vulnerable Americans, no matter what he says today or tomorrow. It's like Dukakis in a tank, and Bush 41 playing golf during the recession of 1992.

Democrats either needed to nominate someone whose message on Iraq was "good war, bad planning", as Michael said, or someone with a strong, forthright insistence that invading Iraq was a trap and a folly and a bad strategic decision in the war against those who attacked us on 9/11 and those who aided them. One or the other. Americans feel threatened (rightfully so) and indecisiveness looks weak.

HA --
Kerry's actual fighting in Vietnam, and his forthright opposition to the war after he got home, are two of the only forthright, honorable things he has done in a life that otherwise seems to be mainly about ambition.

What excuses all of the supposedly "treasonous" behavior of him and millions of other Americans in the Vietnam era is that it was a response to an unnecessary, and therefore, unjustified war, fought under false pretenses (including the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the purported existence of an "international communist conspiracy" despite the sino/soviet split), and without a congressional declaration of war. Unless you want to outlaw dissent against any decision the President makes as commander-in-chief, the fact that the opposition of a citizen or a group of citizens to those actions might give aid and comfort to "the enemy" is TOUGH SHIT, and part of the price of liberty.

One must also distinguish between offering political aid and comfort, and offering tactical military aid and comfort. The latter would surely be treason under any circumstances. The former almost never is.

Particularly when the conflict is happening without a declaration of war -- which I and many others on all sides of the political spectrum believe was necessary - or even a congressional resolution that authorized the scale of fighting that developed as the war got bigger. (Did the Gulf of Tonkin resolution even mention taking action against the North Vietnamese government?)

Samuel,

Thank you for another highly amusing post. You are one of the great sources of entertainment 'round these parts.

It was so good of you to preface your remarks by acknowledging your vast experience in the field of spin. That certainly added a delicious dash of irony to all your further comments. You accuse me of being a partisan and of engaging in spin. Are you unaware of the fact that you have thoroughly succeeded in establishing yourself as a pure voice of democrat/Kerry hatred?

Of course, in your case it seems to go far beyond mere spin. The great narrative story line of your posts is intensly personal - as if the phenomenon of one old fart following the tired path of left to right political alliance-shifting, correlated with age and standing in the world, was a metaphor for the shifting mood of America as a whole. As Samuel goes, so goes the nation.

Unfortunatly, this psychodrama that you constantly expose us to seems to foreclose any of the benefits that someone following this trajectory might, in theory, be able to offer. Having lived and loved and fought for certain political convictions most of your life, and now adopting new ones, the hope is that you could be some sort of a bridge between the two sides. That you would have insights not only into the weakness of both sides, but the strengths. You know the valid criticisms of the right, for you felt them deeply, and fought them most of your life. And the valid criticisms of the left, for you were part of them. And the valid strengths of the left - that was you - your idealism, your dreams, the focus of your efforts. And now, presumably, you see the valid strengths of the right. Quite an intersting and potentially useful perspective from which to speak.

But you give us none of that. Along with people like Roger, we get nothing but this near-pathological self-loathing of your former selves. Attempts to establish some measure of credibility today, with your new friends, by denying and castigating all that you formerly believed. It raises the obvious question - why should anyone trust you now when you admit to having been clueless all your adult life? You come off as what I imagine that the head of a re-education camp would see as their model student.

But back to the election. You give us the Bush spin, and, presumably with a straight face, deny that it is spinning. Yawn.

How can one respond? You want the other side of the spin? OK.

As anyone who follows politics knows perfectly well, this race is, and always has been, a referendum on George Bush. Simply by virtue of the fact that all presidential re-election efforts are referenda on the incumbent. Democracy is inherintly a buffering and moderate force. People tend not to want to fire someone unless they really conclude that it is necessary. So that becomes the dynamic. If the American people begin to sense that the incumbent is not up to the job, then step two is to look to see if the alternative is acceptable. That is the dynamic, I would argue, that is ongoing as we speak.

If you recall, in 1980, there was a general sense that Carter was not really up to the job. But Carter was actually running even with Reagan up until the last few weeks. The general story line of that election was that by getting off one lame one-liner in the debates, Reagan was able to somehow reassure the American people that he could play in the big leagues, that he could be a credible president. Once that was established, the door was open to people pulling the trigger on Carter, and by election day, he had fallen to a rather decisive defeat.

The key indicators of general American sentiment regarding Bush are all deeply dangerous for him. His re-elect numbers have been consistently negative. The right-track/wrong-track numbers have also been consistently indicative of a general desire for something different. That is why 80% of Bush's campaign has been negative against Kerry. His only hope of survival is to somehow preclude the American people from accepting Kerry as a legitimate alternative. For if the general sense becomes that Kerry would be OK as a president, then the door would be open to the people pulling the trigger on their desire for something new. Of course this is why we have these apocalyptic visions of the defeat of Western civilization if Kerry wins.

Many who sense this dynamic try to portray it as some general criticism of Kerry. As in "nobody really wants Kerry, they just dont like Bush". But this fails to recognize that this is always the dynamic in these type of presidential re-election bids. Carter beat Ford because the country just felt that, after Watergate and the other traumas of the Nixon presidency, there just needed to be a new crew in there. It wasnt any great fascination with "Carterism". Same in 1980. The general sense was that Carter was not doing a good job - there was precious little general enthusiasm for the Reagan revolution. This was, of course, brought home as a lesson to Republicans in 94-95, when Gingrich seemed to view the massive victory in the Congress as a mandate for his revolution, when in fact there was simply disgust with an entrenched and fossilized Democratic house, and thus a desire for something new. Clinton masterfully gave Gingrich enough rope to hang himself with that one.

So what are we looking at today? Three weeks after the RNC, Bush seems to have a small lead. Quite similar to the lead that Kerry had three weeks after the DNC. After all the money spent trying to destroy Kerry, after all the swiftboat nonsense and everything else, the race is for all intents and purposes tied. (Just for comparison's sake - in the week before the 2000 election, some major polls showed a 5 point Bush lead).

All Kerry needs to do over the next six weeks is to solidify, with a relativly few undecided voters in swing states, the sense that he could be a credible president. Then the door opens to people pulling the trigger on Bush. Perhaps it might come down to a one-liner in the debates. Or perhaps just the general sense that Kerry can hold his own while playing in the big leagues.

I am a single, 42 year old, 21st century feminists who is sick and tired of NOW always sticking their dirty hands on MY BUSH. NOW's barbaric attempt to empower me has made me realize male and females are not simply equals but are glorious compliments to one another.

Furthermore, I will no longer follow the Medea syndrome which says that since I am female I have the power to freely murder if I so choose.

Once upon a time females were held in high regard and respected for our ability to birth life, however, NOW females are glorifing our ability to murder. Medea is alive and well but I will not let her rule me.

TAKE YOUR DIRTY HANDS OF MY BUSH!!!!!

My declaration should read "OFF MY BUSH"

I like the "dirty hands of Bush" better. Freudian slip?

Good post, Tano. My thinking exactly.

>>>"Michael, you don't need to apologize for being a man. That PC sh*t is on the way out."

I beg to disagree. Metrosexual is in, and that ain't manly; unless you consider vainly preening before mirrors, and shopping sprees for the latest male fashions to be manly.

Grant,

Yes, you're right. Thanks.

By the Gods Tano, you made an intelligent post!

;-)

Tosk

Tano:

"[Bush's] only hope of survival is to somehow preclude the American people from accepting Kerry as a legitimate alternative."

Actually, Kerry's doing a fine job of that all by himself. His inconsistency on every issue of importance has poisoned him (not to mention his journeys into Cambodia, Paris, etc.), and barring some breakout performance in the debates I expect the Kerry slide to continue. But he'll still be a Senator, and I expect the Pre-Nups have some bones thrown in to him so he should be able to continue in the lifestyle he so obviously enjoys.

And don't you be dissing Samuel; his posts are entertaining, they are heart-felt, and they show a strong respect for facts on the ground. He doesn't cherry-pick and he doesn't generalize. He uses current data and historical precedent to support his conclusions. In short, he's a damn fine thinker. My impression is he doesn't hate Democrats; he likes Bush, he hates Kerry, and he mourns the lack of vision displayed by the current leaders of his former party.

If Sam Nunn or Zell Miller were running for President, I think Samuel would be ecstatic that he had such a tough choice come November.

The angry Democrats are angry for reasons. Treating them like people who've caught some gruesome disease reflects poorly upon you.

sivert

You forgot to add the word 'MY' in your comment regarding my 'keep your hands off MY bush' comment. Get it....MY bush!

Are you a practicing Maureen Dowdist perhaps? Do you always rewrite quotes in order to validate your arguments?

Freudian slip? Heh.

Perhaps not a slip, but deeply Freudian nonetheless.

Betsy, Iam siting here laughing my a** off at your conclusion that Bush supporting females are most likely the only ones answering the phones, (when these type polls are taken) while Kerry supporting females are just to busy to answer one? That remark makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What might I ask is it that Kerry supporting females are doing to keep them sooo much busier than other females?

What might I ask is it that Kerry supporting females are doing to keep them sooo much busier than other females?

Bush abusing, no doubt.

Thank you for putting "Women's issues" in scare quotes.

