Telegraph: Syria To Send Iraqi Scientists To Teheran

Answering in part the question of the disposition of Saddam's WMD efforts, the London Telegraph reports tonight that Syria is negotiating with Iran to send Iraqi nuclear-weapons scientists to Teheran in order to keep from being the next target of the American war on terror:

Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. ...

A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of Saddam's regime. The transfer was arranged under a combined operation by Saddam's now defunct Special Security Organisation and Syrian Military Security, which is headed by Arif Shawqat, the Syrian president's brother-in-law.

The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.

Growing political concern in Washington about Syria's undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis.

Not only did Syria allow Saddam's nuclear-weapons data to escape the Coalition, but apparently they've been using it to bolster their own research over the past two years. Now that the heat is on, Asad wants to sneak them out of the country -- or perhaps their work is already complete? Intelligence agencies have evidence that Damascus has purchased gas centrifuges from North Korea, which are an essential component for developing nuclear fuel for weapons. And who did Asad call when he wanted these Iraqis out of Syria? The Iranian mullahs, who have been working on their own nuclear research and probably would like the assistance.

Let's recall that Syria is a member of the UN Security Council, supposedly a member of the body that Kofi Annan says has to approve our actions in defense of our own security ... and also a member of the counterterrorism committee for the UN, a laughably inappropriate assignment. This UNSC member-state allowed Saddam's nuclear scientists to flee just ahead of the invading Americans, which means that Syria knew the Iraqis had not complied with any of the 16 resolutions calling for its disarmament.

Now Asad wants to send them to the very nation which the IAEA will shortly refer to the same UNSC for repeated violations of the nuclear disarmament treaty to which Iran signed. He's trying to undermine the security of the region and give weapons technology to the same people who underwrite much of the terrorist efforts in the Middle East. It looks like Asad wants to help Iran rush to develop nuclear weapons before anyone gets a chance to act, all while trying to keep its own skirts as clean as possible.

Once again, we see the folly of working with an organization of dictators, thieves, and appeasers and expecting anything except betrayal and duplicitousness. Americans who believe that the UN -- and especially the UNSC -- are the only legitimate authority for establishing international security are either naive fools or malicious malcontents. I leave it to you to decide in which category John Kerry should fall, but clearly his insistence that America has to earn the approval of corrupt states that undermined sanctions against Saddam and sheltered his WMD architects and materials makes us markedly less secure.

Syria now has made clear that they are an enemy that needs attention immediately. The US and UK should demand the handover of the scientists, their materials, and anything else Asad has been hiding from the Coalition and the UN. The two Coalition partners should also demand the removal of Syria from the UNSC immediately. Failing that, it's time to create a coalition of democracies and bypass the failing bureaucracy at Turtle Bay for anything more serious that speeches and debates.

Captain's Caption Contest #28: Pajamaheddin Edition

It's Friday, so it must be time for another Captain's Caption Contest! In honor of all the pajamaheddin who took part in the pantsing of Dan Rather and CBS, we'll put a picture of a blogosphere wanna-be puzzling over that incredibly difficult Blogspot interface:

This week's guest judge will be my good friend and Northern Alliance colleague, Mitch Berg from Shot In The Dark. As always, put your best caption entries in the comments section -- NO e-mail, please! (E-mailed entries will be scanned at the Abilene Kinko's, faxed to CBS News, and used to slander King Banaian.) The contest will remain open until 6 PM CT Sunday, September 26th, at which point the comments will be closed and Mitch will pick the winners.

Let the games begin!

BUMP 9/25: The Dan appreciates your entries, and encourages you to listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network from noon - 3 PM CT today (don't forget to enable your pop-ups!). Courage ...

Book Notes

Recently, I have been added to a book distribution list from HarperCollins, for which I am grateful. I've received two books thus far from the program and I wish I could be wildly complimentary about them both -- but unfortunately, neither one appears worthwhile.

The first, Joe Scarborough's Rome Wasn't Burnt In A Day, is part memoir and part a Quixotic challenge to an entrenched bureaucracy in which Republicans and Democrats alike demonstrate the old maxim that power corrupts. Scarborough communicates a bitter disappointment that the Republican revolution has morphed into the same kind of pork-barrel troughsucking against which his freshman Congressional class won election in 1994.

Unfortunately, Scarborough's book gets sunk by the condescension and hostility that literally seeps from almost every paragraph. His important points wind up playing second fiddle to an immature impulse to indulge in childish namecalling and score-settling. Not only that, but Scarborough simply gets basic facts inexcusably wrong. On the second page of his book, Scarborough tells us that "[i]nterest rates are once again shooting upward because of reckless Washington spending", a contention that is patently ridiculous. Washington may be spending recklessly, but interest rates are hardly "shooting upwards" -- they've been raised twice (and incrementally) over the past year from record low rates since World War II.

Take that demagoguery and toss in a few insults like "Fat White Pink Boys", and you get an almost unreadable mess -- and it's really too bad, because Scarborough has a great perspective and several good points to make about the evolution of the revolution. Had he stuck closer to the facts and laid off the derision -- and self-important assertions -- more people would pay attention.

The second book has no such value, and the wonder is how it got published at all. If You Had Five Minutes With The President is such a facile waste of time that it almost serves as a satire on our celebrity-obsessed culture. Edited by Ron Reagan, it consists of the answers given by over 50 famous people to the question in its title. Luminaries such as Fran Drescher, Juliette Lewis, Bianca Jagger, and Janeane Garofalo wrote essays about their strategies for a short Presidential visit, as if anyone could possibly care what they think. Harry Hamlin gets the final word -- Harry Hamlin?

So what do these pop-culture icons and Trivial-Pursuit answers have to say? Here's Kathy Najimy:

Well, depending on who the president is, I would either slap him or French-kiss him. Then I would usher him into a helicopter standing conveniently by. I would pull my hair back in a clip so it wouldn't get all mussed, like Sandra Bullock in Speed.

Minnie Driver starts off her anti-globalization tirade by addressing the President as El Jefe. Stephen Collins wants to talk about how to use Transcendental Meditation to fight terrorism. Mary Stuart Masterson demonstrates the brilliance that has marked her career as an actress:

I would suggest that all meetings with international leaders be conducted after they had given massages to one another. The actual meetings would be conducted in the nude. ... Reality shows should be banned from television in favor of people actually living in their own reality. ... Politics should stop being so political.

You can purchase this book of concentrated wisdom for just $13.97 at Amazon. Maybe it will provide the perfect antidote to the power of the limousine liberals among our cultural elite, but I doubt that was Ron Reagan's or HarperCollins' intent.

Iran Distributes "Strategic" Missile To Its Troops

Iran announced earlier today that it had successfully tested a new "strategic" missile and has distributed it to its armed forces in the field, according to the AP:

Iran said Saturday it successfully tested a "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, state-run radio reported. The report did not say whether the missile was the previously announced new version of the Shahab-3 rocket, which already was capable of reaching Israel and U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East, or was a new missile.

Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani declined to give details about the missile for "security reasons," but said Iran was "ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats," the report said.

Strategic missiles usually refer to longer-range weapons, as opposed to tactical missiles which would be used in battle conditions. The estimated range for the new missiles, according to Israeli analysts, is around 1,200 miles -- 50% better than previous Iranian technology and a range which places Israel well within Iranian targeting. Israel has responded by purchasing 5,000 smart bombs from the US, including around 500 "bunker busters" that could destroy Iran's nuclear-development facilities.

The AP has a dry and somewhat self-satirical explanation for Israel's reaction to the deployment of the new Shahab-3:

The development of the Shahab, whose name means "shooting star" in Persian, has raised fears in Israel about possible attack by the Iranian government, which strongly opposes the Jewish state's existence.

"Strongly opposes the Jewish state's existence"? Iran advocates the destruction of Israel and remains a sworn enemy of the Israelis. They fund the terror groups that attack Israeli civilians, like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and especially Hezb' Allah. The AP makes it sound like the mullahs held a debate and took a flat-earth approach of denying that Jews live in the Middle East.

The new Iranian deployment makes clear that the mullahcracy isn't developing its technology for peaceful uses, or even for defense. The Shahab-3 threatens American forces all over Southwest Asia and promises genocide for Israelis. All they need is a nuclear warhead atop te Shahab and they will have the opportunity to drop an Islamic version of the Iron Curtain around the Persian Gulf.

Iraq Hid Nuclear Program Intending On Rebuilding It

In the final report from the Iraq Survey Group, a team of American weapons inspectors in Iraq concluded that Saddam Hussein had no WMD stockpiles at the time of the US invasion that led to Iraq's liberation, but that Saddam fully intended to produce them as soon as economic and military sanctions were lifted. Now an Iraqi nuclear scientist has written a book detailing exactly how Saddam protected his nuclear-weapons secrets and making clear that he had every hope of controlling the Middle East with them (hat tip: Cranial Cavity):

AN IRAQI scientist-turned-author says the most significant pieces of his country’s dormant nuclear programme were buried under a lotus tree in his backyard, untouched for more than a decade before the US-led invasion in 2003.

But their existence, Dr Mahdi Obeidi writes in a new book, is evidence that the international community should remain vigilant as other countries try to replicate Iraq’s successes before the 1991 Gulf war to develop components necessary for a nuclear weapon.

In The Bomb in my Garden, Dr Obeidi details Saddam’s quest for a nuclear bomb: "Although Saddam never had nuclear weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came to developing them should serve as a red flag to the international community."

It should also teach the world about the futility of so-called "inspections regimes" when dealing with fundamentally hostile and dangerous dictators. Saddam had long dreamed of creating an Iraq-centered pan-Arab political entity that would challenge both East and West and, through a monopoly on oil, control the world. But oil alone would not secure Saddam's Greater Arabia, and so he tried to build WMD in order to counter the power of the Americans, and to a lesser extent his Russian and Chinese sponsors.

Until he miscalculated the effect of his first step in that ambition -- capturing Kuwait -- he found that the world served as a great resource to his ambitions, even his nuclear ambitions. Dr. Obeidi describes how his team of scientists traveled the world to research and develop Iraqi nuclear technology. They worked with scholars and corporations in Switzerland, France, England, and the US, among other places, and created their own centrifuge system which would have allowed Iraq to develop their nuclear fuel in any small-size facility, making them difficult to find.

Even after the defeat in the first Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions, Saddam did his best to retain that technology and the research that created it. Saddam kept his Iraq Atomic Energy Commission active until his downfall in case an opportunity presented itself to restart development. Dr. Obeidi's yard held the most sensitive documents, buried under a tree, and only a handful of Iraqis knew of their existence.

No one knows how much more may be buried under trees throughout Iraq, but we know now that Saddam never intended on giving up his quest for nuclear weapons. We know he defied twelve years of UNSC resolutions ordering him to give up all of his research on the subject. We also know that twelve years of on-and-off inspections were useless to stop him.

Why is this important now that Saddam has been removed from power? Because we face the exact same situation in Iran, where mullahs use their oil revenue to fund global terrorism for a similar purpose: to create a pan-Islam state or commonwealth in the Middle East. The Iranian leadership plans on using the same tactic as Saddam in order to protect themselves from the West that Saddam did, and they likely have gotten farther along than Obeidi ever did. And the West, led by Iran's sponsors France and Germany, insist on the same failed process that allowed Saddam to defy the world and retain his nuclear-weapons research and talent.

In the end, the only inspections regime that worked was the one which discovered Saddam at the bottom of a spider hole. That inspection impressed Moammar Gaddafi into giving up his WMD program. It likely will be the only way that Iranian nuclear technology can be wrenched from the grip of the mullahs. The West needs to quit placing its faith on the reasonableness of terror-boosting totalitarians and get serious about disarming them before their weapons systems can threaten the West and further oppress the people of Southwest Asia.

Putin Talks A Good Game

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to critics who claim that electoral changes he has forced through herald a return to totalitarian political life in the former Soviet Union. Putin replied that there is no going back to the old days:

President Vladimir Putin vowed yesterday that Russia would remain on the path to democracy.

"There will be no turnabout in the country's life," said Mr Putin, who has come under intense international criticism for strengthening his political control after a wave of terrorist attacks. "Russia made its choice 10 years ago for a democratic, free market, socially oriented state."

Putin may say all the right things about democracy, but his actions are troubling. Russia's 89 regional governors had prevously been elected directly by the people, but under Putin's changes, now are appointed by the Kremlin. It reduces the governors from real leaders to apparatchiks for the executive, a move which hardly strengthens democracy. Even in the lower house of the Duma, where Putin took steps to reduce the ability of small political parties to gain seats, the process of casting ballots still exists.

George Bush, Putin's friend and grateful for the new enthusiasm Putin shows for fighting terrorism, warned Putin against damaging the institutions of democracy as collateral damage to the war. Putin insists, however, that Russia needs to build both "democracy and stability" in the face of terrorism.

In Russia, stability has historically been achieved by strongman rule, even before the Communists took over, and it appears Putin wants to follow in this tradition. Perhaps a majority of the Russian people would follow. Democratic traditions do not run deep, having only been used for less than 15 years, and watching hundreds of your children being slaughtered by domestic and foreign terrorists has to make the Russians yearn for a leader who will really take charge.

It's not just a Russian impulse, either. During the Civil War, Unionists looked to Lincoln to take command in a way never before done in America, and Lincoln responded by suspending habeus corpus and invoking martial law where needed. During the worst economic catastrophe and later our most dangerous war, Americans elected Franklin Roosevelt an unprecedented four times to the Presidency, creating an imperial executive by choice (and, in the process, grinding him to death).

It's a human reaction to want someone who can drive off the dangers and evils that surround us. That's why democratic processes must be defended -- not because of what one man like Vladimir Putin can do to damage them, but to protect us from our own worst impulses. Electing strong leaders is a good thing. Allowing them to take away the vote in the name of safety and stability is another thing entirely, and Putin would be well advised to reconsider the precedent he's setting in Russia.

A Moment Of Truth, Indeed

At last, a moment of clarity from the French government! Agence France-Presse reports that French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has called the IAEA's November 25 deadline for Iranian compliance "a moment of truth":

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said Iran's controversial nuclear program could be referred to the UN Security Council if the world is not reassured about its nuclear ambitions.

"We are waiting clearly from Iran gestures and decisions that will reassure us," Barnier said in a lunch with French media on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

"Since there is a trust problem, dates have been set," he said, referring to a November 25 deadline for Iran to clear up suspicions over its activities or risk having the issue referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions -- something the United States has sought. ...

"It will be a moment of truth," Barnier said, referring to the deadline. "I do not know for certain, but I have the feeling that the gravity of this moment has been well understood (by Tehran)."

A moment of truth it most certainly is, but I doubt the French realize that the moment is theirs. Iran certainly will; they don't take the French any seriously than we do, and that's the point. They know that the first deadline likely will pass, and the French or their German colleagues will arrange for another, and another. It's the way the Europeans have always done business. And all the while, the deadlines and the excuses will give the Iranians all the time they need to develop the nuclear weapons they desire.

No, the moment of truth has nothing to do with Iranian compliance. It is what the French will do when the Iranians inevitably defy them.

UPDATE: Iranian compliance. Never post when you're struggling to stay awake (I started this early but didn't finish until after 10).

"Banning Bibles" Irresponsible And Stupid, And Outnumbered

Republicans sent insipid and stupidly hyperbolic mailings to voters in West Virginia and Arkansas warning about liberals who want to legalize gay marriage and ban the Bible, the RNC admitted today:

The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.

The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.

A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions." ... In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."

No one, to my knowledge, has ever raised the question of banning the Bible. In fact, that smear is as grounded in reality as Republicans supposedly secretly planning on bringing back the draft. It's a stupid charge, easily debunked, and insults the intelligence of the voters to whom it was directed. In the Internet age, spewing forth like this only makes the spewer look bad when they're caught, and as Dan Rather found out, they inevitably are. The RNC should apologize.

However, since the Democrats are in the mood for apologies, here are a few that should come first:

* Terry McAuliffe should apologize for calling President Bush "AWOL" and repeatedly asserting that Bush dishonored the country. McAuliffe has never presented a shred of evidence for those charges, and unless he does, he should apologize.

* Madeline Albright and Teresa Heinz Kerry should apologize for insinuating or outright stating that Bush already has Osama bin Laden and are holding him secretly until just before the election.

* Howard Dean should apologize for insinuating that George Bush got tipped off to the 9/11 attacks ahead of time by the Saudi royal family and allowed it to happen anyway.

* Pat Leahy and a raft of other Democrats should apologize for calling Dick Cheney a "war profiteer" because of his sealed, blind trust that contains his deferred compensation from Halliburton. That money exists regardless of Halliburton's work, and the pay is fixed; any profits Halliburton made since the deferral have no impact on its value, and everyone knows it. Cheney lost a lot of money when he cashed out his options in his former company. It's a baseless and cowardly smear.

* The DNC, including its chairman McAuliffe, should apologize for suggesting in the same breath that the Killian memos were authentic when they had no idea if they were, and then stating that Karl Rove planted them if they were fakes.

These people are officials in the Democratic Party, not some special-interest wackos or 527 lunatics. If they want to hear apologies over the Bible-ban smear, they have some catching up to do first.

Uh, Gee, Thanks Guys

Earlier today, the man who swore George Bush into the Texas Air National Guard spoke out on behalf of his former trainee, and a number of you thought you'd had a case of deja vu:

Ed Morrisey Jr. has his opinion about rumors President Bush received preferential treatment when he was allowed into the Texas Air National Guard in the late 1960s.

The Blount Countian also has firsthand knowledge.

The 75-year-old Jackson Hills resident is a retired colonel with Texas Air National Guard. He swore Lt. George W. Bush into the service in May 1968. ... Morrisey said the commander he worked for at the unit in Texas was sent there to rebuild the image of the unit. There were only two to four pilot training slots given to them per year, he said. Individuals questioned by an evaluation board and then chosen by the commander had to be the best.

``Bush was selected and he turned out just fine,'' he said.

According to Morrisey, after Bush began working as a fighter pilot, he became regarded as one of the best pilots there. Unit commander Col. Maurice Udell considered Bush to be one of his top five pilots, Morrisey said.

Although I'm glad that Morrisey has been found and his story has been told, I'm a little dismayed that you all think I'm seventy-five years old and retired in Jackson Hills. Does this look like I'm seventy-five years old?

No, I'm the guy on the right. Sheesh!

