Dayton Response "Ridiculous", "Paranoid": DC Politicians

The fallout of Mark Dayton's decision to close his offices in Washington DC due to unspecified threats continues, generating ridicule from both sides of the aisle and embarassment for Minnesotans. The Washington Post reported on Thursday that local DC reaction fluctuated from fury to concern over Dayton's psychological fitness:

The surprising response by the freshman senator from Minnesota to the latest in a series of warnings prompted ridicule and a flurry of angry reactions yesterday. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said Dayton's decision was "ill-informed." Minnesota's senior senator, Norm Coleman (R), called Dayton reckless. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) compared him to the boy who cried wolf. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle whispered "paranoid." ...

Dayton's reaction to the extreme possibility was ridiculous, D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said.

"It's not based on any credible information that's come in. Nobody knows why he is doing what he is doing," Ramsey said. "It doesn't take a brain surgeon to think that the White House and the Capitol are targets. But there is no credible information about planned attacks -- nothing to set off the reaction we saw." ...

"He's damaged us. He's unnecessarily panicked people across the United States," said Norton, who has often questioned the federal government's security moves in the capital. "Now we have a member of Congress who steps out and says, 'I'm going to tell you something the rest of Congress won't tell you.' That's unfair to the entire security network that is in constant communication about this place."

Mark Dayton has been a continuous embarassment to Minnesotans, especially after his lecture to Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers about how to conduct a war. Now he's trying to tell everyone how to conduct security in the same hysterical manner. Maybe we need to look into recall options, if our Senator insists on abandoning his post and humiliating his constituents in this manner.

Zogby Daily Tracking Poll Still Has Bush Ahead By Four

After yesterday's interesting Zogby poll results showing a post-debate Bush bounce, I was curious as to whether that would prove anomalous, a one-day polling outlier from a pollster known for such results. So far, however, their polling shows Bush maintaining his four-point lead over Kerry, demonstrating that the final debate damaged Kerry despite the pundit spin afterwards:

Three days after the final presidential debate, President Bush retains his four-point lead over Senator John Kerry, according to a new Reuters/Zogby daily tracking poll. The telephone poll of 1211 likely voters was conducted from Wednesday through Friday (October 13-15, 2004). The margin of error is +/- 2.9 percentage points.

Pollster John Zogby: “Bush led by 4 today [Oct. 15th] -- the first full day sample after the debate. Kerry gets 81% of support among Democrats while Bush gets 14%, but Bush gets 92% among Republican to Kerry's 5%-- and, of course, the two are tied among Independents and also Catholics."

Today's tracking comprises an average of polling results from three days, two of which now are post-debate but mostly pre-Mary Cheney fallout. While the Kerry campaign tries to play defense regarding Kerry's debate remarks and Elizabeth Edwards' post-debate "shame" comment, the polls likely will wind up moving even farther towards Bush.

Explaining Why We Fight To Our Children, Part II

This is Part II in a continuing series by my friend "Mike", a Navy SEAL who spent most of the last couple of years in Iraq as both an active-duty participant and a private contractor. "Mike" explains the war in Iraq to his young sons, and has graciously allowed me to share his letters with you. "Mike" will appear on the Northern Alliance Radio Network today to discuss his experiences and the situation in Iraq. The show starts at noon CT.

IRAQ PICTURE LETTER TO MY SON
PART 2. THE EVIL RULER OF IRAQ

Do you know the name of the bad man who ruled Iraq until last year? The US Army just captured him on December 13, 2003, and he is going on trial in a few weeks.

That’s right, his name is Saddam Hussein. He put his face on all of the paper money in Iraq which they call ‘Dinar.’ Saddam Hussein had trillions of Dinar, which he got by taking money from what little his people earned (taxes) and by illegally selling oil and other things. He spent huge amounts of the money in Iraq to build palaces for himself. Germany helped Saddam build more than 400 palaces and more than 70 of them were called ‘Presidential’ Palaces just for him.

Many of palaces are now on military bases. Daddy travels to some of them to pick up mail and supplies depending on where he is working. Here are just a few of the palaces:

While Saddam and his family were living in palaces, most other Iraqis lived in poverty. Poverty means they didn’t have enough money to eat healthy food or live in a safe house.
For example teachers made less than $3.00 a month (in Dinar) when Saddam was in power. Now Iraq teachers make several hundred dollars per month and it is getting better and better.

Saddam Hussein was very cruel to his people and his son Qusay was even more evil and cruel to the people in Iraq. They tortured and murdered many thousands of Iraqis.

There is a prison in Iraq called Abu Ghraib which is still in use today. Iraqis who were sent to that prison have suffered some bad things. The prisoners we keep there now are treated in an extremely fair way, even if they are accused of really bad things. But when Saddam Hussein was in power he ordered the torture and killing of many people even if they were good.

This man was cut deeply many times while he was tied up and nearly died at Abu Ghraib:

This man said he was burned at Abu Ghraib and also came close to death.

These men were the lucky ones. Many worse things happened at Abu Ghraib and other places in Iraq, even to women and children. But we don’t need to talk about or see such things until you are much older. We should be very thankful that we were born in the USA.

Now you will learn about some of the things Daddy discovered about the evil plans this crazy man Saddam Hussein had for the world outside Iraq.

Do you remember when I wrote the picture letter to your class about the ruins of the ancient City of Babylon and the new Babylon built by Saddam Hussein? Look on the map of Iraq and see if you can find it again and see what famous river runs through it. That’s right, it is the Euphrates River, one of the oldest in the World.

Almost 3000 years ago Babylon was the capitol of an ancient civilization called Babylonia. When you study history and read the Bible you will learn about a famous Babylonian ruler with a hard name to pronounce. Can you say ‘Nebuchadnezzar’?

Well Saddam Hussein restored the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar for a very symbolic reason. Saddam Hussein told some Iraqi people and other Arabs who came to visit that he was actually the re-incarnation of Nebuchadnezzar which means he is the same person born again (which of course is impossible).

Daddy saw this stone carving at the Presidential Palace in Babylon. Saddam’s face is in the middle and behind him his supposed to be his old self, King Nebuchadnezzar.

Do you know why Saddam would want certain Arab people to believe something crazy like he is the re-incarnation of Nebuchadnezzar? It is because he bragged to people that he would do the same things that the real King Nebuchadnezzar did again in our time.

You see the real Nebuchadnezzar conquered many neighboring lands and one of them was the nation of Israel which is the homeland of the Jewish people. Many years before the time of Christ, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, claimed the land for Babylonia, killed many Jews and forced the rest of them to leave.

70 years later the Jewish people came back to Israel after the fall of Babylonia. But they didn’t stay very long because they were again forced to leave their homeland by people called Persians. After more than 2,000 years of exile, the Jewish people were given their homeland back. Israel became a nation again right after World War II which was the war that your Grandpa fought in. Some people want to take the Land of Israel away from the Jews again. Saddam Hussein was one who boasted to others about doing this.

Daddy saw many things in Iraq that confirmed Saddam Hussein’s intentions to conquer other people especially Jewish people. Look at this chair that this American solider is sitting on which we found in Al Faw Palace in Baghdad. Coalition soldiers, who help us, like to get their picture taken sitting on this chair too. Even Daddy got his picture taken there. But that was before he learned about the writing on it.


You see, under Saddam Hussein, only people who wanted to hurt Jewish people would sit in the chair. Do you see the large Arabic letters on the back? Across the top it says, “Victory from Allah and soon we will again conquer Jerusalem.” And on both sides, up and down, it says, “Jerusalem is ours.”

There is another thing that Saddam Hussein copied from Nebuchadnezzar. On almost every brick from the original Palace of Nebuchadnezzar one could find his name engraved. Well, Saddam Hussein made sure to leave his initials on places in every palace that he made as well. Saddam also had many statues made of himself in Babylonian dress like Nebuchadnezzar. And he challenged his military to be brave warriors and be ready to die for him, which many did.

But when we finally caught Saddam Hussein he wasn’t very brave. He was found hiding in a hole with a loaded gun and he begged for mercy.

Because our country believes in justice, even for suspected criminals, he was not shot to death. Instead he was arrested and will stand trial for his crimes in front of the Free people of Iraq.

Saddam's Lawyer Met With Osama In Baghdad: MEMRI

The Arab news translation service MEMRI reports in a breaking-news crawl that Osama bin Laden met with Saddam's Italian attorney in the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in 1998:

Saddam's Italian attorney Giovanni de Stafano told a London-based daily that a meeting was held between himself and Osama bin Laden at the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in 1998. (al-Sharq al-Awsat)

Big hat tip to Kevin McCullough. I have yet to find an English-language link to al-Sharq, even though it's based in London, nor have I seen this break anywhere else in the English-language media. Needless to say, if this report pans out, it puts a completely new light on our efforts to depose Saddam -- not so much for those of us who understand the strategic necessity of removing Saddam, but for those who can only think tactically.

More to come ...

Le Museé, C'est Moi

The French president, Jacques Chirac, has a museum showcasing all of the gifts given to him by foreign dignitaries, an odd form of official showiness that usually is associated with dictators and other narcissists. Having his own museum seems like a perfect reflection of the man who has decided to make himself and France the center of anti-American global expression. Unfortunately for Chirac, his museum also perfectly reflects French economics:

A state-funded museum built to display gifts showered on President Jacques Chirac by foreign dignitaries has gone almost three times over budget and is steadily losing money as admission figures slump.

Inspectors from the regional audit office in the Corrèze, south-western France, found that the museum, opened in 2000, cost almost £5 million to build and lost more than £400,000 in a single year.

Most Western heads of state wait until their retirement to open their libraries; countries usually wait until their leaders pass away to build monuments to their memory. Chirac's ego appears to need constant feeding, however. One wonders how long it will be before 20-metre-high statues of Chirac begin appearing on the Champs-Elyseé. This case literally shows that Chirac's ego is writing checks that the French president can't cash.

Al-Qaeda Focusing On Pakistan

Analysts have determined that al-Qaeda has shifted its focus from American targets to Pakistan instead, trying to destabilize what it sees as the weak link in the coalition to stomp out Islamofascist terror:

Diplomats and other analysts believe al Qaeda cells are using Pakistan as a key battleground in its broader war against the United States and are exploiting long-standing enmity between Sunni and Shi'ite extremists to further this aim.

They say the government's failure to crack down on groups it has used for years as tools of policy in the divided Kashmir region and in Afghanistan has played into al Qaeda's hands. ...

In the past month, Pakistan has been rocked by a fresh wave of bombings of majority Sunni and minority Shi'ite Muslim gatherings that have killed nearly 80 people. It has also seen its ties with its closest ally China tested by the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan in which one of the foreign hostages died.

Having failed twice to kill Musharraf directly, AQ now wants to create a breakdown in Pakistani discipline severe enough to either force Musharraf out of the war for his own survival, or cause a popular uprising to a civil war that will remove him from power. At the very least, the string of bombings and terror attacks will keep Musharraf from democratization, a stated goal for which he has shown little enthusiasm anyway. So far, the attacks have been as strategically successful as their assassination attempts were tactically, but that will surely change if the attacks continue and especially if they inflame Shi'ite-Sunni divisions, as intended.

However, as the article reminds us, Musharraf deserves a lot of the blame for this himself. The same groups that have answered AQ's call worked for Musharraf in Kashmir against India, conducting terror operations in order to convince India to pull out. His own Islamofascist tools have turned in his grip, and yet he still has not tossed them aside completely:

After Musharraf joined the U.S.-led war on terror he announced a ban on several militant groups, but some simply began working openly under new names, while others went underground. The government has also failed to follow through on its vow to reform Islamic schools that are militant recruiting grounds.

Diplomats say the government appears reluctant to act because it feels it still needs the militants for their original purpose -- to advance policy aims, particularly against nuclear-armed rival India in the divided Himalayan state of Kashmir.

Pakistan rejects Indian charges that it has continued to assist guerrillas conducting a bloody war in Kashmir, but diplomats say that, even if it had stopped doing so, it did not yet feel ready to cut the militants completely adrift.

In the meantime, seeing Musharraf's peace moves with India and role in the war on terror as a threat to their existence, the militants have been doing all they can to end his rule.

Musharraf wants to eat his cake and have it, too. He still has not learned the lesson that the US wants to teach rogue nations in this war: legitimate governments must cease using terror groups as proxies to fight wars, or else they cease being legitimate governments. Ironically, the terrorists will wind up delivering that lesson to Pervez Musharraf in a way that cannot be ignored.

WaPo Shows Widespread Disapproval Of Kerry's Mary Cheney Reference

As part of their daily tracking poll, the Washington Post added a question about John Kerry's controversial reference to Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter, in a question about homosexuality. The Post reports that likely voters overwhelmingly disapproved, even the morning after the debate, before the controversey broke out to the mainstream press:

An overwhelming majority of voters believe it was wrong for Democratic nominee John F. Kerry to have mentioned in Wednesday's presidential debate that Vice President Cheney's daughter was a lesbian, according to the latest Washington Post tracking survey.

Nearly two in three likely voters -- 64 percent -- said Kerry's comment was "inappropriate," including more than four in 10 of his own supporters and half of all swing voters. A third -- 33 percent -- thought the remark was appropriate.

Even more inappropriate was the comment by John Edwards' wife, who said she felt that the Cheneys were ashamed of their daughter, but the Post didn't ask that question. If these numbers hold up, especially among swing voters and his own supporters, Kerry did tremendous damage to his momentum with this stupid and superfluous remark.

Hugh Hewitt is holding a symposium on this topic at his website this weekend, and many bloggers have responded to his call already. My beef with Kerry's reference is that he has no standing to use Mary Cheney as an object for his own political purposes. Who is Mary Cheney to Kerry -- a friend? a colleague? a family member? No. Mary Cheney is a complete stranger to John Kerry, and even more of a stranger to the Edwardses. To arrogate her to their argument reeks of Kerry's self-serving nature, and he has earned the embarassment this will surely bring.

Expect this to dominate the weekend political news, kneecapping what the Kerry/Edwards campaign hoped to use as a launch towards Election Day. I told you that Kerry lost that debate; this shows how badly he blew it.

Explaining Why We Fight To Our Children, Part I

The First Mate and I have a friend who has served in Special Forces for over 30 years. The FM has known "Mike" since before he enlisted, and I've been fortunate and honored enough to be a friend to him and his family for over 10 years. "Mike" has served his country in many conflicts, starting with Viet Nam right up to the current conflict in Iraq. I posted a letter from Mike in April, when he worked as a security contractor in Iraq and just after the butchering of four of his colleagues in Fallujah.

Mike has returned from his service in Iraq in the last few weeks and has spent some time catching up with his family. He wrote a moving series of letters to his sons, explaining our involvement in terms his young children could understand. For security reasons, I have removed any references which could identify Mike, and he has blocked out any identifying features in photographs that I will post. I plan on posting Mike's letters in sections over the weekend and into next week. Please keep checking back as I add them to the blog.

I will also be interviewing Mike about his experiences on the Northern Alliance Radio Network show this Saturday, which starts at noon CT. I hope to post more extensive interviews with Mike over the nest couple of weeks.

IRAQ PICTURE LETTER TO MY SON
PART 1 – TERRORISM & RELIGION

Do you know what a terrorist is?

A terrorist is a bad person who deliberately kills good people who have no way of defending themselves. They often try to kill as many people as possible to scare other people into letting them have what they want. The terrorists we are facing today want to destroy our country and take away the freedoms we have. They want to destroy the government of other free countries too, especially Israel. These are two of the main leaders of Terrorism today:

The demons you see above tell other terrorists to spread hatred for America because we represent Freedom and we help people in other countries that also love freedom.

When terrorists do bad things it makes the Devil happy and God sad. But the terrorists today are especially evil because they are actually saying that God TOLD them to do very bad things like fly jet airplanes into the Trade Towers in New York or cause the train wreck in Spain or kidnap and kill innocent people who are trying to help re-build Iraq.

Most of the terrorists refer to God as “Allah” because they claim to believe in a religion called “Islam.” In the Arabic language “Allah” simply means “God” and Islam means “Peace.” Arabic is the universal language in Iraq and other countries that Mommy will show you on the map of Arabia.

Most of the Arabian people believe in the Islam religion. Some people in other countries also believe in Islam, even some in our own country. People who believe in Islam are called ‘Muslims’ and most Muslims are peaceful people and not terrorists.