Both candidates have overlooked 51 percent of the voting population and put us in the special interest category. The number one issue for women is pay equity. We are still the largest group earning a minimum wage. Social Security discussions aren't addressed to women even though we outlive men. :) What about abortion? Neither candidate will even use the word. How about the women of Iraq and Afghanistan? Some of us do feel a certain solidarity with the oppression they have endured. We don't need a hug to feel safe and secure nor are we replacing our daddy with a presidential vote. Sheez, what year is it?

>>>>"How about the women of Iraq and Afghanistan? Some of us do feel a certain solidarity with the oppression they have endured."

What about them? Bush ousted the Taliban, and closed down Saddam's rape prisons. Not good enough, he's a Republican.

Everyone:

I'd just like to say that I've always found the concept of there being special, designated "Women's Issues" to be rather illiberal. When the issues are listed, they all have to do with making and raising babies, rather anti-feminist, especially as it's "liberals" who are often touting these "women's issues". The notion that women would naturally favor more dovish foreign policy than men is also ridiculous, sexist crap.

Women don't dig Kerry for the same reason that men don't like him: He's a weird, vaguely creepy, pompous twit. The only thing about him that I would think might turn women off more than men is the fact that he is, literally, a gigolo, a category of man eminently not to be respected by any woman.

MJT:

The article you quoted says "on Thursday in Davenport, Iowa, he will preside over a forum on national security with an audience solely of women."

Yet you conclude that Kerry "doesn't get it", that's he running a Sept 10 campaign. To me, the Iowa forum suggests Kerry get it quite well (or, at least, one of Kerry's campaign strategists gets it.)

I guess it depends on what he actually does at the forum.

Any women commenters want to say if Kerry should (a) ride his motorbike on stage and start doing one-handed push-ups, or (b) explain in detail how Bush has done a terrible job fighting terrorism, and describe a plan for doing better?

Whoever dropped that line earlier about Edwards saying "we will sue you" instead, that was damn funny. I was laughing out loud. Just thought you should know. Witty witty stuff.

Eric,
Thank you for informing us all of what it is that women like or dont like, or what they respect, or what positions they tend to support.

Maybe it was silly of me to do so, but I made certain assumptions about your sex, based on your name. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

The first presidential election following September 11 will be a battle between two groups of people: 9/10 and 9/12.

More women are 9/12 than 9/10.

John Kerry has made it clear that he is a 9/10 person.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Kim: Thank you for putting "Women's issues" in scare quotes.

Relax. I'm a man. And more often than not I come down on the "female" side of these arguments. That's why I used quote marks. Health care, pro-choice, etc., aren't just for women.

I gotta say here, that as a women neither Bush nor Kerry would get my vote as being the "Best" man. The last thing I would want to see is JK riding in on a motorcycle and do hand stands. Nor do I ever want to think of Bush in any way other than his leadership abilities.

I don't like talking about the separation of sexes when discussing Presidential campaigns. This is not Afganistan and our govt. isn't the Taliban. If it were I'm sure my opinion would change drastically on women's issues.

Neither of them could woe my vote by appealing to my "woman" side.

I want to live in a safe country and I want our messes cleaned up and not left for our children and grandchildren to do.

Seems like a no-brainer as to who will get my vote.

I don't think many people have HEARD from Kerry or Edwards AT ALL since the Democratic convention. It's been all swift boats, windsurfing, republican convention, and rathergate. And at the democratic convention he and other spearkers were too busy talking about Kerry's vietnam record to say much about the domestic issues ON WHICH A MAJORITY OF VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC POSITIONS.

No one has said anything about Supreme Court appointments, stem cells, Kerry's excellent plan to cover a lot of uninsured, Kerry's pro-free trade stance on prescription drugs, etc., etc.

His campaign is run by losers.

Eric - you don't have any freaking idea why John Kerry and Theresa Heinz got together -- that's about the crassest thing I've ever heard so far this year.

Pianoman -- "Seems pretty simple to me."

That's your problem and a lot of other peoples' too.

Mark Poling, thanks, I appreciate that.

Tano, at least I have never been called a troll at any site, conservative or liberal, you have at every sight I have witnessed you at. I leave it at that.

Samuel,

Tano is not a troll. And I say that as a person who has Zero Tolerance for trolls.

MJT - The "thank you" was sincere not sarcasm. I read you enough to know how to read you.

David - I'm voting for Bush. Reread it with that in mind.

Clarification - I was reacting to the school of thought that a vote for Bush from a woman (democrat) means she needs a warm fuzzy hug. I can assure you I am both a woman and a democrat and need no warm fuzzy hugs. Bush had my vote 3 years ago and nothing Kerry has said has changed it.

Markus:

You're forgetting about Kerry's first marriage. This is the second time he's married into wealth, and a significant "trade up" as well. He of course had the first marriage annuled (sp?) meaning that, in the eyes of his church it never happened. I always found this to be one of the most brutal and unforgiving doctrines of Catholicism. The fact that Kerry would chose to follow this part of his faith while contradicting church teachings in other matters such as his public stance on abortion is, to say the least, curious. If he'd only had one of these marriages I wouldn't have said gigolo.

If that was really the crassest thing you've heard so far this year, then I can only conclude you live in an underground bunker and have no access to television, newspapers, movies, and radio, (yet are still somehow on this site). Gimme a break.

Michael:

You don't consider Tano a troll, but you're in the minority. He's at best a boring partisan robot but at worst a troll, and is thought of as such at other sites where I've encountered him. IMHO, you are actually far too tolerant of trolls. Of course, I've been needlessly vituperative in this thread for some reason so I realize I don't have great standing on this right now.

MJT

I agree with Eric Deamer, you are by far in the minority with that opinion. So when you say…

And I say that as a person who has Zero Tolerance for trolls.

Zero tolerance compared to what? Your tolerance and threshold for ridiculous below the belt trash talk by leftists is very high. It is your site and that is your decision, but the “zero tolerance” rings very hollow. You say he's not a troll, many more people have said he is, and that is a fact. You can choose to defend whatever you want, it is your site.

David

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but what you did to Cathy is exactly what you did to me the other day. Please more carefully read and make sure you understand a post as its author intended before you pounce so damn hard on someone. It is bad enough getting smacked by someone you disagree with, it is even worse getting smacked by someone you are in full agreement with.

Samuel - below the belt trash talk by leftists

As my ninth grade english teacher always said, "Oberon, don't you mix your metaphors" (just friendly advice)

And I don't see why you single out ut "leftists." If I want read commentary that bans leftists, I'll read Freeperville.

MJT bans people who trade in insults or racism. That's hardly limited to leftists, here or or anywhere.

Oberon is right. I ban people who trade in insults and racism. Once I banned someone for being absolutely shockingly idiotic on a regular basis.

A person is not a troll just because he or she argues with you on a regular basis.

And Samuel, if you think my tolerance of left-wing trolls is too high, you should know that I get accused by people on the other side of fence of being too tolerant of right-wing trolls.

I do not want this blog - ever - to become an echo chamber. Dissenting views are both encouraged and appreciated.

>>>"I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but what you did to Cathy"

and

>>>"Please more carefully read and make sure you understand a post as its author intended"

Samuel,

you mean KIM. Not Cathy. And I reread her post, and it could go either way. Her clarification was was necessary.

Oberon

I didn't say he never banned those on the right or the left. I said he has more tolerance especially by degree, when it comes from the left, just my opinion. My original slap was at partisans on both sides, those with drivel commentary full of clichéd bubkus.

I have no intention of driving this discussion futher, but since my name is being bandied about, let me simply state my thoughts.

I find it odd that both Eric and Samuel presume to speak for, or to have some sense of what the majority opinion of readers and/or commentors of the site is. Obviously they dont. They are merely projecting their own views. Pretending that their own views are the views of some unmeasurable larger set of people, as a way of giving them more weight than they deserve.

Both also refer to my reputation at other sites. But unless I am mistaken, the only other site that they have encountered me on is Roger Simon's. Once again - exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

Yes I have been called a troll many times at Simon's site. That is one of the problems with that place. I think, not counting today, that I have been called a troll here maybe once or twice. Clear difference. It is the difference between a place where people can try to discuss the difficult and complex issues of the day in a respectful manner (here), or a frenetic bonding site, where conformity to the party line is the ultimate credential (Simon's place). I was even called a troll there once for merely asking the group why they gave credibility to someone who had been openly praising Franco and Pinochet. The person was a regular - so exempt from criticism or challenge, no matter how revolting their views.

Of course there are some people who fit the defintion of a troll. But the term has become, in some places, vastly overused, and is merely a bludgeon to silence or to drown out the voices of anyone who doesnt "get with the program".

As with calling anyone names of any kind, it is always as much an insight into the character of the person doing the name-calling as it is a statement about their target.

MJT:

Query about Kerry being "the Energizer Bunny of losers."

The polls basically show the candidates even, or a small lead for Bush. Most "voting models" I've seen (predicting elections on the economy, jobs, and other numbers) show Bush should win easily in November, like 55-45 or something, so arguably Kerry is doing pretty good.

Think about it -- Kerry faces an incumbent president, with a fairly decent economy. And he's spent very little campaign money in the past month, because he has to spend his $75 million over 3 months, while Bush has the same cash for 2.

So why do people think he's such a loser as a candidate?

My guess is that a lot people on the Kerry side just can't understand why so many people support Bush.