Oddly enough, though, since I'm named after my father (who posts comments as Admiral Emeritus), I could also be Ed, Jr, but my name is spelled with two S's. Still, it's more than clear that three out of three Ed Morris[s]eys have endorsed George Bush this year -- or to put it another way, three Eds are better than one. (Hat tips to Sean and Matt, among others)

Was Kerry In Iraq In 1991 For Cease-Fire Accord?

Frequent CQ contributor Bandit watched the O'Reilly Factor last night on Fox News, which replayed a 2001 interview with Senator John Kerry. Bandit reports that during that interview three years ago, Kerry stated that he went to Iraq on March 3rd during the signing of the cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War:

"I mean, I was in Safwan. I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war."

That would have been a pretty remarkable trip, if Bandit reports this correctly; at the moment, Fox News does not have a transcript available. Both Bandit and I recall that Iraq was still considered a war zone, an unlikely (but not necessarily impossible) place to find a US Senator, especially one who would have had no official capacity during the ceremony, and even more especially, one who had voted against the authorization to use force in the first place.

Even more remarkably, John Kerry managed to miss no Senate votes during that week. On February 28th, Kerry voted to table an amendment during a roll-call vote. On March 6th, Kerry again managed to make a roll-call vote, this time voting against tabling an amendment by Senator Tom Harkin. It's not impossible for him to have been to Iraq and back, but it seems less likely.

Bandit discovered a March 4th, 1991 Boston Globe article that narrows the timeframe more. According to the article, John Kerry attended a fundraiser for Cultural Survival, Inc. and the Rainforest Alliance (no link available):

Boston Globe Newspaper March 4, 1991

Saturday it was off to "Brazil Night" at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel ballroom for a sold-out party to benefit the Cambridge-based human rights group, Cultural Survival Inc., in conjunction with the Rainforest Alliance. Simple little black dresses were de rigueur at this party. But the most chic women took the reliable style and gave it a dramatic fashion twist. They wore understated black dresses that bared the shoulder, dipped into daring v's or somehow focused on the natural and impressive art of decolletage. They made headlines with their necklines.

Meanwhile, Sen. John F. Kerry, an honorary committee member, breezed in and out of the black-tie gala in minutes. The subject of fashion/style seemed an enigma to him. Kerry, wearing a business suit, stayed only long enough to accept a gift: a tin of candy called Rainforest Crunch.

Saturday night would have been March 2nd in Boston. However, since Iraq is several hours ahead of the East Coast, it would already have been Sunday, March 3rd in Safwan. It means that Kerry would have had to jet out in his fashion-enigma outfit, take the long flight to Iraq just to be in the country when the accord was signed, and then jet back pronto to attend the March 6th roll-call vote.

Now that's darned near impossible.

If anyone has further information, preferably with links, to any of these events or Kerry's participation in the Safwan cease-fire signing, send them to me immediately. However, based on Bandit's reliable research, it appears that John Kerry lied again about his wartime experiences. Kerry looks more and more like a world-class fantasist.

UPDATES: Definitely a fantasist, or fabulist if you prefer. CQ reader Debbie found the transcript:

SEN JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Essentially, yes. I'm not sure exactly what Joe means by that, but I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11, but I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way.

O'REILLY: Which is what? I mean, look, you know the guy -- the guy is simply -- he's an out of control guy.

KERRY: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: And he's not going to respond to embargoes, no-fly zones. He's not going to do that. How would you put enough pressure on him to open up inspections again?

KERRY: Well, I'd reinvigorate that process as step number one. And I think the administration is now suddenly starting to move in that direction. I think you have to work our allies sufficiently to pull that component of the effort back together.

But the second thing I would do, and I wouldn't hesitate to do it, is back opposition more openly and do it in a way that begins to put a counter insurgency in the country itself.

O'REILLY: So what do you do? Drop heavy weapons to the Kurds in the north and to Muslims who don't like him in the south?

KERRY: Bill, let me tell you, I was all for our following through at the end of the Gulf War with the Kurd uprising. And I thought it was a great betrayal, in a sense, that we encouraged them verbally. We gave them forces. We gave them weapons. We encouraged them and said we were with them. And then we pulled out at the last minute because the Kuwaitis and the Saudis and others were unsure of what might follow.

O'REILLY: Yes, that was a classic mistake. But if you arm the Kurds in the north of Iraq, you're going to alienate one of our most valuable --

KERRY: I didn't say necessarily the Kurds. There are other members of the opposition. There are people who are outside the country prepared to go in. There are others inside the country. And I believe -- I mean, I was in Safwan. I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war.

And I remember seeing that land, which lent itself in my judgment, considerably to the creation of almost an enclave, which I thought we should have done then. And I think is one way to begin to approach things now, but there are other possibilities. The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of sync with the times. He is and has acted like a terrorist. And he is engaged in activities that are unacceptable.

What's so amazing is the glib arrogance of the man, after voting against the war, that he casts himself as an expert in the field. How does he support that? By claiming to have been there at the signing of the cease-fire and talked with all sides.

Regarding the time frame, CQ reader Rod S writes this:

March 2, 2001 10PM Boston is March 3, 2001 6AM Baghdad (not Safwan, but ''close enough") time.

The Iraqi delegation arrived at Safwan at 11:30 AM and the meeting lasted two hours.

Baghdad is about 6000 miles ESE of Boston as the crow flies — the air route is no doubt longer. If Kerry left the soiree at 10PM Boston time, he would have had to make the trip to Safwan in about seven (7) hours to make the signing. The "crows" would have to average better than 850 mph.

To put it mildly, BALDERDASH!

Very mildly.

UPDATE II: A letter from another CQ reader, Paul B, who bought a relevant article from the Boston Globe archive dated March 17, 1991. Paul writes:

I was in Iraq during that time and remember Kerry and a group of senators visiting. However, I think the dates mentioned are incorrect. To my knowledge (I could be wrong), Kerry wasn't at the cease-fire signing.

Here is a Boston Globe story dated March 17, 1991. I cut and pasted the whole article for you from Lexis-Nexis. If I follow this correctly, Kerry claims that he went over on 3 March 91 and then *returned* on 15 March 91?

I'll put relevant excerpts from the article in the extended entry. It shows that Kerry did indeed visit Iraq, but according to the article, he didn't arrive until March 16th.

UPDATE III: Globalsecurity.org has a page on the Safwan cease-fire signing, along with this picture (hat tip Scot M.):

It doesn't look like Kerry is anywhere to be seen, does it? Also, he supplies this narrative about how Safwan hadn't even been secured until just before the agreement was signed, making it a highly unlikely place for US Senators to visit.

Paul B follows up with a Washington Post archived article from March 6th that shows Kerry to be at DC's Mayflower Hotel on the evening of March 5th:

Last night's refresher course at the Mayflower Hotel was officially a celebration of democracy across the globe. The Washington-based institute, which gives foreign countries hands-on guidance with elections and the basics of parliamentary procedure, drew a mob of high-profile Democrats including former vice president Walter Mondale, Mike Mansfield, Andrew Young, Speaker of the House Tom Foley (Wash.), Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (Maine), Sens. Al Gore (Tenn.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Chuck Robb (Va.), D.C. Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon and more than 30 current ambassadors to the United States.

Abstract below in the extended entry.

=========
March 17, 1991, Sunday, City Edition

SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. 14

LENGTH: 538 words

HEADLINE: Senators doubt US will intervene in Iraqi strife;
Cease-fire in the gulf

BYLINE: By Elizabeth Neuffer, Globe Staff

DATELINE: KUWAIT CITY

BODY:
A delegation of senators yesterday told US soldiers massed on the Iraqi border that it is unlikely US forces will intervene in Iraq's civil war and predicted that the soldiers will return home soon to a hero's welcome.

The delegation swooped down in glistening helicopters on the border outpost of Safwan, Iraq, to meet with the US Army's 1st Armored Division, which helped spearhead the allied ground offensive against Iraq and tangled with the Republican Guard.

"It's unbelievable," Sen. John Kerry said, congratulating the troops
yesterday. "A lot of those of us who served in Vietnam found a new breath of air in your courage and optimism." ...

Yesterday's visit [emph mine - CE] - the second by a congressional delegation in as many days - comes during a period of continuing uncertainty as Kuwait struggles to return to normalcy after seven months of Iraqi occupation and as rebel factions are battling President Saddam Hussein's forces in Iraq.

============

Copyright 1991 The Washington Post
The Washington Post

View Related Topics

March 6, 1991, Wednesday, Final Edition

SECTION: STYLE; PAGE B1

LENGTH: 617 words

HEADLINE: Democracy, Up for The Count;
Institute Honors Czechoslovakia's Havel

SERIES: Occasional

BYLINE: Roxanne Roberts, Washington Post Staff Writer

BODY:
Lessons of Democracy, Part 1: "You can't behave like a jackass after the election and hope to be elected the next time."

Czechoslovakia's Ambassador Rita Klimova was talking about the fledgling democrats (little d) back home who are just learning the ABCs of freedom and democracy. If the Democrats (big D) at the National Democratic Institute's dinner picked up a few tips ... well, it can't hurt.

Last night's refresher course at the Mayflower Hotel was officially a
celebration of democracy across the globe. The Washington-based institute, which gives foreign countries hands-on guidance with elections and the basics of parliamentary procedure, drew a mob of high-profile Democrats including former vice president Walter Mondale, Mike Mansfield, Andrew Young, Speaker of the House Tom Foley (Wash.), Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (Maine), Sens. Al Gore (Tenn.), Edward Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.) and Chuck Robb (Va.), D.C. Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon and more than 30
current ambassadors to the United States.

======================

Ban? What Ban?

Today's New York Sun publishes an original column by Edward Morrissey -- okay, me -- regarding the myth of the stem-cell research ban that John Kerry perpetuates in his website and on the stump:

In the wake of Ron Reagan's appearance at the Democratic Convention, Senator Kerry has tried to make stem-cell research a featured policy difference between Mr. Kerry and President Bush. His campaign Web site talks about "ideologically-driven restrictions" from the Bush administration and promises to lift the "ban on stem cell research."

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece outlining his economic plan, Mr. Kerry writes that he will restore America's competitive edge by working to "end the ban on stem-cell research." In fact, it may be the most consistent policy stance of the entire Kerry campaign.

The only problem for Mr. Kerry is that the ban doesn't exist - and he knows it.

In my column, I explain the differences between various types of stem-cell research and how none of them are banned, or even banned from receiving federal funding. According to the National Institute of Health, where I found most of the background information and where the Kerry campaign has obviously never looked, scientists can get federal funding to research approved embryonic stem-cell lines -- a resource first implemented by George Bush.

The article does require registration. I plan on posting my entire column late this weekend, but in respect for my friends at the Sun, I won't post it until the next edition of the Sun goes on line. As I posted a couple of days ago, a subscription to the Sun would not only give you access to some fine journalism and great stories, but it supports those who support the new media.

I look forward to reading your feedback on the column!

Bush Visits Outbound Guard Soldiers

Dana Milbank writes with uncharacteristic objectivity about a surprise visit by George Bush to outbound National Guard troops during a refueling stop in Bangor yesterday:

President Bush, after a campaign appearance in Bangor, held his plane on the tarmac when he heard an MD-11 carrying 292 Army reservists and National Guard members was about to refuel here. For the troops, grimly heading toward an 18-to-24-month assignment in Iraq, it was a welcome lift. For Bush, who has been accusing his Democratic presidential opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, of demoralizing the troops in Iraq by criticizing the war effort, it was a chance to demonstrate his devotion to the troops.

"May God bless you all," the commander in chief said over the plane's public address system. "May God keep you safe." As he worked his way up and down the plane's aisles, posing for photographs, signing autographs and shaking hands, the happily surprised troops called out to him.

"That's my president, hooah!" shouted Sgt. Wanda Dabbs, 22, a member of the 230th Area Support Group, a Guard unit from Tennessee. Others seconded her cheer.

Bush gets a great response whenever he visits troops, and so some might have called this one a gimme for the President. However, Dana Milbank correctly notes that this photo op carries the risk of some negatives, with the increased violence in the Sunni Triangle:

Bush's impromptu visit with the departing soldiers came with some risk. It could remind the American public that more and more reservists and Guard members are being removed from their workplaces and sent on dangerous assignments in an increasingly bloody Iraq.

But the president's aides saw an opportunity to underscore the point Bush had made at his campaign rally here, in front of an airport hangar and an enormous American flag suspended by two cranes.

"You cannot lead the war on terror if you wilt when times are tough," Bush said of Kerry. "What kind of message does it send our troops, who are risking their lives and who see firsthand the mission is hard but know the mission is critical to our success?"

The truly easy photo op would be to shake hands with troops on their return, welcoming them home. Either way, no one can doubt the genuine affection that Bush has for the men and women serving under his command, and their response to him in these surprise visits (like Thanksgiving in Baghdad) demonstrates the morale boost he gives.

AP Poll Shows Bush Lead At 7

The AP released the results of its AP/Ipsos poll and they match up with most other polling this month, to John Kerry's chagrin. George Bush has a seven-point lead, 52-45, over John Kerry in a three-way race:

President Bush solidified his advantage among men during the last month and holds his highest ratings since January on job performance, the economy and Iraq, according to an Associated Press poll. ...

Since the Republican convention, Bush's job approval is up, 54 percent among likely voters, and just over half of them approve of his handling of the economy and Iraq. His approval in all three areas is as high as it's been all year in the polling conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Lest the AP impress us too much with its objectivity, it inserts this questionable statement in the third paragraph:

"We took a lead after our convention and the lead has held," said Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush campaign strategist. Bush has a slight lead in some polls, and is running even in others.

Really? Over the past two weeks, here are the results of all major polling, all but one showing a Bush lead, and half of those outside the margin of error. The latest Gallup poll -- I assume that the AP has heard of Gallup -- showed Bush up by 14 with likely voters. Their own poll shows Bush up by seven, hardly a "slight" lead.

Other than the elevated approval rating for Bush, which puts him firmly in re-elect territory, the only other internals that the AP reports in this article are on gender breakdowns. These data confirm the problem that Kerry faces: women aren't breaking for the Democrats. Bush and Kerry evenly split the women's vote, while Bush leads among men by a whopping seventeen points. In 2000, Gore carried the women's vote by 11 points and just barely edged Bush in the popular vote. Kerry cannot win with a split.

The AP reported internals in a separate release, and these again look bad for Kerry. Bush's approval ratings on a range of issues have improved at or past the 50% mark, including the economy (53%), domestic issues (50%), foreign policy and the war on terror (55%), and Iraq (51%). One interesting artifact: Bush's lead actually grows with registered voters, traditionally a kinder measure for Democrats, where his lead goes to 9 points (51-42). And in an indication of the damage Kerry's candidacy might be doing to Democrats nationwide, Republicans held a three-point lead in the Congressional vote poll.

Kerry is six weeks out from an electoral disaster, and the news keeps getting worse for him each day.

CNN: Bush Can Claim Over 300 Electoral Votes

CNN's polling shows that George Bush has a grip on 301 Electoral College votes based on state-by-state polling, with John Kerry fading in the Midwest and his chances of unseating the incumbent fading fast:

President Bush this week reached a symbolic milestone, overtaking Democratic challenger John Kerry in New Hampshire and Iowa to claim more than 300 electoral votes in CNN's weekly Electoral College scorecard.

If the election were held today, Bush would receive 301 electoral votes to Kerry's 237, according to a CNN survey based on state polling as well as interviews with campaign aides and independent analysts. ...

Bush currently leads in 33 states, including the country's entire southern rim (except California) and the mountain and plains regions. Kerry leads in the District of Columbia and the remaining 17 states, including all of the West Coast and most of the Northeast. The two candidates continue to battle for control of the industrial Midwest.

One Democratic strategist gave an interesting analysis: the candidate who controls the Mississippi controls America, a proverb going back to the Civil War. Right now, that candidate is George Bush, who leads in almost every state that borders on the river. Kerry gave up yesterday on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, and have always led in most other river states. Only Illinois has been solidly Democratic, although recent returns there have indicated it might be back in play, even given the disastrous candidacy of Alan Keyes for the open Senate seat. Wisconsin has turned into an almost certain win for Bush, and Minnesota -- which hasn't gone GOP for thirty-two years -- is a dead heat.

Take a look at this sea of red:

And this assumes that Kerry takes Pennsylvania, which has begun to look more reddish-purple than bluish-purple of late. Minnesota and Maryland have trended GOP the past month as well, and even New York may be within the margin of error. Kerry is in deep trouble.

Didn't We Just Laugh CBS Off The Air For Using Burkett?

I've received a number of e-mails from CQ readers pointing me towards this story in tomorrow's San Jose Mercury News, a reputable if small central California paper, in which disgraced news source Bill Burkett claims that senior Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart repeatedly asked for the Killian memos:

During a single phone conversation with Lockhart, Burkett said he suggested a "couple of concepts on what I thought (Kerry) had to do" to beat Bush. In return, he said, Lockhart tried to "convince me as to why I should give them the documents."

Bill at INDC Journal was the first to look into this story, as far as I can tell. I think he takes a pragmatic view -- he wants to watch as the media shreds this previously "unimpeachable" source in order to save Lockhart's (and Kerry's) hide. Bill, as always, plays it smart by not buying into the story.

Let's face it; over the past two weeks, the blogosphere has torn Burkett into little microscopic pieces, and for good reason. We wound up getting Dan Rather -- Dan freakin' Rather -- to roast his own source on air by making Burkett admit he lied to CBS about the source of the documents. Not only did we manage that, but then Burkett further assists us by telling wild stories about Lucy Ramirez, livestock-show dead-drops, and has a nervous breakdown.

And now his word trumps Joe Lockhart? I don't think so, fellas.

Put yourself in Lockhart's shoes. He gets a call from CBS saying that he should call Burkett because the Bush-hater just handed CBS documents which "prove" Bush disobeyed orders and got preferential treatment and evaluation in the TANG. All CBS promised was one phone call between Lockhart and Burkett. So Lockhart presumes that CBS has the documents and will use them -- he knows Mapes has been drooling after this story for five years, after all -- and his candidate doesn't have to get his skirts dirty in the least in order for the data to come out. He's got the Tiffany Network and Dan Freakin' Rather to deliver the joyous smear to the American electorate, and Kerry's got all the plausible deniability for which anyone can ask.

