Some Moral Compass

So I'm driving yesterday in Boulder and I see this bumper sticker:

The religious right is the real "axis of evil".

Think about that for a minute. I'll wait.

I realize that some people think that the religious right is waging war against all kinds of civil rights in this country. I'm not up on the battles waged by the religious right, but for the sake of argument let's concede that George Bush and John Ashcroft are hell-bent (excuse my language!) on outlawing abortion everywhere and always, on rifling through every citizen's library records to see who's been reading naughty books, that they want to put the ten commandments in every public place and force every child to pray in school. Let's assume they want to eliminate all sex-education from the schools and they want to eliminate the first amendment entirely so they can shut down pornographers. Let's also condede that they want to outlaw homosexual marriage and keep gay and lesbian teachers and counselors away from children everywhere. That all sounds pretty bad.

Now let's see how that stacks up against North Korea, Iran, and Iraq (before the invasion). On second thought, it's insulting to the intelligence of whatever readers we have here at Coffee With Rhoads to even begin such a comparison.

What sort of a moral compass does the driver of that vehicle possess that could possibly equate even my caricature of the US religious right with life in those three countries? I can only hope that some nut-job put that bumper sticker on the car and the owner hasn't noticed it, yet. Knowing the people of Boulder, that's not too likely, I'm afraid.

Let's See Some Journalism Here

After reading an attack on the Swift Vets' ad by Phil Carter yesterday, and then another by the Boulder Daily Camera editorial staff it seems to me it's time for some of these all-star journalists we have in this country to start earning their pay. Are the Swift Vets telling the truth? Has Kerry been telling the truth? My guess is both are telling the truth, both are mistaken, and both are embellishing for their own purposes. Sort of like what goes on in a court room. We're seeing an adversarial process here where both sides are trying to make their best case, presenting the opposite side in its worst light, and leaving it up to the jury to decide who's right. I think this is as it should be, well except for the embellishments which are probably inevitable but regrettable. Politics is an adversarial process.

When John Kerry returned from Vietnam he testified before the US Senate. Under oath he made some serious allegations about war crimes committed by his fellow soldiers. Many years later on the floor of the US Senate, John Kerry retold a story about being in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968. John Kerry and his surrogates have made his service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his candidacy. As much as I think all this stuff should be water under the bridge (though I understand it's anything but to those maligned by Kerry's testimony before the US Senate) it isn't since Kerry is running on the contrast between his service and Bush's.

We know Bush did not serve in Vietnam. We know he was something of a screwup for most of his younger (and not so younger) years. He has not made his youthful decisions and actions the centerpiece of his campaign for election nor reelection. Nevertheless charges of Bush being AWOL or a deserter or other nonsense were trotted out. Those charges were looked into, Bush released his military records, and the matter faded away.

Now it's time for this Kerry matter to be investigated. It seems to me Michael Duff gets to the nuts and bolts of the matter:

Strip away all the rumors and reputation @#%$ and get me some paperwork.

Who signed for Kerry's first Purple Heart?
Who signed for Kerry's second Purple Heart?
Who signed for Kerry's third Purple Heart?
Who signed for his Bronze Star?
Who signed for his Silver Star?
Who provided the testimony for those medals?
What did their testimony say?
Do those people stand by their testimony today?
Were they lying then or are they lying now?

The review process for those medals includes signatures from officers and enlisted men who were there on the front lines with him, and they are considered legal documents. Show me the paper. Find the men who signed these papers, wave the documents under their noses and say, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" [naughty word edited out]

The Boston Globe and the New York Times probably are not up for asking these questions. Surely some other enterprising journalist will step up.

Kerry: Braggart?

Roger Simon writes :

Capitano or "The Braggart Soldier" is one of the stock figures of ridicule in commedia dell 'arte. (I had to memorize them, alas, when John Kerry and I were at Yale.) Actually this figure goes back to Roman times, as does much of commedia, to Plautus and "the swaggering soldier." So there is nothing particularly new about Kerry in the history of military braggadocio, but it is unique, I imagine, that such a man is running for President of the United States. Do I exaggerate? Well, you decide. Apparently, Mr. Kerry did tell the US Senate he had fought in Cambodia, after all:

That's the Congressional Record from 1986 courtesy of Glenn Reynolds, who offers a link to a larger version . Here's more on the Cambodia story:

By way of further example, Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

See Exhibit 26.

The Christmas in Cambodia story of John Kerry was repeated as recently as July 7, 2004 by Michael Kranish, a principal biographer of Kerry from The Boston Globe. On the Hannity & Colmes television show, Kranish indicated that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia was a critical turning point in Kerry's life.

The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.

The easy part of this is that Nixon was not president in 1968. The issue of whether or not Kerry was in Camodia is tougher, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are presenting a strong case that Kerry, shall we say, embellished that part of his service. As any trial lawyer will tell you (John Edwards might be a good one to ask) if any part of a witness' testimony is false that puts all of his testimony in doubt.

The Swift Boat Vets for Truth have put the ball back into Senator Kerry's court. It will be interesting to see how he responds. So far the credibility problem looks like it resides with Senator Kerry, not the goofball Swift Boat Vets.

I Hope Tacitus is Wrong

I'm on record as thinking it unlikely that John Kerry will win the election this November. However, the prospect of a Kerry victory didn't really disturb me all that much given his apparent commitment to stick it out in Iraq. I even wondered if it wouldn't be better for the War on Islamofascism if a Democrat were in the White House so the press would begin to report the good news from Iraq along with the bad. Even on the domestic policy front, I could make a case for gridlock being better from my perspective than the profligate combination of Bush and a Republican Congress.

That being said, Tacitus' analysis of Kerry's "secret plan" for Iraq does disturb me. It disturbs me because earlier today I read through the transcript of Kerry's debate with John O'Neill on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. As Kerry and O'Neill were debating Richard Nixon's so-called "Vietnamization" program (that is gradual troop withdrawals as the South Vietnamese were armed to defend themselves), Kerry had this to say:

The question really is this: Is the United States of America determined to leave Vietnam, and if we are determined to leave Vietnam – which I believe the president has shown some indications of because he has withdrawn troops. We don't deny that. What we say is the troops can be withdrawn faster. What we say is the killing can stop tomorrow, and it can stop if the president of the United States will set a date certain for the withdrawal for all United States combat and advisory troops from South Vietnam. And that's really the major issue. [emphasis added]

Here is what Tacitus concludes Kerry plans to do in Iraq:

John Kerry avers that "diplomacy" can secure a peace or stability of sorts from groups and peoples with whom we are at war and whom we have yet to defeat. This, he asserts, will create the conditions for troop withdrawals. Oh, and if it doesn't? Because it won't: "[I]f it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want." The rhetorical ground is prepared. The will-of-the-people rhetoric is deployed. The stage for the grim, resolute, yielding-to-reality (so unlike those neocons!) President John F. Kerry is set. Remember: if every best-case scenario for withdrawal doesn't work; if diplomacy(!) mysteriously fails to sway murderous fanatics to goodwill; if the French don't abruptly dispatch the Foreign Legion to Anbar Province; and if big-hearted Europeans don't immediately begin training thousands of Jeffersonian-minded Iraqis -- in short, if there's still a war to be won:

He's going to withdraw anyway.

Kerry plans to withdraw from Iraq.

John Kerry vaulted into public life on the bloodied backs of the millions of slaughtered, enslaved and expelled Indochinese who suffered their fates -- and still suffer their fates -- because he and those like him achieved their policy victories back in those aforementioned bitter days. One might expect lessons learned from the experience: some measure of empathy or compassion for the victims deprived of the shield of American might and ideals. It was, after all, not merely the only thing keeping them somewhat free: it was the only thing keeping a few millions of them alive. But it seems he has learned precisely nothing. Now, three decades later, in Iraq and around the world there is another bitter fight -- and there is the same instinct to cut and run, dressed up in fantastical hypotheticals and dronings-on about priorities. What man wishes to be President of the United States, even as he wishes to not win its wars?