-- Bush speaks about tax cuts but has an insanely large budget deficit (i.e. his $450 billion deficit is just $450 billion in future taxes, plus interest).

-- Bush talks about fighting terrorism, but he purposely took the focus off Al Qaeda, won't say bin Laden's name, has convicted EXACTLY ZERO people of terrorist acts, his anti-terror chiefs keep quitting, and I don't know of any independent expert on Islamic terrorism who thinks Bush has done anything but bungle it royally.

-- Bush says he invaded Iraq to make us safer (and at the time I thought it was a good idea), but there were no significant WMDs, no operational tie to Al Qaeda, and his plan for post-Saddam Iraq was "be greeted as a liberator." The occupation is a mess, and Bush is largely to blame.

(Sorry, I know I've said this all before.)

So yeah, if Kerry can't crush this guy, he's a loser.

Oops, did I write "occupation"?

Sorry, I mean "liberation."

I don't agree with anything Tano says, but he's not a troll.

Oberon:

Bush's fiscal policy sucks. Agreed.

Bush doesn't convict terrorists, the US Military kills them. Works for me.

Iraq was Step Two on a long road. The struggle against Islamofascism is a generational thing. Get your head out of the sand.

Working backwards toward the coccoon....

Kerry's position in relation to Bush seems to be changing because polling firms are "compensating for Republican oversampling." In other words, how the numbers are analysed has changed since Bush opened up a 10+ point lead a short time ago. Maybe it's justified, and maybe it isn't, but folks didn't seem too worried about sample bias when Kerry was up. Here's a good explanation of what's going on, from a Kerry supporter.

P.S. Agreed that Tano isn't a troll, but he can get nasty and dismissive with those who dissent from Correct Thought. Note to Tano: that's a good way to get blindsided when a societal shift happens.

And yes, I realize I was just nasty and dismissive. It's been a bad day.

MJT

You made the statement describing yourself as... "a person who has Zero Tolerance for trolls." That was fairly questioned. You supplied a post-facto definition of what that means. It is your site no one asked for a one-sided exchange, I will say the deterioration of reasoned discourse you allow for is discouraging.

Mark Poling

Since you just recently posted I would like to say setting aside the defense which I appreciated, your description of my posting style was a pretty impressive characterization, very impressive. Thanks.

Bush doesn't convict terrorists, the US Military kills them. Works for me.

Cute. But...

First, it's better to a capture a terrorist. Then you can get him to talk, leading to capturing or killing other terrorists. (Yeah, I know, it's wimpy "law enforcement" instead of manly destroying them like Kerry and Edwards keep repeating, but I prefer an effective war, not a satisfying one.)

Second, we have civil liberties in the country. They are very important.

Third, if Ashcroft gets to have a press celebration every time he arrests a suspected terrorist (an Islamic one, that is; he doesn't have press conferences for arresting any other type), then I get to bitch that he hasn't convicted anyone. Hamdi's going free -- do I celebrate or cry? (Though I admit it's not Bush's fault.)

Iraq was Step Two on a long road. The struggle against Islamofascism is a generational thing. Get your head out of the sand.

Query -- do you distinguish between "Islamofascism" and the war against terrorism? That's an honest question, not a snark. Maybe we have different meanings for the same word.

IMHO, they are not the same thing. "Islamofascism" is a powerful phrase, I know MJT thinks it's appropriate, but from what I understand, no actual experts on Islamic terrorism talk about "Islamofascism". They define the enemy clearly: Al Qaeda and other groups that follow the extreme and violent Wahhabist version of Islam.

George Bush said you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Hussein in the war on terror. Find me any independent expert who thinks that isn't nonsense. Dangerous nonsense.

As for bringing freedom and the rule of law to the Middle East, yes, it needs to happen somehow. It's a long-term, generational struggle, rather than a problem we can solve by invading a country and expecting to be greeted as liberators.

Markus,

Kerry's actual fighting in Vietnam, and his forthright opposition to the war after he got home, are two of the only forthright, honorable things he has done in a life that otherwise seems to be mainly about ambition.

How twisted does your mind have to be to assert that what Kerry did when he returned from vietnam was "honorable?" Nothing John Kerry has ever done in his public life has been honorable. Everything he has done has been disgraceful.

My cousin was killed in Vietnam in 1971 while John Kerry was acting as a agent for the Vietnamese communists and smearing Vietnam veterans. John Kerry's smears and betrayal stole the honor from my cousin's sacrifice. My uncle died last year, and I'm thankful that he didn't have to live long enough to witness the prospect of John Kerry defiling the presidency. It would have been unbearable.

If John Kerry was opposed to the war out of principle, he didn't have to do it the way that he did. The manner that John Kerry chose to oppose the war demonstrated malice towards his own country in order to serve himself. He has never apologised for what he did. He has never demonstranted that he is a different man in 2004 then he was in 1971. He has never shown remorse. He cannot be forgiven.

John Kerry will never be charged for the crimes he committed. It's too late for that. Furthermore, an ambassador's son and a friend of the Kennedy's was never going to get prosecuted for the kind of crimes that Kerry committed. The only way that people like my cousin can get justice for what John Kerry did to them is for the American people to deny him his highest ambition.

>>>>"Second, we have civil liberties in the country. They are very important."

Terrorists don't have any civil liberties. That's why the war on terror is no longer a job for the police and law enforcement. Bush isn't Clinton, who rejected Sudan's offer to of Osama Bin Laden because in Clinton's words we didn't have enough "evidence" to hold him. That's why 9/11 happened.

Now, under George Bush, we're at war, and it's a war waged by the military, and they kill and break things, and ask questions later. If you don't want your civil liberties taken away, then don't put yourself in their sights.

Query -- do you distinguish between "Islamofascism" and the war against terrorism? That's an honest question, not a snark. Maybe we have different meanings for the same word...from what I understand, no actual experts on Islamic terrorism talk about "Islamofascism". They define the enemy clearly: Al Qaeda and other groups that follow the extreme and violent Wahhabist version of Islam.

The Wahhabist version of Islam has been around for a few hundred years. It is the official state religion of bin Laden's Saudi Arabia.

All Saudis are Wahhabis. Wahhabism influenced the extremist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, which then influenced groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, the Chechen Separatists, the Iraqi insurgents, the Sudanese government, etc.

What separates Wahhabism from the rest of Islam is their belief that the lives of non-Wahhabis (including muslims) are without value. That's why they enjoy killing us by the thousands - it's their tradition. Most muslims regard Wahhabism as a dangerous and homicidal cult. If they didn't have billions of dollars to throw around, they wouldn't have any respect from other Muslims.

The racist, genocidal Wahhabi philosophy is the terrorism that we should be fighting.

>>>"George Bush said you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Hussein in the war on terror. Find me any independent expert who thinks that isn't nonsense. Dangerous nonsense."

It's not nonsense, it's clarity of purpose-- fuck with us and you die.

So Saddam isn't a wahabi; who gives a crap. Did FDR split hairs when he called America's efforts during WW2 a war against Fascism? Yet any fool could have told him Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had little in common other than their quest for empire and their hatred of western democracy.

No, we don't have proof that Saddam was connected to 9/11 specifically; but we do know he was meeting with Al-Qaida, and we do know their goals were the same in many respects. We also know Saddam was financing terrorism against Israel, a democracy and our ally over there.

Leave the nuance for the classroom please.

When I read that Times article, I suddenly imagined a frontier woman in a pinafore dress with a baby swaddled in one hand and a thirty odd six in the other. There's hundreds of smoking bullet holes on the back wall of her log cabin, and she's peering out the window at the retreating marauders with a cool fury that her husband has never seen. The next words she says come out flat, calm, and unyielding:

"Darling, I don't care how you do it, but I want you to go out there and find the people who threatened our babies, and I want you to kill 'em. Kill them, and kill the folks what paid them to do it. Kill their friends, too, and kill the folks what cheered 'em on, when they done it. Kill them all. You hear me, honey?

"DO YOU HEAR ME?"

'Terrorists don't have any civil liberties. That's why the war on terror is no longer a job for the police and law enforcement. "

I dont think that this makes the right distinction. Criminals dont have civil liberties either. We recognize civil liberties for law-abiding citizens. They are extended to people who are criminals only until we are sure that they are criminals. Once that is established, then we take the liberties away.

One of the major distinctions between war and police actions is precisely this. When at war, we care far less about being sure that someone is the enemy. Which guarantees that innocent law-abiding people will be killed. We can dismiss that as "collateral damage", but it is grave injustice no matter what.

That is why, for me, going to war should be recognized as the serious moral issue that it is. I am sickened to see so many of my countrymen beating their chest and fantasizing about invading one country or the other. War is a recourse, to my mind, when we can morally justify killing innocent people in order to get at the enemy.

If we find an al-Q cell in an apartment building in NYC, we will not bomb the building. Nor if that cell is in Hamburg, or Manila. We will handle it like a police action. If they resist, then they will be shot, but the police do that too.

The truth is that much of the effort against al-Q will be police work - because we are not going to be at war with the surrounding population.

>>>"The truth is that much of the effort against al-Q will be police work - because we are not going to be at war with the surrounding population"

Tano,

when our policymakers decide which country to invade and which country not to invade, I hope those decisions won't be made on the basis of "civil liberties". I hope that those policymakers aren't bound to the constitutional standards of evidence that we as U.S. citizens have. I hope that the "police work" ends at locating the enemy, and not at how we'll kill him.