If you're Joe Lockhart, experienced campaigner and strategist, why on Earth would you ask Burkett to give the documents to you instead?

Sorry, folks. I'm not buying anything Burkett's pitching. If he greeted me with a Good Morning, I'd check out the window to be sure.

UPDATE: Keep checking back on Bill's post for the commentary and Bill's updates. He e-mailed me with this intriguing argument:

I like your post, not sure if you saw my follow-up comments, but I think that you are looking at this with a binary analysis when it has more than two dimensions (I'll give you three). Here's what I mean:

1. Burkett is clearly a wack-job, not to be believed
2. Lockhart is probably telling the truth if/when he specifically
says "I did NOT beg Burkett for the documents."
3. Lockhart is ALSO LYING to us when he says that the documents were
never mentioned, given the fact that that's all Burkett talks about,
and given his repeated public postings about trying to give the Kerry
campaign the goods.

There's more, but Bill covers it at his site. Go read.

And a hat tip to Larry F, who noted that Lucy's last name was Ramirez, not Martinez -- and totally coincidentally, I used to confuse the two when I was a kid and I had a Scout instructor whose last name was Ramirez. (Weird!) Larry also notes, "Not that it matters since she is probably a figment of`the delusional Burkett's imagination."

Teresa Plays Count The Conspiracies

Matt Drudge links to an article tonight from the Phoenix Business Journal that reveals just how disconnected from reality the Kerry campaign has become. Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke today at a million-dollar fundraiser and managed to keep up with every conspiracy theory that Democrats have been throwing from the stump:

In regard to the hunt for terror leader Osama Bin Laden, Heinz Kerry said she could see the al-Qaida chief being caught before the November election.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month," said Heinz Kerry, alluding to a possible capture by United States and allied forces before election day.

Conspiracy Theory #1: Bush Already Has Osama But Is Just Waiting For Election Eve To Announce It -- This hoary chestnut has been trotted out for spins around the political block by such Democratic luminaries as Madeline Albright and Howard Dean. It presumes that George Bush would pass up a golden opportunity to take the steam out of the "insurgency" in Iraq and possibly save hundreds of lives just to gain some slight electoral advantage just before the election.

How much of an advantage would Osama's capture bring? Probably one or two points. Kerry won't go below 40% in any event, and right now Bush leads in all major polling. Let's face it -- Osama's capture isn't going to win Bush the all-important Franken Fringe demographic, and right now that's about all Kerry has left.

The spouse of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry also hit President Bush on Iraq, saying it should not be equated with anti-terrorism efforts and that the current administration chose to create a "hotbed for terrorism" in Iraq when dictator Saddam Hussein did not pose an immediate threat. Heinz Kerry also said she agrees with her husband that a military draft may be reinstated under Bush.

Conspiracy Theories #2 and #3: Iraq Had No Terrorists Before Saddam Was Deposed, and The Republicans Want To Reinstate The Draft. Normally people tend to put a little rhetorical space between their lunatic rants, but like Jerry Reed once sang, Teresa's got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

Saddam hosted a veritable all-star team of Islamofascist terrorists such as Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda operative running the Tawid terrorists that are beheading anyone they can grab right now. The lineup also included Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. In fact, the Telegraph reported in 2002 that Saddam killed Abu Nidal for refusing to train al-Qaeda terrorist groups to attack the United States:

While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.

When Abu Nidal refused, Saddam ordered his intelligence chiefs to assassinate him. He was shot dead last weekend when Iraqi security forces burst into his apartment in central Baghdad. The body was taken to the hospital where he had had cancer treatment.

And let's not forget the training facility at Salman Pak, either. According to defectors from the IIS, Iraqi intelligence used the facility to train the Fedayeen Saddam, the Ba'athist irregulars that not only commit terrorist attacks now but also worked as enforcers to prevent desertions and defections from the Iraqi Army during the war. Since 1995, Saddam trained Islamic "militants" in the art of skyjackings and other terrorist activities. The IIS also conducted chemical-weapons development at Salman Pak.

Of course, even apart from all of that, the fact that terrorists have been attacking Coalition forces since the fall of Baghdad also demonstrates that they had planned well in advance to operate in Iraq. Their presence in Iraq in the form of Zarqawi and his gang, as well as others, present de facto evidence that Iraq is the central theater for the war against Islamofascist terror at the moment.

As for the draft -- well, both Whiskey and I have pointed this out, but only one party has been stupid enough to introduce legislation to reinstate the draft, and their mascot is as big an ass as the two men who tried it. If the Republicans wanted a draft, they would have called for it in the days immediately after 9/11, when the nation's mood may have supported it as a necessary measure for the common defense. But the GOP obviously doesn't want it, Rumsfeld doesn't want it, and the armed forces absolutely don't want it.

The only draft that Republicans like is the one passing between the ears of Senator Kerry and the rest of the gang of idiots perpetrating this urban legend. They're southbound, just watchin' Kerry run ...

You still have to hand it to Teresa. Most Democrats have been limiting themselves to just one lunatic-fringe assertion per appearance. She's the only "mainstream" Democrat to get the hat trick.

40,000 is the magic number

This afternoon, CQ reader Jay Caruso wrote, "Regarding Kerry's scare tactic of saying Bush will bring back the draft, it strikes me as being rather unusual considering Kerry is the one who has been promising to increase active duty troops by 40,000. How does he expect to do that?"

My apologies to Jay because I responded that Kerry had demonstrated his favorite flip-flop in favor of a cut, run, and stick your head in the sand policy as favored by Howard Dean, et al.

Perhaps not. It seems like 40,000 just became the magic number for the Democrats. Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's ambassador to the UN, just told O'Reilly that at least 40,000 more troops are needed in Iraq and that "means a call-up."

Where are the Democrats getting this number? It's not based on a military analysis or facts on the ground at all. Instead, the campaign chose a number that sounded large enough to demand a draft. Now, it's altogether possible that Holbrooke meant a call up of the reservists or guard, but the implication was a call-up of the draft.

The draft talk is ludicrous. I can’t wait for the next talking point to be revealed. “The sky is falling” perhaps?

Bush Gets NATO To Train Iraqis In Baghdad

In a coup that will act to deaden John Kerry's latest Iraq broadsides, like calling the visiting Prime Minister of Iraq a liar, George Bush won agreement from NATO to supply training for new Iraqi security forces in Baghdad:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreed Wednesday to expand the training of Iraqi security force officers at a facility outside Baghdad in preparation for planned elections in January.

The compromise agreement, overcoming resistance from Germany and France, will expand NATO's training mission in Iraq from about 50 officers to as many as 300 personnel, the alliance said. The accord, announced at NATO headquarters in Brussels, was reached after weeks of debate and opposition from members who have opposed the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. ...

France, Germany, Belgium and Spain have said they would not contribute personnel to the training program. Among those countries, Spain had a 1,300-member troop contingent in Iraq, but its Socialist government withdraw the force after taking power in April.

France expressed particularly strong opposition to the training. President Jacques Chirac and top cabinet officials declared that the addition of more foreign troops in Iraq would not solve the country's security problem. France had offered to train Iraqi police officers, but only outside of Iraq. Germany had made a similar offer to conduct training in the United Arab Emirates.

Neither France nor Germany explain why Iraqi security problems would show no improvement with the addition of more forces but that removing them for training would somehow be more effective. I suppose that's the EU version of "less is more". In reality, the four countries offered nothing more than excuses. None of them have any interest in helping Iraq to its feet and would love nothing more than to see the US fail in its attempt to use democracy as a solution to terrorism. In fact, they made NATO stipulate that non-participants would pay none of the cost of the official NATO mission, a petty and somewhat cowardly act.

One of the more interesting developments in the story appears in the last paragraph, and it should be required reading for those, like John Kerry, who think that European participation in Iraq would resolve the purported troop shortage:

In addition to worries about getting dragged into Iraq's violence, some NATO members expressed concerns that the alliance was overstretched, with ongoing missions involving 7,500 NATO troops in Afghanistan and 18,000 in the former Yugoslavia.

We have over 150,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all of the NATO members have just 25,500 deployed anywhere ... and they're overextended. And the other dirty little secret is that the NATO countries lack the transport capabilities to get much more of their troops anywhere else in the world; they rely on the US for that. Simply put, outside of training, NATO involvement in Iraq or anywhere else only has political use. Militarily, involving NATO would be pointless.

Front Lines: Afghan Perspective On American Election

I received this e-mail today in response to my earlier post from the Army Captain in Iraq. This reader is an Army officer in Kandahar and offers his perspective on the earlier message and its implications in Afghanistan.

Captain Ed,

Thanks for the chance to sound off - but I do need to ask you not to use my name if you post this. You keep up the good work on your end, and we'll keep it up on ours.

Just to be clear and fair, I don't think I've ever heard John Kerry talk about pulling out of Afghanistan. However, the retreatist/defeatist attitude that he espouses on the stump hardly gives confidence to our troops and allies in Afghanistan that Kerry will remain steadfast through difficulties, should they arise there. In fact, a retreat strategy in Iraq likely will increase the pressure on Western forces in Afghanistan, as the terrorists will know how to push the Americans out of the region and will not hesitate to use a successful strategy anywhere and any time.

If you are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and want to share your view of how our missions are doing there, or you have a family member who sends you e-mail which gives a different point of view than what we get from the mainstream media, please e-mail Captain's Quarters at frontlines*at*captainsquartersblog.com. We need your real name in order to verify input, but unless we're asked by the sender to use real names, we will not identify American servicepeople.

Allawi: Iraq Is Ready For Democracy

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint session of Congress this morning, telling the gathered representatives that Iraq could hold free elections in 15 of 18 provinces and thanking them for freeing Iraq from the grip of a murderous thug:

Offering a simple, ``Thank you America,'' Iraqi interim prime minister Ayad Allawi declared Thursday that his country is moving successfully past the war that ousted Saddam Hussein and vowed that elections will take place next year as scheduled.

``Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January because Iraqis want elections on time,'' Allawi told a joint meeting of Congress, an appearance that President Bush's advisers hoped would ease American voters' doubts about the troubled campaign in Iraq.

Allawi told lawmakers that the Iraqi insurgency intended on disrupting elections, but that they were small in number and their efforts had not and would not resonate with the Iraqi people. In his effort to defeat the insurgency, Allawi reported that he and his interim caretaker government would continue to reach out to a broad political spectrum for involvement in the democratic process, likely a reference to Allawi's deal with Moqtada al-Sadr, in order to prevent violence.

The AP (reprinted here in the New York Times) couldn't resist the opportunity to insert analysis into what should have been a straightforward report of the speech. In the summary, the AP refers to a recent NIE and remarks made by three Republican senators this week, even though they have little to do with the context of Allawi's appearance:

An assessment of Iraq's future put together recently by U.S. intelligence officials spoke of possibilities ranging from tenuous stability to civil war, and even some senators in Bush's Republican Party have said there is a need for more candid talk from the White House.

First, estimates are designed to review all possibilities, especialluy those with potentially negative impact on our national security. Such a document would waste little time discussing the impact of stability in any sense, and would necessarily review the impact of all other statuses. Second, the conclusion of the article has nothing to do with the rest of the story, and demonstrates yet again the futility of looking to the AP for objectivity in its news reporting.

Front Lines: Kerry's Withdrawal Date Puts Us At Risk

As part of our new feature (which will use the Heroes category for archiving, CQ received this e-mail yesterday from Bruce, which actually appeared first in our comments section. Bruce received this timely message from his son, an Army Captain in Iraq who is working to train Iraqi security forces so they can stand on their own. Given the recent targeting of enlistment and training facilities by terrorists, Bruce's son might be sympathetic to Kerry's insistence on telling the world we're leaving. Not so (bolded portions are my emphasis):

I also wonder if Senator Kerry realizes that he is partially responsible for the recent upswing in violence. This, by the way, is not speculation... this is straight from one of my interpreter's mouth.

So, Senator Kerry, would you like to explain to me how your announcement was supposed to make my life better? He screwed us and I will never forget that. Should I ever get the chance to be in his presence, I will be more than happy to let him know that. I can think of about 22 guys who will never get the chance and I owe it to them.

Bruce, please pass our thanks along to your son for his service to the US. If you are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and want to share your view of how our missions are doing there, or you have a family member who sends you e-mail which gives a different point of view than what we get from the mainstream media, please e-mail Captain's Quarters at frontlines*at*captainsquartersblog.com. We need your real name in order to verify input, but unless we're asked we will not identify American servicepeople.

CLARIFICATION: Unless we're asked by the sender to identify them in the post, we will not do so.

Carter Advocates Cut And Run

For those of us who remember the Jimmy Carter presidency, this story will come as no shock; it merely reminds us where we've heard the (latest) John Kerry war policies before. Speaking at a town-hall meeting on Tuesday and reinforcing his remarks on Wednesday, Carter called for an early withdrawal of American troops in Iraq in order to reduce the insurgency:

Former President Carter said Tuesday that violence in Iraq could be greatly reduced if the U.S. government set a date to withdraw its troops.

"The main thing that sustains violence there is the apparent long term presence of U.S. troops," he said. ... Carter said he would like to see troops withdraw as early as next year if Iraqis show they can establish self-government.

Once again, we have Jimmy Carter advocating American withdrawal in the face of the enemy. During his administration, that happened in both our Cold War standoff with the former Soviet Union and in Iran, the birthplace of Islamofascism. Having failed miserably at least twice during his own presidency and once in North Korea during the Clinton Administration, Carter now appears to be Kerry's leading light on Iraq. Certainly Kerry's latest policy switch on Iraq mirrors Carter's insistence on setting a date for our exit, regardless of the status of the mission.

Carter and Kerry reveal a hopeless naivete' -- just plain hopelessness -- in believing that the source of the problem in Iraq is the presence of American soldiers. Our presence may draw out the terrorists, but the terrorists would come to Iraq in any case, as the toppling of Saddam gives them an opportunity to fill the power vacuum left behind. They recognize that they have the same opportunity we do -- to remake Iraq into a new vision of their ideology. What Kerry and Carter fail to appreciate is that their vision is murderous and oppressive, and it represents a clear danger to American interests, especially if they get their hands on Iraq's oil revenues.

The Carter/Kerry withdrawal deadline would have catastrophic consequences for both Iraqis and Americans. First, the Iraqis still feel a sense of betrayal over our failure to give material support to their 1991 uprising in the South. Giving the terrorists the date on which we'll leave, mission status notwithstanding, will convince everyday Iraqis that we're bugging out on them again -- and they will naturally make bargains with whomever holds the most power just to survive. Terrorists in Iraq will simply bide their time, using this impression to build political strength and intimidate Iraqis to turn the entire country into a greater Fallujah. And Islamofascists around the world will see, once again, that Americans will not fight to maintain the security of their friends, let alone in their own interests, and will become emboldened in their efforts to chase us out of the Middle East altogether.

If this all seems like deja vu, then like me, you've lived through the Carter presidency. And like me, if you've lived through it once, you'll have no desire to live through its sequel.

Foreign Leaders Not For Kerry?

Today's Hindustan Times reports that although the Indian political establishment remains diplomatic silence on the subject, they would far prefer an extended George Bush presidency rather than John Kerry (hat tip - Jim W):

He may not be the most popular US President among educated Indians but there's no doubt that the Indian foreign policy establishment — cutting across party lines — would prefer to see George W. Bush re-elected as President of the United States. ...

The Indian position is a complex one and hinges on several assumptions. One: Bush appears to be genuinely interested in India. Shortly after he was elected, he made a sincere effort to get to know the country and its leaders. He has also spoken admiringly of India's pool of skilled professionals.

In contrast, about the only time Kerry has mentioned India during his campaign has been in the context of outsourcing. There is no evidence that he regards India as anything more than a place on the map.

You might expect the Indian establishment to distrust the American president who pulled Pakistan into a close alliance with the US, but according to the Hindustan Times, New Delhi sees this as an inevitable and temporary necessity after 9/11. They feel -- as many of us do -- that India is America's natural ally in the region, and they believe that George Bush understands that better than John Kerry.

Indians, according to Vir Sanghvi, fear Democrats as too ideologically driven on foreign policy. They do not want an oppressive environmental regime forced down their throat, for instance, and Kerry's continued invocation of Bush's rejection of the Kyoto greenhouse protocols exacerbates their nervousness. (Since the Senate rejected it 95-0 in 1998, obviously Kerry failed to vote for it before he embraced it.)

Considering the uncertainty of the world and especially their region, in the final analysis Sanghvi asserts that Indians would rather stick with stability and continuity rather than take chances on a newcomer like Kerry. Americans appear to be coming to much the same conclusion this month.

UPDATE: CQ readers are all over this -- the Senate never got the opportunity to reject Kyoto, since Clinton and Bush never submitted it for approval. The Senate denounced the treaty 95-0, and Kerry voted for the censure.

WaPo: Bush Flip Flops too!

Anxious to make the case that George Bush can also be accused of flip-flopping on the issues, the Washington Post unintentionally provides a contrast between a president who changes his mind and a candidate blowing in the wind:

The flip-flopper, Democrats say, is President Bush. Over the past four years, he abandoned positions on issues such as how to regulate air pollution or whether states should be allowed to sanction same-sex marriage. He changed his mind about the merits of creating the Homeland Security Department, and made a major exception to his stance on free trade by agreeing to tariffs on steel. After resisting, the president yielded to pressure in supporting an independent commission to study policy failures preceding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush did the same with questions about whether he would allow his national security adviser to testify, or whether he would answer commissioners' questions for only an hour, or for as long they needed.

The only thing reliable about Kerry's position on ANYTHING is that if you don't like it, you can wait a day or two and he'll offer another one. But according to the WaPo, those flip-flops are all in your head because it's what the Bush campaign wants you to believe!

Kerry defenders say the flip-flop charge has resonated through purposeful repetition by the Bush campaign, which began striking the theme in ads in the spring and has never let go. In the latest Bush campaign spot, released yesterday, Kerry is shown windsurfing as the ad, scored with Johann Strauss Jr.'s "Blue Danube" waltz, says the Democrat shifts positions on Iraq, health care and education "whichever way the wind blows."

As Democrats see it, the flip-flopper allegation is this year's equivalent of how the GOP four years ago portrayed Al Gore as a chronic truth-stretcher, and now, as then, blame the news media for accepting and promoting a caricature.