Here's how Tacitus concludes his analysis:

I've had my profound problems with George W. Bush's handling of Iraq. His strategic management has been uneven; his assessment of his generals has been often lacking; and his direction of certain battles -- Fallujah most glaringly -- skirts catastrophe. But I rest assured that he will not countenance the greatest catastrophe of all: defeat. Whatever his flaws, the President will see the Iraq war through. We can ask no less of a leader entrusted with our nation's honor and future.

John Kerry, by contrast, is planning to abandon that nation and its people. He is planning to allow, if he must, the enemies who massacred Americans in the clear fall skies of three years past to win in Iraq. He is planning to negate and nullify and heroic sacrifices of our Marines and our allies as they crush Islamism in Najaf. He is planning to blame it on events beyond his control: the international community; the current President; the will of the Iraqi people; the realities of resources, of finances, of logistics. Why, after all, close firehouses in Brooklyn yet open them in Baghdad? Callow rhetoric to prepare for callow defeat. The conclusion is that inescapable. And it's that simple.

He's going to withdraw anyway. And the price will be paid in blood.

Boy I hope Tacitus is wrong. I fear he is right.

John O'Neill and Credibility

Fellow lawyer, Beldar, provides some background on John O'Neill, former debate opponent of John Kerry and current Swift Boat Vet for Truth. Beldar also describes cross-examining Mr. O'Neill on the witness stand.

Some of these guys may be goofballs, but you'd be hardpressed to find someone who comes across less like a goofball than Mr. John O'Neill.

Of Goofballs, Kerry, and Poker

The Swift Boat Vets are looking less and less like a bunch of goofballs dredged up by Karl Rove as this story continues. PoliPundit once thought this was basically a non-story, but now he thinks differently. Rhoads may be right that Karl Rove dredged these guys up, but it's looking like this group of 250 veterans may haunt Kerry all the way to November.

John Kerry made a big mistake betting his campaign on the Vietnam card. The Democrats stayed in the game with this guy. It will be mighty frustrating for all the anti-Bushies to see the old Harvard Business School poker player, George W. Bush, with all the chips come November.

John Kerry, Military Service, and the Truth

In his earlier post, Rhoads used "scare quotes" around the word "Truth" in his criticism of the Swift Vets for Truth. Maybe Rhoads can comment on what we now know of John Kerry's years of service in the Navy and the Naval Reserves compared to what Kerry and his campaign have said, or allowed to be said and written, about John Kerry's service. His official records show that John Kerry was in fact an officer in the Naval Reserves at the time he testified before the Senate and when he met with a North Vietnamese delegation in Europe and accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes.

The truth does come out eventually, doesn't it.

---

Rhoads says:

I am not sure what the relevance is. Is the question why an original press release contains a supposed gap? Could it have been a mistake? Was it bad to testify in front of the Senate while in the USNR? I don't get it. But my new allergy medication is making me a bit groggy today.

Bob's reply: If it were simply a question of one original press release, sure it could have been a mistake. But the Kerry service timeline has always included the Rosemary Wood gap from 1970-72 where now it turns out no such gap in service existed. You'll have to ask John Kerry why he thought it was bad to let on that he was a member of the USNR when he met with a delegation from the enemy, testified before the Senate, and accused his Band of Brothers of war crimes.

The embellishments and half truths remain on Kerry's bio page on his web site. No mention of his time in the reserves at all. Just that he was on active duty from 1966-70. The bio also says he "he volunteered to serve on a Swift Boat in the river deltas, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war." Ahh, but Kerry himself acknowledged back in 1986 that he did not volunteer for dangeorus duty. He volunteered for duty as far from the war as he could get and it turned dangerous two weeks before he reported. So while it is technically true to claim he volunteered for one of the most dangerous assignments of the war, it is not a fair representation of his state of mind nor of the duty at the time he volunteered.

As Roger Simon said, at Yale John Kerry was an anti-war activist, like Simon and Joe Lieberman and thousands of other college kids across the country. The war was unpopular. But unlike most protestors (and Simon and Lieberman) Kerry betrayed his ideals and went to fight a war he said was wrong, only to come back and denounce said war and warriors. That says something about the character of the guy. He was against the war, before he went and fought it, and then was against it again.

Listen, I don't think most people give a rats fanny what John Kerry did or said more than thirty years ago (or if he was or wasn't in the USNR at the time). Dude was in his 20s. People do all sorts of nutty things when they're young. What matters is his policy preferences, character, judgment, and decisiveness now. But Kerry seems mired in a 1960s mindset and seems incapable of not bringing up Vietnam. His incesssant pumping up of his Vietnam service is a major mistake that is coming back to bury him. Foolish. And foolish of the Democrats to nominate him. But there you go.

Cease and Desist

Balloon Juice isn't surprised to see Democrats "lawyering up." He has the dtails and more on Kerry and swift boats over at his web site.

Solid Block for Bush

African-Americans may overwhelmingly support Democrats, but a similar proportion (nine out of ten) of Vietnamese-Americans say they will vote for George W. Bush, according to this report. Vietnamese in Vietnam say they would vote for Kerry if they had a vote.

More on Kerry and Nam

Roger Simon posts some thoughts on Kerry, Cambodia, Nam, and the Swift Boat Vets that are worth reading. One commenter offered this advice for Bush:

I hate to be a party pooper, but I think the better course of action here is for President Bush to take McCain's advice, and turn it into a Sister Soulja moment.

I agree with Roger several posts ago, and am still wondering how what somebody did 30 years ago matters right now. Yes, I know he "opened the door," but it is now time for Bush to close it, and bloody his nose while doing it (mixed metaphor alert...)

The President should call a press conference and distance himself from these attacks, remind the public that he has been accused of being AWOL by the DNC Chairman and therefore knows how this feels, and then clearly state to the public that the War on Terror is more important than a pissing match about what everybody did after they left Yale.

Mediators call this a conciliatory gesture, and it is a powerful tool for persuasion. Moreover, it would confirm Bush's image as a generous person, and Kerry's image as stingy and ungracious. Thereafter, every time Kerry brings up Viet Nam, something he is genetically incapable of avoiding, he will be the one responsible for the fallout.

We all know Kerry believes Viet Nam is the ace up his sleeve. Why not take it away from him?

I think that's good advice. Kerry's nuts to keep bringing up Vietnam and Bush should do what this guy says.

One Down

Chalk one up for Rhoads. One of the Swift Boat Vets has retracted an earlier statement that John Kerry did not deserve his Silver Star. The story is here in the Boston Globe.

UPDATE: As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast, my friend." It turns out the Swift Boat Vet is sticking by his original story. The Boston Globe reporter, a Kerry supporter (imagine that) may have gotten the quote wrong. Quoting from Drudge:

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."

Developing.

Free Speech?

Sigh. Here we go again. Nice tone to set for a wannabe Kerry Administration. And with a trial lawyer VP to boot.

Here We Go Again

Following his party's nominating convention John F. Kerry trails George W. Bush in the Iowa Electronic Markets. Rhoads desparately wants to believe that Kerry will pull out this election, but it's looking more and more like that won't happen. Let's do a little post/pre-mortem on the legacy of losers put forth by the Democratic Party starting with the 1968 election:

1968: Hubert Humphrey. Loser from a liberal northern state.
1972: George McGovern. Liberal loser from a northern state.
1976: Jimmy Carter. Winning governor from a southern state.
1984: Walter Mondale: Loser from a liberal northern state.
1988: Michael Dukakis: Liberal loser from a liberal northern state.
1992: Bill Clinton: Winning governor from a southern state.
2000: Al Gore: Loser from a southern state. (How'd he manage to lose again? Oh yeah. He failed to carry that state.)
2004: John Kerry: ____________ from a liberal northern state.

Fill in the blank.

I say "Liberal loser" but "Loser" works, too. Winner seems out of place, doesn't it?

---

Rhoads response
Not to me it doesn't.

---

Bob's response: Winner doesn't seem out of place to Rhoads, but then Rhoads has been known to pencil in the Princeton Tigers as NCAA Basketball Champs. Hope springs eternal. Maybe Kerry will win this fall. Maybe the Cubs will win the World Series. Anything's possible.