Do we want to kill innocent people? Obviously not, but that's not a civil liberties issue, it's a moral issue and a political issue.

David,
Our leaders wouldnt put the decision about war explicitly in terms of "civil liberties", but if you look deeper, then there is some sense of that. It is not just innocent Americans whose lives we respect. I repeat, we are not going to go to war against Germany or the Phillipines, because there might be cells there.

Even in Iraq, where the claim was made that the government was aiding al-Q, we didnt go to war in the same sense that we went to war against Germany or Japan in WWII. We went into Iraq to liberate the people, not to categorize them as potential collatoral damage. In WWII, we had no such attitude. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, purposely, in order to advance the war aims.

We could nuke Falluja tomorrow, of course, like we did Hiroshima, but that is not the point of this war. Most all of our wars now, and in the future, will be less like WWII, and more like police work, because there simply are not any nation states who are explicit enablers of al-Q. Nor, as in WWII, are there populations who are mobilized to work to support a war against us.

Tano, our wars will be less like WWII right up until the point someone flies a minicopter over Manhattan and detonates a Hiroshima-type bomb.

Oberon, what we have here is a rates problem. We can go after specific groups with specific names (now what group is it that Zarqawi runs?) or we can worry about who has resources that can really hurt us. Worrying about human rights is all well and good. But ensuring human rights for our enemies won't mean diddley to x-million humans burnt to a radioactive crisp. Again, it's a matter of what hurts more, faster.

You are on the side of those who would retard our response to the growing threat. You mean well, but the practical effect of what you're saying pisses me off.

What I want to encourage are measures that inhibit the probability of any Islamofascist (or for that matter any pro-apocalyptic) group getting one of these weapons. The probablilty from here on out will never be zero unless we as a species lose the ability to produce nukes (in other words, if civilization as we know it collapses). But we can work to make the nightmare scenarios less likely.

Key facts:

Liberal democracies don't tend to start wars. We're pretty good at winning them, but we don't start them as a rule.

No two liberal democracies have ever gone to war against each other.

Therefore, promoting the adoption of liberal democracy around the world strikes me as a Very Good Thing.

If you've got a better plan to accomplish that than overthrowing dictatorships and trying to nurture something better in their places, by all means let us know. But the whols UN sanctions thing has what might charitably be called a miserable record. We're all looking for the right way to do this. Just telling us we're wrong doesn't really help.

The prospect of a Kerry presidency is such a grave injustice to the memories of those who served honorably that it calls into question whether those who would elect Kerry are worthy of their sacrifice.

I think that America's Jacksonians need to send a message to the rest of America that there is no statute of limitations for those who smear and betray their country.

If Kerry get's elected, I call on all Jacksonians to go on strike. Jacksonians form the backbone of the armed forces and too much of America takes them for granted. On inauguration day, resign your commissions. If you are thinking of enlisting, don't. Refuse to be accept John Kerry as your commander in chief. Rejoin when America has seen fit to throw him out of office.

John Kerry's Iraq policy is that the imaginary French army is going to rescue us.

That is a bit like a cop seing a woman being raped in an ally and telling her not to go anywhere while he fetches an unarmed boy scout standing at the corner to fight off her rapist. And the unarmed boy scout turns out to be the lookout for the rapist, faithfully watching his back.

[trying to ignore HA...don't respond to HA...can't help self...]

The military should go on strike????!!! Sounds rather treasonous.

>>>"The prospect of a Kerry presidency is such a grave injustice to the memories of those who served honorably that it calls into question whether those who would elect Kerry are worthy of their sacrifice."

John Kerry is up to his old ways again. He undermined his fellow GIs in Vietnam 30 years ago, and now he's undermining our troops in Iraq. The traitor goes on tv yesterday and pulls the rug out from under Allawi, and again finds a way to give aid and comfort to the enemy. I don't care if what he said is true; it may or may not be. But some things shouldn't be broadcast around the world like that for cheap political points. What an asshole.

HA: I dread the prospect of a Kerry Administration, too, and believe he be humiliated in November (in the words of Ralph Peters, Kerry will prove to be a "stretch limo version of Michael Dukakis") but if he is elected I'll accept the results, respect the office of Presidency and hope for the best. No strikes, please. Sour grapes and jejeune protest is best left to the adverse party.

HA -- Kerry was trying to stop the war that your cousin died fighting. If the anti-war movement had been MORE successful than it was (or if Bobby Kennedy had not been shot and gone on to win the presidency in 1968), the United States would extricated itself from that unnecessary conflict prior to 1971, and your cousin's life would have been saved. Your anger would be more properly directed at those who thought that a United States pullout in '66, '67, '68, '69 or '70 would have somehow dishonored the United States or compromised its security.

Oh damn, I have to agree with Oberon. It must be getting incredibly cold in Hell.

Ha:

You have seriously come up a couple cans short of a six-pack here. The U.S. military go an strike? The day that happens is the day our Republic dies. Our military accepts being led by civilians that are elected by the people not selected by the military. If we survived President Clinton we can survive a President Kerry. It wouldn't be pretty but we would make it.

You need to be VERY careful what you ask for.

Semper Fi

"I don't care if what he said is true..."

You have pointed to what I see as the root of the Bush problem. His campaign has become dependent on holding to an untrue picture of reality. And you criticize someone for speaking what may be (I think it is) the truth.

I have been massivly unimpressed with Allawi these last few days. He seems to have come here mainly to give a Bush campaign speech. On the NewsHour last night he said that if we hadnt removed Saddam, we would be suffering from a string of 9/11's. What utterly dishonest crap.

I cant believe you would criticize someone for pointing out the truth. Some of us respect the truth, intend to vote with a clear vision of the truth in mind, and respect politicians who speak the truth. Propagating false views of reality is precisely what gets us into the most trouble - personally and as a nation.

>>>"You have pointed to what I see as the root of the Bush problem. His campaign has become dependent on holding to an untrue picture of reality."

No. That's a misreading of my statement. At least quote me in context.

I said that I don't care if it's true because even IF true, it should be kept in committee, not blathered all over the world's airwaves. It isn't a difficult or nuanced concept to understand.

Which does, however, bring us to the root of a problem: the Liberal problem of providing aid and comfort to this country's enemies.

If Kerry get's elected, I call on all Jacksonians to go on strike.

Uh no...

As a dedicated workaholic, I'm not going to let that looser (even more of a loser after his comments on Allawi) cramp my style anymore than I need to...

But even more so, I won't "strike" because I'm not going to go from RDS to CDS to BDS to KDS. The buck has to stop somewhere and sometimes you have to suck up the fact that you lost an election. Doing otherwise shows the very poor leadership traits we see in the ABBers and for that matter Kerry's own recent poor form (e.g., on Allawi).

And serious leadership, if only by passive example, is going to be "our" job for the next four years if Kerry wins. Part of being a Loyal Opposition is to show that you have the stuff to lead, and that takes more maturity than the ABB and "Anti-War-Cause-It's-'Their'-War-This-Time" have shown this cycle. Somebody has to be to grownup.

If Bush is defeated in November, he needs to provide a concession speech in which it is made clear to his people that they are to be a Loyal Wartime Opposition -- even if the incomming President insists that we aren't at war.

"Which does, however, bring us to the root of a problem: the Liberal problem of providing aid and comfort to this country's enemies."

This is such utter nonsense. It is, in fact, the standard line used by dictators and authoritarians worldwide. You cant criticize the government because it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the nation. The gulags of the world are filled with people who have suffered from the application of this principal.

The notion that al-Q, or any other group of people who are fighting us, are going to be aided or motivated in the least by what we say to each other in our political discourse, is utter nonsense. They have their own agendas. If anything, the sight of our leaders mouthing nonsense that they know is not true is a greater motivation, for they probably our cluelessness about the situation - something that they might be able to exploit.

Wise policies - policies that can insure that we win - can only be based on reality, not propagating convenient myths. I dont understand how anyone who doesnt feel that in their bones can claim any understanding of what this country is all about.

Tano,

what's such a "wise policy" about undermining Allawi?

Straight up, no bloviating please. What's so wise about it.

"The traitor goes on tv yesterday and pulls the rug out from under Allawi..."

David,

What are you smoking?

First, disagreeing with someone politically is not traitorus, and Kerry pulled no rugs (he pulled no punches either). Are there "a handful of terrorists" or are "terrorists pouring into the country"? Since Allawi said both,k dodes that make him a "flip flopper"?

If everything is "on track" why did Rumsfeld say that

continued from last post
we may not have elections throughout Iraq? Either things are 'on track' or 'off track with mitigation strategies'... one cannot be 'on track' and have to make changes to the plan.

Valid critisim is VALID especially in a democracy. Statements like yours, David, and HA's rant on the millitary striking, is a big reason I am nervous about another four years under a leader who garners such unamerican sentiment.

Tosk

David,
If Allawi's success is dependent on painting false pictures of reality, and of lying about Saddam and 9/11, then there is not much kerry could do to help or hurt him. Lets be honest here. He came here for one reason alone. To help Bush in his campaign. And to say the types of things that Bush dare not say, and to be protected from being called on it, by attitudes such as yours.

>>>"Lets be honest here. He came here for one reason alone. To help Bush in his campaign."