Daddy works with many Muslims from the cities and countryside of Iraq. True Muslims believe in the first 5 Books of our Holy Bible that were written by Moses pretty much the way we Christians do.
But they also believe in another book called the ‘Noble Qur’an.’ Most Americans pronounce the name of the Muslim book as ‘Koran.’ Daddy has read many parts of the Qur’an (and some Muslim friends have read the New Testament in Daddy’s Bible). Although the Qur’an does not say very nice things about Jewish people, it does not instruct Muslims to kill except in self-defense. In fact the Qur’an states that killing someone who is not a killer is “like killing all of mankind.”

The Muslims that Daddy works with say that the terrorists are committing crimes against their own religion and that Allah (God) will punish them after they die. We are encouraging Muslims everywhere to be bold in condemning terrorism so everyone can be safe and free to practice their religion as they understand it. Unfortunately in Iraq, they have to be very careful about saying such things around certain other Muslims because the terrorists might find out and punish them or kill them in their homes.

Daddy has worked in many countries and lived with people from other religions that believe many different things about God. None of them say it is alright to kill unless you are defending yourself or someone else.

God loves all people. He never wants us to deliberately kill the innocent people He created.

Three Out Of Four Military Families Choose Bush

A new Annenberg survey reveals that active-duty military members and their families prefer George Bush over John Kerry despite the Kerry/Edwards accusations of back-door drafts and poor administration of military resources, by a 3-1 margin:

When asked who they would trust as commander in chief, people in military service and their families chose President Bush over Sen. John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, by almost a 3-to-1 margin.

Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was more trusted by 69 percent while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday. ...

A majority in the military sample, 64 percent, said the country is on the right track. Among Americans generally, 55 percent said the country is headed in the wrong direction.

The National Annenberg Election Survey found that seven in 10, 69 percent, had a favorable view of Bush. Only three in 10, 29 percent, had a favorable view of Kerry.

The Annenberg poll, which does not report head-to-head preferences, did not ask the military respondents who they support for president. The report cited a 1948 law that prohibits polling members of the military about their voting intent.

Annenberg points to the fact that military families are more likely to be Republicans as one explanation for Bush's performance among this demographic. However, one gets into chicken/egg arguments when pursuing this explanation. Military families likely align themselves with the GOP because they support Bush's efforts in fighting terrorism, and not the other way around, especially since they bear most of the burden of the war.

For those who claim that Kerry's plan to bug out of Iraq shows true support of the troops and their families, this poll should instruct them otherwise. Military families understand more than others what's at stake, and they still overwhelmingly support the forward-engagement strategy of the Bush administration over the reactive, law-enforcement tactics espoused by the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Captain's Caption Contest #31: The October Surprise Edition

It's Friday, so it must be time for another edition of the Captain's Caption Contest! It's also October, so everyone's watching out for the various October Surprises. Last time out, the Democrats pulled out an ancient DUI from George Bush's past that almost won them the White House. Bush calmly handled the crisis four years ago, talking about his past experiences with alcohol abuse and how his faith helped turn his life around.

Kerry, on the other hand, looks a bit skittish:

This week's guest judges will be David & Margaret from Our House, which they have not yet learned, because David keeps complaining I never read his blog. Nonsense -- go check it out! It's a great blend of national and local politics, as well as a wonderful photoblog from one of may favorite blogging couples. I read it all the time. (Dammit, David, I really do!)

As always, make sure you put your entries in our comments section -- NO e-mailed entries, please! E-mailed entries will be incorporated into one of John Kerry's plans and will disappear into the vapor whence they spring. The contest will end on Sunday, October 17th at 8 pm CT, when David and Margaret will select the winners.

Let the games begin!

ABC Can't Do A Hit Piece Any Better Than CBS

Pity the mainstream media, which apparently fell asleep for the last four years and have woken to discover a brand new world. This time it's ABC's turn for embarassment, as their attempted attack on the Swiftvets has foundered on the shoals of a thousand fact-checkers -- and the calm determination of John O'Neill:

Nightline traveled to Vietnam and found a number of witnesses who have never been heard from before, and who have no particular ax to grind for or against Kerry. Only one of them, in fact, even knew who Kerry is. The witnesses, all Vietnamese, are still living in the same villages where the fighting took place more than 35 years ago. A Nightline producer visited them and recorded their accounts of that day. The accounts were subsequently translated by a team of ABC News translators. ...

The Vietnamese government initially rejected Nightline's request to visit the village, saying it did not want to somehow influence the U.S. presidential election. Once Nightline explained that the intention was to simply find out what the Vietnamese people remember and think of what happened there, permission was granted.

Well, if ABC bought that, then you have to question their political and news judgement. Kerry is considered a hero to the Vietnamese, not as some think because of his testimony in 1971 but in his efforts to normalize relations and trade in the 1990s with the Communists, as well as his efforts to bury the POW/MIA issue that enraged the Village Voice earlier this year. They owe a lot to John Kerry and have every reason to root for his election.

Villagers say this is what they saw:

"Firing from over here. Firing from over there. Firing from the boat," Vo Thi Vi told Nightline.

She was only a couple hundred yards away when a Swift boat turned and approached the shore, she said, adding that the boat was unleashing a barrage of gunfire as it approached.

"I ran," she recalled, "Running fast. ... And the Americans came from down there, yelling 'Attack, Attack!' And we ran."

Her husband, Tam, said the man who fired the B-40 rocket was hit in this barrage of gunfire. Then, he said, "he ran about 18 meters before he died, falling dead."

Was the man killed by Kerry or by fire from the Swift boat? It was the heat of battle, Tam said, and he doesn't know exactly how the man with the rocket launcher died. But he knows the man's name -- Ba Thang. He was one of the 12 reinforcements sent to the village by provincial headquarters, and after he died, the firefight continued, according to Tam.

"When the firing started, Ba Thanh was killed," Tam said. "And I led Ba Thanh's comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats." According to the after-action report, after beaching the Swift boat, Kerry "chased VC inland, behind hooch, and shot him while he fled, capturing one B-40 rocket launcher, with round in chamber."

None of the villagers seems to be able to say for a fact that they saw an American chase the man who fired the B-40 into the woods and shoot him. Nobody seems to remember that. But they have no problem remembering Ba Thang, the man who has been dismissed by Kerry's detractors as "a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth." (The description comes from "Unfit for Command," by Swift boat veteran John O'Neill.)

"No, this is not correct," Nguyen Thi Tuoi, 77, told ABC News. "He wore a black pajama. He was strong. He was big and strong. He was about 26 or 27."

The only problem with this account is that it not only differs from the account given by the Swiftvets who were on the scene, it also differs from Kerry's version in his reports, in his biography, and in his autobiography, as John O'Neill pointed out to Ted Koppel during his Nightline appearance. Wizbang describes the way O'Neill laid Ted Koppel out on his own show (via INDC Journal):

When Koppel asked O'Neil to respond to the villagers who he, in an overstatement, said backed Kerry's claims, O'Neil -ever the trial lawyer- did what I did not think possible. He laid Koppel on the canvas.

O'Neil held up his book and read the part where he claimed there was only one VC soldier. THEN he held up the Boston Globe biography of John Kerry and he read the part where IT said there was only one VC solder... Then in a coup de grâce, John O'Neil held up John Kerry's own AUTObiography and read the part where Kerry himself says he was glad there was only one VC soldier because he was not sure what would have happened if there had been "2, 5 or 10 of them." ...

In reply, O'Neil took both Koppel and ABC to task for not asking any of the Swift Boat Vets on to tell their story and for not even telling John Kerry's own version of the story but for only going to communist country and asking our former enemies.

Nor does ABC's embarassment stop there, although failing to even interview American veterans and witnesses in discussing a military engagement and favoring villagers whose only qualification is a self-identification that they were there for this one battle, 35 years ago. Bandit notes that staunch Kerry supporter and defender Doug Reese, who was on Bill Rood's boat during the engagement, also disputes everything ABC reported:

Army advisor, Doug Reese, who was on Bill Rood's boat and just happens to be a staunch Kerry supporter and defender has publicly spoken in detail of what he had witnessed of the dead VC guerrilla minutes after he had been shot by Kerry. It should be noted that Mr. Reese works in Vietnamese Tourism out of the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington D.C.

Mr. Reese was kind enough to document the following with Swift Vets for Truth:

"Anyway, we'll never know much about him [VC killed by Kerry], as he wasn't local like the other guys, who lived right there. The survivors -- local guys -- weren't in a good position to see what was going on with the B-40 guy. For that matter, they don't even know his name."

Mr. Reese's statement says it all about the facts surrounding the dead VC, and he should know since was standing over the dead VC along with Sen. Kerry within 5-8 minutes of the shooting. Unfortunately, ABC was not interested in the facts, just any interview they could use to distort the truth to their viewers.

ABC News makes one thing abundantly clear: despite taking the lead on covering Rathergate, they've apparently learned absolutely nothing from it. Their badly-misfired attack piece should embarass everyone who works in their news division.

Kerry Can Scratch This Foreign Leader

I guess we can scratch Japan from the list of countries to which John Kerry may have referred when speaking about how foreign leaders preferred him to George Bush:

The comments come a day after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made remarks that appeared to suggest he would prefer to see Bush win the Nov. 2 U.S. presidential election.

"I think there would be trouble if it's not President Bush," Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Tsutomu Takebe told a radio program, Kyodo news agency reported.

"For instance, Mr. Kerry wants to handle the North Korean issue bilaterally, which is out of the question. We're now in the era of multilateralism," Takebe was quoted as saying, referring to six-way talks involving North and South Korea, Japan, the United States, China and Russia over the North's nuclear ambitions.

Bush has ruled out bilateral talks with reclusive communist Pyongyang, but Kerry has said this could be possible.

Asked by reporters about the U.S. election, Koizumi said on Thursday: "I am very close to President Bush. So I want him to do his best."

I suppose being called "coerced and bribed" by Kerry also didn't help much with Japanese leadership, especially after their losses in Iraq. Oddly enough, Kerry and his superior diplomatic sensibilities never considered the notion that Tokyo might actually resent being cut out of disarmament talks with its worst regional threat. Given Kerry's predilection for appeasement, Koizumi and Takebe probably have no desire to play the part of Czechoslovakia to the Munich that Kerry has planned for dealing with North Korea.

Reuters: Bush Up By Four After Debate

In what will be a shock to the pundits who thought that Kerry won Wednesday's debate, the new Reuters/Zogby (ha!) poll shows that Bush picked up three points since then, extending his lead to four points over Kerry:

Bush led Kerry 48-44 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, which included one night of polling done after Wednesday's debate in Tempe, Arizona. Bush led Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, by only one point, 46-45 percent, the previous day.

An improvement in Bush's showing among undecideds and a strong response from his base Republican supporters helped fuel the president's rise.

The difference between the two daily tracking polls is that now we start to see the effects of the debate, as one-third of the survey was taken the day afterward. Far from hurting Bush, the debate seems to have swung more independents and younger voters to the Republicans, while Kerry now only holds onto half of the Catholic vote:

The new tracking poll found Bush pulling into a tie with Kerry among Catholics and women voters, and moving slightly ahead with young voters. Kerry still holds a solid lead among seniors.

Put simply, Kerry cannot win with only half of women and Catholics supporting him. Both consituencies went solidly for Gore last time around in a losing effort. If Bush captures both of these blocs, Kerry's toast, and he knows it.

As I predicted, the polls would show within 96 hours that Bush won the third debate handily. Kerry's stumbles cannot be covered up by the mainstream media, and the Mary Cheney debacle -- especially the "shame" comment by Edwards' wife -- has his campaign reeling. When even Zogby acknowledges a GOP gain in momentum, you have to assume the other polls will be more dramatic.

As Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot advises, watch carefully which states each candidate visits over the next three days. I predict that outside of Ohio, Kerry spends all of his time in Gore states, while Bush spends most of his in Gore states as well. Defense vs. offense -- it tells you what the professional polls really show.

Terrorist: Canada Unfair

So much for the rough, tough terrorist facade ... The Boston Globe reports that a captured terrorist complains that the Canadians tricked him into going to the US, where he's been held since 2002 after admitting to attempting to kill US citizens abroad:

Mohammed Jabarah, identified as a member of Al Qaeda by police in Singapore, Canada, and the United States, was arrested in Oman in March 2002 and deported to Canada.

After four days of interrogation by agents of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Jabarah was transferred to the United States in April 2002 and is still in custody.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has written to Public Security Minister Anne McLellan to urge an investigation into whether Jabarah had been misled by the intelligence service. ... Jabarah's father, Mansour, told the Canadian news program his son was convinced that the intelligence service had betrayed him in April 2002.

"Mohammed told me that 'CSIS tricked me to go over to the United States.' . . .He told me 'They made me sign a small paper to go, and I did not know what [was] on it,' " he said. Mansour said his son said CSIS had promised him he would be back in Canada within a matter of hours.

"The government of Canada, and especially the CSIS people, they misguided my son. . . . To put him [on] a golden plate and give him to another country -- it's not right."

Yeah, well, allow me to pause while I wipe the tears of injustice from my eyes. No, wait -- those are the tears of laughter. I reserve my tears of injustice for the victims of animals like Jabarah, not their murderers.

Why would the Canadian equivalent of our ACLU want to launch itself into this case, where the terrorist in question has already admitted to trying to kill people and who was stupid enough to sign off on his own extradition? Isn't the point of the war on terror to capture or kill people like Jabarah? This is what comes from a law-enforcement mentality in dealing with terrorism; the very forces that should be protecting us instead devise ways to set people like Jabarah loose on the world.

If the Canadians tricked this effluvium into willingly going into US custody, then I salute the Canadians rather than question their interest in Jabarah's well-being. There are no slippery-slope arguments here, because this isn't a criminal investigation. It's war. The CLCA, ACLU, and a lot of other people need to peer down into the remains of Ground Zero and remember that. Instead of critizing the Canadians for taking advantage of Jabarah's idiocy, we should all be grateful that one more terrorist has been removed from the battlefield.

Iranians Taking Control Of Palestinian Terror

In a report that underscores the urgency of stopping Iran's nuclear-weapons program, the London Telegraph reveals that Palestinian terror groups have increasingly fallen under the influence or direct control of Teheran:

Iran has taken control of many Palestinian terrorist cells from Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, giving them funds and orders to attack Israeli targets, and even rewarding successful missions with "bonuses", according to a senior Israeli security source.

For many years, Iran has given money and ideological support to radical Palestinian groups, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad, responsible for most of the Israeli deaths in the past four years of the Palestinian uprising.

But Israel believes that much of the Fatah-affiliated armed faction, calling itself the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, has now come under Iran's sway, especially in the West Bank.

Even Yasser Arafat has complained about Iranian interference. The Telegraph reports that Arafat called Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini a "troublemaker," offering an unusual point of agreement between the longtime terror leader and the Israeli government. Well that he should; Iran has not only taken control of what used to be Arafat's private band of terrorists, but have also started directly supporting Hamas, one of Arafat's political opponents in the territories.

Interestingly, the intifada directed by Arafat has provided the Iranians with their opening. As Israel became more successful at isolating Arafat, the al-Aqsa cells he controlled either were eliminated by the Israelis or simply fell out of close contact with Arafat. The leadership vacuum that ensued made it easy for Iranian-backed terror movements to co-opt these ready-made bands of terrorists just waiting for an opportunity to continue killing Israelu citizens. Ironically, the more successful the Israelis got at fighting Arafat -- who started the whole intifada instead of accepting the Barak deal that would have guaranteed him a state -- the broader the opportunities got for the Iranians.

Now, four years into Intifada II, Arafat has nothing -- no state, little control over most of the West Bank and even less in Gaza, little recognition as a Palestinian leader, and deserted by his closest thugs. Even the Iranians consider him irrelevant now, working directly through his opponents and the remnants of his own faction to seize control of Palestine. Even if the West could trust Arafat as a negotiating partner for peace, which Arafat repeatedly proved false, he no longer has plenipotentiary power over the combatants.

More than ever, the path to peace in Southwest Asia goes through Teheran. Once Iraq holds its elections and stabilizes its security, Teheran must be confronted if the root causes of terror in the Middle East are to be addressed, starting with their vioations of the nuclear-weapons proliferation treaty. If we allow Teheran to go nuclear, we can kiss Tel Aviv goodbye.