Bush media advisor Stuart Stevens explains that the president's policy changes are a product of thought and analysis, not inconsistency:

"I don't think he hesitates to change an approach if he feels it's not working, but I don't think people sense remotely that he's doing it [based on] a political compass."

The WaPo doesn't hesistate to opine that "fair degree of political calculation has gone into some of Bush's about-faces" then lists several controversial issues issues the president supposedly flip-flopped on including polution and steel tariffs. According to the WaPo, any change is a flip, even those which occured over the course of months or years.

But while President Bush may have a change of heart over the federal oversight of carbon dioxide emissions, Kerry has continuously bounced back and forth on the key issue of this campaign:

The Massachusetts senator voted for the Iraq war in October 2002, but a year later voted against Bush's request for $87 billion for military and reconstruction spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. The latter vote came when former Vermont governor Howard Dean's antiwar candidacy was ascendant. The vote may have been wise politics at the time, but came with a high price -- lending an aura of plausibility to the subsequent charges by Bush that Kerry is motivated by opportunism.

And "aura of plausibility"? How about stark truth?

Kerry's statements have compounded the damage. In September 2003, he said at a Democratic debate, "We should not send more American troops" to Iraq. "That would be the worst thing." In April, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "if it requires more troops . . . that's what you have to do." In August, he told ABC's "This Week" that if elected, "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops." This week, he said that, as president, he would not have launched an invasion if he had known that there was not clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction or ties to al Qaeda, though last month he said, knowing these things, he still would have voted to give Bush congressional authority to wage the Iraq war.

Translation: if only Kerry would just stop talking all together, the Dems might win afterall! For the left, and the WaPo, the most aggravating thing about the Kerry campaign is John Kerry himself. The author typically buries the most accurate statement at the end of the article, hoping readers will be too lazy to actually get that far. Don't miss the slur on the speaker:

Stevens, who has been studying Kerry since advising then-Massachusetts Gov. William H. Weld (R) in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the senator in 1996, said Kerry's very manner exacerbates the flip-flop impression: "He says these things with great condescension, [suggesting]: 'If only you were as smart as I and understand this that these issues are too complicated to have a consistent position.' . . . People have a good internal detector of the difference between nuance and confusion and opportunism."

The Ayatollah Is Not Pleased

The road to Iraqi elections may or may not have hit a snag this evening, as the New York Times reports that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has expressed deep reservations about the new Iraqi electoral system but has given no specific demands or requests for changes:

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the nation's most powerful Shiite leader, is growing increasingly concerned that nationwide elections could be delayed, his aides said, and has even threatened to withdraw his support for the elections unless changes are made to increase the representation of Shiites, according to one Iraqi source close to him. ...

According to people with knowledge of the talks, Ayatollah Sistani is concerned that the nascent democratic process here is falling under the control of a handful of the largest political parties, which cooperated with the American occupation and are comprised largely of exiles. In particular, these sources say, Ayatollah Sistani is worried about discussions now under way among those parties to form a single ticket for the elections, thus limiting the choices of voters and smothering smaller political parties.

Ayatollah Sistani, who earlier this year sent tens of thousands of Iraqis into the streets to demand early elections, is said to be worried that a "consensus list" of candidates from the larger political parties would artificially limit the power of the Shiites, who form a majority in the country.

Under an agreement reached among exile groups in the early 1990's, the Shiites were said to make up about 55 percent of the population. Ayatollah Sistani, the sources say, believes the Shiite population has swelled since then and therefore would be underrepresented on any list based on a 55 percent figure.

Ayatollah Sistani also expressed concerns that the Iraqi government, possibly under American pressure, would postpone the elections on the pretext that the anarchical conditions that prevail over parts of the country would make the results illegitimate, the sources said.

While keeping Sistani involved in the process must be a key element in maintaining credibility with Iraqi Shi'a, it's difficult to see what exactly Sistani wants. On one hand, he claims to worry about the Allawi government using the insurgency as a pretext to put off the elections, and in the next breath threatens to withdraw his support if they go on. Having given no demands, it's hard to know what Sistani wants to change.

Indeed, under the European-style proportional election style, where voters cast ballots for "lists" and seats are awarded proportional to the gross vote totals, it would appear that the majority Shi'ite population would score a plurality of seats in their parliament, if not an outright majority. In an American-style federal system of elections, such a result might not be as predictable, given the head start that the existing political parties have.

What makes Sistani most unhappy is that head start. Six political parties have coalesced into the current government, with a strong exile element in the management of each. But how could anyone expect anything else? The Iraqis have no tradition of democracy and lack the organizational ability to quickly form political groups, especially since such ability resulted in a fast and brutal reaction from the Saddam Hussein one-party system. The exiles provided those skills and helped to organize Iraq as quickly as possible in order to head off the insurgency. Their presence also ensured that Iraq actually transitioned to democracy rather than a knee-jerk reaction to propping up another strongman like Saddam.

That impulse is what has probably pushed the leadership of the six parties to offer a single "unity" list for the first election, which Sistani is correct to question. It gives at least the appearance that the interim government intends on making the first Iraqi election nothing more than a referendum on the continuance of the Allaw regime. That result may be tempting, and for the US, it may be the best possible result -- but after fighting to establish democracy for almost two years, presenting Iraqis with a Ba'ath-style single option for the election will provide a letdown.

The US should ask Allawi to rethink this approach. The symbolism of this election is at least as important as the result.

Scare tactics

Looks like the Kerry campaign finally found a tactic they can all agree on: scare the hell out of college kids and their fretting parents with the draft hoax. An article posted tonight on MSNBC reveals that the draft talk wasn't just a negligent offhand statement by Kerry (see Ed's post below) but a talking point for the entire campaign.

In a speech at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, Cleland told students they might find themselves pressed into military service if Bush wins a second term.

“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.

"Pay attention ... to what you've got going on in Iraq. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Vietnam. I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends. It does not end pleasantly," he added.

And Howard Dean, who's never heard a conspiracy theory he didn't like, warned students at Brown University, "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."

According to Michelle Malkin, the ghost story is also being spread via mass email and MTV to college students.

As Ed noted, it's highly convenient for the Democrats that one of their own introduced wacko bill, which never had any support from either party.

Forgeries . . . urban legends . . . as if the candidate himself weren't scary enough!

NY Times Still Promoting Story Based On Forgeries

CQ reader Dave B. gets a biweekly e-mail from the New York Times with the top 10 list of the most popular articles from the past fortnight. In the e-mail he received today for Sept. 8-22, Dave was amazed to find this collection of links submitted for his perusal:

In case you missed any of these stories, below are the Top 10 Most Read Articles on NYTimes.com over the last two weeks (as of 11 a.m. ET, Sept. 22). ...

1. Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time
By SARA RIMER, Published Sept. 20

2. Falling Bodies, a 9/11 Image Etched in Pain
By KEVIN FLYNN and JIM DWYER, Published Sept. 10

3. Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and RALPH BLUMENTHAL, Published Sept. 9

How clueless is this? Does the New York Times editorial board make it a habit to promote stories based on forgeries? I'm not suggesting they purge the article from their archives, but to promote the article to their registered users after all of the furor CBS has unleashed is breathtakingly stupid.

Perhaps Pinch Sulzberger could give us a follow-up on this theme, like the Top 10 Fictions of Jayson Blair, or a retrospective on the Augusta Masters Tournament Coverage That Changed The World.

Kerry Retreats

The AP reports this afternoon that the Kerry campaign has canceled planned ad buys in four states previously considered to be up for grabs:

Bowing to political realities, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has canceled plans to begin broadcasting television commercials in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and the perennial battleground of Missouri. ...

Ads were scheduled to begin airing Oct. 5 in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri as part of a $5 million investment through Nov. 2, but campaign advisers concluded Kerry isn't doing well enough in the states to justify the cost.

The campaign, which has reserved commercial time in 20 states through Election Day, notified television stations in the four states that Kerry would not follow through on his plans for the first week of October.

Plans are still in place to air ads starting the second week of October, campaign officials said, but those will likely be tabled, too.

Many people have been saying that the polling done so far this month has been anomalous, with the growing lead of Bush either an illusion or simply a momentary bounce. But with Kerry's internals falling like a rock and the debacle of the Killian forgeries still reverberating, Democrats show that their own pollsters see much the same results as Time, Newsweek, Gallup, and CBS: Kerry is in a free fall. They need to consolidate their money on states in which they have a chance to prevail, and as this new strategy shows, that list keeps getting smaller and smaller.

Urban Legends Come Alive In Kerryland

John Kerry has spent all year running the Rona Barrett Presidential Campaign, whose slogan seems to be No Rumor Too Petty For Us. First he talked about the Bush adminstration being "the most lying, corrupt" people in his memory. Next he fueled the fire on Bush's National Guard service. In this month alone, he's pushed the discredited memes about stem-cell research bans and the disenfranchisement of one million African-Americans in Florida. Today he ups the ante, again in Florida, where he told supporters that a second Bush administration would result in a renewed military draft (via Power Line):

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, citing the war in Iraq and other trouble spots in the world, raised the possibility Wednesday that a military draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.

Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past. Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials have been asked numerous times whether they thought a draft would be necessary to maintain force levels in Iraq. They have said consistently that they think it is neither necessary nor desirable, since today's military is built on volunteer service and professionalism.

He went on to scare the elderly by telling them more fairy tales about how eeeevil Republicans were scheming to steal their benefits, but that's rather pedestrian in comparison. Bush and his entire administration have been adamant that they neither need nor want another military draft. It causes far too much disruption, and the all-volunteer armed services has achieved a high degree of professionalism and esprit de corps that would be lost with conscripted and sullen enlistments.

In fact, although Kerry forgets to mention it, the only people agitating for a resumption of the draft are from Kerry's own party -- Senator Fritz Hollings and Rep. Charles Rangel. Both have tried introducing legislation to restart the draft, but it's not to provide more resources for a purportedly strapped Army. They want the draft reinstated to ensure that rich kids get sent to war, which in their minds would force Bush to retreat against terrorism.

Kerry's continued flirtation with urban legends and outright lies only underscore the character and honesty issues that the Swiftvets first revealed and the ongoing campaign has slowly uncovered. Assigning the draft rumor that his party started to George Bush is dishonest, sleazy, and cowardly.

A vote for war isn't a vote for war

John Kerry once again demonstrates his decisive nature. Responding to accusations that his vote authorize the invasion of Iraq and his recent position that it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" are inconsistent, Kerry explains:

"The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war," Mr. Kerry said. "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through the process of going to the U.N., building the allies and then making a judgment of whether we had to go...."

Welcome to John Kerry version 70.2!

The Faux Candidate

Don't miss Hugh Hewitt's latest World Net Daily column. Hugh wonders, "Is there anything real about this guy at all? Or is it just John Kerry 5.0?" I agree with Hugh on Kerry's inauthenticity, but I think he's analyzing an older version of the product; with this week's rapid position changes, we must be looking at the 70.1 model.

New Swift Boat Vet Ad

In case you've missed it, the new Swift Boat Vet ad can be viewed here. Hat tip: Powerline. The ad thrashes Kerry for meeting with representatives of the North Vietnamese government in 1970 in Paris, while on his honeymoon! Illegal negotiations with a foreign power during the honemoon trip? Looks like anti-American activities have always been his first priority.

More Messages From The Front, And A Call For More

One of the more loyal readers of CQ, LoveMyMarine, sends me two e-mails today regarding her husband, who is currently deployed to Iraq. The first e-mail is her response to my post on the death of Sheik al-Sharmi, the "spiritual" leader of Zarqawi's murderous thugs, and the second is a message from her husband. Both messages underscore the frustration our fighting men and women feel at the relentlessly negative coverage of our efforts in Iraq. I'm redacting names and select passages to keep identifications confidential.

Thank you for today's post. I get so frustrated when I hear the continual slamming of the Intel community in the press; it's a popular pasttime, and it's not like they can fight back to defend themselves.

I would have to say, yes, not only is the intel getting better, but so is the focus. As you know, Gen Natonski has taken over at the last change of command. ___ arrived Aug 6th. At the beginning of Sept he told me there was a major shake-up and work reassignment. He sounded very pleased and positive with how things are going. I have not heard from him via e-mail or phone in the last few days, when we last spoke, he told me he was sleeping on a cot in his office because they were working on a major project. So, hopefully, stay tuned for more good news in the future. This is a profession where often you don't see tangible fruits of your labors.

___ is currently ... with 1stMarDiv; if there is any good news I can report I will pass it along.

This comes from her Marine:

...There are some things that cannot be bought with money or engineering expertise or a boatload of good intentions. There are reasons we are here that transcend all the babble that the media love to spew. It is worth it.

... The goal of the conventional mindset is quantification. More & betterer. That will not necessarily win this. We are already on a level so far and above what they can do, we are in our own world. They cannot compete in our realm, so they do what they can. They will expire in droves, like flies at the first bite of frost.

I do not know how to put a happy spin on it, as the topic is deadly serious. I do think ... that less protection and less deadly is patently stupid. This war cannot be looked at in an attritionist way, to do so dehumanizes the conflict and makes it some dry affair. There will be monuments to this conflict that will out of necessity be large.

The work that I tried to do at the Lab I hope has some real meaning here. My intentions were to save lives by giving them the training that they need to succeed in this environment. The conventional mindset will not suffice here.

Thank you for your concern, but spare time is no more. I wish I had spare time. Today, I got up at 0400 and ran 4 miles then went to the gym for a half hour. I worked the rest of the day and am still here at 920 pm. The war grinds onward.

What would I like? A copy or 2 of fine homebuilding and/or fine woodworking would be nice. I do not have time for in depth stuff. My energies and concentration go to my work, which is to ideally stop the human vermin in this country and remove them from the equation.

I'm doing the King's work here. Be well and try not to worry. Remember - I wear armor all the time and all of my friends are armed to the teeth. Things will be OK.

Love, ___

No one's looking at this through rose-colored glasses, but the men on the ground in Iraq see progress and the necessity to ensure it sticks. So far, the only people who wail and gnash their teeth are the reactive media elite, who consider any engagement not an opportunity to eliminate more of the terrorists who would otherwise be engaging us here, but as a defeat even before it begins.

It is incredibly frustrating to hear people like John Kerry declare that we are fighting the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time because terrorists are attacking our troops. It's a position whose logical conclusion is that the only way to deal with terrorists is to retreat.

I hate to consider what this world would look like had John Kerry and his ilk been in power in July 1942. After being attacked by Japan and driven out of the eastern Pacific, we took our first action not against the Imperial Navy but on the shores of North Africa, where we fought against the Vichy French for three days. Our first action against the Nazis came at the Kasserine Pass, a military disaster of the first order. In that one engagement, we lost twice as many men in battle deaths as have died in Iraq since the invasion began through poor generalship and a highly amateur corps of soldiers.

Did we cut and run? Did we argue that we should fight Japan alone, and worry about the Nazis later? No, nor did we after Dieppe, nor after Anzio, nor after the Winter Offensive in the Ardennes. But had the collection of Nervous Nellies we have today been in charge then, we would have reached an accomodation with the genocidal Hitler and avoided the "chaos" of postwar Germany -- much the same as Kerry laments the toppling of the genocidal Saddam Hussein and the purported "chaos " of post-war Iraq.

Addendum: Take a moment to read this editorial in today's Tennessean by Tim Chavez, which covers the same territory:

These are the best of days to be a terrorist.

If you can convince a wacko desiring 70 virgins to detonate himself and a car bomb in Iraq, you're guaranteed to see your handiwork leading the nightly news from America.

Then, the Democratic Party candidate wanting to replace the U.S. president you hate for standing up to your madness will personally cite your actions as proof that America is failing in Iraq and more than 1,000 of our heroes died in vain.

It doesn't get any better than that in the terrorist world. Compared to this propaganda weapon that detonates nightly in U.S. households and psyches, RPGs and IEDs are mere slingshots. And it's impossible for our sons and daughters in uniform to fight that kind of advantage thousands of miles away back home.

I disagree -- it's not impossible. I'm going to offer our fighting men and women and their families a way to make their voices heard. If you are on the lines in Iraq or Afghanistan and want to share your perspective, or you have communications from a family member or friend stationed there, please e-mail them to me at frontlines-at-captainsquartersblog.com. I can't promise we'll use every story we get, but we'll try to keep them coming. CQ will not identify the servicepeople or their families unless requested to do so, but we will need identification and a valid return e-mail to verify the authenticity of the stories. Please do not forward the e-mails of third parties as the volume will swamp out those who haven't already been heard.

Let's see if we can't make their voices heard over the wailing of the mainstream media.

CQ Blog Updates

A random collection of updates that don't rise to the level of separate posts ...

First, I'd like to announce that I've been added to the distinguished list of contributors to Jewish World Review. This website features some of the best punditry in the world, all collected in one spot for your easy review. My initial entry can be found here, published under my own name. CQ readers will recognize it as the post which the New York Sun reprinted last month. It's my honor and pleasure to be included among such luminaries as Dennis Prager, George Will, Mona Charen, Deborah Saunders -- check the site out for yourself to see the all-star lineup they have.

Speaking of the Sun, I'm working on a special assignment for their opinion section. I'm holding back the finished product until it's published, but it has to do with stem-cell research and the Kerry campaign. If you don't subscribe to the Sun, you should consider doing so. They support bloggers; its founder and managing editor, Ira Stoll, ran the Gray Lady watchdog site Smarter Times, a blog which pioneered the media-watch approach best typified by Patterico these days. Their encouragement of my work shows their commitment to new media. Besides, their writing is excellent and their coverage is global.

Typekey: I get several e-mails a day asking about Typekey and issues with the login process. Unfortunately, I don't have much more insight into the process than anyone else. I have well over 200 qualified Typekey commenters in the system, so I know that it works on my end. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but the porno spammers and the trolls made it impossible for me to leave comments wide open and I don't have enough time in the day to moderate the discussions here. It's either Typekey or no comments at all.

Lastly, I hope everyone's had a chance to read Whiskey's latest posts -- she's back and as her first two efforts show, she's better than ever!

UPDATE: CQ has been selected as Bithead's Blog of the Week. Thanks, Bit!

