30
Sep
I think Round One went to Bush by default. Most pundits, and I agree with them, felt Kerry desperately needed to define a lot of his positions, something he has failed to do with his candidacy. Although I think he made efforts to do so, they were once again very generic recommendations, some of which were flat out wrong ( Bush did not impose sanctions on Iran, Bush did not cancel the agreements with North Korea, they refused to honor them, the war in Iraq has not cost $200 million by anyone’s estimate ). But, even worse, his central theme of specific actions he would take in Iraq were muddled and confusing, to wit, he would build coalitions, Bush has tried, they refused, he built other coalitions, but they’re not important according to Kerry ( 90% of the burden is ours ). Michel Barnier of France has already rebuked the US to the UN about sending troops, Kerry can forget that plan. Russia has their hands full already with Chechnya, and other countries such as Spain have gotten burned and pulled out. Who is going to be in this Kerry coalition? The UN is already there, the IMF has committed funds, there are 60 countries doing various tasks? Who is Kerry going to bring into the mix? We don’t know, he just says he will. Score no points on this issue for Kerry.
North Korea was an issue that was created in 1994 by signing the Agreed Framework of 1994, which was conditional on agreeing to the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). In 2002 they withdrew from the NPT, violated terms of the IAEA, and expelled the inspectors. The US did not withdraw from the treaty, as Kerry claimed. Bush did a poor job defending himself on this one. Score no points for Bush, but score no points for Kerry as most people will harp on this one.
Still in regards to North Korea, Kerry wants bilateral talks with North Korea, Bush wants unilateral talks with China in regards to North Korea. I tend to side with letter China handle this. They have a lot more influence over North Korea, we have none. By entering negotiations with North Korea, it shuts out the Chinese from an issue in their back yard. Bad move IMO. Score none for Kerry, score one for Bush as he held hard on this issue. I think most the country feels Clinton, ergo Kerry, were duped by North Korea in the first place, so this was not an issue Kerry could win on in the first place.
Kerry at one point criticized Bush’s father. Bad move IMO. It was a personal and tasteless moment. Score none for Kerry, one for Bush for brushing it off.
However, since Bush was the perceived leader in the race, there is no need to tally points for either side. Bush just didn’t have to hurt himself, and didn’t. Kerry had to identify himself, and didn’t. It was a boring draw. Exactly what Bush needed. That’s the only point that matters.
I’ve written my thoughts here:
In brief summary: draft, Cocco, Jacob Levich, anti-Bush, anti-draft, Rather biased attack on Bush.
Rather seems to be having a major problem with documentation lately.
30
Sep
It’s about time the international community is making any effort to help stabilize Iraq. There is a lot to be gained and nothing lost in a stable Iraq. This is money that could be given back to the IMF in a few years that would not harm the Iraqi economy in doing so.
What is the UN doing at the same time?
In a statement to the Security Council (20 November 2003), he noted that the Programme, which closed on 21 November was the only humanitarian programme ever to have been funded entirely from resources belonging to the nation it was designed to help…
Using Iraq’s own resources to loan them money. And, being as abused as this program has been, “He said that in nearly seven years of operation, the Programme had been required to meet “an almost impossible series of challenges”, using some $46 billion of Iraqi export earnings on behalf of the Iraqi people. Under the Programme, nine different United Nations agencies, programmes and funds developed and managed humanitarian operations in Iraq, meeting the needs of the civilian population across some 24 economic and social sectors”, reading that with: “A 1999 State Department study reported Saddam’s regime had spent $2.2 billion building about 48 palaces since the 1991 Gulf War. Some estimates put the total number of palaces between 70 and 80.”" It is easily argued that the UN efforts have done more harm than good for the Iraqi economy. It was not an international effort, it was a scam between a handful of individuals.
We need to support IMF more and the UN less.
If you’re not gonna listen to me:
Listen to Bono.