But not everything's probable. As my post-mortem above shows, in the past when the Democratic Party has nominated a fringe candidate, one pleasing to the list of Rhoads' Favorites over to the left, they have lost. This year Howard Dean sprung on the scene and made John Kerry, a liberal from Massachussets, appear moderate within the Democratic Party. The Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, pacifist, Bush-hating, Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft-fearing, conspiracy minded wing of the Democratic Party settled for Kerry when the Dean candidacy wilted in Iowa. Now the party is once again facing an electoral defeat like in 1968, 1972, 1984, and 1988. Oh well. Maybe this time it really will be different.

Swift Boat Vets for "Truth"

Keep hanging your hat on this group of goofballs, Bob. You will be disapointed in the end. This is obviously a group of people dragged up from the scum pond by Karl Rove and company who have a beef with John Kerry's behavior after the Vietnam War. And if John Kerry was NOT lying about his first purple heart, then I would say that this is indeed a libelous ad and should not be run.

This is not about who is and who is not fit to be commander-in-chief. This is about being pissed off that John Kerry came home from Vietnam and said that we behaved terribly over there - which we did in many many cases. Get real.

---

Bob's Response: Rhoads has his theories about these guys and he may be right.

But it may be that these guys are upset because John Kerry continues to pump his Vietnam service and they know the truth about that service. If you go to the John Kerry website's list of TV spots you'll find one called "Lifeline." In that TV spot you'll see this photo. Since the men in that photo don't support John Kerry (with two exceptions--Kerry and another guy) perhaps they want to set the record straight.

Here's what we know. John Kerry used a picture of himself in a political ad, a picture which included many others who don't support him. Some of them are taking issue with that and fighting back. John Kerry has embellished the circumstances of his swift boat service. He claims now that he volunteered for dangerous duty when he admitted in 1986 that the duty he volunteered for was as not dangerous as he could find.

Kerry and Freedom of Speech

Is this the sort of respect for free speech we could expect from a Kerry Administration? Lawyers representing John Kerry and the DNC have sent a letter to television stations them asking them not to run the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ad attacking Kerry's Vietnam claims.

Is Team Kerry right that the Swift Vets are phonies? I'm sure Kerry supporters will think so. But the claims that the people in the ad are lying look weak to me. Glenn Reynolds has more info and links. As Glenn and some of his readers comment, given Kerry's tacit approval of the lies of Michael Moore it seems disingenuous of Team Kerry to try to bully stations into not airing political ads.

Oh, and before we leave John Kerry's Vietnam experience we'd be remiss if we didn't have a look at what Spinsanity has to say about Kerry's swift boat service. According to Spinsanity, Kerry had this to say in 1986:

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

The missison of the swift boats changed after Kerry volunteered for that duty. It became much more dangerous, patrolling "the inlets and narrow rivers along the Mekong Delta" and drawing enemy fire. Now Kerry and his supporters are claiming that he bravely volunteered for some of the most dangerous duty possible. Here's how Bill Clinton mischaracterized Kerry's duty in what Rhoads described as a wonderful, if not particularly accurate in this case, speech by Clinton at the Democratic Convention last week:

"When they sent those swiftboats up the river in Vietnam and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: Send me."

Uh, "Send me somewhere that has 'very little to do with the war' please." That would be more like it.

UPDATE: Here's a transcript from Judy Woodruff's show on CNN today including a "debate" between two men with different takes on the incident leading to John Kerry's Bronze Medal.

Ouch

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is kicking John Kerry's fanny again, this time with a devastating new ad. While you're at it don't miss this mouse-over photo of Kerry and his Band of Brothers.

When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first came up Rhoads suggested that their claim to being apolitical was a farce. I agreed that the group was political since, despite the group's emphasis on Kerry's fitness to command, the presidency is a political office and this group clearly had come together to prevent John Kerry from becoming president.

I don't know if this changed since Rhoads first raised the point, but to their credit Swift Boat Veterans for Truth acknowledges that they are an advocacy group, donations to which are not tax deductible. From their FAQ:

Note: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Inc., is a 527 advocacy organization and contributions are not tax deductible.

Fair enouth. They are a group of veterans, of both parties, who have come together to say that Kerry is unfit for command. Their judgment and their new ad will hurt Kerry a lot more than it might have had Kerry not made such a big deal of his service in Vietnam, both during the primary campaign and at the Democratic Convention in Boston.

If you're hoping for a Kerry win, the Swift Boat Vets' judgment probably won't hurt as much as this post-convention graph. It is a graph reflecting the wisdom of a particular crowd, which appears to have taken a turn for the worse after people had a long, close look at John Kerry in Boston.

It looks bleak for the Senator from Massachusetts right now. I say Kerry will ultimately do better than either Mondale or Dukakis. Bush is just too unpopular with a significant minority of the population to win as big as Reagan and Bush 41 did in those two electoral romps. But if Bush somehow manages to win Minnesota I can't imagine many places Kerry will win. Massachussets? DC? New York? Sure. But he could lose California if Arnold is any help to GWB. That would be a painful beating indeed for Kerry.

Susan Buffett Dies

Susan Buffett, wife of Warren Buffett, died of a stroke today at the age of 72. Our condolences to the entire Buffett family. [link]

Rhoads is Back

Now that baseball season is mostly over, I will have more time to spend having coffee with Bob. I read the article, and I think it makes some very good points. However, I think it is a little too simplistic. For example, a president can significantly change the water level in the swimming pool by borrowing buckets full of money, as President Reagan showed us and as President Bush has showed us as well. Of course, only Congress can borrow money, but when Congress does everything the president says, well, I would say that means the president does it. And althugh tax policies don't have very many immediate effects on the economy, they are a lot more than just moving water from one end of the pool to the other. They either pull water out altogether, or they pull it out hoping that when they come back in there is some added to them (which I believe is the theory behind trickle down economics). In either case, once again the president can affect the economy.

Stimulating the Economy

Russell Roberts explains why tax and spending policies don't stimulate the economy in the short run despite claims to the contrary by politicians. He offers up a story of a little boy filling a swimming pool with a bucket for illustrative purposes and brings in the great Bastiat for reinforcement. Here's how the essay gets started:

John Kerry will focus on the mediocre performance of the economy, particularly the job market, in the first part of the Bush Administration. Bush will tout the performance of the economy over the last year or so as long as the job numbers continue to be rosy through the fall. Implicit in this discussion are two strange assumptions. The first is that the President “runs” the economy. The President hardly even runs the government. He certainly cannot direct the fortunes and failures of millions of workers, managers, investors and entrepreneurs. The second implicit assumption is that the success or failure of the President depends on his ability to “stimulate” the economy, as if the economy were an engine that simply needed a different setting for its carburetor or as if it were a lazy steer that needs prodding to speed its way on a cattle drive.

Enter the little boy and his bucket:

Imagine coming across a young boy who is standing at the edge of the shallow end of a swimming pool. He holds a bucket in his hands and he looks crestfallen. What’s wrong, you ask. Well, he explains, I’m doing a science experiment and it’s not working. What’s wrong? For the last hour I’ve been emptying water into this pool with this bucket. But the water level hasn’t changed a bit. The pool hasn’t gotten any deeper. It’s a big pool, you explain. A few bucketfuls of water aren’t going to have much of a visible effect. The boy redoubles and retriples his efforts. A week goes by. You come back to the pool and he looks no happier than he did before. What’s wrong now, you ask. I’ve been doing the same thing eight hours a day for a week and I still don’t see any change. Is there a leak in the pool, you wonder. No, he says, no leak. I checked that out.

If you haven't guessed the boy's problem, read the rest of the essay to find out.

Oh and one more thing, Roberts comes close to adopting my garden analogy to refute the notion of building an economy (where I was refuting the notion of building a nation):

A President can no more stimulate the economy in the short run than you can make a child grow a foot in a week. Genuine growth takes time. The most a President can do is to help create an environment for that growth to take place by unleashing the creativity inherent in a nation’s people and those they trade with in other countries.

Helping to "create an environment for that growth" sounds an awful lot like gardening to me.

Needless to say I think the whole essay is well worth the short read. I wish more people sought out and received this sort of economic education.