Saddam Funded Terrorists

The Scotsman, doing yeoman work on the Duelfer report on the Iraq Survey Group investigation, reports that recently uncovered documents reveal a series of payments to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is a PLO splinter group that has spent most of the time since Oslo setting off car bombs to derail the peace processes, such as they are:

The PFLP, whose history of terrorism dates back to the "black September" hijackings of 1970, was personally vetted by Saddam to receive oil vouchers worth £40 million.

The deal has been uncovered by US investigators, trawling millions of pages of documents showing a network of diplomats bribed by Saddam’s regimes, and political parties who qualified for backhanded payments from Baghdad.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam.

Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil.

Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.

Unlike other deals listed in the Oil-For-Food program, the AAP deal was completed, meaning the money went to the PFLP as planned. Forty million pounds sterling went from Saddam directly to terrorists, and long-standing terrorists at that. The PFLP accomplished the spectacular simultaneous hijacking of four American jets in 1970, an eerie foreshadowing of 9/11 and likely an inspiration for the al-Qaeda operation. They've focused more on bombings targeting Israel in the past few years, and just announced this week that they would merge with Hamas.

Not only does this show how the UN allowed money to flow through Saddam to our (other) enemies, aided and abetted by our so-called allies that some feel are essential to approving our national-security initiatives, it demonstrates that Saddam had no qualms about funding and supporting terrorists. Bear in mind that these payments went out while Saddam was supposedly "contained" and "in his box", as John Kerry likes to put it. Saddam never had it so good, we now know; he could rely on his European enablers to veto any attempt to enforce UNSC resolutions and to turn a blind eye to the massive corruption that allowed the UN to feed Saddam's iron grip on Iraqi oil revenue. Saddam, in turn, spread the wealth around to terrorists like the PFLP.

Perhaps now the American media will finally start telling the truth about Saddam. Or perhaps they'll continue to wait until November 3.

Marines Begin Push Into Fallujah?

The AP reports that some sources indicate the US Marines have begun the long-anticipated push into Fallujah after negotiations broke down earlier in the day:

U.S. Marines launched air and ground attacks Thursday on the insurgent bastion Fallujah after city representatives suspended peace talks with the government over Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's demand to hand over terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Late Thursday, residents of the city, 40 miles west of Baghdad, reported shuddering American bombardments using planes and armored vehicles in what they said was the most intensive shelling since U.S. forces began weeks of "precision strikes" aimed at al-Zarqawi's network.

Earlier, attempts to reach a peaceful conclusion to the Fallujah problem broke down, as city leaders balked at turning over Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, an ironclad demand of both the US and the interim Iraqi government. The religious council that headed the Fallujah side of the negotiations claimed the demand was impossible to meet, as even the Americans could not locate Zarqawi. Earlier today, they issued a defiant statement that they were not afraid of Americans or the Iraqi government, which they claimed was a puppet of the US. However, they also took care to use the word "suspend" to describe the talks, indicating that they would be open to starting them up again.

So far, Washington has played coy about its intentions in Fallujah. They've officially denied that the current operation is anything more than the same activities that have taken place over the last few weeks -- targeted strikes aimed at specific terrorist locations. However, two Marine battalions have been committed to the fight, and witnesses claim that aircraft, tanks, and rockets have been launched against the insurgent holdout. People report that Americans have announced via loudspeakers that Fallujans should disarm themselves and surrender, as the Americans intend to push into Fallujah.

Two battalions seem a bit light for a full attack on Fallujah (500-2000 or so Marines), but perhaps that may be deliberately understated while a larger force assembles for the true push. No one doubted that such an operation would be coming; the question was whether it would come now or after the election. With Ramadan approaching and the Islamofascist tendency to increase their suicide operations in order to reach martyrdom during the holy season, it appears the Americans have decided to beat the terrorists to the punch.

Democrats Intend On Crying Wolf November 2nd

Just when I thought I'd seen and heard everything in this election cycle -- a major party candidate trucking in urban legends, party chairman engaging in transparent smear campaigns, and broadcast networks publishing fraudulent stories to unseat a sitting president -- the Democrats manage to create one more surprise. Drudge has a document from the Kerry/Edwards campaign that not only lowers the bar on political discourse but threatens to undermine the democratic processes themselves, all just to grab power (scan here):

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

Here's what else the strategy plan for the Colorado race asks campaign staffers to do:

* Issue a press release reviewing Republican tactic [sic] used in the past in your area or state[;] quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

* Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points [emph mine -- CE]

So Democrats can't rely on "minority leadership" to talk about voting issues on their own? Doesn't that sound the least bit condescending to anyone? "Oh, let's push a minority in front of a camera to cover our ass, but don't let them speak for themselves. They'll only get confused, the poor dears. Make sure you tell them exactly what to say, as obviously they won't have a clue on their own."

Hey, they keep voting Democrat, this is the thanks they get.

I've never seen a party get more repulsive than the Democrats this electoral cycle. It passed unbelievable weeks ago, when Kerry himself began implying that Bush was a coward for serving in the National Guard, all the while holding up the Clinton Administration as the gold standard for presidencies -- and Bill Clinton lied to his draft board to avoid any service at all. It passed shocking when CBS collaborated with the Kerry campaign to foist a fraud on American voters in order to warp the Presidential election, and the rest of the media yawned.

I've never voted for a Democrat in a national election, but had I been inclined to support any at all, that impulse has been purged from my system. In order to ensure that Democrats across the spectrum get this message, I'd urge everyone else to do the same, at least for this election. Read Stephen Green's outstanding post, where he puts his feelings into much stronger terms than I do.

Senator Rabbit Gets Help From A Byrd

Senator Mark Dayton continued to defend his singular decision to shut his DC office down and evacuate the Capitol, even though no specific threat exists and no other Senate offices will close. CNN reports that Dayton claims his staff would have been little more than "human shields" had he kept his offices open:

Sen. Mark Dayton Wednesday defended his decision to close his Capitol Hill office until after the November 2 election, saying it would have been "immoral" to leave his staff members as "human shields" facing a possible terrorist attack while he returned home to Minnesota.

"I can't predict the future. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that the safety and lives of my staff are my responsibility," Dayton told CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports." "And I'm not going to leave them there exposed to risks that I'm not there to take myself." ...

Elaborating on the reasoning behind his decision, Dayton also said "the report I read didn't identify specific location."

"But the 9/11 commission concluded that the fourth hijacked plane on that date that crashed in Pennsylvania was returning to destroy the Capitol. And al Qaeda has a history of going back to those places where it's unsuccessful and attempting again," he told Blitzer.

Rep. Peter King, R-NY, says he's not sure if he's overreacting or showboating, but that none of the other 534 members of Congress decided to bug out as a result of the same briefing. King comes to the same conclusion as I did -- that Dayton has set a terrible example, a precedent that when the pressure is on, Americans flee. Further, as King also notes, as long as terrorists remain alive to target America, DC and New York will remain their primary targets. If Dayton insists on running for the hills every time a major event is scheduled, such as an election, he and Minnesota will be better served if he resigned his seat and allowed Governor Tim Pawlenty to replace him with someone less hysterical.

Until this afternoon, no one rushed to Dayton's defense, underscoring the weird nature of his reaction to what everyone else characterizes as a routine threat briefing, at least these days. But now, the most experienced Senator has doddered into the spotlight to give his fellow Democrat a bit of half-hearted support:

"Senator Dayton took this precautionary step based on his conscience and his responsibility to his staff," said Sen. Robert Byrd, an eight-term Democratic senator from West Virginia. "I commend him."

Byrd, 86, said in a statement that law enforcement and intelligence experts have warned senators about increased threats to the Capitol in recent weeks.

"They have urged senators to be prepared to have their staffs work from alternate locations," Byrd said. "Senators ought not take these warnings lightly. And those senators who put in place prudent security measures should not be mocked."

Law enforcement officials have said this week that the threats did not specify the Capitol.

As the ranking Democrat, if Byrd thinks that Dayton exhibited prudence in his dash for the hills, then it would be incumbent upon Byrd to not only close his own office but move that all Congressional offices remain closed during the recess. However, it appears that Byrd, like 533 other members, has not closed down nor has called for others to follow Dayton's example.

Senator Robert Byrd can offer all the defenses he wants of Mark Dayton, but Minnesotans still see all of the other offices remaining open, while Dayton runs screeching back to the safety of St. Paul. Actions speak louder than Byrd's words, and Minnesotans now can see the stark differences in approach to terrorism that this election affords. Do we want to elect Senators and Presidents whose response to threats is to run away? Or do we want leaders who have courage and stamina that face down those who would attack and kill us?

Just remember this: if the Democrats win control of the Senate, Mark Dayton might just wind up with a committee chair. How would you like to wake up in January to find Dayton heading the Senate Armed Services Committee? Of course, he'd be running it from a bunker in Albert Lea ...

Maybe Rassmann Plagiarized Kerry's Mom

CQ reader John Gault notes that the valediction that John Kerry's mother gave him, according to his answer at the debate, has a ring of familiarity to it. Band of Brothers member Jim Rassmann, while campaigning for Kerry in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, said this from the stump last month:

After serving with John Kerry, a veteran says Kerry is better suited to serve in the White House. Jim Rassman was in Eau Claire on Tuesday to campaign for Kerry. Rassman says Kerry saved his life when he pulled him out of a river during a battle in Vietnam. Rassman says he voted for Bush in 2000, but says he doesn't plan to back the President this time around. "There are three character traits John has that George Bush does not have and they are integrity, integrity, integrity [emph mine - CE]. I trust John Kerry implicitly. I don't trust a thing George Bush tells me," said Rassman.

There are four possible explanations for this:

1. Jim Rassmann is channelling Kerry's mother on the stump.
2. Rassmann plagiarizes dead people.
3. Kerry plagiarizes Rassmann.
4. This may be another of Kerry's canned stump stories, which makes it even more pathetic. Does it not occur to him that most mothers don't find it necessary to lecture their sons on integrity with their dying breath?

And doesn't it sound like Kerry plagiarized this from Rassmann?

UPDATE: More fun with 'Integrity' cubed ... Commenters are claiming that this is a quote from Singing In The Rain, the Gene Kelly/Debbie Reynolds movie from 1952. Can anyone find a script on the Internet with the quote?

UPDATE II: According to this Newsweek article, found by CQ reader Regret, Rosemary Kerry's last words were 'Integrity, integrity,' although no explanation is given of their context (as in, was she really responding to her son's intention to run for President?). Maybe this is going to be Kerry Campaign v22.0's new slogan.

Final Thoughts On The Debate

The early spin is in, folks, and the MSM has decided to crown John Kerry the winner of the third debate -- a conclusion they must have reached before air time, because the grim and stumbling performance that Kerry gave was easily the worst of the three debates thus far. CNN attempted to ensure that spin by having paid Kerry advisor and paid CNN consultant Paul Begala give his commentary on the night's events. (So much for the non-partisan, objective Old Media.)

Ironically, in an election where the Democrat has fallen behind with women, Kerry's post-debate troubles will be on two talking points about women: Mary Cheney and his answer to Bob Schieffer's "strong women" question. Lynne Cheney came out swinging after the second time the Kerry/Edwards ticket has used her lesbian daughter as a debate prop:

Lynne V. Cheney, wife of Vice President Cheney, accused John F. Kerry on Wednesday night of "a cheap and tawdry political trick" and said he "is not a good man" after he brought up their daughter's homosexuality at the final presidential debate.

Mary Cheney, one of the vice president's two daughters and an official of the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about her lesbian status. The candidates were asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, and President Bush did not mention Mary Cheney. Then Kerry said, "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. "The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I'm speaking as a mom," she said. "What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

Bush not only didn't mention Mary Cheney, he told Schieffer he didn't know about whether gays and lesbians were born to their orientation or not, but that they should be treated with respect and dignity regardless. Nor did Kerry's answer or stated policies differ in how to treat gays and lesbians, as he endorsed Bush's position on marriage. Bringing up Mary Cheney serves only one purpose -- to try to embarass the Cheney family, an odd thing to do for someone who purports to sympathize with gays and lesbians.

It would be equivalent to Bush using Julia Thorne, Kerry's ex-wife, to refute Kerry's insistence that he is a practicing Catholic and that Kerry respects families. If Bush were to bring up Kerry's annulment -- another interesting parallel to his Massachusetts mentor -- he would rightly be blasted by Democrats as a nosy busybody engaging in smear tactics. Why are Democrats so silent now, and why do people like Steve Fisher from the Human Rights Campaign (a gay activist group) rationalize the objectification of Mary Cheney?

The second stumble that sealed Kerry's lousy performance came on an unimaginably easy softball specifically designed for Kerry to broaden his appeal to women. Schieffer tossed this grapefruit for Kerry to wax emotional about his love for strong women, and he whiffed it:

SCHIEFFER: We've come, gentlemen, to our last question. And it occurred to me as I came to this debate tonight that the three of us share something. All three of us are surrounded by very strong women. We're all married to strong women. Each of us have two daughters that make us very proud.

I'd like to ask each of you, what is the most important thing you've learned from these strong women? ...

KERRY: Well, I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up. (LAUGHTER) And some would say maybe me moreso than others. (LAUGHTER) But I can take it. (LAUGHTER)

Can I say, if I could just say a word about a woman that you didn't ask about, but my mom passed away a couple years ago, just before I was deciding to run. And she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing.

And she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity." Those are the three words that she left me with.

And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what's right, what's wrong.

They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don't let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don't let me do that.

And I'm blessed, as I think the president is blessed, as I said last time. I've watched him with the first lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters. He's a great father. And I think we're both very lucky.

Take another read on his response -- no names, no mention of love or trust ... just how they keep him honest, as if that was their entire purpose in life. He talked about his mother on her deathbed, and rather than talk about her life and how her outlook shaped his (which he's spoken of before, and compellingly), he instead told an insipid story about how she gave him campaign advice while she was dying. "Integrity, integrity, integrity"? As a number of people have already commented last night, why would his own mother feel the need to give him that advice as her valediction to her own son?

Truly awful. And watching it was even worse, because as I wrote at the time, he stumbled over the entire response, even though he answered after Bush on this question. It came across as cold, lecturing, and frankly, rather strange.

A couple of other eyebrow-raising points, too. Kerry attempted to blame Bush for all of the poisonous partisanship in Washington DC, while Bush mentioned that quite a bit of it existed prior to his arrival, helped in no small part by idealogues like Kerry. But this passage by Kerry was too off-the-wall to be spontaneous:

And I think the hug Tom Daschle gave him at that moment was about as genuine a sense of there being no Democrats, no Republicans, we were all just Americans. That's where we were.

That's not where we are today.

That might be news to the people of South Dakota, who have watched Tom Daschle hug, squeeze, kiss, and worship George Bush during his re-election bid. South Dakotans are overwhelmingly pro-Bush; he carried the state by 22 points in 2000 and will likely win by a similar marging next month. Daschle faces the challenge of his career against John Thune and has done everything but post W signs at his campaign events to shake Thune off. Bush isn't the problem -- it's the hypocrites like Daschle that obstruct Bush's Constitutional authority by using unprecedented filibusters and then run home and pretend he's Bush's best buddy.

On faith, Kerry again slipped into lecture mode when given the opportunity to humanize himself, in contrast to Bush who spoke at length about the personal value his faith gives him:

Well, I respect everything that the president has said and certainly respect his faith. I think it's important and I share it. I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty.

Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible -- and we all do; different people measure different things -- the Koran, the Torah, or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it.

I was taught -- I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.

We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have, and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today.

And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith. I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead.

I think we've got a lot more work to do. And as president, I will always respect everybody's right to practice religion as they choose -- or not to practice -- because that's part of America.

It's worse than a non-answer. It's an interminable lecture, and the puzzlement is why Kerry kept whiffing the softballs. He showed himself incapable of connecting in a human way to the audience yet again, taking a golden opportunity and instead droning on about guaranteeing freedom of worship as president, as if we have a problem with that now.

The media may spin to its heart's content today and maybe tomorrow. However, the multiple stumbles and humorlessness that Kerry provided in last night's debate will start seeping through the media fog shortly.

UPDATE: Talk-show host and all-around great guy Kevin McCullough has more thoughts on this as well:

When Dick Cheney gave his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention only one of his daughter's appeared with him on stage and it was not the one sited by John Kerry last night.

What's worse was not only the mere invoking of who it was but naming her name, referring to her sexual preference/inclination, and in some way trying to make himself seem sympathetic to folks watching all at the same time.