That may be true. And what that tells us is that Allawi must think his government's fate, and his country's fate, is tied to Bush winning the election. Very revealing. And Kerry's response only confirmed Allawi's fears, and was also very revealing.

Yes David, I am sure that the fact that Bush, through Bremer, plucked him out of obscurity in London and put him on the governing council (when he probably was unknown to 99% of Iraqis), and then aided/engineered his choice as PM, has nothing to do with anything.
A small return of the favor, it seems to me.

Lick Bush!

Tano,

it's a provisional government. Plucking him out of "London" is supposed to be some sort of indictment? Don't make me laugh.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how undermining the Iraqi government is "good policy" on the part of John Kerry.

You written much and said little, as usual.

"And what that tells us is that Allawi must think his government's fate, and his country's fate, is tied to Bush winning the election."

No it tells us that Allawi, personally, has a vested interest in seeing Bush re-elected. It may be that he thinks it is best for Iraq, or perhaps he thinks it is best for his vision of Iraq, or at least his political future in Iraq.

Your conclusion was not based on fact, you simply gave one possible explanation, based on your perception of fact.

Allawi and Bush must be honest, open and forthright. The information that they've given so far, has at least reason to be suspect. Kerry's questioning of the situation is not necessarily a statement on his support of Iraq, but his response to what appears to be a PR tour which doesn't seem to be giving the American public a full picture of the facts.

David,
He is not undermining the government. He is undermining the BS that its leader is spouting. If that undermines the government, it is Allawi's repsonsibility. It is not the responsibility of Americans to shut up about the truth.

MJT:

"You feel obligated to oppose everything new."

This is the crux of Kerry's problem, and Democrats generally as well. I would also say it doesn't go far enough; Kerry feels he has to oppose everything Bush supports, new or old.

Not only has this made him vulnerable on charges of flip-flopping, it makes his entire approach a hodgepodge of incoherence.

Speaking solely for myself, I don't think I know anything about what he truly believes. Virtually everything he says now he's contradicted in the recent past. The only position I can surmise is that he truly believes in all the default liberal positions.

He's trying so hard to distinguish between himself and Bush he's doing it where he shouldn't, like claiming we're worse off now than when Saddam was in charge. Am I supposed to think he believes this, or do I believe him when he attacked that very statement when made by Howard Dean?

This is a case where not running on his own beliefs is going to cost him the election. He may not have won in that case, but he'd have had a chance. He's going to lose this election, and his opponents haven't even pulled out the big guns yet.

Tano,

loose lips sink ships, and when spouting off for cheapy political points is going to encourage our enemies, it is your responsibility to shut the fuck up if you can't do so in the proper forum. Same you to Tosk.

David,

Do you have some basis for such an emphatic statement, or is that just your opinion?

As far as I'm concerned, if 'leaders' publicly contradict themselves, there is no 'responsibility' to support them or to simply be quiet. Your idea of patriotism is one of the things that allow totalarian leanings to fester into totalarian regimes.

For all of your talk about Patriotism and Democracy, you sure do have some screwy views about how its supposed to work.

(and I didn't even use the F-word)

Tosk

Besides, 'loose lips, sink ships' is in reference to being lax when dealing with highly confidential or Top Secret information.

Stating that Allawi is not being honest has nothing to do with Confidential or Top Secret information.

Fear, Uncertianity and Doubt... you could do so much better.

Look, the issue comes down to this.

Do you believe that the success of the Iraq democracy project is dependent on the propagation of myths and falsehoods?

I dont believe that to be the case. Pretending that the situation is better than it is fools no one over there, friend or foe - it can only fool people who arent paying attention (over here). Doing the old Saddam-9/11 scam is of no use to anyone.

So why is Allawi doing so?

I think the answer is clear. It is the reelection of George Bush that is dependent on the propagation of myths and falsehoods.

Myths and Falsehoods

The only myth and falsehood is that nothing good has happened in Iraq, is or happenning, or will ever happen. That's the big lie, that there's only bad news out of Iraq.

That's the "real" "truth" right? Wrong.

So when Allawi comes and talks about how there's good stuff happenning, it must be a myth and a falsehood.

But you know what, it all comes down to emphasis, and you Lefties are forced by Bush to emphasize is the negative, because you hate him, and Kerry has to win. That's all.

And if emphasizing the negative gets your boy into the White House it's for the greater good, even if we take one small loss in Iraq. No problem; we'll recover, and the sun will rise that much the brighter.

David,

Ok, instead of discussing the issue, just rant about how evil we are.

It's your reality though... see it how you will.

Tosk

Returning back to the gender gap discussion (if possible): what impact if any did the school massacre have on female perceptions here? I do believe the Democrats are losing their grip on the female vote a bit and is it possible that soccer moms are becoming security moms?

Now if only we could convince Californians to take their heads out of the sand, we might make some progress.

(Recent polls show Kerry way ahead in California. At least, that's what the L. A. Times reports.)

>>>"It's your reality though... see it how you will."

Of course Tosk, it's purely my imagination, like this comment about Allawi after the speech by Joe Lockhart:

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

I just want to know, are they praying for the fledgling Iraqi government to fail? Comments like this will be fodder for Allawi's enemies at home. How does that further the cause of free elections in Iraq? Don't tell me it's in my head when it comes right out of their mouths.

Hrmmm, you mean Prime Minister Allawi, who resides as part of the Interm Government, which has no veto power over an decisions by the US in their own country?

Allawi is a puppet, but thats understandable since he is an interm appointee, not an elected official.

The question is "Will the elected government in January be seen as a puppet.

However, I would ask you not to respond to me by quoting another person, from a party I am not associated with. I am not him, and his comment has nothing to do with "loose lips sinking ships".

For one who accuses the "Lefties" of emphasizing the negative... you sure do a lot of that from the other side.

But, perhaps that is the way things are in the Land of Thud.

Hey Tosk,

even though I may be responding to you, I'm not talking about you, nor would I want you to get that impression. So don't flatter yourself in that way. I'm talking about John Kerry, and people in his camp. That would help explain why I quoted Joe Lockhart, or "another person" as you call him. If you don't like what you see and hear about them, that's great; I wouldn't want to be confused with them either.

Sorry David.

:)

Tosk

Markus,

If the anti-war movement had been MORE successful than it was (or if Bobby Kennedy had not been shot and gone on to win the presidency in 1968), the United States would extricated itself from that unnecessary conflict prior to 1971, and your cousin's life would have been saved.

You just don't get it. I'm not angry that he lost his life. He volunteered and understood the risks. I'm angry that his sacrifice was smeared and ultimately made in vain. It didn't have to be that way. If we had won that war, millions of lives would have been saved.

Because of our failure in Vietnam, the 1970's were proof that the domino theory was real. One of those dominos was the communist coup in Afghanistan in 1978, which led to the Soviet invasion, which led to Bin Laden and ultimately gave us 9/11.

The anti-war movement didn't save lives. It cost millions of lives. Weakness invites aggression and strength deters aggression. That is why the so-called "peace" movements always bring on so much death and destruction. That is why I despise them. Either they are too ignorant to understand what they do, or too arrogant and self-absorbed to care.

And BTW, Bobby Kennedy was murdered by a Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian. In 1973, Yasser Arafat had two American diplomats murdered in an effort to secure the release of Sirhan:

Cleo A. Noel Jr. and George Curtis Moore were among a group of men seized by Black September terrorists during a reception held at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum [Sudan]. The terrorists demanded the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy, as well as terrorists being held in Israeli and European prisons. President Nixon refused to negotiate. The tape was of conversations between Arafat in Beirut and his thugs in Khartoum. Execute the diplomats, ordered Arafat. The terrorists obeyed, machine gunning the unarmed, hapless Noel and Moore. They also killed a Belgium diplomat. The authenticity of the tape was verified in U.S. laboratories by both the State Department and the White House.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/canoel.htm

Don't you think the world would be a better place today if America had killed Yasser Arafat in 1973?

Allawi is a sock puppet who cannot move 15 feet in Baghdad without a regiment of tanks around him. And you think that you are going to have an election in Baghdad in two months' time. Total fantasy. But hey, it is just "a guess."

RickM,

The U.S. military go an strike? The day that happens is the day our Republic dies. Our military accepts being led by civilians that are elected by the people not selected by the military. If we survived President Clinton we can survive a President Kerry.

I'm not suggesting the entire military go on strike. That was a euphamism. I'm suggesting that military personnel who are in a position to do so should resign in protest rather than serve under John Kerry. And those who are considering enslisting should put it off.

In 1971, John Kerry advocated unconditional surrender to the Vietnamese communists. This would have left American POW's at the mercy of their torturers. Today, John Kerry supports the International Criminal (kangaroo) Court. This would expose American soldiers to politicized charges without the legal protections or democratic accountablity they currently enjoy.

So if you had an 18 year old son or daughter, would you advise him or her to enlist and serve under John Kerry? I know I wouldn't.

g-lex,

the election is in January, so how does that add up to 2 months.

For all you people who keep repeating the "Saddam was no threat because we didn't find WMDs" meme:

It's like a meth lab knowing about a police raid nine months in advance...plenty of time to flush the crank down the toilet and resume production when the cops go home. It is not hard to quickly replenish a stockpile of chem-bio weapons. (Ion Pacepa (sp?) tells how the Russians trained their clients to "deep six" their clients chemical weapons to avoid discovery, if you need more info).