Kristof Can't Be Serious

Nicholas Kristof comes back for Round 2 against the Swiftvets, this time disguised as a "stop the mud" plea to both sides in the election. Unfortunately for Kristof, his latest offering is almost as fact-challenged as his last, and the equivalencies he draws between the two campaigns are at best obscure and at worst deliberately ridiculous:

True, Democrats have also engaged in below-the-belt attacks. Some of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore film, was the liberal equivalent of the anti-Kerry smears. Its innuendos implying that Mr. Bush arranged the war in Afghanistan so backers could profit from an oil pipeline were appalling.

But I, along with some others, immediately complained about "Fahrenheit 9/11." Aside from John McCain, where are the sensible conservatives? Why don't they denounce the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks? And why doesn't President Bush condemn those attacks, showing the kind of integrity that Mr. Dukakis showed?

That's really the only point that Kristof found egregious about Fahrenheit-9/11? He didn't think that explicitly claiming that the Saudi royal family had bought George Bush and his family years ago, using false information to back up that charge, was a smear job? He thought that Moore's depiction of Saddam's Iraq as a happy, kite-flying paradise were dead on?

If Kristof wanted to stop smear jobs on presidential candidates, where was Kristof when leading Democrats -- not just 527s -- started the entire Vietnam service mess back in February? For instance, Democratic Congressman Sherrod Brown tried to trot out the AWOL charge during an open Congressional hearing with Secretary of State Colin Powell:

Powell, however, became testy when Brown said, in a reference to questions about whether Bush completed his National Guard service: "You are one of the very few people in this administration that understands war. We have a president who may have been AWOL" from duty.

Or how about the party's own chairman, Terry McAuliffe, who started this and hasn't dropped it since:

While none of the presidential candidates has directly criticized Bush's service, some Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe, have accused the president of shirking his military duties in 1972, when Bush transferred to an Alabama unit. McAuliffe on Sunday called Bush "AWOL," or "absent without leave," during that period.

You can Google "McAuliffe AWOL" and spend the rest of your life checking the links. Or you can also take a look at the Washington Post from April 27th and find John Kerry engaging in the same smear:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry scolded the White House for criticizing his protest of the Vietnam War and said Monday that President Bush "owes America an explanation" about whether he lived up to his own wartime obligations a generation ago. "I've fought for my country. I know what it means to defend my nation," Kerry said in a television interview here, directly challenging Bush's service for the first time. "This president can't even prove he actually showed up for duty in the National Guard."

And lest we forget, George Bush has never campaigned on his National Guard service, considering it an unremarkable period of a youth he's admitted contains more than its fair share of dissipation. John Kerry, on the other hand, spent almost his entire campaign jettisoning his twenty-year Senate record (for good reason) to make his four months in Viet Nam the central qualification as President. The Republicans didn't make Viet Nam a campaign issue, and still don't; John Kerry did that.

So what does Kristof claim the Democrats need to do to match a Republican effort to muzzle over 250 veterans who fought for their right to speak out against John Kerry? Cocaine abuse at Camp David? Slurs on his intelligence? Favoritism in his National Guard assignment? Nope. Kristof urges dems to stop the madness -- on outsourcing??

If they're intellectually consistent, Democrats will speak out not only against the Swift Boat Veterans but also against Mr. Kerry's demagoguery on trade, like his suggestion that outsourcing is the result of Mr. Bush's economic policies. Trade demagoguery may not be as felonious as an assault on a war hero's character, but it harms America by undermining support for free trade.

I'm afraid that the dishonesty of politics has infected all of us if we're so partisan that we're willing to point out only the sins of the other side. Intellectual consistency requires a tough look first at one's own shortcomings. So Republicans should be denouncing the smear against Mr. Kerry's war record, and Democrats should be denouncing their candidate's protectionist tone on trade.

Either Kristof has caught a case of cluelessness from overexposure to Maureen Dowd -- a confirmed carrier -- or he's cleverly satirizing himself. Unfortunately for readers of the New York Times, I doubt Kristof has enough of a sense of humor or irony for the latter case.

Spiritual Leader Of Zarqawi's Group Killed

The AP reports that American airstrikes in Baghdad killed Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami, described as the spiritual leader of the terrorist group headed by Abu Masab al-Zarqawi:

The spiritual leader of a major militant group in Iraq, Tawhid and Jihad, has been killed in a U.S. airstrike and his Jordanian family is preparing a wake, a newspaper and Islamic clerics said Wednesday.

The spiritual leader of a major militant group in Iraq (news - web sites), Tawhid and Jihad, has been killed in a U.S. airstrike and his Jordanian family is preparing a wake, a newspaper and Islamic clerics said Wednesday.

Either the US and Iraqi forces got incredibly lucky and just happened to hit the car in which an insurgent leader traveled, or their intelligence operations are improving dramatically. I suspect it's the latter and not the former. As the US continues to build up native Iraqi security forces, the people terrorized by Zarqawi will find ways to let them know where the terrorists live and work. As long as US firepower remains at their disposal, that intelligence will prove deadly to Zarqawi and his ilk.

It's true that the insurgency has intensified considerably during the past month. American officials had been predicting this offensive for some time, knowing that Zarqawi would turn up the heat during the latter part of the election cycle to rattle Americans, as well as Iraqis trying to put an electoral system of their own in place. It's embarassing that they have been successful in their mission with such luminaries as Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, and John McCain. These men forget that such handwringing only encourages more terrorist attacks.

Biden, on ABC with Diane Sawyer yesterday morning, called for a change in policy in Iraq, but gave no more specifics than John Kerry's four-point plan that duplicates the efforts Bush already is making. The only difference is Kerry's faith in French and German "allies", who spent the sanction years sending arms to Saddam, and their willingness to send vast armies to replace the US troops he proposes to begin withdrawing next summer. In a more rational time, such a disconnect from reality would disqualify one from even consulting on foreign policy, let alone run for President.

DoD Targets World's Oldest Profession

According to the AP, the DoD has taken some new measures to deter US troops from seeking the services of prostitutes while stationed abroad. Of course, the article is written by the AP whose journalist (Pauline Jelinek) lacks a working vocabulary of military terms and customs, so it’s somewhat hard to understand precisely what is in the works.

U.S. troops stationed overseas could face a court martial for patronizing prostitutes under a new regulation drafted by the Pentagon.

The move is part of a Defense Department effort to lessen the possibility that troops will contribute to human trafficking in areas near their overseas bases by seeking the services of women forced into prostitution.

In recent years, "women and girls are being forced into prostitution for a clientele consisting largely of military services members, government contractors and international peacekeepers" in places like South Korea (news - web sites) and the Balkans, Rep. Christopher Smith (news, bio, voting record), R-N.J., said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill forum on Pentagon anti-trafficking efforts.

Defense officials have drafted an amendment to the manual on courts martial that would make it an offense for U.S. troops to use the services of prostitutes, said Charles Abell, a Pentagon undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

The article first mentions the troops may be court-martialed under a new "regulation" then later Jelinek mentions that defense officials have drafted an amendment to the "manual on courts martial." (Note to journalists: it is the Manual for Courts-Martial.) Jelinek has this process backward. First, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (federal law) must be amended and only then can the handbook be updated, but let's put the technicalities aside for the moment because there’s more:

Officials also are developing a training program for troops and contractors, to be distributed in November. The program will explain trafficking, department policy on it and possible legal action against violators, Abell said in a written statement.

Additionally, the military is reviewing regulations and procedures for placing off-limits those businesses where such activities take place and working with Justice Department officials to tighten rules on contractor misconduct.

Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, said another initiative started on the peninsula has been to "make on-base military life a more desirable experience, and attempt to diminish the seductive appeal of many of the less wholesome off-duty pursuits."

That effort includes offering expanded evening and weekend education programs, band concerts, late-night sports leagues and expanded chaplains' activities.

Let me get this out right away: I do not support human trafficking. That being said, it looks like the Pentagon is getting overly parental in this case. I’ve traveled extensively in Korea, and the US bases there (except for the Army base in Seoul) are remote, located in the middle of rice paddies. The soldiers and airmen are always subjected to a curfew, which is usually midnight or earlier. The only entertainment for the troops are the bars and clubs that have sprung up outside the gates, and though prostitutes are probably employed in some of those establishments, it’s not overt. The actual trade is usually not sex for money; instead, the client buys an expensive nonalcoholic drink for the hostess of his choice in exchange for a few minutes of flirting.

When the local military base learns an establishment has actual prostitutes, it is quickly made off-limits to the troops, and since that eliminates the clientele, the bar or club closes its doors.

US military members have been and will continue to be prosecuted for prostitution for violating existing orders and regulations. What the Pentagon really wants to control is the behavior of contractors and US civilians employed by the military. Contractors and civilians are not subject to military curfews or military law, and local authorities have little interest in these cases.

The US military may have little to gain by pressing this issue as many Americans are only induced to work in such out-of-the-way places because of the social opportunities. So let’s be realistic. Remote bases are miserable enough for our military, they shouldn’t be made into a church camp as described by General LaPorte.

WaPo Swings And Misses On Swiftvets

The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth released their latest ad against John Kerry's candidacy, and it's as devastating as any they've produced thus far in the campaign. The Swiftvets also make the seventh chapter of their book, Unfit for Command, available online for free as an explanation of the commercial's charges. Here's the money graf from the chapter:

Loyal Americans think twice about violating the legal provision against negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. section 953) and the Constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies during wartime (Article III, Section 3). Anti-Communists do not openly support proposals that amount to an American surrender to Communist enemies, plus a demand to pay war reparations. ... There must have been contact between Kerry or his representatives and the representatives of the Vietnamese Communists. Which Communists assisted Kerry in arranging his meeting with Madame Binh, and why?

Kerry has long argued that he was a private citizen and violated no laws in his Paris meeting, which he describes as a fact-finding mission when he comments on it at all. His campaign website makes no mention of his trip to Paris, but he wasn't always that reticent.

A year after conducting this secret meeting, he appeared before the Senate in April 1971 and admitted to Congress that he had met with the Provisional Revolutionary Government, otherwise known as the Viet Cong (the insurgents in South Vietnam), as well as the official North Vietnamese delegation. Three months later, he held a press conference in DC on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War urging American leaders to capitulate to the PRG's seven-point proposal, which called for a unilateral withdrawal from Viet Nam and the payment of war reparations before the Communists would release any POWs.

In other words, Kerry advocated surrender as well as the extortion of payment for the POWs to the people who were torturing them.

Is that the kind of leadership we need in an age of Islamofascist terror?

The Washington Post misses the story by deliberately eliminating the year between Kerry's meeting in Paris and his infamous Senate testimony:

The group, whose members served in the Navy at the same time as Kerry, is referring to a meeting Kerry had in early 1971 with leaders of the communist delegation that was negotiating with U.S. representatives at the Paris peace talks. The meeting, however, was not a secret. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of that year. "I have been to Paris," he testified. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Provisional Revolutionary Government," the latter a South Vietnamese communist group with ties to the Viet Cong.

Kerry's campaign said earlier this year that he met on the trip with Nguyen Thi Binh, then foreign minister of the PRG and a top negotiator at the talks. Kerry acknowledged in that testimony that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the "borderline" of what was permissible under U.S. law, which forbids citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments. But his campaign said he never engaged in negotiations or attended any formal sessions of the talks.

The Post gets the date wrong; Kerry met with the PRG and North Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, not 1971. I purchased an archived NY Times article that Paul Farhi could have easily found on a Lexis-Nexis search, which makes the timing clear:

Two weeks later, he married Julia Thorne, and on a trip to Europe with his new bride, Mr. Kerry, the 26-year-old ex-lieutenant took a taxicab from Paris to a suburban villa. The son of a diplomat, Mr. Kerry had managed to arrange a private meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong emissaries to the peace talks.

He says he does not remember who else was in the room except for Nguyen Thi Binh, the Vietcong spokeswoman in Paris, who was then bedeviling the Nixon administration by issuing peace proposals it considered little more than propaganda. ...

Mr. Kerry came home, and before a Senate hearing 10 months later he criticized President Nixon for not accepting Mrs. Binh's assurances that the Vietnamese would release American prisoners of war if U.S. troops simply left [emph mine -- CE].

At the time of the meeting, then, Kerry's meetings with the Communists certainly were a secret, only revealed 10 months later during the Senate hearings. Farhi misrepresents the events to rehabilitate Kerry in a subtle way. Nor is that the only way in which Farhi twists reality. His conclusion dismisses the Swiftvets without acknowledging their victories at all:

The Swift boat group's first ad gained widespread exposure last month through talk-radio programs, cable television talk shows and newspaper articles because of its assertions that Kerry had exaggerated his war record as the commander of a Navy Swift boat in Vietnam.

Some of the independent organization's assertions were refuted, and several links between it and President Bush's campaign subsequently came to light. But the media storm created by the ad put Kerry and his campaign on the defensive.

So far, the Swiftvets have caused Kerry to retreat on at least four points of his Viet Nam narrative, which Farhi fails to mention in his recap. The "several links" innuendo is nothing more than that; no one has shown any indication that the Republicans have coordinated anything with the Swiftvets, while the Democrats have people working both in the Kerry campaign and in 527s like MoveOn simultaneously. This Post article by Farhi is a poorly researched hack job, obviously rushed out to attempt to blunt the effects of this latest Swiftvet ad.

You'd think after the CBS debacle, mainstream news outlets would be more careful.

Newsday Columnist Calls For Rather's Resignation

Newsday became the second mainstream media outlet to run an columnist's call for Dan Rather to step down. James Pinkerton tells his readers in today's edition that under any set of journalistic guidelines and precedent, Rather has to go:

By any fair reckoning, Rather should resign. As a big shot at CBS News-in addition to being anchorman-in-chief, he has been the managing editor of the CBS Evening News since March 1981-he deserves to be held to the same standard as Howell Raines, the executive editor of The New York Times, who was forced to resign last year in the wake of a news-fabrication scandal.

Some might argue that Rather was just a duped news reader, that he was simply following orders. In which case, following the precedent established in the 1998 "Tailwind" scandal-in which CNN's Peter Arnett was forced to quit after he read phony copy about Americans using poison gas in Laos-Rather should still be forced to take his leave.

That's exactly correct, and Rather isn't the only CBS employee who should be hitting the bricks. Andrew Heyward, Rather's boss, had the responsibility to ensure that Rather and the rest of his staff operated ethically and truthfully, and instead of investigating when serious concerns first appeared about the forgeries, he continued to stonewall and support Rather's attacks on critics of the story. Mary Mapes will be fired -- she'll go first, in all likelihood, to attempt to put off firing Heyward and Rather -- as she not only solicited the documents from a known kook, she acted as his political pimp. Coordinating with the Democrats may strip away only the illusion of CBS' objectivity, but it's the illusion on which they trade.

Pinkerton takes a longer look at the sea change in news distribution, likening the advent of the bloggers and their victory over CBS to the Gutenberg press:

The past tells us that techno-change is tectonic change. Prior to the 15th century, the Catholic Church maintained its monopoly in part by controlling Bible production. Bibles were not only scarce but were hand-scribed in Latin, which only priests could read.

Then came Johannes Gutenberg, who used movable type to mass-print Bibles, eventually in local languages. Soon ordinary folk were reading the Bible for themselves and thinking for themselves. Protestantism was born. What followed was a century of religious war, but the world was transformed. One of those transformations was the radical new reality that technology would continue shaping events.

Just as with the rise of Protestantism, the blogosphere will force the "magisterium" of the Old Media to adapt or die. Once they owned the presses and the transmitters, and all we could do is read and watch what they produced. Now we all have the transmitters in our houses, and the presses are almost obsolete. Dan Rather, Andrew Heyward, and Mary Mapes misjudged the power of an army of fact-checkers and their ability to make themselves heard in spite of the derision and scorn of the Old Guard. For that reason as well as Pinkerton's, it's time for that troika to fade to black.

UPDATE: Via Memeorandum, I see that Slate hasn't quite reached the point of calling for Rather's termination. They're calling for him to be committed:

In reponse to these brouhahas and the National Guard story, conservative media critics have demanded blood. They charge that Rather's careless muckraking belies a liberal bias, but it's actually much worse than that. Rather isn't a liberal hack. He's bonkers.

What other reporter could get away with the spontaneous fits of rage and the homespun corniness that are his trademarks? ... In 1981, Rather decided that he couldn't occupy Walter Cronkite's chair, so for his first Evening News broadcast he read the headlines while crouching behind the desk. When a rival TV journalist ambushed him outside of CBS headquarters—a favorite tactic of the 60 Minutes gang—Rather instructed the reporter, "Get the microphone right up, will you?" Then he barked, "Fuck you." The clip played on television for days. Then there's Rather's odd penchant for costumes. He once trekked across the Afghan border on foot and returned with hours of dazzling reporting—all of which he undermined by wearing a ludicrous peasant disguise on camera. TV critics lashed him with the nickname "Gunga Dan."

Bryan Curtis makes a compelling and thoroughly entertaining argument for the straitjacket, but I don't think Dan is insane: I think he's full of himself. The Dan does not have to answer critics: The Dan is the truth. Le verite', c'est moi.

A bit rusty

Obviously I've been away from blogging for too long. I accidentally posted the same entry twice, one without a title. I deleted the superfluous entry but it's still there. I'm confounded. Please bear with me as I get reacquainted with Movabletype.

Inside the Edwards Echo Chamber

As his editorial in the USA Today confirms, John Edwards has been listening to his own voice for so long nothing else penetrates his expensively-coiffed noggin. After the mandatory salute to the US armed forces and a mini-tirade about President Bush’s alleged lies about Iraq, Edwards (channeling John Kerry) proposes a to-do list for the current administration. The problem for Kedwards is they have no original proposals and can only offer a leftist spin on what the president has already accomplished.

John Kerry and I believe that there needs to be an urgent effort right now to increase international support to decrease the burden on our troops.

Maybe we should ask our allies like Britain, Poland, and South Korea! Wait, they are already in Iraq with us. How about Italy, Ukraine and the Netherlands? Oops, already there. Edwards probably trusts Kerry to garner additional support by calling our allies the “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted.” (I’m still waiting for the breakdown of that list, BTW, and am especially interested in which ones are trumped-up as opposed to extorted.)

The president should start by convening a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors this week, while he's in New York at the United Nations.

Does it really have to be proclaimed a “summit” to count? The President has spoken to the U.N. on many occasions, and in fact, he just spoke to them this morning. I suppose it’s only a “summit” when you give freedom-endorsing nations like Sudan some airtime to attack the US policy in the Middle East. And it’s never quite official until some French-speaking personage fusses about the president’s “cowboy” nature. Next suggestion, please.