In other words, in the John Kerry's self-obsessed "John Kerryness" he can not see the forest for the trees. And this time the tree he is focused on is himself.

That's the problem with John Kerry - it is all about HIM. It's never about the people he's going to Washington to supposedly serve. If so he would have attended more votes in the Senate instead of missing 90% of them over the last two years.

Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess.

Exactly.

Look For The Union Label, And Disinfect Accordingly

The rank-and-file of Swedish labor will not be pleased to learn where their dues money went in Trollhattan, in every sense of the word:

Union leaders in the Swedish industrial town of Trollhattan, which is threatened by huge job losses, have quit after allegations they used membership dues to buy liquor, porn and sex toys, the union says.

An internal audit by Sweden's second-largest union, Metall, unearthed expense abuses by branch 112 in Trollhattan, where about 6,000 workers at a Saab car factory fear they might be hit by European job cutbacks by Saab owner General Motors.

As if that wasn't bad enough, listen to the description of the malfeasance reported by a former union branch employee about the disposition of the items in question:

A former cashier at the branch told public radio Ekot of drinking bouts and sex shop sprees during official visits to Denmark and Belgium, using cash from union subscriptions.

"The branch did not pay for sex services -- that was up to individuals -- but the costs surrounding those visits were paid for by the branch," said Tommy Larsson. "I can confirm they bought dildos with union money and shared them out [emph mine -- CE]."

What, they didn't buy enough to go around? Or is this some weird bonding ritual among union brethren? Perhaps the union membership should also check to ensure that the equipment purchased was manufactured in an organized shop, and not just some cheap import that seeks to eliminate unionized Swedish sex-toy workers. (Now that's an outsourcing debate we all don't want to miss.)

If substantiated, not only should the union officials be prosecuted for theft, they should be tested for diseases. Trollhattanites should also look into why their union leadership was allowed to focus more on sex toys than saving the jobs of the people who paid them. More than 20% of all Swedes -- men, women, and children -- belong to a labor union. Maybe all of them should push investigations into leadership in every union to see if they're getting screwed in the same manner.

The Check's In The Mail

Donor nations for the rebuilding of Iraq met this week in Tokyo, after having stiffed the new interim Iraqi government last year from the $13.6 billion that they pledged for the stabilization effort. This conference led to much fewer pledges, but may have shaken loose the money promised in the first conference:

The meeting of 57 donor nations and international organizations is a follow-up to a conference a year ago in Madrid, where the international community vowed to contribute tens of billions of dollars to rebuild wartorn Iraq.

Iraq's delegation, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, expressed strong frustration with the slow pace of funding, arguing that many parts of the country are safe enough for projects to go forward and warning that delays could ruin Iraq's chances of a sustainable recovery.

Thursday's final, closed-door session focused on how two trust funds operated by the United Nations and the World Bank can be made more effective. Delegates also discussed how to ensure that contributions put into the funds are used for reconstruction projects on the ground and not diverted elsewhere.

I would suggest that if the donor nations want to make the funds more effective and keep them from being diverted, the best action would be to remove the UN from control of the money. The one program they've run on behalf of the Iraqis spiraled into a morass of corruption and diversions, potentially up to $11B having disappeared into Saddam Hussein's pockets. Turtle Bay has shown itself to be overwhelmingly corrupt and incompetent, and giving them control over the donations would be akin to making Ken Lay your personal accountant.

Thirty-seven nations took part in this conference, including first-time attendees Russia, France, and Germany. That's a pretty wide coalition giving its support to the creation of a democratic state in the heart of Southwest Asia, bolstering George Bush's contention that his efforts in Iraq are supported by a large number of nations and is hardly unilateral.

Interestingly enough, the conference includes Iran, which pledged an additional $10M for the effort. That's only about a seventh of what they have earmarked for their plans on infiltrating and disrupting the Shi'ite areas of Iraq for their elections in January. The ratio sends a pretty clear message about Iran's intentions towards its neighbor and one-time enemy, as well as its opinion of the world community.

At the very least, they're sure that we can't do the math.

The conference has agreed to speed up the distribution of the pledges, only about a tenth of which has been given to the Iraqis. Donor nations claimed that security considerations had held up their contributions, but that's silliness. Security in Iraq should have nothing to do with funds transfers to outside banks and trusts. Also, how can the security situation improve significantly in the long term without those investments? That's exactly what the donor conference and its funds were supposed to help create -- a secure and rebuilt Iraq, able to stand on its own. If there were no security concerns, likely Iraq wouldn't need the money; they could pay for it themselves from their oil revenue.

Final Presidential Debate: Live-Blog!

For those who want to link to my live-blogging, I'll be working off of this post. I just got done speaking to The Patriot's operations manager, who tells me that we are expecting 650 people for our event at the downtown Hilton! ...

7:35 - We are at least at 300 people so far and climbing! We are all pretty amazed that the response has been so enthusiastic. We have a 5' projection screen at the front of the room tuned to Fox News. A Kerry supporter in a bow tie tried handing out literature in the room, but The Patriot shut that down pretty quick ...

7:58 - Rocket Man just fired up the crowd here, preparing them to cheer and yell during the debate. Should be lively!

8:05 - First question is on national security. Kerry talks about the COPS program. Kerry will hunt them down and kill them, but how will he do that. Bush - spreading democracy, freedom on the march. Bush talks about comprehensive strategies. Kerry smiles when Bush mentions his nutty line about terrorism being a nuisance? Hmmm...

8:12 - Slow loading for my blog programming, and I hope you aren't having the same problem. So far, Bush has brought his A-game, and Kerry seems to be surlier and showing more irritation as a result. He also looks more tired tonight. Bush's line about a "plan not being a litany of complaints" got a big reaction from this very partisan crowd ...

8:15 - Bush has never vetoed a bill -- so what? Kerry has a strange grin stuck on his face during Bush's responses, which looks very strange. Jobs has gotten two straight questions, the second of which is a softball for Kerry. In fact, it sounds like it could have come from Kerry's website. Bush links jobs to education, a great point that didn't get enough play during the VP debate. So far, we're seeing a revitalized George Bush. Kerry tries a Sopranos reference -- which is really strange for a former prosecutor, isn't it? He's talking about price increases to argue against an administration that has held inflation in check.

8:21 - "I don't blame the President for all" of the job losses. Really? Sounds like a retreat to me. "We're going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond." Why didn't Kerry shut it in the Senate? Currency manipulation? Hah -- his biggest backer, George Soros, made his billions from just that activity. Bush just called him on Pell grants, which increased during his term. Bush took the opening to scold Kerry on taxes. Kerry's response -- "Anyone can play with these votes"? That's really weak. Bush takes him to the woodshed on that, re-emphasizing directly Kerry's Senate record...

8:26 - Where did Bob Schieffer come up with these questions? Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? Who cares? ... Bush does pretty well with it, saying he doesn't know, but uses the question to launch into a detailed explanation of DOMA and the Marriage Amendment. Kerry dredges up Dick Cheney's daughter, says we're all God's children. Kerry says the states are proving they can manage marriage adequately, even though his own state's Supreme Court is legislating from the bench ...

8:30 - Catholic Church and abortion. Kerry refers to his experience as an altar boy and says his beliefs should not be legislated. He then says his Catholicism informs his environmental efforts, though! As a Catholic, I can assure you that abortion is a much bigger deal than smog!!!

8:32 - Bush's response on abortion is fairly mild. Health-care costs - Bush says that the problem has been the lack of consumer input in the decision-making process. Lawsuits are a big problem, tying in defensive-medicine costs to the issue.

8:35 - Kerry on health care: Administration blocks common-sense initiatives, such as low-cost suppliers. Medicare made it illegal to negotiate with drug companies? Of course they can - -it's part of the prescription coverage. Bush attacks Kerry's Senate record. Kerry claims that he wrote 56 bills in the Senate -- that would be 2.8 bills per year. Nice part-time work if you can find it!

8:38 - Kerry seems defensive, testy, and lecturing. Bush, on the other hand, appears in a good mood, smiling, and on the offense. Kerry has fallen back on his droning speaking style. He's moving his hands all over the place, but his body seems pretty stiff. He's back to speaking in long sentences.

8:41 - Bush scores a point off the MSM, to the delight of the crowd ...

8:42 - Government expansion into health care leads to government control and rationing, poor health, and lack of choice. Bush calls out Kerry on another lie, this one the supposedly unfunded VA obligations. Bush reminded Kerry that his administration increased VA spending by $22B, twice as much as Clinton. As before, Bush appears more in command of the detail than his supposedly more-informed challenger ...

8:45 - Private Soc Sec options. Bush talks about the rate of return for current investments. Kerry says that people controlling their own money is a "recipe for disaster"!! You have to work hard to get that tone-deaf, folks. Kerry talks about his record on fiscal responsibility -- he talks about "no changes", and Schieffer nails him on it with the next question. King Banaian is having conniptions over Kerry's claim that Bush's tax cuts could have floated SocSec until 2075 ...

8:50 - Annette at Hosting Matters is busily working to help out on the load times while I live-blog. If you have a blog and you're not being hosted by HM, you need to switch. Now.

8:51 - Bush comes alive when defending his tax cuts. He has really turned on the enthusiasm for this debate ...

8:52 - Immigration - Bush talks well about the temporary-worker permit plan, which I think is a good idea. He rejected the idea of amnesty, which Kerry supported. Kerry claims that the middle-class isn't making it in America now, which is the last question. He's arguing that tax cuts are really tax increases, which I guess is the reason he keeps pushing tax increases, so your taxes will go down. I think.

8:56 - Thumbprints and iris identification technology won't stop people from crossing the Rio Grande, no matter how many goofy hand gestures Kerry adds to the argument ...

8:57 - Kerry wants to raise the minimum-wage rate to $7. Now he's talking about equal-pay! You have to read King Banaian to get the low-down on how foolish and destructive these initiatives would be. Bush again ties jobs to education, improving the results and closing the gap for minority students in order to give them the tools to get better jobs.

9:00 - Bush says he has no litmus test for judges, Kerry says he does. Kerry will not appoint judges who will undo Roe v. Wade. Kerry starts talking about how 50% of black men in New York are unemployed. Does someone want to check out that statistic? Sounds like another of the urban legends he likes to spout ...

9:03 - The draft: Schieffer claims the back-door draft. Kerry wants to add a "support" division and an "active" division, new nomenclature for all of us at the table. Kerry drags up "real alliances", apparently not having learned his lesson from the last time. Kerry seems to be getting a lot more time to answer than Bush. Bush talks about success, about the esprit de corps of the military. Bush brought up the "global test", and Kerry says he never said that. Now he talks about "truth standards" that we have to meet. Bush nailed Kerry on his Gulf War vote -- nice job ...

9:09 - Gun control. Bush says the best way to handle it is to enforce the laws we have already. Kerry says he's a hunter and a gunman, but the expiration of the assault-weapons ban is a failure of the administration. Kerry thinks that drug dealers were adhering to the assault-weapons ban before it expired ...

9:11 - Kerry will support continued Affirmative Action plans, arguing for the quota system. Kerry tweaks Bush for not meeting with the NAACP -- why is that an issue? Who cares? Bush: Minorities benefit most by education reform, and minority home ownership is at the highest level ever ...

9:15 - Faith in leadership... Bush talks about how everyone is equally American whether they worship or not. Bush speaks effectively about his faith and his principles, and how it informs his push for freedom and democracy around the world. Faith is a part of him. Kerry says "everything is a gift from the Almighty," now talking about Native Americans? He's all over the place on this one. He couldn't just say that he also believes and leaves it at that? He's still digging the hole. Unbelievable. Can't he just shut up?

9:20 - Unity -- Kerry invokes Daschle's hug of George Bush, releasing gales of laughter in the ballroom here. Kerry blames Bush for partisanship, and says that he will restore unity by bringing people together. He's going to work with John McCain to extend campaign-finance reform -- because it's worked so well in this electoral cycle!! Bush reminds people that John McCain is supporting Bush, not Kerry, mainly because Kerry wants to retreat in Iraq ...

9:23 - What is the most important thing you've learned from the strong women around them? Bush had the best line of the night -- "Listen to them!" Also, about his wife campaigning for him: "She speaks English a lot better than I do." He spoke effectively. Kerry: "I married up"??? He's not talking from the heart -- he's delivering another lecture on integrity, tossing in his dying mother for good measure. He answered last, and he couldn't even get started properly!

9:26 Closing statements. Kerry - "I offer tested, strong leadership". When? More on outsourcing. "I will never allow another country to have a veto over our security". Be safer forever.

Bush: Talks about optimism, lays out his priorities for the next four years. He says the war on terror requires resolve and the spread of democracy and freedom. The room erupts!

Summary: Bush stomped Kerry, without a doubt. Not only did he project a more interested demeanor, but he also showed a more pleasant speaking style and a superior grasp of detail. He projected an optimism that completely escapes Kerry, especially tonight. Kerry was the one stumbling through answers this time, including inexplicably on the question about his experience with strong women. Kerry could not stay on topic, and like John Edwards, wound up simply regurgitating his stump speeches. Bush offered more thoughtful answers, more extemporaneous, and seemed much more genuine as a result.

This debate will wind up being recognized as a disaster for the Kerry campaign within the next 48 hours, and within 96 hours the polls will demonstrate it.

Blix Believed Pre-War WMD Assessment "Understated" Threat

The Scotsman reports today that UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told British officials that the dossier compiled by Anglo-American intelligence services actually understated Saddam's capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons (hat tip: Secure Liberty):

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believed the Government’s controversial Iraq weapons dossier actually understated the case against Saddam Hussein, according to documents released today by the Foreign Office.

The papers released by the FO show that British officials at the United Nations in New York showed a draft of the dossier to Dr Blix in September 2002, two weeks before the final version was published.

A note from one official, Adam Bye, said that Dr Blix had liked the section on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as he believed that it did not exaggerate the facts.

According to the note, Dr Blix said that the dossier even risked understating Iraq’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction – particularly the lethal anthrax virus.

He also described the claim that even if Iraq was able to acquire fissile material from abroad, it would still take at least two years to build a working nuclear bomb as “modest”.

As The Scotsman notes, this puts quite a different light on post-war assumptions about intelligence and American efforts to determine the extent of the threat Saddam posed. Blix has not hesitated since the war to proclaim that the invasion was precipitous and unnecessary, blaming the Anglo-American alliance for rushing the inspectors out of Iraq before they could discover this. However, if Blix told the British that the dossier was accurate, then the only question in 2002 was whether Saddam would cooperate with inspectors to find and destroy the remaining his remaining WMD and production capabilities.

Blix himself reported back to the UNSC that Saddam was not cooperating -- which made the inspections pointless. Inspections can only confirm compliance; they cannot reliably determine locations and stocks of weaponry, at least not on the scale used by the UN in a country the size of Iraq. Besides, the 17 UNSC resolutions placed the burden of proof on Iraq as a consequence of their rape of Kuwait and their continued intransigence. Saddam had to prove he'd completely disarmed. Failing that, he abrogated the terms of the Safwan cease-fire and technically initiated hostilities with the UN once again.

Blix wants to make the world safe for weapons inspectors, rather than having weapons inspectors know their place in the process of making the world safe. The documents unearthed by The Scotsman shows that Blix, like most UN bureaucrats, considered job security his top priority.

The World's First Live-Audience Gang Live-Blog!

Tonight, the Northern Alliance makes history as we welcome our local bloggers to watch the last Presidential debate with us tonight at the Minneapolis Downtown Hilton. The event has been set up by AM 1280 The Patriot and is being sponsored by the Hilton and Wade Financial. We'll have free snacks, a cash bar, and wireless networking available, and several of the Northern Alliance will be on hand to live-blog and to hang out with our friends. Your friendly Captain will certainly be on hand, and check out the other NARN blogs to see who else will be there.

Questions About Kerry's Discharge Make The Mainstream Media

For weeks, speculation has swirled on e-mail regarding the discharge granted to John Kerry. Some have speculated that Kerry received a dishonorable discharge that only was reversed under Bill Clinton. As these charges have been largely unaccompanied by objective evidence, I've passed on mentioning them here at CQ. I know that the Swiftvets and their supporters such as River Rat and Bandit have been researching the issue more carefully, and that if anything reportable arose , we''d hear it soon enough, if an enterprising reporter or two didn't.