A good place to start is Cafe Hayek were Russell Roberts and Don Boudreaux offer up this sort of fare on a regular basis.

The New York Times is Liberal

If Rhoads ever gets time to visit Coffee With Rhoads he may want to follow this link to Ed Driscoll's web site. From there he can follow several more links to admissions of liberal bias in the major news media. The title of this post reflects not just my view, but more tellingly the viewpoint of Daniel Okrent, ombudsman for the New York Times itself. If you find yourself arguing that the major news media do not lean liberal, then you almost certainly have identified yourself as being to the left of the mainstream news media and well to the left of the rest of your fellow Americans. Which is fine.

Intelligence and Saddam

I know Rhoads insists that Bush lied, or Bush embellished, or something like that regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Multiple reports to the contrary lately are unlikely to change his mind. But for those of you who still wonder about the role of intelligence in the decision to invade Iraq, here is an intersting piece from today's New York Times called "Saddam Failed the Yeltsin Test" by Stephen Sestanovich, Clinton-era ambassador. Here are the concluding paragraphs:

When America demanded that Iraq follow the example of countries like Ukraine and South Africa, which sought international help in dismantling their weapons of mass destruction, it set the bar extremely high, but not unreasonably so. The right test had to reflect Saddam Hussein's long record of acquiring, using and concealing such weapons. Just as important, it had to yield a clear enough result to satisfy doubters on both sides, either breaking the momentum for war or showing that it was justified.

Some may object that this approach treated Saddam Hussein as guilty until proved innocent. They're right. But the Bush administration did not invent this logic. When Saddam Hussein forced out United Nations inspectors in 1998, President Clinton responded with days of bombings - not because he knew what weapons Iraq had, but because Iraq's actions kept us from finding out.

A decision on war is almost never based simply on what we know, or think we know. Intelligence is always disputed. Instead, we respond to what the other guy does. This is how we went to war in Iraq. The next time we face such a choice, whether our intelligence has improved or not, we'll almost surely decide in the very same way.

Indeed.

"Joe Wilson? Al Franken calling about some lies."

Not sure if Air America is still on the air, but even if it is perhaps Al Franken has some time to discuss noted liar Joe Wilson of the Iraq, Niger, and uranium lie.

I'll provide some additional links for Al to follow up on: Pejman I, Pejman II, and Taranto for starters.

Edwards Interview

Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the U.S.? Did President Bush mislead the American people about the threat posed by Iraq in order to get us into a war that was not necessary? Let's ask John Edwards, presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee.

BOB: Senator Edwards, President Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil." Is there one that you think is more dangerous than the others?

EDWARDS: I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.[link]

BOB: Some say we shouldn't go to war because we want to, only because we have to. You say Iraq poses the most imminent threat, but is war necessary?

EDWARDS: I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action.[link]

BOB: Well surely Senator Edwards you were misled by President Bush.

EDWARDS: [D]id I get misled? No. I didn't get misled. And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.[link]

BOB: Well goodness knows these intelligence failures got us to fight a war in Iraq that took us away from the important business of finding Osama bin Laden. We had to choose between fighting al Qaeda and fighting in Iraq, and going into Iraq was the wrong choice wasn't it?

EDWARDS: I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.[link]

BOB: But al Qaeda, not Iraq, attacked us on 9/11. Is Iraq really all that dangerous to us?

EDWARDS: Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.[link]

BOB: Well said, John. Anything else?

EDWARDS: Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.[link]

BOB: Shoot that's what I was saying. I know you think we should build as large a coalition as possible in this war to oust Saddam, but should we do it without UN approval if necessary?

EDWARDS: [I]f the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.[link]

BOB: I'm with you Senator. Any final words?

EDWARDS: [T]he decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.[link]

BOB: Well said, Senator. However it now appears that Saddam wasn't as imminently dangerous as we and so many others thought. Was ousting him the right thing to do in hindsight? I mean we pissed off the French, Germans, Russians and leftists all around the world. Do you still believe going in "alone" was the right thing to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people. I stand behind my support of that, yes.[link]

BOB: Thank you for clearing all that up for us Senator. Thank you for your time.

And thank you to Stephen Hayes for making this interview possible.

Lileks Fisks Moore

Michael Moore wrote a commentary in the July 4th LA Times. James Lileks goes over it for us as only he can.

More on Iraq and Uranium

From today's Financial Times:

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq.

Uranium from Niger, you say? Now where did I hear that before? Oh right, Bush lied about that in his State of the Union speech in 2003.

I guess I'll have to brush up on things nuclear. It appears that Iraq had two tons of uranium and a nuclear program, yet sought to buy uranium from Niger. I guess it's possible that all this is innocent enough and that Iraq needed uranium or the "yellow cake" from Niger for energy generation purposes. But why would a country rich with oil be developing nuclear energy sources?

Radioactive News?

The AP reported:

In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Nope, no WMD programs going on in Iraq.

Impressive

Randy Barnett is impressed with Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. In his piece Barnett cites, among others, pieces by Dave Kopel and Christopher Hitchens that are much worth reading.

I'd add to the must reading list the analysis by Brendan Nyhan of Spinsanity as well as this amusing collection of Michael Moore's own words by Tacitus. It's hard to pick a favorite, but I guess I was most amused by this give and take between Moore and Bob Costas (from Tacitus):

May 9 interview on HBO's On the Record with Bob Costas
During the pre-taped interview, Moore asked Costas: "What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden?"
Costas naively suggested: "Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak."
Moore challenged the premise: "Really, you believe that?"
Costas: "Yes."
Moore: "You do believe that?"
Costas: "Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that."
Moore: "You don't think they know where he is?"
Costas, clearly astonished as Moore's paranoid thinking: "You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off?"
Moore: "Absolutely, absolutely."
Costas: "Why?"
Moore: "Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9-11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens, alright, I mean, come on. Let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan playing-"
Costas jumped in: "You think he's in Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, not Pakistan."
Moore: "Well, could be Pakistan, but he's under watch of those who have said put a stop to this because-"
Costas tried to nail him down on culpability: "Including, at least by extension, the United States, he's under the protective watch of the United States?"
Moore confirmed: "I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon."

Sounds like Art Bell or Oliver Stone.

More Evidence of Media Bias

I haven't read any more of Linda Seebach's opinion piece than Glenn Reynolds exerpts, nor have I gone and read the original study, but I can't say I'm surprised by the finding of yet another study that the news media display a bias toward the left, dramatically it appears.

The authors say they expected to find that the mainstream media leaned to the left, but they were "astounded by the degree."

Of course if you're to the left of the Democratic Party this won't be so obvious. In fact, if you're far enough left the news media will seem biased to the right.

Geneva Conventions and Detainees

So do the recent Supreme Court rulings mean that the War on Terror detainees are entitled to their rights under the Geneva Conventions? Nope. Eugene Volokh has a detailed post covering the issue. Here's the start of it:

Some people have said that the Supreme Court's Guantanamo detainee decision might have been influenced by the Administration's refusal to give the detainees the procedures to which they're entitled by the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are a treaty that we signed, the argument goes, the government is bound to give this procedure, so we should interpret our habeas corpus statute as mandating at least something like what we've promised to provide in any case.

I'm not sure whether the Justices might indeed have been influenced by what they may see as Administration overreaching here. But, as best I can tell, the Geneva Conventions do not require the U.S. to give hearings to detainees who claim that they're actually civilians and should therefore be freed.[emphasis in original]

Read the whole thing.

See also this followup post regarding the Geneva Conventions at the Volokh Conspiracy.

---

Rhoads response: I am not sure what your point is here, Bob, but keep trying. The administration is continuing to dig themselves into a bigger and bigger hole, which is fine with me. I mean, if the Supreme Court that decided it was in their power to decide that these guys should be in charge of the Executive Branch disagrees with them, then they are in trouble, which I think is great.

Bob: Huh? I understood your first two sentences, but I can't make out the last one. Maybe once I figure that out I can help you understand the point I was making.

A Soldier's View of the Liberation of Iraq

This soldier says he and his brothers-in-arms knew why they were invading Iraq:

I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.

Read the whole thing.