29
Sep
Man, this is getting ridiculous. Why do I keep repeating the same names here? I mean, there are other elections going on, but you’d think Dan Rather was running for something as often as his name appears here. Count the times I mention George Bush, count Dan Rather. Bush is just going to slide through this election and let Dan and Kerry kill each other off. To wit:
Another pajama blogger posting radical right-wing conservative conspiracy theories? Nope, it comes from the John Kerry archives:
The “Service for College Initiative”:
As President, John Kerry will call on young people to help strengthen America’s security and address unmet community needs. In return, he believes we should offer young Americans and their families the opportunity for a college education. A Kerry Administration will offer Americans the chance to earn the equivalent of their state’s four-year public college tuition in exchange for two years of service. If service members decide not to go to college, their award can be used for job training or to help start a business. John Kerry will set a national goal of half a million young people serving their nation every year within ten years. President Bush promised to double AmeriCorps, but he broke that promise and let Congressional Republicans cut the program in half. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get 500,000 young Americans serving the nation.
They cite several other instances of forced servitude. Which, wouldn’t be that big a deal, BUT, Dan Rather had to chime in his two cents’ worth:
The Issues: Reviving The Draft
It’s a story about, get this, two kids who are afraid of being drafted! I kid you not! There they are! Their mom is so worried she formed an action group call “People Against The Draft“. “She spends most of her time worrying about other people’s kids. But as Election Day approaches, it’s her own two grown sons who Beverly is most worried about.
“I go to bed every night and I pray and I actually get sick to my stomach,” she says. “I’m very worried; I’m scared. I’m absolutely scared; I’m petrified.” She’s so petrified, that as a Republican, she’d vote Democrat to protect kids against the draft.
On her web page, it features a kid with a sign stating “President Bush, bring my daddy home alive”. He wasn’t drafted, he volunteered. Anyways, switching to Democrat is mentioned, people are scared, Bush is mentioned. What is NOT mentioned is who is actually sponsoring a draft ammendment at this time:
SgtStryker tackles this issue quite succinctly:
Sponsors of House Resolution 163 is sponsored by Charles Rangel, it is co-signed by:
Jim McDermott WA D.
John Conyers Jr. MI D.
John R. Lewis GA D.
Fortney H. Pete Stark Jr. CA D.
Neil Abercrombie HI D.
It is sponsored in the Senate by Fritz Holling (D).
You don’t see a single Republican on that list, but the Democrats, with the assist from Rather, are yelling Bush and Cheney have a “secret plan” to draft. News flash folks, the Dems, of which Kerry is most certainly a member of, aren’t even being secretive about it. The problem with getting legislation passed is you can not under any circumstances do it secretly. There is legislation banning the draft, and it therefore takes legislation to un-ban the draft. The only ones who want to are Democrats. The only way this bill stands the chance of seeing the light of day is if it had a powerful Democrat who would sign it.
Someone tell “People Against The Draft” that as with the Killians, they’ve been duped, and made to look like idiots in front of the few people that still watch CBS.
Bloggers 2, Rather 0
29
Sep
I’m just gonna borrow this snippet from polipundit.com.
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: We should not it depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat there were no weapons of mass destruction there was no connection of Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]-
JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s I mean look we have to succeed. But was it worth as you asked the question $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane don’t twist here.
And, another snippet from ABCNews.com:
KERRY: I think their advertising, and their effort over these last months to use that word have been particularly successful. I give them credit for it. But it doesn’t reflect truth, nor does it reflect the truth of George Bush’s record, who said he wouldn’t go to the U.N., then he goes to the U.N., who said he didn’t support homeland security and then he supports homeland security, who said he wasn’t going to support the 9/11 commission and then he supports it, then he says he won’t testify, then he goes to testify.
I can run down the longest list I’ve ever seen of switches in George Bush’s position, you see, but I think it’s important for the American people to focus on what we’re going to do to change their lives. I’ve got a very clear program and over the course of the next few weeks, the American people will see the clarity of that.
My initial reaction is, "huh?". My well thought out reaction is that Kerry is starting to get trapped by all his contradictions. The debates are starting to look a lot more interesting.
28
Sep
Think of it this way:
OR:
Now, which would you rather look at for four years?
28
Sep
Kidnapped Italian women freed in Iraq
Abducted CNN producer released
Crude Prices Hover Near $50; Saudis to Hike Capacity
Coincedence? Or is it truly all about oil?
28
Sep
I have found the absolutely unequestionably the best political website of this election. Babes for Bush, thanks in part to Powerline. This is a somewhat quirky site that references recipes and selling stuff. But, what it did do is inspire others to join the chant of “babes for Bush”, notably this gal here:
Now, I REALLY like the looks of that.