Now the ever-enterprising Thomas Lipscomb has pieced together some interesting information regarding Kerry's discharge and reported them in today's New York Sun (subscription only). I've received a slew of e-mails from my regular readers on this article, and it looks very interesting indeed:

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

As Lipscomb points out, there are all sorts of discharges other than honorable, and most of them imply no dishonorable conduct. A general discharge is often given for administrative reasons, and medical discharges routinely note those who are too disabled to continue their service, if that disability came under non-combat conditions. However, Lipscomb points to a particular item of interest that seems to indicate that Kerry's discharge status was a political-career-killing "dishonorable":

There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

Previously, we had asked why Kerry had three separate citations for his Silver Star medal, the last signed by John Lehman in 1985. We suspected that Kerry may have been trying to clean up (and pump up) his combat record shortly after joining the Senate and just before he tried to sacrifice the contras in order to appease the Sandinista communists in Nicaragua. (The more things change ...) Lipscomb's research makes the meaning clear, if correct -- he needed to get back those citations he lost when dishonorably discharged.

It also would clear up another mystery, that of the reserve time he never served after his release from active duty and the failed Congressional run that interrupted his commission in the Navy. Had he been dishonorably discharged, especially due to his anti-war activities during the time he should have been serving out his commitment, then obviously he never would have had to fulfill his reserve duty.

One thing is certain: until John Kerry signs the 180, we will never know for sure what's in his service record. All we know is that he has something significant to hide. We also know that Kerry has to be the dumbest son-of-a-gun to run for President in decades if his own record is so bad he can't reveal it, and spent months attacking his opponent's service anyway, making what would have been considered an irrelevancy a fair point for debate.

UPDATE: A couple of fair points have been raised about this article. In the comments, Rod Thompson thinks that Kerry may have been simply discharged for failing to be promotable, hardly a dishonorable issue for a reservist more interested in politics than in serving after several years. Via e-mail, though, comes this clarification from Raymond, an ex-AF JAG:

I believe that the only way one can receive a Dishonorable Discharge is as a result of a General Court-martial. A Dishonorable Discharge and a Bad Conduct Discharge are punitive discharges. An administrative discharge is one brought about by a board of officers. There are numerous categories of discharges including a General Discharge and Undesirable Discharge. Is it possible that kerry was discharged administratively because of his anti-war activities and issued a Undesirable Discharge?

This sounds more like what Lipscomb describes. However, Lipscomb's research shows that the Honorable Discharge was granted by the board in an apparent reversal of an earlier finding. That doesn't mean that Kerry wasn't court-martialed earlier -- in fact, it would be an even better explanation as to why he refuses to sign the 180. Also, does an Undesirable Discharge result in revocation of all commendations as the Dishonorable Discharge does?

Please note: A number of people have posted the entire Sun article on their blogs, a copyright violation. I won't do that, as the Sun has hired me in the past as a free-lancer, and I hope they will in the future. The Sun is a subsciption-only publication, which can be a pain. I would challenge my colleagues and readers to pay the subscription fee, for a couple of reasons.

First, the subscription rate is not onerous and the website is beautifully engineered; it's a breeze to read the paper, much better than anything you'll see for other broadsheets. Second, if we want to create competition in the marketplace and support honest journalism, we need to support the start-ups and smaller-scale operations that one day will grow into positions of power. I don't know how people expect folks like Ira Stoll to battle the New York Times behemoth while we whine about subscribing to his paper, which regularly features excellent writers who expect to get paid. And me, who would also like to get paid once in a while.

Think about it, and while you do, spend about what you'd pay for one month dial-up service and subscribe for a three-month period. You'll be glad you did, and you'll be part of the effort to force our mainstream media to adapt to the competition.

Job Losses Started Under Bill Clinton

Much has been made of the job losses that have occurred during the George Bush administration, even though most of that talk ignores the single greatest foreign attack on American soil and its tremendous economic impact. However, frequent CQ contributor Bandit has done a bit more research into recent job-loss history and finds that the rosy picture painted about the Clinton years by the Kerry campaign and his media allies is more cartoon than realism:

First major signs that all was not well surfaced in May 2000. This is the month the biggest recorded decline in jobs in eight years - 116,000 jobs disappeared [see private-sector jobs -- CE]. What made this number even more alarming is that the cutbacks were widespread affecting all sectors: 29,000 jobs in construction, 71,000 in wholesale and retail, 17,000 in manufacturing, and 11,000 in transportation. ...

The unions were sensing not all was well under Clinton's booming economy, in August 1999 the AFL-CIO, in a report to the Clinton Administration, said the manufacturing sector ``is in crisis, having lost 491,000 jobs since March 1998. Little has been done to assist manufacturing companies in coping.''

A Seattle Times article dated November 07, 1999 was projecting 1 million job cuts in the coming year.

The White House put out a little noticed Press release on March 5, 1999 that read: "Reflecting the weakness in the world economy, manufacturing employment fell 1.8 percent during the past year."

Bandit asks: Where was John Kerry while these portents of economic crisis appeared? Campaigning for Al Gore on the Clinton economic record while it fell apart, apparently. We know that the Democrats have tried to sell the resultant recession as Bush's problem, but economists have insisted that the economy fell back into recession as early as before the 2000 election. And while all this went on, John Kerry sat in the US Senate and did nothing -- introduced no legislation or took any action at all. He didn't even go out and open a business to create any jobs, even with the vast wealth at his fingertips.

John Kerry: the do-nothing candidate.

Evidence Of Saddam's Genocide Mounts From Unlikely Sources

The case for removing Saddam Hussein from power has been made clearer by a media organization known for its overwhelming bias. Fox News? NewsMax? No -- Al-Jazeera:

Hoping to unearth crucial evidence that could help in convicting deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, investigators said nine trenches in a dry riverbed at the Hatra site in northern Iraq contained at least 300 bodies, and possibly thousands.

Those buried included children still clutching toys [emph mine - CE].

"It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," said Greg Kehoe, a US lawyer appointed by the White House to work with the Iraqi Special Tribunal.

"Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take bodies up there and to take people up there and execute them".

"I have been doing grave sites for a long time, but I have never seen anything like this, women and children executed for no apparent reason," Kehoe said. "It's a perfect place for execution".

Only one reason exists to kill women and children on a massive scale such as this -- to eliminate entire populations. People want to claim forced relocation as genocide, and it certainly can be one method of it. The execution of children is the real thing. This is not just collateral damage from an attack on rebels in the north, not even a demonic rationalization of the indiscriminate deaths caused by the use of chemical weapons on Kurdish strongholds. It is the deliberate extermination of an ethnic group by a totalitarian sadist determined to make Iraq a homogeneous entity, loyal to him by blood.

Remarkable in this instance is that al-Jazeera has reported on these developments, giving them more visibility than the American media. What does it say about our mainstream media that these images come from the pages of an Islamist-sympathetic press corps while our supposedly freedom-loving, modernist media remain silent?

The victims are believed to be minority Kurds killed during 1987-88. One trench contains only women and children, apparently killed by small arms. Another contains only men, apparently killed by automatic gunfire.

Some of the mothers died still holding their children. One young boy still held a ball in his tiny arms. ...

During his reign, Saddam pushed hundreds of thousands of Arabs into Kurdish areas to force the locals out. He is accused of widespread abuses against the Kurds, including the "Anfal" (The Spoils) campaign in 1988, during which thousands died in a mustard gas attack.

Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 50,000 Kurds were killed during the campaign.

In a truth that even al-Jazeera recoils from covering up, Saddam is a maliciously evil dictator who presented the world with several very good reasons to get rid of him. He pursued WMDs, aggressively made war on his neighbors, tied himself to terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu al-Zarqawi, Palestinian suicide bombers, and even trained terrorists at Salman Pak. He hid his nuclear-weapons research under a tree in Dr. Mahdi Obeidi's yard in order to jump-start that program as soon as the sanctions disappeared. And as the 40+ mass graves have shown us, he pursued policies of extinction against large populations within his own country.

The notion that such a man could ever be "contained" while left in power, especially as so-called "enlightened" countries knowingly stuffed billions into his pockets to keep him afloat, is ridiculous. Anyone who claims that the best policy was one in which Saddam continued his reign of terror and genocide even one single day longer than he did has a share in the moral guilt of the victims that would have come next. Even al-Jazeera balks at that price. It speaks volumes about our own media that they pay it willingly to push their political agendas onto the American electorate.

Insurgency Cracking In Iraq

In a sign that the joint Iraqi-American initiative to pursue the terrorists of the Sunni Triangle has paid off, the insurgency appears to be turning in on itself. The Washington Post reports that a deadly rift has been created between foreign terrorists and the native Ba'athist remnants in Fallujah and elsewhere which promises to help bring a swift end to their campaign:

Local insurgents in the city of Fallujah are turning against the foreign fighters who have been their allies in the rebellion that has held the U.S. military at bay in parts of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, according to Fallujah residents, insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters. The disputes have spilled over into harsh words and sporadic violence, with Fallujans killing at least five foreign Arabs in recent weeks, according to witnesses.

What has caused the alliance between foreign terrorists and local insurgents to collapse? The brutal methods of the Islamofascists have opened eyes, even among the Fallujans, of what an al-Qaeda-dominated future would bring to Iraq. The beheadings in particular have disgusted the locals, even those involved in fighting against what they see as an occupation by infidels:

Several local leaders of the insurgency say they, too, want to expel the foreigners, whom they scorn as terrorists. They heap particular contempt on Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian whose Monotheism and Jihad group has asserted responsibility for many of the deadliest attacks across Iraq, including videotaped beheadings.

"He is mentally deranged, has distorted the image of the resistance and defamed it. I believe his end is near," Abu Abdalla Dulaimy, military commander of the First Army of Mohammad, said.

One of the foreign guerrillas killed by local fighters was Abu Abdallah Suri, a Syrian and a prominent member of Zarqawi's group. Suri's body was discovered Sunday. He was shot in the head and chest while being chased by a carload of tribesmen, according to a security guard who said he witnessed the killing.

Pressure from American airstrikes in Fallujah have caused locals to shut their doors to foreigners, fearful that if their homes become known to the joint Iraqi-American forces as meeting places for Islamofascists, they will become the next targets. Make no mistake about it -- the US action encourages such thinking, as the psy-op strategies in place have been designed with this result in mind.

One insurgency commander interviewed by Karl Vick complained that what Americans refer to as an insurgency really comprises three different movements, and Americans willfully distort all three into one terrorist offensive. Those complaints, however, are exactly what the Americans want to hear. US forces want Fallujans to know that while they harbor the foreigners who plant bombs and behead captives, they will be considered no different than Zarqawi's animals.

And it appears to be working, as the locals have tired of American attacks and watch with increased desperation as we roll up insurgency hotbeds like Samarra, Najaf, and a "string of towns south of Baghdad" which the Islamofascists controlled until this past month. Momentum has shifted to the Iraqi-American efforts to free Iraq from the grip of terrorists, and Iraqis know that places like Fallujah and Hit will be the next targets. They no longer buy the argument from Islamofascists that they come to free Iraq:

A woman in Hit said one fighter had said they had come to liberate Hit as they had Fallujah.

"We don't want to be another Fallujah," said the woman, 45, who gave her name as Umm Hussein. "Ramadan is coming, and we don't have any will to lose a father, a son, a relative or even a friend. Let them leave in peace and fight in a desert away from houses and people."

Unfortunately, unless the locals can drive out the foreigners, the streets of Hit will likely be one of the last battlegrounds. And the people of Hit know it.

Server Issues ...

... seem to be popping up tonight. If you're getting slow loads or hiccups, be patient. I'm sure the problems will be fixed shortly.

I'm Not Running Away, Just Walking Briskly

Earlier today, I wrote about the way Democratic candidates for Senate appear to be running to the right -- and away from John Kerry. This tendency belies a desperation among Democrats that the poor performance of the top of their ticket may well destroy any chance of the secondary candidates to win. CQ reader Gary S. notes an example of this from last Sunday's Meet the Press, which had both Colorado Senate candidates talking with Tim Russert.

Gary notes this exchange between Ken Salazar, the Democratic candidate, and Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: You say that you wouldn't use the same words that John Kerry used. John Kerry's been to Colorado five times during his campaign, and you've never appeared with him. Are you running away from John Kerry?

MR. SALAZAR: I'm not running away from John Kerry. John Kerry is a person who has done a lot for this country, who has served this country with distinction. He is somebody who I support. I don't mind saying that at all, because I do believe that he's going to be the next president of the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you campaign with him this cycle?

MR. SALAZAR: I will campaign with him in Colorado when he comes, but I'm not going to change my schedule just because there happens to be a candidate that comes into the state of Colorado. You know, this race has been a seven-month race between Pete and me. We have a very, very heavy schedule.

He has a heavy schedule? It's too heavy to appear with the party's nominee for President, where the press coverage would guarantee Salazar prime-time news coverage throughout the state? Salazar cannot think that this excuse will wash with thinking Coloradoans, let alone the rest of the country.

Five times Kerry visited Colorado. Five times Ken Salazar found someplace else to be. Do the math.

EuroLefties Continue Meddling In US Elections

I guess it wasn't enough to have the Norwegians interfering with the upcoming presidential election by publishing incoherent rants in the Washington Post. Now we have the Manchester Guardian getting into the act, publishing a primer on how to launder foreign campaign contributions and cold-call American voters to convert their votes into European proxies:

Certainly, the actions of the US impact on our lives in overwhelming ways; British political life may now be at least as heavily influenced by White House policy as by the choices of UK voters. And yet, though the US Declaration of Independence speaks of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", you don't, of course, have a vote. You can't even donate money to the campaigns: foreign contributions are outlawed. And you're unlikely to have the chance to do any campaigning on the ground. All you can do is wait and watch: you're powerless.

Or are you? At G2, that sounded like fighting talk. Where others might see delusions of grandeur, we saw an opportunity for public service - and so, on the following pages, we have assembled a handy set of tools that non-Americans can use to have a real chance of influencing the outcome of the vote.

And sure enough, the Guardian focuses on Clark County, Ohio, as the most likely place to impact the November 2nd election. Ohio is a battleground state that went to Bush in 2000 but may be wavering; Clark County went Gore in the same election by a few hundred votes. The Guardian even has a link to a website where readers can receive addresses of Clark County voters for letter-writing campaigns. The most amusing aspect of this vote-influencing scheme is this assurance on the submission form (emphasis mine):

Your address to write to will be emailed to you at the address you give. We will not use your email address for any other purpose or pass it on to any third parties.

So while the Guardian feels that giving out American street addresses of voters to any bloke who sends them an e-mail is perfectly acceptable, they want their readers to feel secure in the knowledge that their own e-mail addresses will remain private. What hypocrisy! Those who opt into this program get more privacy than the American voters who never volunteered at all for it.

Nor is this the only effort the Guardian makes in order to skew the election. They also give advice to people on sneaking their money into the campaign, using the new options that the McCain-Feingold reform act has opened up. They also speak to Americans who apparently see nothing wrong with allowing foreign influences to affect US elections:

American law forbids foreigners from giving money to affect the outcome of a federal election - except that, on closer inspection, it doesn't. You're banned from donating to the campaigns themselves, or to many of the independent campaigning groups that fight explicitly on behalf of one candidate. So you need to identify officially non-partisan groups whose activities, none the less, have the practical effect of helping one candidate over the other. "Perhaps the most important way foreigners could help John Kerry would be to help out those organisations which have, as part of their mission, fostering African-American voter turnout," says Nathaniel Persily, a Pennsylvania university expert on election law. "It's quite clear that if there was 100% African-American turnout in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, John Kerry would win this election running away."

I fault the Guardian for sticking their noses into our business. If Americans flooded the UK with cash to skew their elections, the Guardian would be the first voice screeching to the high heavens about American imperialism and chutzpah. But Americans like Persily are even worse: sell-outs. Regardless of who gets support from the Guardian's readers, I find foreign influence obnoxious and meddlesome, and it's revealing that the Democrats appear so desperate to grasp power that they don't find it objectionable in the least.

In order to play the Guardian's game back on itself, be sure to get your own Clark County voter address. The more CQ readers collect for themselves, the fewer that can get into the hands of the EuroLefties for their mischief.

Minnesota Senator Meltdown?

The bizarre behavior of the senior Senator from Minnesota continues and deepens this afternoon, as CBS News reports that Mark Dayton has closed his office for security reasons. CBS also reports that government sources are baffled by his reasoning, as no specific intelligence exists which would lead them to believe he's been targeted (hat tip: CQ reader Laura):

Sen. Mark Dayton said Tuesday he is closing his Washington office because of a classified intelligence report that made him fear for the safety of his staff.