. . . the president must accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces so that the Iraqi people can take control of their own country.

It would certainly be convenient for the US if the Iraqis could learn this self-security thing a little faster. Horribly inconvenient for Kedwards, though, as it would eliminate their one consistent talking point.

And finally the president needs to take immediate steps to hold promised elections to put Iraq on a path to democracy.

Edwards was apparently too busy pretending to eat lunch at Wendy’s and getting his hair done the day we handed power back to the Iraqi people. And exhibits his complete lack of analytical ability in not realizing the violence in Iraq is increasing precisely because elections are projected for January.

This is what John Kerry and I would do. This is what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have refused to do.

Edwards really has been listening to his own voice for too long and has failed to keep up with his running-mate’s shifting platform. But one can’t blame him too much in that respect, watching Kerry change positions on Iraq is like being drunk on a carousel: everything is spinning so fast you can’t focus and if you try to get off you’ll fall flat on your face.

What really surprises me isn’t Edwards tone-deaf summary of the war but his lack of advocacy skills. Isn’t this the man who produced massive jury awards by channeling the voice of an unborn infant? I guess when you’re channeling John Kerry you just get . . . John Kerry.

Another Asian Intelligence Service Cozies Up To A Kerry Campaign

In what looks to be a case of deja vu, a South Korean consular official has been sent home for getting involved in John Kerry's presidential campaign, raising questions of foreign influence on Kerry's campaign and on the election in general:

A South Korean man who met with John Kerry's fund-raisers to discuss creating a new political group for Korean-Americans was an intelligence agent for his country, raising concerns among some U.S. officials that either he or his government may have tried to influence this fall's election.

South Korean officials and U.S. officials told The Associated Press that Chung Byung-Man, a consular officer in Los Angeles, actually worked for South Korea's National Intelligence Service.

How deeply involved in Kerry's fundraising was Chung? And how did Chung get involved in Kerry's campaign to begin with? American electoral law forbids foreigners from donating money to American candidates, and one would presume that consular officials would be held to an even higher standard. Now that Chung has been identified as an intelligence agent, the Kerry campaign needs to answer questions about how he gained access to their donors -- who introduced him, who benefitted, and how much money changed hands.

This is not the first time Kerry has been associated with Asian intelligence services looking to penetrate his campaigns. As I noted back in February, Kerry met with a woman who turned out to be a Chinese spy after a $10,000 donation to his Senate campaign from Johnny Chung, who later went to prison for illegal campaign funding:

"Who is Colonel Liu?" asked William Triplett, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer and author of two books on Chinese influence in US politics. "She began her military intelligence career with Chinese Navy intelligence. She has been, in succession, assistant to the President of the China National Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation and the China Great Wall Industries Corporation, both of whom have been sanctioned twice -- in 1991 and 1993 -- by the United States for ballistic missiles sales to Pakistan. She later became president of China Aerospace Industrial Holdings Ltd. and she made illegal campaign contributions to the Clinton Gore ticket and John Kerry in 1996.

"She is a communist,” says Triplett; she is a high-tech spy; she is an arms broker and she met Bill Clinton at a fund raiser and John Kerry in his Senate office."

Kerry tried to intercede on Liu's behalf with the SEC but was ultimately unsuccessful. What intercession did Chung seek from Kerry for the support of South Korean intelligence?

Kerry's New Iraq Plan The Same As Bush's: WaPo

John Kerry got a lot of press yesterday for a new policy speech on Iraq which supposedly clarified his myriad positions on the war. Robin Wright reports that the speech was part of a new Democratic effort to push Iraq to the forefront of Kerry's campaign, but as Wright points out, the only thing different between Kerry's plan and Bush's operational strategy already in place is Kerry's faith in those elusive "foreign leaders":

John F. Kerry's four-point plan for Iraq proposes ambitious solutions to accelerate the military transition, refocus reconstruction and ensure that democracy takes root, all while lessening the burden on the United States by bringing in greater foreign aid and support. ...

The premise in all four points is that Kerry will be able to mobilize an international community that has been alienated by President Bush's strategy of preemptive strikes and by U.S. defiance of close allies and the United Nations. "We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all-time low," Kerry said in a feisty speech at New York University. "We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. . . . I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start."

But analysts questioned whether any American leader will be able to mobilize greater international participation, given the current dangers in Iraq and domestic political considerations in countries that have resisted earlier U.S. requests to play a role.

Kerry claims to be able to secure the cooperation and involvement of NATO members currently not part of the coalition. However, Bush has repeatedly tried to involve NATO in Iraq, to little result. Even Kofi Annan scolded UN member nations for not providing support for Iraqi reconstruction after unanimously approving the US/UK occupation and transition of sovereignty. Bush continued this week to cajole NATO just to meet its earlier commitment to provide training to Iraqi army and police units, which NATO has delayed:

But the Bush administration has tried to organize a U.N. protection force for the election staff but found no country willing to contribute, even after pleas from U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Bush's foreign policy team, backed by the new Iraqi interim government, has appealed to allies for troops to either help stabilize Iraq or train its new military, with marginal results. NATO, already stretched thin with missions in Afghanistan and the Balkans, has shown little interest in a major role in Iraq. And former secretary of state James A. Baker III has toured the world appealing for debt relief for Iraq, eliciting pledges to consider partial relief but yielding no tangible results yet.

Kerry claims that he can repair the alliances that Bush supposedly damaged and therefore get more suppport, but that's a seriously flawed misreading of the issues. France, Germany, and Russia -- the three countries that Kerry considers essential to the legitimacy of any coalition -- all traded heavily with Saddam Hussein and profited handsomely from the exchange. Saddam kicked back millions of dollars in oil futures to important politicians in all three countries through UNSCAM, and more ominously continued supplying Saddam with arms in covert defiance of the sanctions on Iraq.

And Kerry continues to consider these countries allies whom we've wronged, rather than the backstabbing, doubledealing snakes they've become. This lack of understanding that the alliance he speaks of had more or less fallen apart when the Berlin Wall fell -- and for France, when Kerry was in Viet Nam -- does not bode well for a president who will be expected to uphold American interests on the global stage.

At any rate, the likelihood of convincing these countries to join in the Iraqi reconstruction when we've put one of their main trading partners in a POW camp and while the free Iraqis hold them in contempt for their part in propping up a genocidal dictatorship is about the same as Kerry's chances of carrying Texas in November. Continuing to base a strategy in Iraq on Old Europe's sudden political sea change is the worst kind of idealism: fantasy.

Bush continues to press for change, but he isn't basing his strategic planning on that long shot. He's moving forward with plans to create free elections and build an Iraqi security force, which our troops in Iraq inform us gets stronger every day. He's certainly not giving deadlines for our withdrawal like John Kerry did yesterday, which is about as foolish as one could get in dealing with terrorists.

Those are our choices: Bush's pragmatism against Kerry's fantasy. In an age of Islamofascist terror, some may prefer the latter, but for our national security, I'll take the former.

This Is What CBS Considers An "Unimpeachable" Source?

USA Today conducted a remarkable interview with the CBS source for the Killiam forgeries, longtime Bush-hater Bill Burkett, which must be read to be disbelieved. Burkett convulses, Burkett claims he's a patsy, Burkett admits to lying to everyone, and in the same breath says he's still talking to "save his name", which by any standard is a ship that's long since sailed.

Burkett agreed to go on the record with USA Today after being outed by CBS as its source, and offered a fantastic explanation of the Killian memos' origin:

Burkett's emotions varied widely in the interviews. One session ended when Burkett suffered a violent seizure and collapsed in his chair. Earlier, he said he was coming forward now to explain what he had done and why to try to salvage his reputation. In the past week, Burkett was named by many news reports as the probable source of the documents.

"It's time," Burkett said. "I'm tired of me being the bad guy. I'm tired of losing everything we've got," a reference to his financial and health struggles since he left the Guard. Turning to his wife, Nicki, he said: "We've lost it all, baby. We've lost everything."

Bear in mind that the last time we heard from Burkett, he claimed to see Bush's Guard records in a facility where they weren't kept. Now he has convulsions, fainting spells, and these melodramatic exchanges with his wife while conducting interviews with USA Today. Keep this in mind later on.

Sitting in a rocking chair in his weathered ranch house south of Baird, Texas, Burkett recounted his continuing efforts — beginning before he was discharged from the Texas Army National Guard in 1998 — to clean up what he saw as Guard corruption and mismanagement. He said that activity led to a telephone call in March from Ramirez and her offer to provide documents damaging to President Bush.

Burkett said Ramirez told him she had seen him the previous month in an appearance on the MSNBC program Hardball, discussing the controversy over whether Bush fulfilled all his obligations for service in the Texas Air Guard during the early 1970s. "There is something I have that I want to make sure gets out," he quoted her as saying. ...

In earlier conversations with USA TODAY, Burkett had identified the source of the documents as George Conn, a former Texas National Guard colleague who works for the U.S. Army in Europe. Burkett now says he made up the story about Conn's involvement to divert attention from himself and the woman he now says provided him with the documents. He told USA TODAY that he also lied to CBS.

What we are seeing is a pattern of lies, one after the other, and lies that don't lend themselves to easy resolution. First, George Conn gives him the memos, and George Conn is conveniently overseas. Next, after that blows up, a mysterious woman named Lucy Ramirez appears out of nowhere to offer documents from Killian's file. Burkett next spins a tale about the document transfer that sounds as if it came from the pages of a Robert Ludlum novel:

Burkett said he arranged to get the documents during a trip to Houston for a livestock show in March. But instead of being met at the show by Ramirez, he was approached by a man who asked for Burkett, handed him an envelope and quickly left, Burkett recounted.

"I didn't even ask any questions," Burkett said. "Should I have? Yes. Maybe I was duped. I never really even considered that." ...

An acquaintance of Burkett, who he said could corroborate his story, said he was at the livestock show on March 3. The woman, who asked that her name not be used, said Burkett asked if he could put papers inside a box she had at the livestock show. Often, she said, friends ask to store papers in her box that verify their purchases at the livestock auction. She said she did not know the nature of the papers Burkett gave her, and he did not say anything about them.

This occured on March 3, the date of the livestock show. Burkett claims that a friend could corroborate this story, and the unnamed friend says that Burkett had given her some papers at the show for her to store. We are supposed to believe that Burkett, an avid Bush-hater who had just made his wild accusations on February 12th, had been handed an envelope full of documents that could have supported his contentions -- and he asked an acquaintance to hold onto them while he did what, check out the cows?

Does that make sense to you?

Wait until you hear Burkett's explanation as to why he doesn't have the originals:

After he received the documents in Houston, Burkett said, he drove home, stopping on the way at a Kinko's shop in Waco to copy the six memos. In the parking lot outside, he said, he burned the ones he had been given and the envelope they were in. Ramirez was worried about leaving forensic evidence on them that might lead back to her, Burkett said, acknowledging that the story sounded fantastic. "This is going to sound like some damn sci-fi movie," he said.

After keeping the copies for a couple of days, he said he drove to a location he would not specify, about 100 miles from his ranch, to put them "in cold storage." Burkett said he took the action because he believed the papers were politically explosive and made him nervous. "I treated them like absolute TNT," he said. "They looked to me like they were devastating."

So now after hitting the Mother Lode in his quest to discredit George Bush, what does this supposedly rational man do? According to his own account, he burns the evidence that will support him. Why does he do that? Because his source wants all forensic evidence to her removed? If that was the case, why would she have handed him the originals to begin with?

Ultimately, Burkett decided to turn over the documents to one of the most persistent journalists, CBS producer Mary Mapes, sometime in August. He and his wife met Mapes and CBS reporter Mike Smith at a pizza restaurant a few miles from their ranch. At first he gave them only two of the six documents, which Mapes said she planned to have analyzed for authenticity, according to Burkett.

So CBS had all six documents and only used four of them? We know, separately from Burkett, that he had six because USA Today ran all six with their story, although this is the first confirmation that CBS had them all. Considering the amateurish nature of the forgeries CBS ran, one has to ask why they held back the other two. If they were so bad as to not pass Mapes' smell test, why would she have published the four she did? Why didn't CBS ask that question before airing the story?

For those of us who have personal experience with this type of person, these signs look appallingly familiar. Burkett starts with a lie (Feb 12 story about file cleansing) that gets debunked. He tries to back his lie up with an escalating series of lies, culminating in the forgeries. He passes them off to CBS and USA Today by claiming a source that's conveniently overseas. When those blow up in his face (in small part because the forgeries use Army lingo, Burkett's branch, instead of Air Force), he then spins tales of a mysterious woman who sends an intermediary to deliver envelopes full of documents but who later insists that he burn the evidence. Her name is conveniently common enough in Texas to thwart any effective checking of her identity, and now he claims to be a "patsy". When challenged, he reacts by becoming ill and making melodramatic statements.

Burkett has all the earmarks of a pathological liar. If you've never dealt with the type, you would be amazed at how adept they are at convincing people of their sincerity. But as they get challenged, they raise the stakes of their lies every time, until people either figure out they're lying or figure that the stories are so fantastic that they can't have been made up.

Burkett can't lie his way out of this. He's either the source of the forgeries himself, or he is still covering up for someone else, someone with more to lose than Burkett. Either the FBI or Texas authorities need to keep the pressure on Burkett to find out the truth behind the smokescreen of Burkett's lies.

UPDATE: Welcome Lucianne readers, and I appreciate the Golden Drawstring Award ...

Kerry's Alston Source Made Clear

Frequent CQ contributor Bandit has uncovered a box of papers at the Naval Archives regarding John Kerry's service during Viet Nam and has started the painstaking task of scanning and analyzing each new document. One new document answers one of the questions that arose during our Alston investigation, which was where Kerry came up with his story about the 29 January engagement in which Alston was seriously wounded. Kerry and Alston had passed himself off as the commander during that battle even though Tedd Peck had commanded PCF-94 on that day and had also been seriously wounded in that battle, one in which Kerry never took part.

Here's what Kerry told a South Carolina veteran's group in May 2002 about his purported service with Alston (who was present and had spoken earlier on the same topic) according to The New Republic:

"He [Alston] sat up in a turret above my head in the pilot house _ firing twin fifty-calibers to suppress enemy fire from ambushes. We were extremely exposed _ always shot at first.... On one occasion in an ambush his turret was riddled with almost one hundred bullets penetrating the aluminum skin. This gunman kept firing even though he was wounded _ one bullet going through his helmet, grazing his head and another hitting his arm...."

Now read the after-action report from the 29 January action, written and transmitted on 30 January:

"...AND TO GMG2 ALSTON WHO STUCK TO HIS .50 CAL HMG UNTIL ALL ENEMY FIRE WAS SUPPRESSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE WAS WOUNDED AND HIS "GU" TUB WAS RIDDLED BY 28 ROUNDS OF SMALL ARMS FIRE." COSDIV 11 TRAFFIC MESSAGE 30JAN69

Apart from a typical Kerry exaggeration of 28 bullets into "almost one hundred", the phrasing sounds quite similar. It looks like Kerry researched Alston's record in order to familiarize himself with the 29 January engagement, which also means that Kerry has his hands on more records than he's released to the public. His conflation of his record with Peck's was no accident; both he and Alston need to answer for their deception.

CBS Coordinated Smear With Kerry Advisor

The news gets worse by the hour for John Kerry as his new campaign advisor, Joe Lockhart, admitted that CBS asked him to contact Bill Burkett regarding the National Guard story:

At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released. ...

Lockhart said [CBS producer Mary] Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

First, let's consider the obvious. We now have CBS personnel pimping their sources to the Kerry campaign in order to do what -- coordinate the smear piece with timely attacks from leading Democrats? If you'll recall, a number of people commented on how quickly Democrats such as Tom Harkin and Terry McAuliffe seemed to get a grasp on the material. Now it appears that Lockhart gave them all a head start ... with a huge assist from CBS.

So now we can consider CBS an adjunct of the Democratic Party. If you think that's hyperbole, can you envision any scenario in which a CBS producer would give a heads-up to Ken Mehlman or Matthew Dowd on a promising oppo source? CBS talks about credibility and independence, but this episode shows clearly that they are nothing more than partisan shills for the Democrats.

For this alone, the entire management staff at CBS News should get the heave-ho, along with Mapes and Rather. Such a level of coordination between a major broadcaster and one political party is unprecedented.

But looking beyond the obvious, the fact that CBS went to Joe Lockhart -- who had just joined the campaign -- is intriguing, in all senses of the word. Lockhart came to Kerry via his long association with the Clintons, part of the new team of advisors that Democrats urged Kerry to invite aboard to re-energize his campaign. Democrats hoped for more of the Clinton magic. Instead, Kerry got the Clinton sleaze, and that may just be the start of it.

Kerry was asked earlier about the Clintonistas joining his campaign, and he laughed off suggestions that they may sabotage his candidacy to ensure a clear field for Hillary in 2008. Lockhart may just be imcompetent, but I'll bet Kerry isn't laughing now. Lockhart calling Burkett may be the stupidest move ever by a senior campaign advisor -- or the stupidest since Sandy Berger stuffed top-secret documents in his jacket and in his socks to sneak them out of the National Archive.

And come to think of it -- Berger's a Clintonista, too ...

UPDATE: Michael Moore tries cheering up the demoralized Kerry supporters, or what's left of them, by reminding them that Kerry has embraced Clinton's team. Talk about being behind the news cycle!

UPDATE II: Kevin at Wizbang -- one of my RNC cohorts -- suggests who Burkett claimed as his source when dealing with CBS. I don't see why that would make for an "unimpeachable" source, but who knows; maybe it does in CBS World.

Kerry's New York Lead Only Five Points

As I reported last Thursday, polling shows a sea change occuring in New York, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by an almost 2-1 advantage. Rassmussen reports that John Kerry's lead in one of the most reliable blue states has dwindled to five points, just outside the margin of error:

John Kerry's lead in New York is down to single digits. The Empire State, among the bluest of the Blue States from Election 2000, is still in the Kerry column for our Electoral College projections, but the raw numbers are stunning.

Confirming findings found in other recent polls, Rasmussen Reports shows John Kerry leading George Bush by merely five percentage points, 49% to 44%. Four years ago, Al Gore defeated Bush to carry New York by a 25 point margin. Our last New York survey found Kerry up by 19 points.