We found out about A.Q. Kahn's nuclear supermarket, and Saddam's capture encouraged Libya to give up it's suprisingly advanced nuclear weapons program. These events were a direct result of the Iraq invasion.

Both of these cases involve the neutralizing of FAR more dangerous WMD programs than anything we thought Saddam had. If we hadn't ousted Saddam, if you people had gotten your way, these programs would have continued unchecked and the likelyhood of a nuke finding its way into an American city would have been greatly increased.

Your hatred of Bush and the Republican party is a great danger to America, the world, and even yourselves.

Fortunately, as you become increasingly shrill and unhinged, you are becoming increasingly marginalized.

Your blatant distortions of the truth for political gain, your insufferable arrogance and presumed moral superiority, your transparent lust for power at all costs, and your outmoded and discredited neo-Marxist assesments of the "root causes" of the worlds ills are turning more and more sensible Americans off to your viewpoints and methods. Even with your stranglehold on the MSM you are rapidly losing support. The CBS debacle is just the latest episode in the history of hubris and arrogance that has rotted the soul and warped the judgement of the Democrats.

You are well on the way to becoming politically irrelevant and an historical embarrassment.

The Republicans are gaining ground with each election cycle, and this one will be no exception.

Kerry's looking for America's failure.

The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry’s choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America’s allies, it’s remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren’t so laughably inept at it."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn26.html

HA:

Your metaphors are scary. My family has a multi-generational association with the military. All of them would consider your "strike" and "resign your commission" statements to be treasonous.

I have three kids that are of age to be in the military. Just as I was, they were raised in the Corps and know how much I loved my time in service. If they were silly enough to ask my advice I would have to tell them the answer lies in their heart. I would hope the current CinC would not affect whether or not they would choose to serve.

Semper Fi

"My family has a multi-generational association with the military. All of them would consider your "strike" and "resign your commission" statements to be treasonous."

I can imagine a context where what he said could make sense.

Napoleon said, "A general-in-chief has no right to shelter his mistakes in war under cover of his sovereign, or of a minister, when these are both distant from the scene of operation, and must consequently be either ill informed or wholly ignorant of the actual state of things.

"Hence it follows, that every general is culpable who undertakes the execution of a plan which he considers faulty. It is his duty to represent his reasons, to insist upon a change of plan--in short, to give in his resignation rather than allow himself to be made the instrument of his army's ruin. Every general-in-chief who fights a battle in consequence of superior orders, with the certainty of losing it, is equally blamable.

"In this last-mentioned case, the general ought to refuse obedience; because a blind obedience is due only to a military command given by a superior present on the spot at the moment of action. Being in possession of the real state of things, the superior has it then in his power to afford the necessary explainations to the person who executes his orders."

The officer who knows the score, given orders that are clearly wrong, has the duty to explain the problem and to resign unless the orders are changed or his reservations are addressed.

It's hard for me to imagine that simply the election of Kerry would be grounds for that. There's a strong chance that Kerry and whoever he picks for DefSec would actually listen to the JCS. Instead of creating their own harebrained schemes independent of the army, they might get the army's best advice about whether each war is feasible and what resources would be required, and then either provide those resources or postpone the invasion.

There is no evidence so far that Kerry's SecDef would be less competent than Rumsfeld. Unless he turns out more competent than Rumsfeld the SecDef should resign along with whichever officers get idiotic orders. If Franks had resigned when he ought to we would likely have gotten a better plan for iraq.

But the time to do this tragic duty is when it becomes necessary, and not at the inauguration. The latter is not very effective.

RickM,

With all due respect, I have to disagree. John Kerry's conduct in 1971 was disgraceful and is an absolute disqualification for office. He is unfit for command and there is nothing in his record since to indicate that he has changed since 1971. On the contrary, his campaign's recent trashing of our Australian and Iraqi allies proves that he is the same as he ever was, willing to sell out the country to serve his own ambition. My first responsibilty is always to my family, and I would have to strongly advise my kids not to serve under John Kerry.

Obviously everybody has to make their own judgement. But if someone in the service determines that John Kerry would use the armed forces to serve his own ambitions rather the national interest, how could they not resign? Wouldn't it be of greater service to the country to speak out and educate the public rather than be John Kerry's pawn? In fact, wouldn't they even have a duty to speak out?

Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

The world changed, okay?

How? Maybe your perception of the world changed, but the world didn't change.

HA, if Kerry is disqualified for office, you should sue to get him off the ballot.

If the US military has spent a whole lot of money training your kids and you urge them to resign, I hope you'll also urge them to pay back the money.

Anyway, to the best of my determination Bush has put his own needs far above the national interest in occupying iraq, and I hope you'll encourage your children to resign or not enlist immediately, and to speak out.

Only -- isn't that what Kerry did in 1971? Except he didn't resign, he served until they told him to go home and then he spoke out.

I think you might be a little unclear on the concept.

Slightly OT - Kerry's Doghunters - or how I spent my free day reading and doing g00gle searches.

HA:

If the CinC is unfit for command there is an impeachment process in place to remove him. Quitting does nothing positive for my country but could greatly harm it.

What Senator Kerry did in the early 70s was disgraceful and because of that he will not get my vote. I can't imagine many of the military will give him the privilege of their vote. Once in office he is CinC and therefore the lawful civilian leader of our armed forces. It is not necessary that we respect the man but we must respect the office.

Semper Fi

RickM,

Quitting does nothing positive for my country but could greatly harm it.

If it did nothing positive, I wouldn't suggest it. The purpose is to send a message that certain actions cross a line and cannot be forgiven. Somebody has to speak out who can't be written off as partisans the way swiftvets have been. Here's a start:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48884-2004Sep24.html

J Thomas,

Only -- isn't that what Kerry did in 1971? Except he didn't resign, he served until they told him to go home and then he spoke out.

So are you saying that you see nothing wrong with what Kerry did in 1970 and 1971?

This past week we saw the terrorists behead two Americans. These are the kinds of atrocities that John Kerry accused American soliders of committing on a routine basis in Vietnam with the full knowledge of the chain of command:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

John Kerry smeared American soldiers of being even more barbaric than terrorists like Zarqawi who are beheading Americans today? You're ok with that?

John Kerry held unauthorized meetings with the Vietnamese Communist leadership while still in uniform. This was in violation of the UCMJ and the Logan Act. You're ok with that?

After meeting with communist leaders in Paris, John Kerry advocated unconditional acceptance of their surrender terms which would have left American POW's at the mercy of their torturers. You're ok with that?

John Kerry didn't just speak out. He betrayed his country. Maybe you're a little unclear on the concept. Or maybe you aren't.

HA,
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Do you deny this? Do you deny villaged razed, cattle shot, poisoned food, randomly shot civilians, electric shock to genitals, and cut off ears?

All of those got reported by the press at the time. Many of them got reported to me by veterans at the time. I met veterans who had collected ears; and frankly it doesn't seem like it's all that bad to me. It's sort of disrespectful of the enemy dead, but there are worse things. Electric shock was widely known as an interrogation technique, and not as destructive as whipping with split bamboo. I don't know that civilians were exactly shot at random, maybe it's more that sometimes they may have looked a little threatening to guys who were new to the area, and sometimes soldiers get frustrated. Rush Limbaugh gave us that explanation for Abu Ghraib, you might remember.

Do you deny all that happened?

John Kerry smeared American soldiers of being even more barbaric than terrorists like Zarqawi who are beheading Americans today? You're ok with that?

Wait, I haven't seen any evidence that Zarqawi's guys are any less barbaric. I haven't heard about accusations of rape, but then they don't leave a lot of prisoners alive. They haven't been accused of poisoning foodstocks yet but they have been accused of attempting a gas attack that might have killed 80,000 people. (Zarqawi denied that, he said they likely would have done it if they had the gas but they didn't.) There's absolutely no evidence that Zarqawi's group is any less barbaric than Operation Phoenix.

And incidentally at the time there were reports of the viet cong being just about as bad. They were mostly doing targetted assassinations instead of killing villages wholesale, but if you have the skill to kill 1% of the people to make the rest pretend to be loyal, that isn't morally very different from killing them all. They tortured people too, they tortured some american soldiers to death -- particularly guys they managed to drag off attack helicopters. I can see the logic. They were using barbaric methods and they were beating us, so maybe we could beat them with the same methods. I think it turned out we just werne't as good at that sort of thing and it sickened too many of us. We needed to beat them some other way, that way didn't work for us.

So anyway, you call it a smear. Are you claiming it's a lie?

J Thomas,

I think you have it backwards. You need to prove to some reasonable extent that such behavior was endemic, not the .01% that it, in fact was. And you have to work under the suspicion of slander that others before you have created:

Setting the stage for slander

This review of 'Conversations with Americans' would seem to be a genesis of the WSI. Check out the photo of Mark Lane with Jane Fonda in 1970.

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Neil Sheehan reported on the Vietnam War for the New York Times. Although he became strongly opposed to the war, he condemned Lane's book in the following review from the New York Times Book Review, December 27, 1970.

A key exchange between Sheehan and Lane shows the thinking of the left:

Mr. Lane did not bother to cross-check any of the stories his interviewers told him with Army or Marine Corps records. I asked him why in a telephone conversation.