Dayton, D-Minn., said the office will be closed while Congress is in recess through Election Day, with his staff working out of his Minnesota office and in Senate space off Capitol Hill.

"I take this step out of extreme, but necessary, precaution to protect the lives and safety of my Senate staff and my Minnesota constituents, who might otherwise be visiting my Senate office in the next three weeks," he said on a call with reporters.

No one would blame Dayton for erring on the side of caution if specific intelligence pointed him out as a terrorist target. However, the DHS told CBS's Bob Orr that they have no information on any specific AQ targets, and Capitol police says no specific threats exist on the Capitol complex as a whole. Dayton claims that such specific threats have been revealed to him, and he blames Bill Frist for blocking a Senate investigation into the threat:

Asked what advise he would have for Minnesotans who want to travel to Washington over the next few weeks, Dayton said, "I wouldn't advise them to come to Capitol Hill. I would not bring my two sons to the capitol between now and the election."

Dayton issued a written statement that complained of inaction by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"On three occasions, I have spoken personally with the majority leader and asked him to convene a meeting of all Senators to discuss this situation. I am dismayed, and perplexed, by his unwillingness to meet with us further about the information, which he initially brought to our attention. In the absence of that further discussion, I have made my own decision about my office, as is my responsibility," Dayton said.

Dayton's behavior has raised eyebrows ever since he attempted to instruct Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers on how to conduct military operations during a Senate hearing on Abu Ghraib. Shutting his offices down in DC in the face of what appear to be non-existent threats demonstrate either hysteria, paranoia, or a pathological need for attention -- none of which gives Minnesotans any confidence in Dayton's leadership. At a moment in our history where we need our leaders to be resolute, Dayton instead surrenders without a shot being fired.

One could conclude that the Senator simply has no backbone. I don't think that Senator Dayton necessarily lacks courage; I think he may be ill. Telling the world that evacuation of our nation's capitol is the only rational response while the Senate is out of session -- an odd time to target DC anyway -- and running for the hills when all law-enforcement and intelligence services say nothing unusual is happening almost sounds like a terror-war equivalent of shell shock. I think Frist may need to have that meeting with Mark Dayton to find out whether Dayton is capable of continuing his term, or whether Minnesotans need to recall him for his own safety.

Addendum: More here from our local Pioneer Press:

Dayton acted after reading a classified memo that was available to all U.S. senators, but said he couldn't discuss its contents. Nevertheless, few _ if any _ other Senate or House lawmakers followed suit, and many were startled by Dayton's actions.

The Washington offices of U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., remains open.

A senior FBI official said that while the bureau remains concerned about an attack before the November election, there is no new information pointing to a time or place. There is also no specific information pointing to an attack on Capitol Hill, the FBI official said.

If no one else who read the report closes their offices as a result, one has to ask why Dayton feels the need to bug out. I suppose it could be a political stunt to assist John Kerry in making the case that the country is no safer under George Bush's administration, but that seems like a huge reach with a lot of opportunity for unpleasant blowback. Besides, it would ascribe an intelligence to Dayton -- Machiavellian, surely, but still intelligence -- that simply has never been demonstrated in the past.

I'll continue to follow this as it develops ...

UPDATE: Republicans show why people like Dayton can never be trusted with national security issues:

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Virginia Republican John Warner, said in a statement that nothing in recent intelligence briefings would prompt him to close his office.

"Even when the Senate is out of session, we have a job to do," Warner said. "We can't let non-imminent threats prevent us from doing our work."

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., is not closing his office. His chief of staff, Erich Mische, said Coleman was concerned about "sending the message to terrorists that you're fleeing the city. You can't let them feel as though they scared you out of your own government."

Perhaps Dayton meant that he was leaving DC to prepare for a summit ...

The Mini-Kerry Of Minnesota

Today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune reviews the flip-flopping going on in one of our Congressional races, pitting popular Rep. Mark Kennedy against political neophyte Patty Wetterling. Wetterling has built a name for herself from her tireless work on behalf of missing children after the tragic disappearance and loss of her son, Jacob. However, the Democratic strategy to run her against Kennedy appears to be floundering as their candidate can't decide which policies she supports or opposes, even on basic-values questions such as abortion:

U.S. House DFL candidate Patty Wetterling confirmed Monday that she unreservedly favors abortion rights and supported the war in Afghanistan, two issues that may play a decisive role in her Sixth District race against Republican incumbent Mark Kennedy. ...

Wetterling retreated from previous statements that she and others made that she opposed second-trimester and late-term abortions.

"I did have concerns about late-term and second-trimester," she said Monday. "I always have concerns about these. But it's between the woman and her doctor."

Wetterling said she opposes mandatory parental notification before a minor obtains an abortion, as well as a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion that has no exception for the mother's health. But she said she wants to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

So at first she opposed late-term abortions, and then she changes her mind? She was for parental notification before she was against it? These aren't necessarily difficult questions to answer, nor do Minnesota voters expect candidates to shift their answers to fit the reaction of their supporters. One presumes that the Emily's List donors failed to appreciate the nuances of her previous answers and made their displeasure known to the Wetterling campaign. The Strib, which normally would be a natural ally to Wetterling, notes the late nature of her shift:

Throughout the campaign, Wetterling has acknowledged her discomfort with the issue of abortion. At her campaign kickoff in May, she said she was pro-choice but that she opposed second-trimester and late-term abortions. That was how campaign staffers described her position as recently as last week.

This highlights one of the problems we anticipated from Wetterling. In her years of work on behalf of children, Wetterling wisely refrained from too much partisan rhetoric, preferring to work with all sides equally to press her agenda forward. Now that she running for office, one presumes she's doing so for a reason. However, Wetterling hasn't clearly articulated any policy stands, and even on the basic abortion issues has communicated confusion and a lack of thought and philosophy. For a woman her age to launch a Congressional run without having a well-thought-out answer to the basic questions of abortion demonstrates not only a lack of preparation but a lack of skill as well.

It's apparent that Wetterling is little more than a placeholder, a woman with name recognition that the Democrats hoped would have enough sympathy to derail Kennedy's re-election. Instead of providing the Democrats with solid name recognition of her own, however, she has served to remind us of all the vacillating qualities at the top of the Democratic ticket this November without any of the experience that John Kerry has, whether he runs on it or not. She is an empty suit, a cipher, another Chauncey Gardener in a Democratic ticket full of them.

Iranians Preparing To Infiltrate Iraqi Electoral Process

The Washington Times reports this morning that the Iranian mullahcracy has made plans to infiltrate Iraq during Ramadan, spreading their Qumian brand of Shi'ite radicalism and disrupting elections in the south:

A top Iranian dissident living in Paris says up to 800 clerics and theology students from Iran are in the process of infiltrating cities in neighboring Iraq in time for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins Friday.

Ayatollah Jalal Ganje'i, a prominent critic of the Iranian regime, said in an interview with The Washington Times that the influx is part of continuing efforts by Tehran's power brokers to exploit the crisis in Iraq in order to set up a sister fundamentalist Islamic republic.

The religious leaders, dispatched by the Islamic Propaganda Organization, plan to use the holy month to propagate militant Islamic views, he said, with the goal of strengthening Iraqi political groups whose philosophy and aims coincide with those of Iran's theocratic regime.

The cleric said the religious leaders will take their message into Kut, Nasariyah, Amarra, Najaf, Basra and Baghdad, joining a massive network of other Iranian agents already in Iraq, many in armed underground cells.

"I expect the violence to increase, and this will also set the stage for further meddling in upcoming Iraqi elections," said Ayatollah Ganje'i, who is affiliated with the National Council of Resistance, a State Department-designated terrorist group.

Iran has spent over $70M working the Shi'a in southern Iraq to their radical philosophy, a surprisingly small amount considering the stakes involved. They have brought books, pamphlets, CDs, and thousands of clerics to spread the gospel of fanaticism and oppression to the weary Iraqis. Donald Rumsfeld notes that the Iran/Iraq border provides little barrier to the Iranian infiltration, and that the traditional Ramadan pilgrimages give religious cover to even greater efforts by hardliners to impose their radical theology over the newly-liberated Iraqis.

The US must pursue a multi-front strategy in order to counter this effort. First and foremost, the US has to bolster the standing and activities of the pro-democracy Iranian activists in order to keep the mullahcracy focused at home rather than abroad. We also need to get better control of the border area in order to stem the tide of infiltrators from Iran. The Allawi government needs to enlist Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to battle the Iranians on a theological basis. After all, Sistani has much to lose if Teheran gets its grip on the Iraqi Shi'a, including control of the holy Shi'ite sites.

But the eventual solution is the first -- the overthrow of the radical mullahs by the indigenous efforts of pro-democracy, pro-Western forces already extant within Iran. That would solve a number of problems in Southwest Asia, and it should remain a primary focus for US policy.

Democrats Run Away From Kerry, Liberalism

In the clearest indicator yet that John Kerry has serious trouble on his hands, the Los Angeles Times reports that Democratic candidates for Senate this year have decided to run to their right, and away from John Kerry:

The Democratic candidate in Alaska supports President Bush's call to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. The Democrat running in South Carolina supports Bush's call for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, and the Democratic candidate in Oklahoma is in favor of repealing the District of Columbia's tough gun control law. ...

Some of the Democratic candidates have sought to distance themselves from the party's presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

"The main reason you're hearing Democratic candidates talk like Republicans is that most of the highly competitive Senate races this year are taking place on GOP turf," said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at North Carolina State University.

No state was more Republican in 2000 than Alaska, which cast 59% of its ballots for Bush. Tony Knowles, the former two-term governor who is campaigning to unseat Murkowski, supported the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban. Kerry supported extending the ban, which expired last month.

Like Knowles, two other Democratic candidates who hail from energy-producing states — Reps. Brad Carson in Oklahoma and Christopher John in Louisiana — have supported Bush's call to allow oil drilling in the Arctic refuge. Kerry has helped lead Senate filibusters to block the drilling.

Carson and John also voted last week for the constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Bush backs the measure. Kerry does not.

It shows that the DNC has information it chooses not to share with voters at the moment -- and presumably the data points to a conservative trend in battleground states that puts Kerry on the fringe of political thought this cycle. Even Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has run to the right after leading unprecedented filibusters against George Bush's judicial nominees, to the point of running TV ads showing him hugging the president. The RNC has been forced to publicly chastise the Democrats for using Bush in their ads in a manner which imply that the President endorses their candidates.

If Kerry was such a strong challenger to Bush, the Democrats would be lining up to get Kerry into their commercials, not Bush. I suspect that the internal polling for the Kerry campaign shows a collapse that only the WaPo/ABC poll hints at and that Zogby completely misses. Candidates for Senate in a presidential cycle usually cling to their party's nominee in the hope of riding his coattails into office. At the very least, they usually share the nominee's politics. In this cycle, neither apparently applies, revealing how much of a radical or non-entity John Kerry has been.

Forget the spin you hear from Terry McAuliffe; the proof is in the politicking. The party's down-ticket candidates have shown that Kerry is facing huge trouble and that even his own party has no faith in him.

The Zogby Bounce

For what it's worth -- and with Zogby, not much -- George Bush moved back into a tie with John Kerry in the Zogby tracking poll, 45-45, after having trailed Kerry since the first debate:

Bush gained three points on the Massachusetts senator to move into a 45-45 percent dead heat in the latest three-day tracking poll of the White House campaign.

The focus of the tight race now turns to Wednesday's pivotal final debate in Tempe, Arizona, with both candidates hoping to take advantage of their last chance to court a national television audience of likely voters.

"A close race got closer," pollster John Zogby said. "I am not expecting anyone to pull away in this one -- at least not yet."

I remain highly suspicious of both Zogby's methods and results. Reuters reports one of the reasons; the new Zogby poll shows Bush with just a 35% job-approval rating, far below that of all other polls. This skewed result indicates a poor sample resulting from the on-line methodology used by Zogby. Most other polls have Bush's job-approval rating around the 50% mark, meaning that Zogby overpolled Bush haters by at least ten points. And yet the best Kerry can get is a tie.

Globe Spins The Australian Election

The Boston Globe spins this morning with the help of the Associated Press, describing John Howard's landslide Australian election as a referendum on economics while noting Howard's insistence on seeing the joint Iraq mission to its conclusion:

Australian troops will stay in Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard declared yesterday, as the stock market in Sydney hit a record high following the conservative leader's election to a historic fourth term.

At his first news conference since Saturday's election increased the parliament majority of his center-right coalition, Howard said his priorities were guarding the nation's security, working with allies to fight terrorism, and maintaining the booming economy.

The victory was a resounding vote of confidence in the government's handling of Australia's economy, which has low inflation, unemployment, and interest rates, a budget surplus, and low government debt.

While I'm certain the economy played a role in Australia's election, the notion that Iraq and the war on terror had nothing to do with Howard's historic and broad re-election to a fourth term in office stretches credibility into absurdity. Both parties ran on counterterrorism policy, with Labour insisting that it would withdraw from Iraq by Christmas. Had this been popular, or Howard's policy of foward engagement against Islamofascism been as unpopular as the Globe reports it to be, Howard would have either lost or barely squeaked by.

Does the Globe really think that Aussies have no principles when it comes to putting their troops in harm's way, and that their pocketbooks make up for their sons being killed for a mistake, as Labour would have it regarded?

Had the Labourites won the Australian elections, you can bet your last dollar (US or Australian) that the Globe would have been spinning the opposite direction, claiming that the polls rebuked the Bush Doctrine and demonstrated that the world had turned against the war in Iraq. Instead of honest reporting, the AP and the Globe choose to mislead instead. We are fortunate to have allies like John Howard who demonstrate more consistency and fortitude than the Boston Globe.

Norwegians Try Interfering With US Election

In an odd move, a coalition of leftist politicians and artists from Norway placed an ad in today's Washington Post urging Bush to apologize to the Iraqis for ... liberating them?

The Norwegian group "www.tellhim.no" said it used about $50,000 in donations from 4,000 people to fund the advertisement in the Washington Post to tell Bush that 80 percent of people in NATO-member Norway opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq. ...

It urged a shift in U.S. foreign policy to allow greater U.N. involvement in Iraq, an apology to the Iraqi people for the war and compensation for victims.

That understates the incoherence of the advertisement itself. One could chalk this up to a language difference, but Norwegians speak excellent English. Any incoherence in this statement, therefore, derives from the idiocy of the writers:

Mr. President – we urge you to change your foreign olicy. To pursue a flawed and failed policy is a sign of weakness. We want the United States to be strong and creative enough to apologize to the Iraqi people for an unjust war, and to the Allies for having misled them. We want the USA to be generous enough to compensate the innocent victims of violence, looting and trauma inflicted by torture. We firmly believe that the quest for peace in Iraq is best led by the United Nations and a democratically-elected Iraqi government.

Where do we start with this self-contradictory mess? First we have the insistence on an apology, which seems to be the pinnacle of political thought from the global Left these days. And for what do the Norwegians want an apology? For having deposed a brutal dictator in the face of European corruption and decadence, when our so-called allies stuffed their pockets on the misery of the Iraqi people. While France, Germany, Russia, and China all actively undermined sanctions and took millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks, the Norwegians want us to apologize -- for misleading them?

What do Norwegians smoke these days, anyway?

And it gets better. The Norwegians then tell us that the only people who can create a peaceful solution is the United Nations -- who set up and ran the scam that allowed Saddam to solidify his power base -- and a "democratically-elected Iraqi government." Never mind that the UN has yet to create a democratically-elected government in Kosovo, where they've been in charge for five years now. Never mind that the UN has already bugged out of Iraq once and is agitating to do so again, which would have left Iraq to the Ba'athists and terrorists last August had the Norwegians gotten their wish. The Tell Him.No group argues for a democratically-elected Iraqi government that would never have existed without deposing Saddam first!

So what we have here is a group of clueless leftists who either have no conception of reality or historical perspective, even in the short term, or malicious anti-American sentiment wrapped up in a thin covering of UN worship. My guess is more the latter than the former. They don't care a whit for the Iraqi people or their "democratically-elected" government. They believe that liberating 25 million people from a genocidal dictator requires an apology and a retreat, and use the moral standing of the worst enabler of that brutal reign as a platform to scold the liberators. Their website doesn't list the names of the people who formed this group, but I wouldn't be surprised if every one of them could trace their geneology back to Vidkun Quisling.