Rassmussen has the race even closer than the Quinnipiac or Marist College polls of last week. Almost a quarter of the Empire State's Democrats now plan to vote Republican, at least for president.

John Kerry may be the only Democrat who could possibly be 21 points less popular than Al Gore in New York, where the Kennedy aura has extended for decades. If Bush continues to draw more New York voters, the Democrats should start preparing to distance their down-ticket candidates from the Kerry catastrophe. One of our own Minnesota Congressmen, Collin Peterson, is out ahead of the curve, quoted in the Grand Forks (SD) Herald as saying that Kerry "is not very popular in my district," and discusses how he plans to campaign around his party's top candidate.

Clearly, Kerry is rapidly becoming less popular in a number of districts.

Caption Contest Winners!

Did anyone know that John Kerry is an exercise fanatic? He's a runner. He runs for the Presidency, he runs away from his Senate record, he runs away from his anti-war activities, he runs in circles on policy ... no wonder the man is a lean, mean, (non)fighting machine!

Gerry from Daly Thoughts guest-judged your entries in this week's Captain's Caption Contest, and boy, did he ever have a tough job -- 195 entries came in, almost a CQ record! After much thought and a few bribes, Gerry has the winners:

Captain's Award (The Perfect Record) - Swede:

And here comes the challenger now, Bob, with a record of no wins, no losses, and one hundred and thirty-seven no decisions.

You Have The Conn #1 (It Explains His Senate Election) - Kenny:

That day, for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run. So I ran to the end of the road. And when I got there, I thought maybe I'd run to the end of town. And when I got there, I thought maybe I'd just run across Plymouth County. And I figured, since I run this far, maybe I'd just run across the great state of Massachusetts. And that's what I did. I ran clear across Massachusetts. For no particular reason I just kept on going. I ran clear to the ocean. And when I got there, I figured, since I'd gone this far, I might as well turn around, just keep on going. When I got to another ocean, I figured, since I'd gone this far, I might as well just turn back, keep right on going. When I got tired, I slept. When I got hungry, I ate. When I had to go... you know... I went.

You Have The Conn #2 (Hi-Yooooh!) -- RightWingDuck:

Welcome to Campaign in Flames. Here's your host.. Joooooooooohn Kerry!

You Have The Conn #3 (What Every Democrat Is Thinking Now) - Noodles:

Hey Monty, I wish I would have picked what was behind curtain #3 instead!

Report To Sick Bay (The European Influence Redux) - Frenchy Bear Paux:

I know my campaign lacks energy, but what the hell was I thinking when I agreed to that "espresso-enema" this morning? ZOOOOOM....

Thanks to everyone who entered, and congratulations to the winners! Remember, here at CQ, everyone's a winner -- just some of us have higher winning percentages than others. Comments on this post will remain open, as usual, in order for the winners to gloat, the others to disparage Gerry's intellect and/or my parentage, and for any other entries submitted just for the sheer enjoyment of amazing your friends and confounding your enemies. And don't forget to check out Gerry's great blog, too!

Send me a photograph or an e-mail with a link to a great picture you think should be the subject of our next Caption Contest, and let me know if you'd like to be the guest judge!

There He Goes Again

John Kerry has done it again -- flip-flopping on the Iraq war and deposing Saddam Hussein.

Flip:

Staking out new ground on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been in the White House, and he accused President Bush of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment. Bush said Kerry was flip-flopping.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," he added. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Bush hit back from a campaign rally in New Hampshire, interpreting Kerry's comment to mean the Democrat believes U.S. security would be better with Saddam still in power. "He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy," the Republican incumbent said.

Flop, August 9:

Speaking in Arizona on Monday, Kerry declared that "even knowing what we now know," he would still have cast his vote in the Senate to authorize the Bush administration to invade Iraq. "I would have voted for the authority," said Kerry. "I believe it was the right authority for the president to have."

Flip (December 16, 2003):

On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Watching Kerry shift positions on Iraq is akin to watching the old Atari game of Pong, and just as mindless.

Volcker Commission Hardly Independent

In response to the mounting evidence that the UN Oil-For-Food Program wound up enriching everyone except the Iraqi people it was meant to feed, the UN reluctantly (and only after much arm-twisting) formed a commision to investigate the corruption that gave Saddam Hussein billions of loose cash. The UN put former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker at the head of the commission and after much debate, the Security Council gave Volcker a mandate which demanded cooperation from all member states.

The Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner and James Phillips, however, remain skeptical of the Volcker Commission's independence and viability, and for good reason. The pair give the first look at the staffing that belies the commission's "independence, while noting that its authority for investigation appears nonexistent:

So far, few details have emerged regarding the Commission’s modus operandi, its staff, or its overall effectiveness. The Commission’s operations are shrouded in secrecy, with little transparency or external oversight. For a commission designed to unearth corruption and malpractice on a huge scale, it is strikingly opaque. Its spartan official website contains little information of value, not even a mailing address. ...

The Commission bears all the hallmarks of a toothless paper tiger, with no subpoena power, and is clearly open to U.N. manipulation. It bears no enforcement authority (such as contempt) to compel compliance with its requests for information and has no authority to discipline or punish any wrongdoing it discovers.

That doesn't build much confidence in Volcker's ability to reach definitive conclusions as to where the money went and who got rich off the backs of the Iraqis. Nor will the commission's hiring practices make anyone more optimistic:

A truly independent inquiry into U.N. corruption should not be staffed by U.N. employees, former U.N. employees, or those with any significant ties to the U.N.

It is therefore surprising to discover that the official spokesman for the Commission, Anna Di Lellio, is a former United Nations official. Moreover, Ms. Di Lellio, who is Director of Communications for Paul Volcker, has publicly expressed contempt for the U.S. president. In an interview with the London newspaper The Guardian on the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Ms. Di Lellio launched into a vicious tirade against the U.S. and Italian governments, implicitly comparing President George W. Bush and key U.S. ally Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to Osama bin Laden:

What I do feel is a sense of powerlessness against the changes which are potentially lethal for our civilization. But I see the major threats coming from ourselves, rather than the east. I find deeply unsettling both the ascendance of George Bush and his puppeteers to the U.S. government, and the mix of self-serving hypocrisy and incompetence prevailing in European governments.

I don’t like it that the two nations whose citizenship I hold, Italy and the U.S., have leased their institutions to a couple of families. With defenders like W and Berlusconi, largely unchecked by a sycophantic media, who needs Bin Laden to destroy culture, personal freedom, respect for other human beings, integrity, and the rule of law—all the things that make our lives worthwhile?

Read all of the Heritage Foundation's report. We need to push Congress to bypass this whitewash commission and continue to investigate on its own, or with the British, about where the billions of dollars wound up. Perhaps Claudia Rosett could offer to lead the investigation for the Anglo-American effort; thus far she's found more in her truly independent investigation than the Volcker Commission is ever likely to report.

CBS Apology Is Not Nearly Good Enough

In two separate statements, CBS and Dan Rather apologized for using documents that they failed to authenticate in their George Bush-TANG investigation:

CBS News said Monday it cannot prove the authenticity of documents used in a 60 Minutes story about President Bush's National Guard service and that airing the story was a "mistake" that CBS regretted. ...

In a statement, CBS said former Texas Guard official Bill Burkett "has acknowledged that he provided the now-disputed documents" and "admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source."

CBS still cannot bring itself to use the word "forgeries," preferring to stick to the less-egregious assertion that they should have worked harder to authenticate the documents before going to air. They now acknowledge that their "unimpeachable" source was lunatic-fringe ranter Bill Burkett, who has a history of unsubstantiated and debunked claims against George Bush and the Texas National Guard. But Andrew Heyward talks about "forensic evidence on both sides of the debate" as if any reputable forensic expert has authenticated the Killian memos.

In other words, CBS can't admit what the entire world already knows -- that the documents were forgeries, and such bad forgeries that if we are to believe that CBS thought for a moment they were genuine, Viacom should initiate vision testing and brain scans for everyone involved.

The Dan also apologized today for fronting this story, but makes no mention of his "personal" assurances of the authenticity of the Killian memos:

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

No one at CBS wants to take responsibility for the debacle which they caused. Specifically, none of the following are mentioned in the various apologies and statements:

* No apology or even mention is given for the repeated "personal" assurances of Rather and Heyward that the documents were genuine. All of a sudden, they speak in the passive voice: "We were misled ..."

* Neither CBS nor Dan Rather apologized for smearing the critics of the documents as "partisan". Neither have acknowledged that the critics were correct, either.

* Neither give an explanation as to why their own experts were ignored when they raised questions about the documents.

* No one has explained why Ben Barnes was used as a source for this story, given Barnes' status as a major Kerry fundraiser and his contradictory public statements on this issue in the past.

* Andrew Heyward, as President of CBS News, has the responsibility to ensure that CBS News employees use proper journalistic practices and research their stories carefully under all circumstances. Heyward has yet to tell how he accomplished this in light of the fiasco that occurred.

* Dan Rather, as managing editor, has the responsibility to ensure that stories are well-researched and accurate prior to publication. Rather gave no explanation, other than claiming to have been "misled", as to how he fulfilled his responsibilities in this case.

In fact, the apologies are nothing more than a "gee, we're sorry" one would expect to hear at a department store when a product failed to perform. This is no faulty toaster; this was a deliberate attempt (at least on Burkett's part) to skew an election through the use of forgeries, and every system that reputable journals use to prevent libel and slander appear to have been deliberately bypassed at CBS News for this story. That's not just lousy journalism; that's fraud.

CBS now promises an independent review, about ten days too late, and has committed to a public release of the findings. But as long as the division president (Heyward), managing editor (Rather), and the producer (Mary Mapes) continue in their positions at CBS, their work will have no credibility whatsoever. CBS must fire Heyward, Rather, and Mapes, and must do so immediately, if it intends on rescuing its credibility.

CQ, Power Line In New York Post

Today's New York Post publishes an op-ed piece written by Power Line's John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson as well as myself on the unanswered questions surrounding John Kerry's Viet Nam narrative. In fact, the Post split the article into two sections -- the data we provided turned out to be so detailed, the Post's editors gave us extra room to fit it all in.

Let me tell you, this represents a personal-best moment for me. Not only did I have the opportunity to work with two of my colleagues and friends from the Northern Alliance, but the experience of working with the supportive and professional editors at the Post made this one of the most pleasant writing experiences of my career. And after working with the great staff at the New York Sun, I can cheerfully tell you that if these gentlemen are any indication, New Yorkers get a bum rap. It's almost enough to make me root for the Yankees. (Almost.)

I hope you enjoy the two articles as much as I have enjoyed sharing the same pages with writers like Deborah Orin and John Podhoretz, whom I understand had something to do with our assignment.

NYT: CBS To Admit The Obvious

According to the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg, CBS management has finally taken the ball away from CBS News and is prepared to admit that the Killian memos were forgeries. They also appear prepared to burn Bill Burkett as their source:

The officials, who asked not to be identified, said CBS News would most likely make an announcement as early as today that it had been deceived about the documents' origins. CBS News has already begun intensive reporting on where they came from, and people at the network said it was now possible that officials would open an internal inquiry into how it moved forward with the report. Officials say they are now beginning to believe the report was too flawed to have gone on the air.

Had CBS News been more interested in reporting the news than creating it, they could have saved themselves long days of agony and the shreds of their credibility by being honest with its viewers ten days ago. Instead, they acted like the worst politicians rather than transparent journalists, circling the wagons around Black Rock and accusing their critics of partisanship. If they have now decided to come clean, then every single person responsible for that reaction ought to get the heave-ho, starting with Andrew Heyward and including the irretrievably ruined Dan Rather.

Why? Take a look at Rutenberg's piece to see how CBS stonewalled and refused to practice responsible journalism, both before and after the fact:

Yesterday, Emily J. Will, a document specialist who inspected the records for CBS News and said last week that she had raised concerns about their authenticity with CBS News producers, confirmed a report in Newsweek that a producer had told her that the source of the documents said they had been obtained anonymously and through the mail. ...

Another expert, Marcel B. Matley, said in interviews that he had vouched only for Colonel Killian's signatures on the records and not the authenticity of the records themselves. Mr. Matley said he could not rule out that the signatures had been cut and pasted from official records pertaining to Colonel Killian. ...

The seemingly unflappable confidence of Mr. Rather and top news division officials in the documents allayed fears within the network and created doubt among some in the news media at large that those specialists were correct. CBS News officials had said they had reason to be certain that the documents indeed had come from the personal file of Colonel Killian.

Sandy Genelius, a network spokeswoman, said last week, "We are confident about the chain of custody; we're confident in how we secured the documents."

CBS ignored their own experts, went opinion-shopping among the least qualified people to render a judgement on the documents, and only this weekend went to talk to the man who supplied the forged memos to them in the first place. Even after all that, CBS continues to hedge its retreat with more innuendo, suggesting that people still take their report seriously despite being entirely sourced by a forger and a leading Democratic fundraiser:

Mr. Rather and others at the network are said to still believe that the sentiment in the memos accurately reflected Mr. Killian's feelings but that the documents' authenticity was now in grave doubt.

If nothing else, this demonstrates the need to clean house at CBS news just on the basis of eliminating stupidity.

The Slogan Drives The Policy

The Los Angeles Times reveals that the Kerry campaign has yet another theme for their campaign, after trying out several along the way, and that the new slogan helps to clarify Kerry's policy positions. Unfortunately, it may be too little, too late:

After months of struggling to find a theme to capture the essence of his candidacy, Sen. John F. Kerry has settled on one: The election, he says, boils down to a decision between four more years of "wrong choices" or a "new direction."

Since Labor Day, the Democratic presidential nominee has stuck to that theme relentlessly, using it to shape arguments on Iraq, the economy and nearly all other topics he broaches.

One problem Kerry has is that his vacillations make it appear that he could provide a whole range of choices on any topic, rather than pick the one in which he believes. On any given day, Kerry can deliver several new directions as well as a representative sample of old ones on Iraq, the economy, gun control, and every other issue on which he speaks.

Besides, a slogan should encapsulate a candidate's firm policy stands. Who builds their beliefs around a slogan? Only John Kerry.

To some Democrats unnerved by President Bush's recent surge in the polls, Kerry's adoption of a clearly defined theme to draw contrasts with the Republican incumbent offers a measure of hope. The question for Kerry is whether this new approach to framing the election comes too late to matter. ...

Earlier attempts by the Massachusetts senator at clarifying his message — among his slogans were "Let America Be America Again" and "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World" — had little effect, analysts say.

"You had a lot of mush," said Tim Hibbitts, an independent Oregon pollster.

No, the question is why Democrats take a "measure of hope" from the fact that John Kerry picked a slogan on Labor Day. It shows how bad this candidate has been that after six months as the nominee, he's still trying to develop a catchphrase for his speeches. Kerry's problem springs from the lack of coherence, which his revolving-door slogans aptly demonstrates. As James Carville might and should put it, "It's not the slogan, stupid."

Kerry had several opportunities to make hard decisions on what policies he would propose and promote, up to the Democratic convention. Instead, he turned that into a Viet Nam festival and almost entirely avoided talking about issues. When he went back on the stump, he continued the same vacillations that bogged him down in the spring and summer, famously saying that he would have voted for military action in Iraq even if he knew there were no WMD -- and then spending the next month backpedaling from it. Even his friend Don Imus went on a search-and-rescue mission for a coherent Kerry policy on Iraq and came up empty.

Perhaps this is the final version of the Kerry slogan; perhaps we'll continue to get the Slogan Of The Month. But the one certainty is that with Kerry, slogans are all we're going to get.

Imagine John Kerry As Mr. Smith, If He Bothered To Show Up

I missed this piece from Carlos Watson at CNN about the possibility of a resurgence by John Kerry in September. Originally posted on Friday, Watson tries to pump some air back in the flagging Kerry campaign with this Inside Edge entry, mostly by giving readers a series of laughable assertions and drawing conclusions so wide of the mark that you wonder what election Watson has been following:

Two weeks ago, Kerry appeared to be politically moribund and any kind of resurgence was beginning to seem unlikely. But the media loves a good fight and has begun to shine a more critical light on the new campaign frontrunner: President Bush.

Oh, yes, the media has completely left George Bush alone for the past nine months. No one has shone a "critical light" on the GOP incumbent, except for all of that screaming at him about his National Guard service, the economy, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and forestfuls of newsprint about neocon conspiracies. That's the problem with the American media -- they're entirely too sunny in handling Republican administrations.

Unless by "critical", Watson means "forging documents in order to create a smear campaign on a pointless topic". If that's the case, he has a point.

It is also common to see Labor Day leads shrink dramatically in presidential races or even disappear. That has happened four times in the last 60 years including in 1948 (Thomas Dewey), 1968 (Richard Nixon), 1976 (Jimmy Carter) and 1980 (Jimmy Carter).

Wow -- it happened four times in 15 elections? That's a 30% chance that a Labor Day lead will shrink or disappear by the election. Not exactly betting with house money on that proposition. And, you'll note, that in two of the four cases the person leading on Labor Day wound up winning anyway (1968 and 1976). That means Kerry faces 13-2 odds on Watson's point alone.

Stop cheering them up, Carlos, before someone hurts themselves!

But the most laughable of all his suggestions comes last, and it's one that makes me suspect that Watson intended this as parody. If so, it's certainly one of the best I've read this year -- and if not, Watson may have jumped the shark and revealed himself as one of the least insightful and knowledgeable big-media analysts working at the moment:

Though he is part of the minority party, a shrewd John Kerry also could use Congress as a helpful political ground. Imagine if he went to the floor (in Jimmy Stewart or Spencer Tracy fashion) to offer a powerfully symbolic piece of legislation -- for example, a balanced budget amendment to highlight the deficit issue or sweeping homeland security and veterans benefit legislation.

Imagine if John Kerry introduced any meaningful legislation, either this year or at any time during his twenty-year Senate career! If he had a legislative track record, he would have run on it, instead of ignoring the last 30 years of his life to run on his four months in Viet Nam. Hell, just imagine if John Kerry showed up for his Senate obligations -- that would be noteworthy in itself for the past two years. Imagine John Kerry attended public hearings for his Senate Intelligence Committee meetings (or even the private ones, where rumor has it that his attendance closely matched his 73% absentee rate for public hearings).

Imagine the Democratic candidate was a completely different man or woman. Democrats may be wishing that already.