"Because I believe the most unreliable source regarding the verification of atrocities is the Defense Department," he said.

But what about simple and obvious facts like those in the cases of Onan and Schneider which might throw light on the credibility of his witnesses? I asked.

"It's not relevant," he said.

On to 1971 and connecting Jane Fonda to John Kerry

Re: Snopes
says photo of Kerry at rally with Fonda is true

The New York Times covered the Valley Forge in 1970:

Among the speakers at the rally were Representative Allard K. Lowenstein, Democrat of Nassau County; Donald Sutherland, the actor; Jane Fonda, the actress; Mark Lane, the civil rights and antiwar lawyer and Charles Bevel, a leader of a black group from Baltimore, which is marching to the United Nations to protest alleged American genocide in South Vietnam.

Jane Fonda:

We were at a rally for veterans at the same time. I spoke, Donald Sutherland spoke, John Kerry spoke at the end.

Some more material (proof is in the eye of the beholder of course) from a Marine who served in Vietnam 68-69

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Connect the dots , Mark Lane, professional muck-racker, Jane Fonda, unprincipled activist, John Kerry (???), VVAW visits to Paris and meetings with NV and VC representatives such as Madam Binh

Some of you may remember Mme. Binh as the head of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (PRG) delegation at the Paris Peace Talks. After 1975 she was the minister of education and was a deputy of the National Assembly for four terms. She was elected vice president in 1992 and again in 1997.

In March, Jane Fonda met with Madame Binh, lead negotiator of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (PRG) the political arm of the Vietcong. Fonda then flew to London, where she charged American troops with "applying electrodes to prisoners' genitals, mass rapes, slicing off of body parts, scalping, skinning alive, and leaving 'heat tablets' around which burned the insides of children who ate them." John Kerry, interestingly enough, had already met with Madame Binh and Hanoi’s representatives in Paris the previous spring, before he joined the VVAW, while he was still a little-known Naval Reserve officer and fledgling politician.

Summary

This was my work up to understand why the Swift Vets had a reason to reopen the wounds. More on the VVAW activities Kerry was in is here:

Hey Michael, thanks for the italics. I myself didn't realize the world had changed, until I saw it in italics. Now I'm a republican too!

J Thomas,

So anyway, you call it a smear. Are you claiming it's a lie?

The bullshit claims you make are just as legitimate as claiming that because ANY person is a rapist, ALL people are rapists, or if ANY person is a murderer, ALL people are. Any assertion that atrocities by American forces were anything other the extremely rare are bullshit.

The atrocities that occurred in Vietnam were no more frequent than the rate of criminal behavior that can be expected in the general population. There has never been any proof otherwise. They are KGB authored lies knowingly brought to America by "Jenjis" John Kerry. But you probably knew that already and really don't care.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

Based on your reply, you ARE ok with all that.

Wait, I haven't seen any evidence that Zarqawi's guys are any less barbaric.

Lets see, sawing heads off living human beings and posting the video on the internet.

Just what are you saying? You haven't seen this? Refuse to? Equating it to some war stories you heard? Buying the Conversations With Americans / Winter Soldier / New Soldier tales?

Do you have any idea how your statement sounds?

J Thomas

As long as we are throwing barbarisms around, lets remember the communists , shall we? This is what you get when totalitarian regimes of any stripe get control. America with its free press, and responsiveness [albeit sluggish at times] to the will of the governed has never and will never be on a par with this. We are moving forward, the Islamofacists are moving backward. Refute that if you can. We often hear of the millions who died in the Gulags and only hear the numbers, these links put a tragic human face on it.

LJohn Kerry smeared American soldiers of being even more barbaric than terrorists like Zarqawi who are beheading Americans today?

No, he didn't.

In any case, no serious person denies that some American soldiers did bad things in Vietnam. Pretending like it didn't happen doesn't make you patriotic.

kc

You replied… "No, he didn't" when responding to a statement saying Kerry smeared soldiers as being even more barbaric then Zarqawi. Well since Zarqawi was not yet born you are correct. But what is not so impressive is that you neglected to address the true point and instead did a typical "bait and switch" argument which I will address later.

First, how about a straight answer to this... Who was worse Genghis Kahn or Zarqawi? If you struggle with the answer to that then just forget it. Kerry did in fact compare American Soldiers, with universal application I might add, to Genghis Khan and the atrocities he committed. Kerry was an over the top lying opportunist, and no cause regardless how noble it may seem in ones own mind, can justify such obvious universal slander he perpetrated on a generation of soldiers. But instead you did your cute little side step and then add this…

no serious person denies that some American soldiers did bad things in Vietnam. Pretending like it didn't happen doesn't make you patriotic.

What person of consequence is pretending atrocities didn't occur during Vietnam? The truth is Kerry implied a clear majority did and of course testified that he himself was guilty of the same! The real problem is those that believe he told the truth also most know he was very guilty Genghis Kahn like atrocities, yet they still support him? Or do you believe the ends justify the means? You see it isn’t about truth to someone that would take the tack you are taking. The Swift Boat Veterans clearly are calling Kerry a self-serving liar and certainly not wasting time denying whether atrocities ever occurred and certainly have tied nothing to patriotism. It is the liberal-left that is setting up and knocking down on a regular basis the phoney straw man of challenges to ones Patriotism, and that is what you are doing as well.

There exists little honesty, intellect, or reason in the arguments that are coming from the left these days and is why there can be no honest well reasoned dialogue with them as well. Intellectual honesty is a casualty on the left and with it has gone sound reasoning. Since such things are lacking you must be soundly defeated and in a big way, then maybe you will wake up and approach serious topics in serious ways, until then... see you in November.

Wait, I haven't seen any evidence that Zarqawi's guys are any less barbaric.

Lets see, sawing heads off living human beings and posting the video on the internet.

Just what are you saying?

I think you maybe expected me to say something different, so you didn't actually read what I said.

If I had said that there was no evidence that al Zarqawi's guys are more barbaric then that would have been really stupid. Agreed? Somebody made the really stupid claim that Kerry said that our soldiers in vietnam were more barbaric than Zarqawi, and not only do I claim he didn't say that, I also think there's no evidence that it's true. Most of the things we did he's known to have done, and he's done others at least as bad. I suppose we could debate whether it's worse to cut somebody's head off or throw him out of a helicopter from 7000 feet, but I hardly see the point, they're both bad enough that the subtle distinctions get lost in the noise

Anon, have you looked up the declassified results from Operation Phoenix? We're talking US policy here, not the inevitable criminals who wind up in uniform because you can't weed them out.

I haven't seen Kerry claim that all US soldiers were ordered to do atrocities. You appear to be making that up. I haven't seen Kerry claim that the majority of US soldiers did atrocities.

From my reading of the records, it looks to me like we started out sending in really great boyscout Special Forces. They had been trained to do insurgency stuff, and now they were assigned to do counterinsurgency. The idea had been they'd help liberate countries, and they understood about getting the people on their side. They had some problems helping poorly-trained poorly-motivated conscripts defend big plantations, but they sure weren't doing atrocities. They were competent.

It was only after we'd tried pretty much everything else and nothing worked, that we tried a policy of atrocities. We weren't doing that everywhere, either, it looks to me like a test case that didn't work and we didn't expand it to the whole country.

I don't have any idea where you get this ridiculous claim that all american soldiers were doing it. Maybe Jane Fonda said that? And you decide that if any antiwar activist said it they all did? But Fonda was a movie star, why would anybody expect her to know what she was talking about? She wouldn't understand politics any better than Reagan or Schwartzenegger.

Anyway, come back after you've researched the subject.

JDWill said, As long as we are throwing barbarisms around, lets remember the communists, shall we? This is what you get when totalitarian regimes of any stripe get control.

Agreed. I pointed out that it appears the american atrocities in vietnam were mostly an imitation of vietnamese atrocities. If I wanted to bend over backward to be fair to the vietnamese I could say that possibly some of those atrocities got falsely reported to us, so we thought we were responding to things that were worse than they actually were. But I don't particularly believe that. They managed to run off a whole lot of people who might have apposed them, those people ran to the cities. We failed to run off people who opposed us.

It's a bad idea to imitate our brutal enemies. It doesn't work.

We are moving forward, the Islamofacists are moving backward.

I wish I could agree. After 9/11 we seem to be moving backward. We've lost civil liberties, we've lost a measure of democracy. I see people on the blogs arguing that if unknown persons nuke an american city we will kill eveybody in the middle east except israel. They don't say we should or that we shouldn't, they say we will like it's nothing that can be doubted. They use the assertion to justify policy. Like, "We have to keep our soldiers in iraq no matter what, because converting all muslim nations into liberal democracies is the only alternative to nuking them all. Unless we succeed terrorists will nuke an american city and we'll nuke them all, and success in iraq is the only way out."

Does this seem like progress to you? Back in the awful days of the Cold War, we kept lists of the populations, economic potential, and military importance of every city in the USSR, with computer programs designed to accept any list of american cities and match them up with a list of soviet cities that would have the same value. So if the russians made a limited nuclear attack and maybe apologised and said it was an accident, we could bomb soviet cities that would have the same value and we could call it even. I thought at the time that was preposterous. But it was better than nuking the entire USSR if Pascagoula got hit.