US Steps Up The Pressure On The Sunni Triangle

Joint Iraqi-American operations in Ramadi resulted in raids on several mosques to flush out terrorists, signaling an end to unilateral American respect for Muslim places of worship when used as military staging grounds:

Iraqi forces backed by U.S. soldiers and Marines raided mosques Tuesday in the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi and detained a prominent cleric following fierce clashes that hospital officials said killed at least four people. U.S. aircraft also rocketed a mosque northwest of Ramadi on Monday after insurgents opened fire from there on U.S. Marines, the command said.

The seven mosques targeted in Ramadi are suspected of supporting insurgents through a range of activities, including harboring terrorists, storing illegal weapons caches, promoting violence and encouraging insurgent recruitment, the U.S. command said.

Sheikh Abdul-Aleim Saadi, the provincial leader of the influential Association of Muslim Scholars, was detained at Mohammed Aref Mosque, his relatives and followers said.

US command has been careful not to use American troops to enter the mosques, allowing the Iraqis to do that themselves while Americans provide tactical support for the incursions. It demonstrates the new flexibility resulting from the training of an indigenous Iraqi security force, providing an option that simply didn't exist in Najaf until the end of the standoff with Moqtada al-Sadr.

More than that, this new operational latitude sends a clear message to the terrorists of the Sunni Triangle: You can't hide in the mosques any more. Up to now, the Ba'athist remnants and foreign nutjobs like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi relied on American reluctance to "defile" mosques by having infidels march into them, even though the enemy used the mosques themselves as sniper perches and bases for mortar fire at Coalition positions. Since Samarra, however, the US has made it clear that with Iraqi troops ready to clear out mosques, that reluctance has evaporated. And if the so-called insurgents didn't get the message from Samarra, today's action at the seven mosques of Ramadi will undoubtedly make it clear to all concerned.

In Southwest Asia, the people have long histories of aligning themselves with the parties that project power. If we are to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East so that the people themselves will hold the power, we must show that we are unafraid to do what it takes to beat the Zarqawis and the Ba'athist remnants, who know how power politics work in the region. The new push to rout them from their strongholds sets the perfect pitch for demonstrating that the US expects to win and fights accordingly.

By The Company He Chooses

Last week, Spain showed up the US by refusing to allow them to participate in a march in their national holiday parade, replacing the American troops with the French. The Socialist government wanted to demonstrate that Spain was "no longer subordinated and kneeling" before Washington. Now word comes that Spain has invited more than just the French to replace the US:

The Spanish government has sparked a fierce row by inviting a soldier who fought with Hitler's Wehrmacht to share the podium at the national day military parade today with a republican veteran of the Spanish Civil War.

The defence minister, Jose Bono, who was once caught on microphone calling Tony Blair a "complete dickhead", said the presence of the former member of the Spanish Blue Division, recruited to fight for the Nazis in the Second World War, was part of the reconciliation process between the two opposing sides in the 1936-39 civil war.

So now the Spaniard Socialists subordinate and kneel to the Nazis? One wonders exactly where the Wehrmacht will march in the parade. The natural position will be in front of the French, if the Spaniards really intend on commemmorating World War II, and probably trying to drag the Spaniards along, too.

The Socialists have done nothing for Spain except make them a global embarassment. Even the Spanish Left has objected to the obvious stupidity of attempting to honor soldiers who fought for freedom and democracy by having them march with someone who fought for fascists. Perhaps the Spanish understand what Jose Bono thinks, but it seems to me that dumping America because we liberated 50 million people in Southwest Asia in favor of someone who represents a government that was responsible for about as many deaths in the last century perfectly demonstrates the cluelessness of socialism in general, and Socialists specifically.

Caption Contest Winners!

The entries are in -- over 200 of them -- the deadline has passed -- the judge has made her decision -- and all of the possible ass jokes have been exhausted. At least, I think they've been exhausted. However, just in case this one got missed, I would describe this week's picture as evidence that Democrats conflated the ass which serves as the party mascot, and the one carries the party banner in this election:

You all did a tremendous job with your entries this week. I'm not sure, but I know we approached the CQ record with this edition! Kelly from The Patriette had a tough time judging the terrific captions you submitted. You could say she was flying by the seat of her pants ...

Here are the winners!

Captain's Award (The Kerry Counter-Terrorism Plan Explained, or The Democrat Duck & Cover) - John F:

My fellow baby boomers will see this as a variation on the pose we learned in grade school. This version says "Not only will we cover our heads in case of attack, but we extend a hand in friendship for the inevitable reconciliation to follow."

You Have The Conn #1 (So wrong, he's right) - GameKeeper:

Wrong Hand
At The Wrong Time
At The Wrong Place

You Have The Conn #2 (Ever changing positions) - IdaWizard:

"I can say this clearly... I've had one consistant position on Iraq..."

You Have The Conn #3 (The truth hurts) - Rod Stanton:

"This is how you do it. - After we win the election Americans you all
can bend over and kiss your a-- good bye!"

Report to Sick Bay (Exam Room 5) - Daisy Cutter:

Kerry: "Go to my web site to see the five (5) different ways that I am keeping my 'eye on the ball' better than Pres. Bush."

SPECIAL PATRIETTE AWARD - Best use of a campaign slogan as a caption - BillD:

"BRING IT ON!"

SPECIAL PATRIETTE AWARD - Best non-caption caption (says it all) - Ann:

If there is one picture in all the world that speaks for itself, it's
this one. Is there really a need for a caption at all?

Kelly also includes these Honorable Mentions:

Kerry demonstrates "secret" GLOBAL HANDSHAKE.
Posted by: james at October 8, 2004 07:09 AM

I know my head is up here somewhere.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 8, 2004 05:08 AM

In a moment of candor John Kerry demonstrates precisely how he pulls
the lies and distortions out of his ass.
Posted by: woulde at October 10, 2004 04:07 PM

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 Kelly'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. Don't forget to visit The Patriette, either!

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!

Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem Undergoes Renovation

NZ Bear announces new features in the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, and references CQ to help explain the additions:

Over the past few weeks, I've been doing quite a bit of work behind the scenes to improve the Ecosystem and add new functionality. There's still more to be done, but today I'm unveiling some of the new features. ...

- History statistics for the blog's rank and total unique inbound links presented in a line graph. Check out Power Line, Captain's Quarters, INDC Journal, Hugh Hewitt or Allah's detail pages for good examples.

- An expandable tree menu showing the blog's ten most-linked-to posts and who linked to them

- An expandable tree menu showing the links which the blog has received from other blogs, sorted in descending order of the source-blog's Ecosystem rank (for easy identification of 'big links' from top bloggers).

The Bear has done tremendous work in establishing a self-reporting "ecosystem" of bloggers, mainly political bloggers (although anyone can opt into the system), and he's done it all without any compensation for his trouble. It's been a blast working my way up the evolutionary ladder, and I'm hovering around the threshold from Playful Primate to Mortal Human. Check out the ecosystem if you've never seen it before, and make sure you take a look at his new features while you're there.

Addendum: NZ Bear says he's still having some difficulties with the new features, but I know he'll get them working properly in short order. In the meantime, don't forget that Bear writes excellent blogs as well as provides the TTLB Ecosystem. Check out his latest posts!

Captain's Caption Contest #30 - The Global Test Position Edition

It's Friday, so it must be time for another edition of the Captain's Caption Contest! In the first presidential debate, John Kerry told us that any action taken by the United States had to have the ability to pass a "global test", although he neglected to mention that the proctors would all be bribed to give us failing grades. When asked to demonstrate one possible method of performing a global test, Kerry happily demonstrated the preferred position for America among the nations whose approval Kerry craves:

Kelly, who runs one of my longtime favorite blogs The Patriette, will guest-judge this week. As always, put your best caption entries in the comments section -- NO e-mail, please! (E-mailed entries will be forced to sit at a table with Dick Cheney and be shredded into little John Edwards government-experience-sized pieces.) The contest will remain open until 8 PM CT Sunday, October 10th, at which point the comments will be closed and Kelly will pick the winners.

Let the games begin!

Kerry and Jackson Tell Black Voters to Ignore Values

Once again taking the campaign to church, candidate Kerry and help-mate Jesse Jackson tell black voters to just ignore the gay marriage issue. According to the Washington Times:

Mr. Kerry attended Mass at a Catholic church in North Miami, and then spoke during services at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Miami , as he and several black Democratic leaders tried to rally black voters.

"How many of you — someone from your family — married somebody of the same sex?" Mr. Jackson asked of the congregation of about 500. After nobody raised a hand, he asked, "Then how did that get in the middle of the agenda?" "If your issues are cancer and Medicare and education and jobs and Social Security and decent housing, then how did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?" he asked.

Following him a few minutes later, Mr. Kerry urged his audience to try to ignore diversions from the issues Mr. Jackson had mentioned. "All they're going to do is attack and attack and try and divert, and push some hot button that has nothing to do with the quality of your life on a daily basis," the senator from Massachusetts said.

But will voters actually avert their eyes from the big pink elephant crashing around the living room? Maybe not:

The issue of banning homosexuals from marrying is a wild card, with polls showing black voters overwhelmingly in support of such a ban.

Kerry reaches for the old canard that the Republicans suppressed black votes:

Mr. Kerry told the congregation he is taking steps to allay the grievance of many Florida blacks that their votes were not counted in 2000. "Never again will a million African-Americans be denied their right to exercise their vote in the United States of America," he said.

Fear mongering and condescension: classic Democratic campaign strategy.

Hat tip: RealClearPolitics.

Vatican Lets Bygones Be Bygones

Despite its strident opposition to the war in Iraq, the Vatican now supports US efforts to build a democracy in the Muslim nation. The Telegraph reports:

In a trenchant interview in the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, Cardinal Sodano said that as the crisis in Iraq deepened, the time had come to forget past differences over the decision to invade.

His comments appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign to galvanise military and financial support for a democratic Iraq among critics of the war such as France and Germany.

Both countries have refused to contribute troops to Iraq, while American and British occupation forces remain in the country.

A subsequent front page editorial in Avvenire, an influential Roman Catholic magazine which boasts Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope's own vicar, as a board member, calls for "tens of thousands of Nato troops" to be sent to Iraq to assist the interim government and ensure free elections.

The prominent theologian, Vittorio Parsi, criticises the "laziness" of countries that have refused to commit troops to Iraq unless all occupation soldiers are removed. The Telegraph has learnt that the editorial was almost certainly commissioned by Cardinal Ruini.

"Even the European countries that opposed the American decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime know well that an Iraq in the hands of the worst terrorists and criminals goes against the interests of all," wrote Mr Parsi.

The Telegraph believes the policy change is good news for the Bush campaign:

The Vatican's new stance will hearten Mr Blair and President Bush, whose campaign for re-election has been overshadowed by the crisis. Senator John Kerry, his Democratic opponent, has repeatedly criticised the president for failing to garner sufficient international support for the invasion of Iraq.

Well, belated Vatican support is certainly not bad news for the president, but it is a case of too little, too late. Now that Saddam has been captured, the “insurgency” is being rolled up, and elections are imminent, it’s safe to offer encouragement, but that doesn’t ‘t put the Vatican on the right side of history.

Papal efforts to engender French and German supports will likely be futile, which is good news for the Kerry campaign. They can continue with the flawed argument that France and Germany are necessary to any “legitimate” coalition and won’t be forced to execute yet another flip flop.

Pet Emergency

Sorry for the lack of updates so far this weekend, but our kitten became very sick yesterday. We had to spend the afternoon at the vet and stayed up all night taking his temperature and feeding him water. His temperature went up again, so we had to go to the Pet Hospital early this morning. We're home again now, and the kitten is doing much better after all his treatments.

UPDATE: The kitty's fever is back up again, and the vet wants us to bring him back in.

UPDATE: The vet gave our kitty another fever-reducing injection and a bag of fluids, and he's been improving steadily over the last 15 hours. No more fever, and he cleaned up his food dish this morning. Looks like he's finally on the mend! Thank you to everyone who expressed concern.

NYT Magazine Reveals Kerry As An Empty Suit

Much has already been written regarding yesterday's New York Times Magazine lengthy article profiling John Kerry, especially his contention that terrorism can be considered a "nuisance" equal to prostitution, a blunder of enormous magnitude. What may be lost in the analysis of that stupidity is the vacuousness that Matt Bai's article reveals about the Massachusetts Senatoru, and that of his party as well:

While Bush and much of the country seemed remade by the historic events of 9/11, Democrats in Washington were slow to understand that the attacks had to change them in some way too. What adjustments they made were, at first, defensive. Spooked by Bush's surging popularity and the nation's suddenly ascendant mood of patriotism, Democrats stifled their instinctive concerns over civil liberties; and whatever their previous misgivings about intervention, many Congressional Democrats, a year after the terrorist attacks, voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

What few Democrats did at the time was think creatively about the new world of foreign policy. The candidates who began their runs for the presidency last year, from Dennis Kucinich and his peace platform on the left to Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt on the other side of the spectrum, attacked the president's foreign policy from different directions, but if any new ideas emerged during those months, they were soon drowned out by the booming anti-war voice of Howard Dean. When Kerry emerged as the most palatable alternative, he at first ran mostly on the viability of his personal story, focusing more on his combat experience in Vietnam than on any plan to fight Al Qaeda or remake Iraq. Only since Labor Day has Kerry begun to sharpen his distinctions with Bush on national security and foreign policy.

First, Bai simply gets it wrong. It's not that Kerry has begun to sharpen his foreign-policy differences with Bush, it's that he's changed directions yet again, this time running directly for Howard Dean's anti-war position. Kerry has talked about foreign policy, the Iraq War, and terrorism all during the campaign, whenever he gave Viet Nam enough of a rest to do so. He's just given contradictory positions, and contradicted his own record in doing so. For instance, he's blasted George Bush for two weeks for not building the kind of coalition that his father did in the first Gulf War -- even though Kerry voted against that war as well, despite its UN blessing and the participation of the French and Germans.

But Bai does point out what was obvious to the rest of us from the start. Kerry essentially stole a march on Howard Dean after his Iowa meltdown, first in the last debate before the caucus and then with the strangled-yelp speech afterwards. Kerry saw an opening to flash the medals he once tossed over the White House fence while giving enough of Dean's anti-war rhetoric on the stump to sway the more practical Deaniacs to his banner. Democrats, who have never offered a cogent and coherent strategy on the global war against Islamofascists, quickly fell in line behind Kerry's zig-zag march to the nomination.

Bai notes the lack of coherent policy himself:

What Kerry still has not done is to articulate clearly a larger foreign-policy vision, his own overarching alternative to Bush's global war on terror. The difference between the two men was clear during the foreign-policy debate in Florida 10 days ago. Kerry seemed dominant for much of the exchange, making clear arguments on a range of specific challenges -- the war in Iraq, negotiations with North Korea, relations with Russia. But while Kerry bore in on ground-level details, Bush, in defending his policies, seemed, characteristically, to be looking at the world from a much higher altitude, repeating in his brief and sometimes agitated statements a single unifying worldview: America is the world's great force for freedom, unsparing in its use of pre-emptive might and unstinting in its determination to stamp out tyranny and terrorism. Kerry seemed to offer no grand thematic equivalent.

Inside liberal think-tanks, there are Democratic foreign-policy experts who are challenging some of Bush's most basic assumptions about the post-9/11 world -- including, most provocatively, the very idea that we are, in fact, in a war.

Kerry avoids that kind of talk, Bai says, to argue tactics rather than strategy. However, it reveals the same thing: Kerry and the Democrats do not think of terrorists as enemies of war, but criminals to be apprehended. Democratic philosophers at these think tanks want to think us out of a war mentality; it makes retreat much more palatable that way.

These are the natural progressions of the Kerry approach to terror and to the complete focus on the tactical instead of the strategic in the war. Kerry and the Democrats want to sell America on the notion that Osama and his immediate gang are the Alpha and the Omega of the Islamofascist threat, when the problem is much broader and more dangerous. The true strategic threat is not so much Osama -- he is a tactical threat -- but the alliance between such terror bands as his and state governments such as the Taliban and the Iranian mullahcracy, and Saddm Hussein as well.

In order to fight the war on terror, we have to think both strategically and tactically, something that the Kerry campaign has refused to do. They talk about shifting focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, as if the US could not address multiple strategies in the same region concurrently. It's a devastating indictment of his ability to lead the military in a time of war, and it demonstrates a lack of faith in American capabilities and a lack of understanding of armed conflict that takes one's breath away.