Howard Endorses Pre-Emption Despite Kerry's Meddling

Australian Prime Minister John Howard answered the Kerry campaign's meddling in their election by proclaiming a policy of pre-emption, promising overseas strikes on terrorist bases before threats turn into attacks on Australians at home or abroad:

Prime Minister John Howard unveiled a plan for "flying squads" of police to stop terrorist attacks in the region, stressing he would not hesitate to order a pre-emptive strike overseas if needed to protect Australia.

The idea was condemned as "clumsy foreign policy" by opposition leader Mark Latham, who said it would make Australia less safe, rather than more safe.

Howard sounded much like his American ally, George Bush, in declaring that "We will not wait for a terrorist threat to eventuate before we take action." He promised close cooperation with Australia's neighbors but made clear that Australia determines her own national-security policy. He proposed the equivalent of $70 million US to establish "flying squads" of counterterrorist commandos who could act quickly and decisively when threats materialize.

Predictably, the Left in Australia sounded much like the Left here in America -- which is why Diana Kerry acts on orders from her brother John to undermine the Australian alliance. Mark Latham, Howard's opponent, comes up with an insipid moral equivalency:

"Imagine if a country in our region said they were prepared to launch unilateral strikes on targets in Australia, our sovereign territory, without the cooperation and involvement of the Australian government," he said.

"Imagine the outrage in this country. As Australians we would feel absolutely appalled."

Imagine that Australia's government aided and abetted supremacist terror groups that it helped carry out bombings and atrocities against civilian populations -- that's the piece that Latham leaves out. Latham argues for a legal approach with foreign governments that shelter and aid terrorists, a national-security strategy that dooms Australia to failure. The Bush Doctrine has it exactly correct: nations must be held accountable for the activities they allow within their own borders. If they allow terrorists to conduct their business and give then shelter and support, they've already been warned.

So what does Latham propose?

He unveiled his Labor Party's own 373 million dollar defence policy including a review, more troops in northern Australia and a host of benefits for soldiers.

So Labor's idea of fighting terrorism is to put more troops on the northern shore, pay them better, and conduct a "review". Which of those actions are designed to stop terrorists from killing Australians at home or abroad? Perhaps the Islamofascists will prove deathly afraid of reviews, but I believe that Howard's policies will have more of a practical effect on terrorists.

Kerry Campaign Attempts To Destabilize Australian Partnership

In a move that should shock both American and Australian voters, John Kerry's campaign has sent Kerry's sister Diana down under to tell Australians that their American alliance makes them less safe:

John Kerry's campaign has warned Australians that the Howard Government's support for the US in Iraq has made them a bigger target for international terrorists.

Diana Kerry, younger sister of the Democrat presidential candidate, told The Weekend Australian that the Bali bombing and the recent attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta clearly showed the danger to Australians had increased.

"Australia has kept faith with the US and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels," she said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.

Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for Republican George W. Bush, Ms Kerry said: "The most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta -- I would have to say that."

So much for "building alliances"! Kerry has now acted to undermine a critical relationship in the war on terror just to score some electoral points. A failure on John Howard's part to be re-elected would certainly give Kerry ammunition to attack George Bush on his standing overseas. However, with Howard running ahead of the pack in Australia, Kerry sent his little sister to attempt to influence the Australian election -- which, if reversed, would have Americans screaming bloody murder.

Besides, it's a ludicrous charge. The al-Qaeda Bali bombing that killed more than 200 people, mostly Australians, came in October 2002, well before the invasion of Iraq. Diana Kerry isn't competent enough to read a calendar; Australians are smarter than that.

Does John Kerry care more about grabbing power than he does about the United States? It certainly appears that way. Who gave the order for Diana Kerry to interfere with the Australian election? Who told her to act in a manner that is calculated to undermine the American-Australian partnership on the terror war? Frankly, not only should this disqualify him for the presidency, it should disqualify anyone involved in his campaign from ever holding public office. Those who condone this interference in a wartime alliance must be punished at the polls, and their party as a whole should be blocked from any power whatsoever until they atone for their actions.

This effort makes clear that John Kerry does not understand, or care, about the dangers facing the US and the democracies in the 21st century. His personal ambitions trump national security -- a disgusting and craven quality that will repulse Americans in November. It appears to be the only consistent theme in Kerry's public life, from his fraudulent 1971 Senate testimony all the way to his serial vacillations on the war on terror during this campaign.

Australians should also take note of the desperation and the greed for power on the left. If you believe that Islamofascists never targeted Australians or the West before the invasion of Iraq, then you should heed Diana Kerry's provocations. Those Australians who are literate and have memories that go back beyond last month will come to different conclusions.

Egypt Legitimizes Hamas

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal paid a surprise visit to Egypt and was received by the Egyptian chief of intelligence today, the AP reports:

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who's kept a low profile since last month's twin suicide bombing in southern Israel, made a surprise visit to Egypt on Sunday, holding talks with Egypt's intelligence chief about an anticipated Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Mashaal has remained largely out of sight since Israel threatened to target Palestinian militant leaders after the Aug. 31 suicide bombings in Beersheba, Israel, that killed 16 Israelis. Hamas claimed responsibility on Sept. 2, the last day Mashaal appeared in public.

Egypt has been trying without success for more than a year to arrange a dialogue among Palestinian factions to explore calling a ceasefire in attacks against Israel alongside the planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. But Mohammed Nazal, a Syria-based Hamas official accompanying Mashaal, denied the Hamas visit would include discussions about a cease-fire.

Egypt has diplomatic relations and a peace accord with Israel, and supports the establishment of the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate government of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Egypt also has pledged support for the war on terror. So why is Egypt allowing public meetings between its officials and the leaders of a group that conducts terrorist bombings and has pledged to push out Yasser Arafat in the Gaza Strip?

It is precisely this kind of legitimization -- just three weeks after two Hamas operations that killed 16 Israeli civilians -- that keeps the terrorist movements going. This calls Egyptian efforts and alliances into complete question and points to a continuing source of anti-Western hatred in the region. While Egypt claims to be assisting us against Islamofascist terrorism, it continues to support the same groups, publicly and openly; what kind of intelligence can we expect to get from the Egyptians now?

Rather Contacted Burkett, Offered Solidarity: Newsweek

In an intriguing detail to the Killian forgeries, Newsweek reports today that Dan Rather called Bill Burkett offering his continued support the day after CBS ran the discredited story on George Bush's TANG service:

Three days before the broadcast, Burkett e-mailed a friend that there was "a real heavy situation regarding Bush's records" about to break. "He was having a lot of fun with this," said the friend, Dennis Adams. Burkett told a visitor that after the story ran, Rather phoned him and expressed his and the network's "full support."

Newsweek's source is the friend, of course, and that's based on the oddball testimony of Burkett himself. Burkett's mention of the conversation preceded his outing as a suspect in the forgeries, however, and at least confirms that Burkett sees himself as a primary source for the CBS story. Burkett claims now that someone has killed his dog since he became the the focus of the story, and threatened his wife with rape. No word from Newsweek whether they've confirmed that with local police.

It comes as no surprise that CBS News employees have begun to despair at the damage done to their credibility over the Killian forgeries and the obstinacy of the 60 Minutes crew in denying their culpability:

CBS insiders are increasingly worried that the credibility of the network's news division has been grievously damaged by anchor Dan Rather's persistent defense of a story which relied on questionable documents about George W. Bush's National Guard service. "This has clearly hurt us," one veteran correspondent told NEWSWEEK. Network sources describe finger-pointing within the news division, with concerns greatest among "60 Minutes" producers, who fear the issue has tainted their entire program. While CBS News president Andrew Heyward has publicly backed Rather, the network has quietly assembled a team of additional producers to work the case.

It sounds like CBS may have overruled Rather and begun a quiet internal investigation into the fiasco. Perhaps they could start with the Washington Post's front-page story today. In the meantime, if they want to retain any credibility whatsoever, someone should tell CBS to put a cork in their whining that the forgeries have "distracted attention from legitimate questions about Bush's Guard service." When a media outlet falsifies a story, they cannot expect anyone to take it seriously -- and if they do expect that, then no one will take them seriously anymore.

Whiskey Who?

Hey ya'll, I'm home! What, you don't remember me? Captain Ed's long-lost partner who's been wandering throughout Asia for the last few months . . . I guess you forgot about me. Oh well. I'm back and now blogging from somewhere in Texas. No, it's not the Abilene Kinko’s! (OK, it could be the Abilene Kinko’s, but I'm not at liberty to say.)

I have a daunting list of move-in tasks to finish this week but plan to get back to regular blogging ASAP. Today's agenda: a Lowe’s-inspired project to make more room in the kitchen via multiple wire thingies. I have a pot of coffee, my trusty tool kit, and a borrowed drill which I'll admit I have never used. Hmm . . . this is going to be interesting!

Is CBS Setting Up Mapes As The Scapegoat?

As the preponderance of evidence in the Killian forgeries turns into a tsunami that threatens to overwhelm CBS news, the Washington Post reports on the string of events that led to the publication of the forgeries. It looks like the hunt is on for the scapegoat. In fact, one of the people that CBS attempts to hold responsible demonstrates their desperation:

In the early-morning hours of Sept. 8, Dan Rather was preparing to fly to Washington for a crucial interview in the Old Executive Office Building, but torrential rain kept him in New York.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett had agreed to talk to "60 Minutes," but only on condition that the CBS program provide copies of what were being billed as newly unearthed memos indicating that President Bush had received preferential treatment in the National Guard. The papers were hand-delivered at 7:45 a.m. CBS correspondent John Roberts, filling in for Rather, sat down with Bartlett at 11:15.

Half an hour later, Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos.

At that point, said "60 Minutes" executive Josh Howard, "we completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents. Obviously, looking back on it, that was a mistake. We stopped questioning ourselves. I suppose you could say we let our guard down."

This is pathetic. What Josh Howard is saying, essentially, is that the entire episode is Dan Bartlett's fault for not doing the legwork that CBS should have done up front before running with the story. Since when do reputable journalists assign verification to the targets of their stories? After spending five years looking for dirt on George Bush's TANG service -- more on that later -- once they found something, they want us to believe that it was sufficient for authentication to hand the document to a press secretary and give him three hours to review it. And if he'd said that the memos looked suspicious, what would CBS have done -- shelved the story?

Once the Post gets by that half-assed attempt to pass the buck to the White House, they get into the meat of the process CBS used to perpetrate a smear during an election, something that the FEC and the FCC should investigate soon. The story, according to CBS sources, begins with one woman on a mission: producer Mary Mapes.

Mapes "had been trying to get her hands on the rumored documents for five years", since George Bush entered the presidential race for 2000. Why had Mapes been trying so hard with this story? It had fizzled in 2000, and the one person who had ever given any testimony to the "cover-up" meme was Bill Burkett, whose testimony had been debunked when it came out that the TANG records had not been stored where Burkett said he saw them being "cleansed".

None of this slowed Mapes down. In an interesting juxtaposition of dates, Ben Barnes told Mapes he would go on-air with his claims of using personal influence to get Bush into the TANG. Mapes jumped at the offer, despite Barnes' earlier false claims that he was the Lt. Governor of Texas when he had made the calls (he was a state legislator, which hardly gave him much juice with the National Guard). Mapes also conveniently forgot about Barnes' status as one of the top five contributors to the Democrats and the Kerry campaign, a status that generated a CBS News report on influence peddling three months earlier.

Mapes got the documents on September 3rd. How does that fit in with the Burkett timeline? On August 21, he writes an e-mail saying that he gave the information he had to the Democrats. On August 25, he publishes an op-ed piece saying that "we have reassembled the files" of Bush's service that he claimed were destroyed. By the weekend of 9/3, Burkett said he had advance information on an upcoming CBS story.

So, according to CBS sources, after five years Mapes finally had two sources to run the story -- a well-known and discredited crank and one of Kerry's biggest financial backers. CBS left this information out of their report, of course, and as it turns out, Mapes also ignored all of the experts she sought out to authenticate the physical evidence.

Emily Will of North Carolina, one of the experts CBS had asked to examine the memos, sent Mapes an e-mail outlining her concerns over discrepancies in Killian's signature. She also phoned CBS and raised more questions about whether the typography in the memos existed in 1972 and differences with other military documents. "They looked like trouble to me," Will said.

Linda James, a document examiner who lives near Mapes, was raising similar questions. The two memos she looked at "had problems," James recalled telling CBS, and she could not rule out that they had been "produced on a computer."

Document analyst Marcel Matley flew from California to New York, and Rather interviewed him on Labor Day, Sept. 6 -- footage that would end up on the cutting-room floor. But Matley limited his examination to Killian's signature, which he believed was probably valid, but not certain -- the lowest endorsement he offers. Because the memos were copies, Matley said in a recent interview, "there's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them. . . . I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."

Once the story began rolling downhill and picking up speed, CBS frantically looked for experts anywhere they could find them. Richard Katz only tried to prove that the memos could not have been created in Microsoft Word, a useless exercise, since Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs already had proved it could have been and almost certainly was. Katz made it clear he wasn't a document examiner, as did the other "expert" CBS called upon to save its bacon, Bill Glennon.

Why didn't CBS consult true document experts? Because most of them were being hired by websites like INDC Journal and CBS' competitors in the mainstream media, and all of them said the same thing: forgeries. The fact that Mapes and CBS did not even attempt to hire anyone certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners is not only inexcusable but offers compelling circumstantial evidence that they knew the documents could not pass a rigorous examination.

In other words, they knew they had forgeries on their hands.

The Post does excellent work in teasing out all of the backroom finagling that dropped this hoax on the American electorate. But have they really gotten the entire story? Not yet.

For one thing, Mapes may be the producer at the center of the shenanigans, but she's not the managing editor of CBS News; that's Dan Rather. Rather's name is almost completely missing from this story. Mapes did not appear before the cameras in the aftermath of this debacle; Dan Rather did, and "personally" vouched for the authenticity of the documents. Either Rather knew the source, or he lied. If Rather knew the source, and the documents are forgeries, then Rather as managing editor should be held responsible. If he lied, then his credibility is shot -- and he should be held responsible.

None of the Post's CBS sources seem interested in pointing that out. It appears to me that Mapes is being groomed for the swift kick in the ass out the door as a way to mollify critics, and especially the affiliates, who have begun their rebellion this week. Mapes deserves to get canned over this hoax, without a doubt, but Mapes isn't responsible for enforcing standard journalistic procedures to verify evidence -- again, that belongs to the managing editor. That responsibility belongs to the man who has repeatedly tried to head off criticism of the report by shielding it with his own personal credibility.

Fire Mapes, certainly, but Dan Rather should be right behind her to turn in his credentials at the security office.

Swing-State Polling: Bush Holds Onto 2000 States

The Philadelphia Inquirer reviews the latest polling from the battleground states and determines that George Bush leads in all of the red states from 2000, making Kerry's chances at winning almost non-existent (via the revamped QandO):

President Bush has pulled ahead of John Kerry in six closely contested swing states that he carried in 2000, shifting the electoral landscape rightward and making it more difficult for challenger Kerry to win the White House, according to a new poll conducted by MSNBC and Knight Ridder, The Inquirer's parent company.

Bush leads in six of the seven battleground states that he won four years ago and that were considered among the most competitive this year. He leads Kerry in Arizona by 50 percent to 39 percent; in Missouri 48-41; in Nevada 50-45; in New Hampshire 49-40; in Ohio 49-42; and in West Virginia 45-44.

A seventh swing state from the Bush column, Florida, could not be surveyed accurately last week because of the disruption caused by three hurricanes.

Steven Thomma reports that both Republican and Democratic analysts consider these seven states to be the most vulnerable for Bush, and that Bush's strong showing puts Kerry in a tight spot. Bush already has gained seven electoral seats since 2000 due to reapportionment, and Kerry has to take states away from Bush in order to win.

Unfortunately, the only close race in these states is West Virginia at the moment, where the Inquirer reports that Bush has a one-point lead, making the state a dead heat. Real Clear Politics has two recent polls showing Bush leading by an average of 5 points, but one of them is the unreliable Zogby poll. West Virginia has a strong union tradition, and Kerry has a slight edge on the economy among voters there -- the only battleground state where that is true. But in the end, West Virginia represents 5 electoral votes, which doesn't even make up the reapportionment gain Bush has for this election.

The Inquirer takes a pass on assessing Florida because of the difficulties in analyzing poll results during the storm season. However, RCP does have poll results for Florida from seven separate surveys starting in mid-August. Bush led in five of the polls, tied one, and Kerry had a 0.3% lead in the other -- the Zogby poll. RCP averaging puts Bush slightly ahead in Florida.

These battleground states alone indicate that Kerry's campaign is running out of time, perhaps especially so in Ohio, which the Democrats thought they'd convert. Kerry now trails among Buckeyes well past the marging of error, in most polls by seven or more points. (One has Bush up by 12.) But the blue swing states show even more problems for Kerry, as he cannot afford to lose a single one if he wants to win.

Pennsylvania may be the biggest problem Kerry faces. Pennsylvania went for Gore in 2000, but three of four polls since August puts the state in Bush's camp, along with its 21 electoral votes. Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes, barely went Gore in 2000 and now looks to be moving strongly towards Bush, with Gallup and Strategic Vision both putting him ahead beyond the margin of error. Even New Jersey (15 EV), a walkover for Gore in 2000, has gone to almost dead even, and one recent poll actually puts Bush ahead in this former Democratic stronghold.

These results show the Democrats the extent of the disaster that awauts them, and Kerry seems oblivious to the issues, literally and electorally. He and the Democrats promise more attacks on the President, when all indicators from national polling shows that voters want Kerry to indentify himself and the policies for which he stands. Kerry makes the mistake that all narcissists make when challenged -- they lash out with character attacks rather than maintain equilibrium and a proactive strategy.

Democrats like Terry McAuliffe and John Kerry have been calling Bush a deserter since February, and yet Bush maintains a professional and engaging strategy on the stump, challenging his opponent only on policy and his Senate record. As Kerry sinks further and further, he grasps at the reeds of personal attacks on Bush, hoping to pull himself up. That only works among the Bush-hating committed base. To everyone else, it reeks of panic and desperation, two qualities that no one likes in a Commander in Chief, especially during wartime. The battleground voters have discovered these problems in Kerry's character, and no amount of Guard bashing will reverse the trend.