C'mon Tom

If you get your news from NBC Nightly News it may not be "news" that you're getting. Tom Brokaw embarrasses himself in an interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Ilyad Allawi and Donald Sensing has the details.

---

Rhoads' response: I guess I am missing how Tom Brokaw embarrassed himself.

Bob's response: Did you read the exchange? Do you know what the 9/11 Commission said about Iraq and al Qaeda?

UPDATE: This piece by Roger L. Simon may help. It quotes the relevant passage from the 9/11 Commission report.

News from Iraq

US Marine Corps reservist Eric Johnson, back from serving in Iraq, offers some insights into the goings on in Iraq and the news coverage of it. Here's a taste:

Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don’t get much notice – or in many cases, any notice at all.

Read the whole thing.

Do These Quotes Qualify as Anti-American?

According to an opinion piece in the New York Times, one American, exercising his inalienable right to free speech, made the following comments within the past few years. Would it be fair to call such statements or the person uttering them anti-American? If not, what would an American have to say to qualify as anti-American?

"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]."

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

"That's why we're [Americans] smiling all the time. You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

"You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine [the U.S.], which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe."

"We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

"Don't be like us [Americans]. You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

"Should such an ignorant people [Americans] lead the world?"

"Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

Play to the End

Here's a wonderful essay about finishing the job in Iraq.

Iraq, Niger and Uranium

I'll be darned. It looks like Iraq acquired or tried to acquire uranium from Niger afterall.

Uranium, sarin gas equipped war heads, anthrax. If WMD are defined as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons Saddam's Iraq came through with the Triple Crown.

Evidence Keeps Rolling In

The New York Times reports more evidence of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda in the 1990s.

Law School and Bar Exams: What's the Point?

My local law school is struggling to come up with the cash to modernize their facilities. That's bad news for the professors, administrators, and students. But if more law schools struggle financially maybe the end result will be an end to the nonsense that is legal education. Here's a brief essay addressed to recent law school grads. The content shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with professional education and occupational licensure in America.

Iraq and Al Qaeda continued

In 1999 CNN and The Gardian were reporting that Iraq offered bin Laden asylum. Of course until very, very recently the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda was common knowledge.

We're Number 49

My alma mater, the nations's top party school, is ranked 49th in the near final 2003-04 Director's Cup standings. Princeton stands at number 30. The winner for the 10th consecutive year is Stanford University. Amazing what athletic scholarships, good weather, and a good school will get you.

Federal Communications Commission RIP

Declan McCullagh says its time to bury the FCC. No kidding.

Is This the Face of Public Education?

Citizen Smash reports from an anti-war rally where he encountered a socialist teacher actively campaigning for US defeat in Iraq. Here's a spooky interchange between Smash and the teacher:

“So, do you try to get your students involved in activism?”

"Oh, definitely! I teach the required World History course, but I also teach an elective course on Revolutionary History. Those students are really receptive to new ideas. We cover the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, French Revolution, Mexican Revolution…”

“What about the American Revolution?”

“Oh, they cover that in US History,” she replied, dismissively.

I'm sure they do a good job with it, too.

Luckily socialists recruiting high school students for leftist activism is a rarity in US public schools.

Learning and Sleeping

Randall Parker has a post on brain function during sleep. Studying and learning in the evening before a good night's sleep may be the way to go. It could be that studying and napping are good for learning, too. Sweet.

Moore's Law vs. Medicare

In a post from last summer, Arnold Kling handicaps the Great Race between the economy and Medicare. Unless Medicare is reformed, the economy will have to kick butt in the next several decades to pay the bills we're all assuming for the medical care of citizens over age 65.

Like Social Security, Medicare is a moronic program that never should have been started. The burden those two programs have placed on young workers in this country is tremendous, all for the goal of providing something to a group of people who are far wealthier than the providers.

Poisonous Focus on Distribution

Alex Taborrak links to this paper on the Industrial Revolution by Robert Lucas. The conclusion, exerpted by Alex, caught my attention since it says something I've been saying for twenty years:

Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution. In this very minute, a child is being born to an American family and another child, equally valued by God, is being born to a family in India. The resources of all kinds that will be at the disposal of this new American will be on the order of 15 times the resources available to his Indian brother. This seems to us a terrible wrong, justifying direct corrective action, and perhaps some actions of this kind can and should be taken. But of the vast increase in the well-being of hundreds of millions of people that has occurred in the 200-year course of the industrial revolution to date, virtually none of it can be attributed to the direct redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production.

My contention is that the difference between socialists and capitalists is that socialists assume the existence of wealth and then seek the best ways to distribute that wealth. Capitalists focus on the creation of the wealth which comes into existence already distributed to those who produced it. I think capitalists have it right, obviously since I am a capitalist. Without excess wealth, that is assets produced beyond those that we consume, there can be no charitable redistribution. Therefore, wealth creation is primary if we seek a world with less poverty. As Lucas points out, the Industrial Revolution, and I would add worldwide specialization and trade, has produced unimaginable wealth and therefore more people freed from a life of poverty that was the norm for hundreds of thousands of years.

UPDATE: Arnold Kling has some thoughts on the Lucas essay, too.

The Benefits of Saying the Obvious Truth

Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union evil. Ten years later that evil empire crumbled. Fabio Rojas writes:

It's hard for Westerners to believe this, but the clarity of Reagan's message had a profound effect on those behind the Iron Curtain. People will notice when an American president unapologetically calls the Soviet Union what it was - an evil empire. This is a simple moral judgment that was lost on so many intellectuals in the West. To hear this message must have been inspiring to those who experienced the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and Hungary and other Soviet crimes.

Perhaps George W. Bush's labeling of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil will similarly inspire those living (lived in the case of Iraq) under tyranny in those evil regimes. Speaking the truth can pay dividends down the road. Ask the people of Eastern Europe if you don't believe me.

Now I'd like to see Bush (or Kerry if he wins in November) call China evil, too.

Bush Speech at Normandy

Steven Den Beste has written a speech that George W. Bush should give on June 6, 2004 at Normandy.

Is Mark Twain Alive?

OK, so the references to Cuba give away the time frame, but this essay by Mark Twain, written in 1898, could have been written today. Twain is responding to this comment from a voluntary American exile living in Paris:

Well, what do you think of our country now? And what do you think of the figure she is cutting before the eyes of the world? For one, I am ashamed.

Twain's response begins:

And so you are ashamed. I am trying to think out what it can have been that has produced this large attitude of mind and this fine flow of sarcasm. Apparently you are ashamed to look Europe in the face; ashamed of the American name; temporarily ashamed of your nationality. By the light of remarks made to me by an American here in Vienna, I judge that you are ashamed because:

     1. We are meddling where we have no business and no right; meddling with the private family matters of a sister nation; intruding upon her sacred right to do as she pleases with her own, unquestioned by anybody.
     2. We are doing this under a sham humanitarian pretext.
     3. Doing it in order to filch Cuba, the formal and distinct disclaimer in the ultimatum being very, very thin humbug, and easily detectable by you and virtuous Europe.
     4. And finally you are ashamed of all this because it is new, and base, and brutal, and dishonest; and because Europe, having had no previous experience of such things, is horrified by it and can never respect us nor associate with us any more.

Brutal, base, dishonest? We? Land Thieves? Shedders of innocent blood? We? Traitors to our official word? We? Are we going to lose Europe's respect because of this new and dreadful conduct? Russia's, for instance? Is she lying stretched out on her back in Manchuria, with her head among her Siberian prisons and her feet in Port Arthur, trying to read over the fairy tales she told Lord Salisbury, and not able to do it for crying because we are maneuvering to treacherously smouch Cuba from feeble Spain, and because we are ungently shedding innocent Spanish blood?

Disgust at American conduct by Europeans and European wannabe Americans has a long history.

Too Many Teachers

Ever heard anyone (teachers?) complain about how little schools pay their teachers? Guest blogger Fabio Rojas at the Marginal Revolution offers an obvious explanation:

Teacher's low pay is due mainly to the fact that there are tons and tons of teachers! There is a huge supply of teachers. Education schools have huge enrollments - and surveys routinely report that education is one of the most popular majors in the country. Click here for a short Yahoo article reporting the most popular intended majors among incoming freshmen in 2002.