And then, of course, comes the money quote:

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

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us.

I hate to point out the obvious, but prostitutes don't drive jumbo jets into office buildings, and illegal gambling doesn't involve the mass murder of thousands of people. In fact, prostitution and gambling remain intractable in part because they spring from free-will choices between consenting adults and so are difficult to regulate. For gambling especially, the lack of concern among the governed, its popularity where legal, and state involvement in it (lotteries) have made anti-gambling laws almost unenforceable. Lawrence v. Texas will probably render most prostitution laws unconstitutional, unless the Supreme Court comes to its senses and reverses its consenting-adults precedent when given an opportunity. People can and do make effective libertarian arguments against both.

Unfortunately for John Kerry, no one has been able to frame a libertarian argument for mass murder, nor for terrorism. Equating mass murder with prostitution and gambling makes no intellectual sense whatsoever, and shows a malformed morality that entirely relies on relativity. In any other election, a candidate who said such a thing would be laughed off the stage, destined never to win another election at any level. The only thing keeping Kerry afloat is the mainstream media and the Bush-hatred it stokes.

Read the entire Bai article. It's revealing and chilling to see the complete Chauncy Gardener that the Democrats have nominated.

Sadr City Begins Disarming

While I was disconnected this weekend, Moqtada al-Sadr finally cut a disarmament deal for the insurgents of Sadr City, agreeing to trade weapons for cash and allowing the Iraqi National Guard to take over the Baghdad slum area. Disarmament started today, with Shi'ite leadership in the area encouraging their followers to abide by the terms of capitulation:

"I've given up my weapons, I'm with the interim government now," said Ahmed Hashem after handing over 22 rocket-propelled grenades. "We want peace and I won't fight the Americans."

The U.S.-backed government aims to retake control of rebel-held areas throughout Iraq by political or military means ahead of national assembly elections due in January.

Mehdi Army fighters led by Moqtada al-Sadr began handing in weapons at the start of a five-day period in which they have agreed to disarm in the flashpoint Sadr City district.

It's going slowly, and understandably so; Sadr had fired up this district for so long, handing over weapons will feel too much like surrender for the partisans of the area named for his father. In fact, just as in Najaf, the act of backing down will not do wonders for his political standing. It beats being dead, though, and no one doubts that an early death was Sadr's destiny as long as he continued to oppose the Iraqis and Americans with the rag-tag and undisciplined force that the Mahdi Army demonstrated itself to be on every occasion.

With Samarra pacified and Sadr City capitulating, the Iraqis and Americans appear to be rolling up the major centers for terrorist operations. Fallujah knows it's next, and the city leaders are reaching out for a political solution that probably won't exist for the Zarqawi base:

Peace talks are also under way to try to resolve a standoff in the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Falluja, west of Baghdad, held by insurgents since a failed U.S. assault in April. Falluja representatives met Defense Minister Hazim Shaalan in Baghdad to hear details of his plans to deploy National Guards in the city under a proposed agreement.

Some insurgents in Falluja have said they do not object to such a deal, or to participation in the elections, as long as U.S. forces keep out of the Sunni stronghold west of Baghdad.

Fallujah will present more of a problem for negotiations. First and foremost, Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is known to operate out of Fallujah and has imposed his own police state on the City of Mosques. Ejecting Zarqawi will require Zarqawi's cooperation, just as Sadr needed to back out of Najaf, and Zarqawi shows no indication of being interested in any negotiations or having political aspirations. Zarqawi isn't an Iraqi and wants no stake in a democratic Iraq. The Fallujah negotiators won't have the authority or the power, therefore, to deliver control of the city; they will try to negotiate what amounts to a peace accord between the city and the Iraqi interim government which would result in Fallujah being its own city-state, for all practical purposes. Neither the Allawi government nor the US will accept such an arrangement.

The only way Fallujah can avoid a pacification offensive such as the one conducted in Samarra will be to have the residents get rid of the terrorists themselves, which will also be unlikely. It would be almost impossible to organize a resistance with the level of oppression currently in the city, and unless some event spontaneously causes a massive eruption among the non-terrorists in the city, Zarqawi's gangs would tear the Fallujans to pieces. Probably the best thing Fallujan non-combatants could do would be to evacuate the city as covertly as possible, allowing the Iraqis and Americans a freer hand in dealing with those left in the city.

Either way, the disarming of Sadr City shows that the lessons of Samarra have been heard and understood. The Iraqis and Americans are not afraid to confront terrorist strongholds straight on, and can clear them out in a matter of days, when determined to do so. Fallujah may be days away from discovering the same lessons, up close and personal.

More Scarf Stupidity

The London Telegraph reports that a German initiative banning headscarves for Muslim teachers has backfired in Baden Wuerttemberg, where a federal judge ruled the ban must also apply to Roman Catholic nuns who teach:

Nuns who teach in state schools in the Black Forest region of Germany are to be banned from wearing their habits in the classroom in line with a judgment on Muslim headscarves, a federal court has ruled. The federal administrative court decreed that it would be unjust if a law passed this year in the southern state of Baden Württemberg prohibiting Muslim women teachers from wearing headscarves did not also apply to Christian symbols.

"There can be no exception. Any form of religiously motivated clothing in certain regions is not in question," said the written ruling from the court in Leipzig, eastern Germany.

I wrote earlier this year, regarding the broader French ban, that such laws not only were virtually unenforceable but would lead to the squelching of all religious expression, and that the poorly-written laws would generate all sorts of unintended consequences. Entire bureaucracies would have to be created to determine which types of dress and jewelry violate the law and which conform, and in the end the subjective nature of such judgements would only result in anger and frustration.

Welcome to Baden Wuerttemberg.

Laws that intrude on personal expression for such little overall gain -- and their can be no doubt that eliminating headscarves do nothing for German society except give the illusion of homogeneousness -- create contempt for the law, and later contempt for the government which imposes it. The federal judge has just made the subset of people impacted by this law exponentially wider, as the majority Catholics in the state will no doubt find the idea that a nun's habit could be threatening laughable. It's too bad they didn't come to the same conclusion about Muslim headscarves.

If the Europeans would quit engaging in folly about the superficial aspects of the Muslim problem, perhaps they would have time to do something constructive about Islamofascist terror in the Middle East, such as actively support the creation of a liberal democratic state in Iraq. Such an example could spread across the region with enough backing from the West, eliminating the oppression that fuels the radicals. Once the terrorists have become marginalized and the Arabs free for the first time in history to determine their own governance, the flood of Muslims into central Europe would cease and perhaps even reverse itself -- solving their immigration problems naturally.

However, as long as France, Germany, and others insist on prosecuting for the way they cover their heads, then we cannot count on them for any serious thought or leadership in the war on terror.

UNSCAM Money In Democrat Coffers?

Newsweek reports in its new issue that one of the redacted names from the Duelfer ISG report is Oscar Wyatt, a Houston oilman and Democratic donor (via Friends of Saddam):

Law-enforcement sources say Americans who participated in alleged oil-for-food scams also may face further investigation. The CIA deleted from Duelfer's report names of Saddam's U.S. oil-for-food favorites. But an uncensored copy of the Duelfer report obtained by NEWSWEEK indicates Houston oil mogul Oscar Wyatt got oil allocations from Saddam which could have earned him and Coastal Corp.—a company he founded and ran until 2000—profits of more than $22 million. Wyatt and wife Lynn are major donors to political causes: since 1989 they have given nearly $700,000 in contributions, of which more than $500,000 went to Democrats. Wyatt told NEWSWEEK that his company did buy oil from Saddam but that he never did so personally, and that his company's dealings all complied with U.N. rules.

Several American names were redacted from the released report. Some have speculated that former weapons inspector Scott Ritter might be one of the names; however, if that had been the case, Newsweek would certainly have reported it.

Wyatt's contributions to the Democrats have been quite substantial, and appear to mostly have been in the period of time during which Iraq came under the sanctions regime. If proven true, it makes Wyatt little better than the French: a sanctions profiteer and an enabler of Saddam's brutal reign. It does call into question the will of the Democrats in general to deal with Saddam's regime if their donors profited so handsomely by his continued rule. Despite the Clinton Administration's official policy for regime change and the Congress' endorsement of that policy, little of substance was ever done to implement it until after 9/11. Perhaps now we know why.

Onward To Victory, And Back

While her loyal sons are marching,
Onward to victory!

As I wrote earlier, we just returned from our first trip to the University of Notre Dame, home of the Fighting Irish, the greatest and most stories college football program. I have been a fan of the Fighting Irish since I was a young lad, but I have never had the opportunity to even visit the campus, let alone see the football team play in person, anywhere. Thanks to a generous Christmas gift from Vayapaso, that changed this weekend ... but not until we had to drive eleven hours to get out there.

We originally planned to fly, but that plan didn't work out. Since it was only 500 miles (499.7, according to Mapquest), I thought we could drive it in about eight hours. That plan held up really nicely -- up to the outskirts of Chicago, on Friday about 2 in the afternoon. By the time we made it across the Chicago Skyway, it was three hours later, which shot my schedule all to hell.

I rolled into South Bend in the early evening, and checked into the Econo Lodge, the only place in town I could find a room four weeks ago when I started looking for reservations. I didn't expect much, and it still managed to fall below my expectations. The staff was very nice, but the place was a dump, simply put. At least it was clean, but it lacked the one thing I really wanted -- an internet connection.

However, that's all the bad news. South Bend itself was delightful, if a bit confusing to drive around in. It's an older college town, but the downtown area has been largely renovated and is a very attractive blend of old-fashioned small town and modern small city. My uncle, who is also my godfather, met us on Friday night as he traveled to South Bend and Elkhart on business. We had a great dinner at the Steak and Ale with his friend Tom, and breakfast this morning with him before we left.

On Saturday, we spent the entire day at Notre Dame. We decided to get down to the campus right after breakfast (at Le Peep) and get a few pictures. Okay ... a few dozen. We made sure we saw all the normal highlights, like this one of "Touchdown Jesus", which faces the stadium. Before the recent stadium renovation, you could see this mural out the north
goal zone, but the expansion blocks it. Of course we saw the Golden Dome, which pictures don't really do justice. We also went through the Basilica, even though we later missed the Mass that Notre Dame traditionally holds after the game. You can't see it in this
picture, but the Basilica only holds a few hundred people, at best. That means that only the fastest 500 Catholics can make it to Mass, and unfortunately we don't even qualify in the top 10,000.

The game itself was terrific, a tough contest with Stanford. The Cardinal suffered its first loss in a close contest with USC the previous week, while Notre Dame lost their second in a blowout with Purdue. It looked like a tough game, and for the first half it was. Both defenses played scrappy football, but Notre Dame seemed to have more bend to it than Stanford. But in the second half, Notre Dame found its offense, while the defense only toughened up even more. The game went to the wire, but Notre Dame prevailed, 23-15. The visit would have been wonderful regardless of the outcome -- but the win made it even more so!

After spending a small fortune on souvenirs and another couple of hours walking the campus, we ate a quick dinner and returned, exhausted, to our five-star digs. We left early this morning, but both of us have sworn to return next season for another game. One of the best aspects of this trip, and one that we think made us want to come back as soon as possible, was all of the genuinely nice people we met in South Bend. If you can find that many people who went out of their way to help total strangers in one spot, you are fortunate indeed!

I'm exhausted, and after going over all my e-mail, I will have my work cut out for me tomorrow when I pick the blogging back up. Hopefully, I will be somewhat more coherent as well. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the pictures!

I'm Back ...

... but I just walked in. As predicted, I had no access to the Internet, and thanks to the activities this weekend, not much access to the news, either. It was so bad that I called my mom (Vayapaso) late Friday night and had her read the debate analyses from the other Northern Alliance blogs to see how it went. I just read Whiskey's excellent analysis and her blog entries, and I see CQ readers didn't miss a beat while I took my first vacation from the blog.

I have 166 e-mails to scan -- sorry, but replies will be almost impossible -- before even approaching blogability. I'll write something about the wonderful visit to Notre Dame and the interminable drives getting there and back later on.

Great to be back in the saddle again!

The Supreme Threat

From CQ reader Kate Nguyen:

"I believe that a woman's right to choose is a constitutional right," Mr. Kerry said in May. "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right." This litmus test really means Mr. Kerry wants justices who embrace the two unstated premises of Roe vs. Wade: The Supreme Court can act as a national legislature that can never be vetoed, and when it does it must advance the liberal agenda.

Elect Mr. Kerry and that liberal agenda will keep advancing not only for the next four years, and not only when it can muster a narrow majority on a divided court, but for as long as the justices Mr. Kerry appoints serve out their lifelong terms.

To me this is very scary. Not just on "Roe vs. Wade" but what a "liberal" Supreme Court will do to our society on many issues that we are facing today. We need a balance Court that will interpret the law based on our constitution but also will take into consideration of the voice of the majority.

In Friday's Washington Times, Terence P. Jeffrey predicted that several justices could retire during the next administration:

Justice John Paul Stevens, a liberal appointed by President Ford, is 84. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative first appointed by President Nixon and then elevated to chief justice by President Reagan, just turned 80. Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee who often votes with the liberals, is 74. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee who anchors the court's left, is 71. At 56, Clarence Thomas, a conservative, is the only justice under 65.

If Mr. Jeffrey is right, the next president will have the opportunity to reshape the court for an entire generation. And if this isn't frightening enough, here is his response to Friday night's question on this topic:

Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.

I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

Not a liberal judge, not a conservative judge, not male nor female . . . .

The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, he reveals his intent to appoint activists judges! Instead of appointing judges who will interpret the law according to the Constitution, as it should be done, he will find those judges willing to make the law and then apply it to the Constitution!

I agree with Kate that the senator’s criteria for judicial appointees presents a grave threat to our legal system. The Supreme Court has already gone to absurd lengths to make new law, so one can scarcely imagine the horror should a president appoint judges with the express understanding that they can and will re-write the Constitution.

Better to be feared than loved

Friday night, a questioner asked the president, “What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?” Friday night, a questioner asked the president, “What is your plan to repair relations with other countries given the current situation?” Frankly, I was afraid the president would bite on this one and answer with an optimistic answer about how he was going to work on this. I underestimated him. Bush responded:

No, I appreciate that. I — listen, I — we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very — we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made. I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security.

Kerry responded with some trumped-up lies about General Shinseki, but he revealed his thoughts on this issue in his interview with the New York Times Magazine (see this post below). When asked by the reporter how he would wage a more effective war on terror, he answered:

”I think we can do a better job,'' Kerry said, ''of cutting off financing, of exposing groups, of working cooperatively across the globe, of improving our intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, of training our military and deploying them differently, of specializing in special forces and special ops, of working with allies, and most importantly -- and I mean most importantly -- of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.''

So there we have it: a stark choice between a president who is willing to make unpopular decisions which keep us safe and a candidate who dreams of winning the “Most Popular Nation Award.” Indeed, a candidate who thinks the most important aspect of fighting terrorism is to be loved by foreign states! Anyone who has held a leadership position, even just as a Boy Scout, knows that popularity is neither a realistic goal nor a reliable gage for success.

The American people understand this. We don’t care about being loved by the French! The French have always hated us. I traveled in France during the Clinton years, I talked politics (in French, I’m almost ashamed to admit) with people in cafes and bars. While doing laundry, I had an emphatic argument with the manager who insisted that Al Gore was Jewish and that’s why the French hated us! I argued with this man during the entire wash and dry cycles and was never able to convince him otherwise! This is what we are up against, and it’s a futile endeavor.

Machiavelli addressed this issue in The Prince and his findings are instructive:

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others.

Bush has it right, a president’s job is to keep us safe, love is optional.

Kerry's Love Affair with Carterism

Don't miss The Big Trunk's post on the latest New York Times Magazine love note to Kerry. The article lovingly reveals Kerry's plan to revive the Carter approach to foreign policy, especially that administration's failed approach to North Korea:

He would begin, if sworn into office, by going immediately to the United Nations to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy. Whereas Bush has branded North Korea ''evil'' and refuses to negotiate head on with its authoritarian regime, Kerry would open bilateral talks over its burgeoning nuclear program.

We posted on the futility of this approach after the first debate. Kerry thinks he can woo the dictators and Islamic terrorists with summits and sanctions, a selfish fantasy that puts our lives at great risk.