So naturally, I chimed in the comment that for some reason, that site was a lot more titillating to me than seeing the same gal wearing an “anything BUT Bush”. It just doesn’t seem to be quite as enticing. But wait, I had already been outdone. The Kerry people, in their usual way, found a way to take something very enticing and make it not quite as pleasant, we now have the Babes Against Bush website. Borrowing the enticing theme, they do offer this:
, however, it’s got so much of the usual banal “regime change” and other rhetoric that it’s hard to enjoy. You can lose yourself in the Babes for Bush site, you know you’re being preached at in the Babes Against Bush site. And, whereas the gals in the Babes For Bush site are kinda down to Earth, which makes sinning that much more enticing, the Babes Against Bush look and act like porn stars. Doing porn stars is like getting your engine overhauled, it is what you expect, there’s nothing dangerous about it.
Check both out if you want, it won’t take five minutes. There’s a running debate brewing on the ‘net over which site is better, here’s your chance to let the world know:
Either way you look at it, it’s good to know that a lot of babes have Bush on their mind. I haven’t seen a single Babes for Kerry t-shirt featured yet.
27
Sep
The Volokh Conspiracy has respectfully asked the “hawks” three questions, and wants to link to the answers, so, thanks to filling me by Hedonstix, I think I’ll take a stab at it.
So here’s a little experiment in blogospheric dialogue. I would like members of the hawkish side of the blogosphere to post responses on their blogs to three questions I have about the situation in Iraq. In exchange, I’ll post links to the answers on the Volokh Conspiracy. Here are my questions:
First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?
I was in favor of the Iraqi invasion, but, I would have preferred it happened a lot longer ago than it did. The US Congress authorized all force necessary in 1991 in response to the Iraqi invasion. The UN authorized use of military force to enforce the DMZ’s in northern and southern Iraq for several reasons, one of which being Hussein’s use of WMD’s. This wasn’t speculation, it was fact. IMO, Hussein should have been taken out then. Bush caved to public and UN pressure when he pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait, which was authorized byt the UN, but didn’t take out Hussein, which was not authorized by the UN. Hussein repeatedly violated the terms of the UN cease fire and we basically did nothing. However, more and more countries bailed out of enforcing the DMZ’s and left it primarily a US and England affair. The politics under Clinton painted a picture that Iraq was becoming more hostile, not less. They were attacking our planes on a regular basis, and Hussein promised to rain fire from the skies. What reason was there for leaving him there and spending billions enforcing DMZ’s? It was quickly becoming another Korea situation where there was no solution. I wanted a solution. As Vietnam and North Korea has now proven unequivocally, police actions don’t work.
Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
These guys have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by posting what they are. Media outlets don’t make any money on good news. When they have good news, they know the headline banners are quickly coming to an end. Secondly, most of the “gloomy” outlooks are time sensitive. They’re not saying this is how it will be forever, they saying it’s going to take longer than we expected. We had to keep Hussein in a box for 12 years, and no one was complaining, this stage of the war takes two years and counting, and people are ready to give up and admit defeat. Thirdly, this is a national election year, you can expect anyone with an opinion that doesn’t like Bush to chime in as well. Fourthly, big money, namely George Soros and Jane Fonda, have made this a national issue to defeat Bush, they’re not going to have anything nice to say about it either. Fifthly, there is a segment of the US that hates any war for any reason, they’re not going to say anything nice either. But if you look real hard, and try to get the message from the Iraqis themselves, they keep saying things are getting better. Allawi tried to say that at the UN and US Senate, so Kerry called him a liar.
Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?
Slowly but surely the Iraqis are going to start defending themselves. Everyone keeps calling this an insurgency, but it’s more than that. Although Sadr would be an insurgent, Zarqawi and his like are not. Even though Sadr does not want the US there, he’s more fearful of Zarqawi. When Iraq can protect itself from foreign aggression, it’s time for us to leave. Even though we want democracy there, that’s not a measure of success IMO. Having a stable Iraq that can contribute to the world in a civilized manner is.
27
Sep
The killer of Daniel Pearl was killed yesterday in Paksitan:
It seems kind of ironic to me that all these people are talking about how it’s a mistake to liberate the Iraqi people and then cite actions of Saudis, Pakistanis, and Jordanians as evidence what we are doing for Iraq is a mistake.
It seems real sad to me so many people buy that argument.