Of course, there was the difference that the USSR could hit us back. We can afford to talk about nuking the entire muslim world, because they can't hit us back. But I can't figure we're going forward. What it is, we've gone insane.

If I had said that there was no evidence that al Zarqawi's guys are more barbaric then that would have been really stupid. Agreed?

Wait, I haven't seen any evidence that Zarqawi's guys are any less barbaric.

Oy. You got me with a negative less than. And I'm a computer programmer.

Some material (proof is in the eye of the beholder of course) from a Marine who served in Vietnam 68-69

The first cliché is that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. But this is nonsense. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, but they were far from widespread. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried.

You really should read the whole article. Learn about thumos. There was something like a revival tent mental illness surrounding the idea of widespread atrocities in Vietnam. Many of us vets look back and realize we bought into it, but on further reflection say, wait a minute, my unit wasn't like that. So often the stories were some guy hearing about some other guy. It was insidious. Much of it was tall tales to impress others. I guarentee you, one thing I have learned in 53 years is that bullshit rules.

KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and "news reports" about invented American war atrocities.

During my last meeting with Andropov, he said, wisely, "now all we have to do is to keep the Vietnam-era anti-Americanism alive." Andropov was a shrewd judge of human nature. He understood that in the end our original involvement would be forgotten, and our insinuations would take on a life of their own. He knew well that it was just the way human nature worked.

Ion Mihai Pacepa was acting chief of Romania's espionage service and national-security adviser to the country's president. He is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc.

When you consider there were almost 10 million American Vietnam veterans and only a few hundred have been tied to atrocities and then compare that to the fact that atrocities by the Viet Cong and NVA were in fact a matter of policy when it came to intimidating the population you begin to get the picture that many of us vets are now realizing. We were had. Our own morals and susceptibility to guilt set us up to suffer in a vicious war. To us, coming from our soft life, just killing was a horror. I personally did not go to Vietnam, I served stateside 70-73. But I had many friends that did, and I met some soldiers who had just rotated back. It marked people.

I still haven't sorted it all out, but I do not accept the widespread atrocity meme anymore. War is obviously horrible and my belief is that in our horror, we accepted more guilt than we should have.

J Thomas,

You seem like a reasonable guy, then out comes this:

We've lost civil liberties, we've lost a measure of democracy.

We are living in the same country? I will stipulate that I feel less free than I did living in the countryside of Michigan in the 60's and 70's, but Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or some corrolary involving my getting old is probably working there. Its really hard to be sure. I could go into a rant about the nanny state, but my last trip to the DMV wasn't that bad. And, I can definitely tell you, back in the 50's and 60's, the police had a lot more latitude than they have today.

One beef I do have is that we the public are trashing our democracy thru non-participation, demagoguery, and victim group politics more than any damage John Ashcroft could do, if he was truly so inclined.

If you are referring to the patriot act, do some research, and write a post. I suspect you will find that just about every liberty you have lost was lost in the war on drugs. I am more worried about a monotheistic academia than I am the government, especially given their level of competence. If I am sure about one thing, I am anti-totalitarian. The Rep/Dem gridlock is usually fine with me.

Back in the awful days of the Cold War

True. MAD was well fitted acronym. God Bless Ronald Reagan.

We can afford to talk about nuking the entire muslim world...

It would be a singularly stupid thing to do, if for no other reason, that it would lower the threshold for future nuclear wars. We have to beat Islamofacism by incorporating the Muslim populations into the global economy. This will take time and will probably be painful to both parties. Its either that or regress to the population levels of the 1800's. Its getting late, but a topic I would like to explore is the nature of our devil's bargain with technology. Like a ladder with disappearing bottom rungs.

A correction:
I previously said almost 10 million served in Vietnam - that was during, not in. Here are better stats. I think my point stands with 2.6 Million, though.
http://www.vhcma.org/fact2.html

Vietnam Vets were 9.7% of their generation
*9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam era
(Aug. 5,1964-May 7, 1975).
*8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (Aug. 5,1964-Mar.28,1973).
*3,403,100 (inc. 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the SEA theater
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, flight crews in Thailand and sailors in adjacent
South china sea waters).
*2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam
(Jan. 1, 1965-Mar. 28, 1973).
*Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960-1964.
*Of the 2.6 million, between 1-1.6 million(40-60%) either fought in combat,
provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.
*7,484 women(6,250 or 83% were nurses) served in Vietnam.
*Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (Apr. 30, 1969).

"It would be a singularly stupid thing to do, if for no other reason, that it would lower the threshold for future nuclear wars."

Well, yes. If we kill, say, a quarter billion people because we suspect there are dangerous terrorists among them, we can't expect much goodwill from the rest of the world for the next century or two.

Not to mention the fallout problems.

And the immediate ethical problem of killing, say, 30,000 terrorists with collateral damage that includes hundreds of millions of innocent civilians. This is wrong.

But I've heard a milder argument. It goes, "When the terrorists nuke one american city we will nuke every city in the middle east that isn't in israel. So it's right for us to do anything whatsoever to keep that from happening. No matter how horrible you think our actions become, if they keep the terrorists from nuking an american city then they are preventing hundreds of millions of moslem casualties then they're completely justified."

This is wrong. Imagine that somebody nukes an american city and we don't know exactly who did it but our suspicions of course point to al qaeda. So we nuke a bunch of arab cities. This is wrong. It makes no more sense than bombing a bunch of american cities in retaliation for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Justifying smaller atrocities on the grounds that they prevent us from doing the bigger atrocity is stupid. Just don't do it. Don't do either one. We don't know that the smaller atrocities will prevent the larger one. Maybe it wouldn't happen anyway. Maybe it will happen anyway. When you try to justify doing terrible things, you're already on the wrong side.

"We have to beat Islamofacism by incorporating the Muslim populations into the global economy."

This is a peculiar argument. Until recently the idea was that we should keep arabs backward so they wouldn't be able to hurt us or hurt israel. And they have been kept quite backward one way or another. Now we want to improve their economies to the point they turn into materialists. But if they start making their own stuff (and employing their citizens) they won't need to import as much and won't need to export as much oil. And they'll be using up more oil themselves. A number of countries have gone from net-oil-exporters to net-oil-importers as they developed. And then there are a number of muslim nations that don't have oil. So I don't think this plan will work. It has too much against it.

I have a better plan, but unfortunately it isn't completely foolproof. People who promote neocon plans tend to insist that any alternative must be completely foolproof or it's no good.

J Thomas: ... then they are preventing hundreds of millions of moslem casualties ...

This is along the lines of the argument that we killed less Japanese in the end by using nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of a conventional invasion (remember LeMay's firebombing - it killed many more), an argument I agree with. I believe that war does escalate as losses are suffered and both sides can lose control of it at some point. The war against Japan was particularly brutal from both sides, something that could repeat in a war with Islam. The sense of 'otherness' is very great from both sides.

History of WWI indicates this too. Each of the parties refused to end the slaughter because the blood already spilled demanded victory. Spengler, (whose many provocative articles I recommend highly) explains the case for the inordinate bloodshed that occured in the American Civil War - after the cause was obviously lost for the South [In all, one-quarter of military age Southern manhood died in the field, by far the greatest sacrifice ever offered up by a modern nation in war. ]

My contention is that a wider war, especially with a group that sees its way of life threatened, as did the Southerners, could drag on with horrendous casualties, regardless of the weapons used. Thus, a preemptive doctrine does make sense if it eliminates or deflects the possibility of a more heavily armed Islamist movement that, by its actions, could trigger that wider war.

Your analogy of an Islamofacist attack with the Oklahoma City bombing does not work for me. In the first case you have a larger, cohesive, locatable group, in the second, you have a lone lunatic, with only psychological ties to a diffuse group, indeed within our own, not the 'other'.

Until recently the idea was that we should keep arabs backward so they wouldn't be able to hurt us or hurt israel.

My statement about global economy was incomplete. The problem we face is three pronged.

1. A malevolent religious ideology - Wahabism (and Deobandi)
2. A human development logjam from repressive, corrupt regimes that have the curse of oil to keep them afloat.
3. A lack of economic opportunity stemming from 1, 2, and the seclusive nature of Islam that leads to humiliation for a population weighted heavily to the under 25 set.

I submit the correlation of economics via Thomas P. M. Barnett's essay (now a book) that begins with the provocative (in late 2002):

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

This essay used to be freely available at http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm, but is gone. I have a snagged copy, if you desire it.

He defines the problem, and in a sense, the solution with:

Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder.

He presents a map of the globe showing the negation of this which includes not only the Islamic crescent, but most of Africa and much of Indonesia. He makes the correlation between the lack of the above criteria in what he terms the Gap, and notes the violence of its 'bloody borders'. The solution? Shrink the Gap by stages by providing first security, then integration into the global economy.

He also notes the problem of oil (which I expect technology may render less omnipotent in 50-75 years) and also excludes nuclear war. Also, I would like to point out that as China etal. increase development, more demand will be made on oil. The candle is burning at both ends, so a solution to the worlds energy is needed ASAP.

Finally he provides a teaser for the nature of military ops in this vision of the future:

..., we fight fire with fire. If we live in a world increasingly populated by Super-Empowered Individuals [i.e., Bin Laden], we field a military of Super-Empowered-Individuals.

Now I don't think any one writer has a neat package with the entire solution, but only by sharing will a synthesis that will be the eventual solution be reached.

Cheers