The link shows that education majors are number 3 and number 6 in the top 10. I wonder how many of the psychology (number 2) and english (number 7) majors intend to teach, too?

I have a friend who is going back to school with the intention of becoming a teacher. When I mention these plans to people who know him the universal reply is, "Wonderful!" Maybe that explains why people continue to go into the profession despite the low pay.

When did we become a society of teachers anyway? What happened to the old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."? Perhaps we need more doers and fewer teachers.

Shiite Dead Under Saddam

Hugh Hewitt wonders why this isn't big news:

"By mid-January of 2004, 270 mass graves had been reported.  The Free Prisoners Society estimates that five to seven million people 'disappeared' in the past two decades, the majority of them Shiites."

That's from a National Geographic Magazine story on Shiites in Iraq called "Reaching for Power".

James Lileks offers some answers for Hugh:

1. Five to seven million “disappeared” is not the same as five to seven million killed. They could have wandered off. The discovery of mass graves that hold several hundred thousands is no proof that Saddam killed any more. Until we have at leave five million skeletons all clutching their national identification cards, with neat bullet holes in the back of their skulls, there is no reason to believe that Saddam had them killed.

If we have learned nothing else in the last few years, it’s that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

2. So? Other people have died in large amounts elsewhere, and we’re not worried about that.

3. Hey, Arabs killing Arabs. Like that’s news. What do expect of these people? In any case it’s obscene to use the death toll as a justification for Bush’s illegal war. Which was also a racist war, I might add.

4. To paraphrase an influential thinker of the previous century: The death of millions is a statistic.

Indeed.

NRO Profile of Roger L. Simon plus John Kerry Thoughts

Though I don't have him on my list of favorites over on the left margin of Coffee With Rhoads, I find myself frequently visiting Roger L. Simon's blog. Not surprisingly his writing is wonderful. To get a feel for Roger's past and present, this profile of Simon is a great place to start.

Regarding current events, Simon doesn't trust John Kerry. Simon attended Yale at the same time as Kerry. Says Simon:

The Vietnam War debate was raging then, and "I was militantly antiwar," Simon recounts. So was Kerry, publicly and vocally. But Kerry really threw Simon for a loop when he volunteered for service. Among those opposed to the war, it was a matter of principle to avoid serving: "If you were at Yale and you didn't want to go to Vietnam, there was always a way out of it," Simon recounts.

So when Kerry volunteered it struck Simon, then and now, as a supremely hypocritical act. Because Kerry's actions didn't match his expressed convictions, "it proved [to Simon] that his values weren't really deep."

It will be amazing if Kerry can win the presidency having played up his Vietnam service so much. Military men don't like him because he came back from Vietnam and called them war criminals. To compound those errors, from the perspectives of military people, as a senator Kerry voted against the military on most issues throughout is career.

But anti-war people have reason to dislike Kerry, too. Like Roger Simon, they distrust his principles because Kerry claimed to be anti-war, then went to Vietnam. It looks to them like a political move. That's how some of the doctors and soldiers who saw Kerry in Vietnam saw it, too. Kerry seemed like a guy who had political ambitions and wanted to have it both ways. He was anti-war as judged by his actions before and after serving in Vietnam. Yet he served in Vietnam. He could claim to be on both sides of the issue.

Being on both sides of the issues seems to be a trait of Kerry's from way back.

In Praise of Attrition

All wars are wars of attrition and we'd be wise not to forget that lesson. Hence, I link to an essay titled "In Praise of Attrition" by Ralph Peters in the Summer 2004 issue of Parameters, the US Army War College Quarterly. It's recommended reading, especially for those of us who know nothing first hand about war.

Martial Values

Professor Bainbridge replies to Larry Solum regarding martial virtues here. Bainbridge quotes a passage from G.K. Chesterton's essay on Rudyard Kipling. I've reproduced the same passage below:

Now, Mr. Kipling is certainly wrong in his worship of militarism, but his opponents are, generally speaking, quite as wrong as he. The evil of militarism is not that it shows certain men to be fierce and haughty and excessively warlike. The evil of militarism is that it shows most men to be tame and timid and excessively peaceable. The professional soldier gains more and more power as the general courage of a community declines. Thus the Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble. The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues. And as it was in ancient Rome so it is in contemporary Europe. There never was a time when nations were more militarist. There never was a time when men were less brave. All ages and all epics have sung of arms and the man; but we have effected simultaneously the deterioration of the man and the fantastic perfection of the arms. Militarism demonstrated the decadence of Rome, and it demonstrates the decadence of Prussia.

The point is that professional militaries become especially dangerous when the citizens become soft and rely too much on the professional soldiers. I think we're far from that danger in this country, but we've certainly lost some of the martial virtues of our forefathers.

Iraq and al Qaeda again

More discussion of the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda here, including some exerpts from a book on bin Laden published in 1999, before the general public really noticed al Qaeda (that would be on 9/11) and began taking politically motivated positions on the connection (or lack thereof) between Saddam and bin Laden.

"Every war with fascism is our business."

So says Mark Edelman, "the last surviving military leader of the heroic Jewish Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943." Read the whole thing, of course, but here's an exerpt:

Interviewer: But the Americans aren't going too well with introducing democracy in Iraq.

Edelman: That's true, but it's a difficult war. The Second World War went for five years. Democracy tends to be structurally weak. Dictatorship is strong. Hitler was able to mobilise several million people and chase another few million into gas chambers or slave labour. But only democracy saves the humanity and saves millions of lives. The more I see people getting murdered the more I believe that we need to put a stop to that. The murderers understand only deeds.

Edelman doesn't have much good to say about the Spanish (pulling out of Iraq) and the French (failing to defend themselves in WWII). He thinks they're weak. Imagine that.

Don't tell Mark Edelman that "War is not the A.N.S.W.E.R."

UPDATE: Citizen Smash on A.N.S.W.E.R.

Geneva Conventions

Alan Dershowitz, a noted liberal Harvard law professor, says it's time to scrap the outdated and overly broad Geneva Conventions. Contrary to Rhoads' contention that Al Gore rightly uses the term "Geneva Convention" to describe proper moral behavior toward detainees, Dershowitz sees the Geneva Conventions as aiding terrorists:

These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Read the whole thing, but here's Dershowitz's concluding paragraph:

International law must recognize that democracies have been forced by the tactics of terrorists to make difficult decisions regarding life and death. The old black-and-white distinctions must be replaced by new categories, rules and approaches that strike the proper balance between preserving human rights and preventing human wrongs. For the law to work, it must be realistic and it must adapt to changing needs.

My contention is that Gore is either a moron for thinking the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists, or intentionally using a term that doesn't apply to attack a Bush Administration he doesn't like. Rhoads contends that the Geneva Conventions, while legally not binding, describe the proper, moral treatment of prisoners. Dershowitz doesn't address my Gore concerns, but seems to disagree with Rhoads' view of the morality of the Conventions.

If Rhoads gets the time, maybe he could explain where Dershowitz and I are wrong to say that the Geneva Conventions provide poor guidance for the treatment of suspected terrorist detainees.

---

Rhoads' reponse
Well, I read the article, and although I can't fault most of its logic, I have to come to a different conclusion, if for no other reason than to answer this question: Who gets to make the decision that any particular human being falls into the category that allows them to be treated inhumanely? President Bush did with Jose Padilla, and we still haven't heard from the Supreme Court whether that is OK or not. Someone at the prisons in Iraq got to decide, and it appears that the country is not happy with that decision either. Until there is a good answer to that question, then I don't think there is any way we can move to a system as described by Professor Dershowitz.

Bob's reply
Rhoads assumes his conclusion in his question. He assumes that there are accepted definitions of "humane" and "inhumane" treatments of prisoners. That is simply not the case. The question is not black and white, humane treatment versus inhumane treatment. There is a continuum of treatments when it comes to prisoners. The continuum goes from the plush conditions in minimum security prisons in the U.S. to the torture chambers of France and the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq. The question is do the Geneva Conventions tell us where on the contnuum to be when it comes to combat with terrorists who do not accept the rules of war. Dershowitz and I say no. They were never intended to do so. By trying to use them for a purpose for which they were not intended, we risk making the world a far more dangerous place.

Vietnam Vets and Kerry

The Washington Post carried a story today on Rolling Thunder, a group of mostly Vietnam vets who road through DC on Harleys today and yesterday. Instapundit has pictures and some comments courtesy of a guy who was there. Bush met the leaders of the group to take advantage of the fact that the group has endorsed him instead of "highly decorated Vietnam veteran" John Kerry. Why would they endorse Bush when, as Rhoads says, Bush used his connections to avoid going to Vietnam while Kerry volunteered to serve along side them? Perhaps because they know that serving in the Air National Guard is not avoiding service, and because Kerry came back and turned on his fellow soldiers. Seems these guys remember that. From the Washington Post story:

Bob Nowak, 52, a retired Navy man from Aroda, Va., who did two tours in Vietnam, said veterans such as himself despise Kerry for his decision to protest the war in the early 1970s.

Nowak remembers returning from Vietnam in 1973 aboard an aircraft carrier loaded with thousands of sailors in their dress whites. "As we passed under the Golden Gate Bridge, there were people waiting for us. And they threw garbage on us," Nowak recalled. "That was about the time Kerry was throwing his [ribbons] away. It's kind of hard to forget either of them."

---

Rhoads' response
Sorry it has been so long since I posted on CwR.

Bob, if you choose to ignore the fact that George W. Bush used political influence to avoid going to Vietnam, then you go right ahead. The fact is, he did use his father's influence, and there is plenty of evidence that he only paid lip service to the "service" he did perform.

That said, I can certainly understand why some Vietnam Vets were upset by John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War upon his return. However, that does not mean that he was wrong to lodge those protests. The USA did lots of horrific things in Vietnam because, well, we weren't used to losing a war. And I for one don't think that trying to bring those thin-gs to light is such a bad thing.

Bob's reply
Rhoads wrote: "if you choose to ignore the fact that George W. Bush used political influence to avoid going to Vietnam" and "The fact is, he did use his father's influence". It wouldn't shock me if Rhoads is right, but I've never seen any evidence that Bush Sr intervened to keep Geroge W. from going to Vietnam. Perhaps Rhoads could provide a source for this fact.

We do know that George W. served in the National Guard. He did not go to Vietnam. Was the former a way of achieving the latter? Probably, but it wasn't the best way. George W. could have gone straight to graduate school or to Oxford like Clinton did. Instead he signed up for the Guard, specifically with the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group in 1968, which in 1966 was named the most combat ready unit in the Guard. Furthermore, the 147th had fighter pilots (Bush trained as a fighter pilot) in Vietnam (participating in "Palace Alert") at the time he joined and trained. [first of many Google hits that confirm the above.]

Of course this isn't really about facts. We should be able to resolve those disputes, provided Rhoads coughs up some sources. I'm perfectly willing, if the evidence shows it, to accept that George W. Bush used political influence to avoid serving in Vietnam. What this is really about is my assertion (not factual, just an opinion) that military people overwhelmingly, veterans, reservists, and active duty, don't much care for Kerry. Sure, Rhoads likes Kerry. But Rhoads isn't a military guy.

Libertarian Weirdness

Borrowing a phrase from Eugene Volokh, I've recently described my political views as "presumptively libertarian". After reading about the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, I may have to come up with a description that does not include the word libertarian.

That may not be so easy. What simple, descriptive words remain? I'm in favor of way too much change to call myself conservative. Socialists in the U.S. have permanently borrowed the term liberal and the Libertarian Party has made a mockery of the term libertarian. Virginia Postrel uses the term "dynamist" and I think I'm probably a "Hayekian". Unfortunately the terms dynamist and Hayekian aren't useful since they don't communicate anything to 99.999% of the people who might ask my political viewpoint.

"My I have some fat with those onions?"

As obesity becomes the new tobacco, the classic Charleston diet may become extinct. Rhoads may someday soon be asking his Uncle Sam if it's OK to eat fat and onions. Tolerance just cannot extend to what and how much people eat, I guess.

Memories

Christopher Hitchens is defending Ahmad Chalabi in his latest column in Slate. Here's the first paragraph:

I first met Dr. Ahmad Chalabi in the spring of 1998, a year when George Bush was still the governor of Texas and when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were talking at a high volume about the inescapable necessity of removing Saddam Hussein from power because of his continuous connection to terrorism and his addiction to weapons of mass destruction. (Remember ... ?) It was also the year that the Senate passed, without a dissenting voice, the Iraq Liberation Act.

Sounds like Hitchens remembers the connections between Iraq and terrorism that Al Gore and others have conveniently blocked out during this election cycle.

Iraq and al Qaeda

No connection, you say? Read this and see if you still feel so strongly that there was never any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

It looks to me like the connections go back a long time and were pointed out by the Clinton Administration. As I've said before, maybe this is why Bill Clinton has been so quiet as his nutty VP and others claim that Iraq was not tied to terrorism, not tied to al Qaeda, and had no WMD or WMD programs.

Thanks to Roger L. Simon for the link. No, Roger, you cannot have your Gore 2000 vote back. Luckily it didn't swing the election.

BASIS School Kicks Butt

Here's a Washington Post story on a charter school in Arizona devoted to AP courses. Beginning in ninth grade the kids take AP courses, well not just take them, but ultimately must pass them to graduate. Quoting from the story:

To graduate, a BASIS student must pass AP English Language & Composition, AP English Literature, AP Calculus or AP Statistics, AP European History, AP American History and two of the three available AP science courses in physics, chemistry and biology. There are also AP courses in computer science and foreign language. The three-hour AP tests at the end of each course are not required at most high schools, but at BASIS students must take the test at the end of at least five of the required AP courses. The middle school students are also accelerated, all of them finishing first year algebra by seventh grade, to prepare them for early AP.

The school was started by a couple of immigrants, a former educator and a University of Arizona economics professor. Half the kids' parents don't have college degrees. It's an amazing and inspiring story. We need more, way more, schools like this.

For years now I've wondered if we're getting enough bang for our buck when it comes to education spending in this country. Stories like this make me think we can do much better than we're doing. Maybe I'll start the "Bob School" on a shoestring budget. Rhoads could me help with the teaching (though I think the role of teachers is 1) overrated, and 2) all wrong in schools as the plan for the Bob School will make clear). The Bob School would be a return to the old one-room schoolhouse. Lots of kids of all ages (I don't think the age segregation of modern schools is a good thing) would be in the same large room doing math problems, reading books, and writing essays. The teacher (Rhoads or me) would be in the room doing the same thing, doing math problems, reading, writing (blogging) or debugging software, in addition to reading the students' essays. Reading and correcting the students' essays is pretty much all I'd ask of the teachers. The learning is up to the kids. The room would be quiet. The only entertainment for the kids would be the math problems, the interesting books, and the writing.

How much do you think such a school would cost? I bet we could "educate" the kids in that setting for a fair bit less than the $5,000-10,000 per pupil per year that most schools spend now.

IPCC Report on Global Climate Change

In this post from February 14, 2003 Daniel Dresner summarizes some statistical flaws exposed in the IPCC report on global climate change. I knew that the scientists who contributed the papers to the report did not agree on all the conclusions in the executive summary (prepared by non-scientists), but I was unaware of the methodological flaws in the IPCC report.

Withdrawal

I response to my earlier post A Marine's View Rhoads asked "Who is calling for withdrawal?" According to this report from Tom Curry of MSNBC the largest anti-war coalition in the U.S. is calling for just that:

Win Without War, the country’s largest anti-war coalition, called Thursday for a date certain for withdrawing U.S. troops.

“There is no military solution in Iraq,” said Win Without War, which comprises 42 groups, in its statement. “We therefore call upon our government to end the military and economic occupation of Iraq and to withdraw our troops by a date certain.”

Tom Andrews, Win Without War's National Director and former Democratic member of the House, told MSNBC.com Thursday, "Setting a date certain would be a critical step forward because it would indicate a change of course in our Iraq policy."

Asked about his group's discord with Kerry on the possibility of sending more troops, Andrews said, "The argument for increasing troops is based on the idea that our troops are a source of stability and security in Iraq. We believe that they are not. We believe they have become a source of instability and insecurity."

The presence of American troops in Iraq, he added, "is fuel for international terrorists around the world. More troops are not going to reverse this very dangerous direction we're going in, namely losing the hearts and minds of Iraqis."

The Win Without War coalition includes the NAACP, the National Council of Churches, Greenpeace, Moveon.org, and the Sierra Club.

The Sierra Club has endorsed Kerry for president, while Moveon.org has run TV ads attacking Bush and urging his censure by Congress and his defeat in November.

Hey, wasn't MoveOn.org the same group Al Gore was getting all the applause from in his nutty speech? But MoveOn.org and the others listed above aren't alone. Going to Win Without War's website turns up a complete list of members. I see Sojourners, one of Rhoads favorites is part of the coalition calling for withdrawal. I guess Rhoads missed that.

One more interesting tidbit in the same MSNBC piece. The section I reprinted says that Kerry is in favor of sending in more troops. That's a change in viewpoint since September 2003:

Yet last September in a debate with other Democratic contenders in Albuquerque, N.M, Kerry emphatically opposed sending more American troops to Iraq. “We should not send more American troops,” he said on Sept 4. “That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization, we do not want a greater sense of American occupation.”

Darned if that wasn't just after Sandy Berger had said that Kerry was amazingly consistent on the matter of troops in Iraq.

Gore Speech Comes to Life

Junkyardblog turns Al Gore's MoveOn.org speech into a compaign ad for Bush. JYB won't be the last. Taliban overthrown, Iraq liberated, and Saddam captured. Disaster, you say? For whom?

(Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link. I should make that part of my template.)

Liberal Case for War in Iraq

Well I got the time to read this piece in The American Prospect by Richard Just. The lumping in of all the social engineering projects that liberals so love with the liberation of people abroad gives me pause, but overall I think the piece is well written and well argued. The lumping in of other liberal policies gives me pause because as I've written before, I think the building of societies and of great programs for improving societies is fraught with peril, and due to the overwhelming complexity of civilization usually leads to unanticipated results. But I can't see how freeing people from tyranny can be seen as not the liberal, and right, thing to do. That doesn't mean in every case (or even in the case of Iraq) it is necessarily right to do so. Costs must be weighed against the benefits of "doing the right thing". The ultimate rightness or wrongess, the morality if you will, seems to me to be independent of the practical and pragmatic considerations.

Oddly I heard echoes of Rhoads' argument to me in the piece.

They have noted that Saddam Hussein may be evil but that there are plenty of other evil people in the world. [check] Or that conservatives are in it for the oil.[check] Or that there are risks involved. [check] Or that containment could prevent the dictator from ever using nuclear weapons.

Well, I don't think Rhoads mentioned the success of containment, but three out of four ain't bad. Richard Just responds better than I could:

All those arguments may well be true.

But not one of those arguments will lead to the liberation of a frighteningly Orwellian society based on fear and torture. Not one of them will protect the citizens of the Middle East's democratic nations against future attacks with weapons of mass destruction. Not one of them could lead to a beachhead -- however small -- of democracy in the Arab world. Not one of them will help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian standoff. Not one of them will allow America to take initial steps toward addressing the "root causes" of terror. Not one of them is worthy of the deeply moral traditions of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And not one of them will lead to progress in the Middle East -- yet these objections are apparently all most "progressives" have to offer.

As I've alluded to before, a foreign policy of protecting and spreading democracy around the world was the view of this county's liberals. Richard Just points that out and notes the irony in the flip flop in positions between Al Gore and George W. Bush on America's role in the world since the 2000 election. I'll have to go to the Google machine and see if Mr. Just has any more current reactions to his man Gore's (he voted for Gore in 2000) latest rants.

UPDATE: Richard Just is a Princeton man. Go figure. Here's a brief bio:

Richard Just is the editor of The New Republic Online. From September 2002 until December 2003, he was editor of The American Prospect Online. He graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 2001, with a degree from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. At Princeton, he was the editor-in-chief of The Daily Princetonian.

Moral Bankruptcy

In a phone conversation with me today, Rhoads tried to explain the concept of a "moral imperative". Here's the context. I was trying to get him to admit that freeing the people of Iraq from torture and oppression was the moral thing to do (regardless of the legality or the costs of doing so, either of which might prevent or dissuade us from doing what is morally right). He countered with the argument that if it's the moral thing to do in Iraq, then it's the moral thing to do in Sudan, Iran, North Korea, and a host of other places. That was easy for me to accept. I think freeing the people of all those countries from tyranny, torture, and oppression is the moral thing to do.

So I said count me in. But Rhoads said that since we couldn't afford to free all those people, freeing them couldn't be a moral imperative. If we can't do something (or do something everywhere it's called for) then it can't be a moral imperative, according to Rhoads. That's where he lost me. So off I went in search of meanings.

I thought I'd better head to the Google machine to see if I couldn't find a definition of "moral imperative".

Well, I found this piece at The American Prospect titled "Moral Imperative: Any self-respecting liberal ought to support an invasion of Iraq". It looked interesting, but I was really just after some quicker definition of "moral imperative" so I moved on.

I didn't see any quick definition, so I turned to Dictionary.com to look up each word.

moral (adj) : Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.

imperative (n): An obligation; a duty.

There were other defintions of each word, but these seemed to suit the general thrust of Rhoads' argument.

So moral refers to goodness and imperative refers to a duty or obligation. So if we have a moral imperative we could say that we have an obligation on the grounds of goodness to do something. I still don't see how having the resources to actually do the thing enters the picture if we're talking about a moral imperative. We may have a duty or an obligation to do something good (a moral imperative) but lack the resources for doing it. How does the lack of resources affect the moral imperative? Gives new meaning somehow to the phrase "moral bankruptcy" I suppose.

If Rhoads gets the time, perhaps he can explain where I've gone off track in my analysis here.

Totten Shreds Buchanan

To my knowledge I have never before linked to a good, old-fashioned Fisking. Well it's my pleasure to do so now. Michael J. Totten serves up a devastating Fisking of Pat Buchanan. As a commenter to Totten's post points out, Buchanan left the Republican Party when he sought the Perot Party (or whatever the heck that thing is called) nomination. I tend to think of Buchanan as emblematic of what's wrong with part of the Republican Party. I think I'll have to amend that thinking. Buchanan does not represent or belong to the Republican Party any more. That's good news for the Republicans, I think.

Stanford Prison Study

Over thirty years ago a study was conducted at Stanford University regarding the behavior of prisoners and prison guards. Before you go thinking that the behavior of the U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib was somehow unpredictable, think again. The behavior of the prison guards in the study strikingly similar to that found at Abu Ghraib:

If the authoritarian situation became a serious matter for the prisoners, it became even more serious and sinister - for the guards. Typically, the guards insulted the prisoners, threatened them, were physically aggressive, used instruments (night sticks, fire extinguishers, etc.) to keep the prisoners in line and referred to them in impersonal anonymous, deprecating ways: "Hey, you," or "You [obscenity], 5401, come here." From the first to the last day, there was a significant increase in the use of most of these domineering, abusive tactics.

Like the Milgram experiment before it, the Stanford Prison Experiment shows how bad good people can be in certain circumstances.

Unfortunately scenes like those now being shown over and over again from Abu Ghraib are all too common at prisons all over the world right now, including at prisons in the United States. Abu Ghraib doesn't demonstrate the shortcomings of the U.S. or of the individuals involved at Abu Ghraib. It reminds us of the shortcomings of human nature.

France, Russia, China, Germany

As usual James Lileks has some entertaining and insightful comments on the goings on in Iraq.

Rockin' VP

I'll take this guy over Al Gore. Heavy Metal rocker John Schaffer looks to have a better grasp on reality than our former Vice President. Schaffer administers a pretty good slapdown to a 22-year-old Canadian Chomsky fan. Not that that's tough.