Libertarian Leanings

Wrong war

The latest Kerry position on the war in Iraq is that it's "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". Here's Michael Doran, whose Foreign Affairs article I excerpted in yesterday's post.

It is worth remembering that Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 came on the heels of the first Palestinian intifada, which also provoked much Arab hostility toward the United States. It was Saddam's defeat that cleared a space for the Madrid Conference and eventually the Oslo peace process. Then as now, defeating Saddam would offer the United States a golden opportunity to show the Arab and Muslim worlds that Arab aspirations are best achieved by working in cooperation with Washington. If an American road to a calmer situation in Palestine does in fact exist, it runs through Baghdad.

It's clear, the strategy George Bush has chosen is to defeat terrorism through the spread of liberty in the Middle East. Kerry's opposition arises from his necessity to oppose any approach the President takes. This explains why he has no position on anything. He has to wait for George Bush to state a position so he can be against it. But if Kerry's "wrong war" nonsense is to be believed, we can expect a Kerry administration would ramp up police powers here in the U.S. as Kerry convert's the war on terror into a domestic law enforcement problem. Civil liberties will very likely suffer in a Kerry administration.

John Edwards in the morning

I caught snippets of John Edwards this morning as I listened to Imus on my way to work. I kept switching him off then coming back, but there were two things that I happened to catch that strike me as serious downers for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

First, he said the administration had no plan to win the peace in Iraq. Where to begin. Could there be a more idiotic statement? No plan. He's said this before, and no doubt both he and Lord Kerry will be saying it again and again. Here he is in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.

Turning his attention to Iraq, Edwards praised the bravery of American soldiers serving in that war-torn country. But Edwards said the Bush administration went into the war with "no plan to win the peace." That has resulted in the nation spending $200 billion in Iraq, with no end in sight to the fighting.

There's an interim government, an interim Prime Minister, elections are planned for January, schools are open, the Iraqi National Guard has enlistees lining up in spite of terrorist bombs being thrown at them. The list goes on. It's all happened -- but with no plan. He could have said he didn't like the plan. Or he could have said his team would've made a better plan. Nope. No plan. Hmmm. Perhaps it makes sense if you consider that the Kerry-Edwards team would have to show that they have a plan that would be better. Given their brilliant campaign strategy, who would be convinced?

The second thing. The Kerry-Edwards goal for Iraq is stability. Imus actually pinned Edwards down on this one, not in an antagonistic way I might add, since Imus is in full agreement. First he made sure to disparage hopes for Iraqi democracy as unrealistic, then Edwards strolled through the open door to put in his bid for stability over democracy. Would this be a wise course?

Michael Scott Doran writing in the January/February 2003 Foreign Affairs concluded his article, Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy, this way.

Unless the suppression of Saddam is seen to lead to a better life for the Iraqi population, and unless American strength and resolve is used on behalf of all the region's people, not simply the governments of American allies, then a new set of near enemies will certainly arise and have to be dealt with in their turn. In the long run, the strength and passion of Palestine-as-symbol will be sapped only by the creation of a new, more persuasive historical narrative that allows the people of the Middle East to see the United States, and the West more generally, as their partner in the quest for a better life.

Kerry and Edwards have staked out their position and here it is. By settling for stability rather than striving for reform they have clearly stated that their strategy in the fight against terror is to make their stand at our borders against that "new set of near enemies" that "will certainly arise." This is a losing hand.

They've already put themselves in a position where bad news for America is good news for the Kerry-Edwards team. So intent are they for bad news in Iraq, that Kerry went so far as to contradict Iraq's interim Prime Minister Allawi's assessment of the situation in his own country. He called the Iraqi head of state a liar while his advisor Joe Lockhart called him a puppet. It must be those diplomatic skills on display. You know, the ones that will win back our long lost allies? They are so pathetic they might even be funny if it weren't for one thing. If they ever get the chance to put their losing strategy in place, they might very well bring the war on terror back to America.

New Depths

A Union Leader article under the headline Edwards:'They will absolutely lie about everything' described vice presidential candidate John Edwards' attack on Bush and Cheney while campaigning in the Queen City -- Manchester, NH. I can't imagine how this campaign strategy will bring any traction to the Kerry-Edwards campaign. By taking this low road, Edwards and Kerry demonstrate an inability to fathom that honorable people can believe the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do and the smart thing to do. According to Kerry-Edwards you are gullible if you believe that the only realistic long term solution to terrorism is reform in the Middle East. Or you're dishonest if you claim that reform is moving forward with the liberation of Iraq. Accusations of dishonesty are not going to resonate with voters, and in fact, evidence of a growing disaffection comes later in the article.

Bush had his defenders yesterday. Across the street from Victory Park was Paul Needham of Derry, former town co-chair of Edwards’ New Hampshire Presidential campaign.

“My decision to support President Bush is rooted in his leadership, understanding and resolve when it comes to ensuring the safety of Americans,” he said. “It is paramount that we have a President who realizes that we are living in a post Sept. 11 world which demands an aggressive approach to fighting the war on terror.

“Unfortunately, John Edwards decided to stand with a candidate who does not understand or appreciate the urgency of the mission in Iraq. He has voted against the funds to supply the troops, criticized the efforts of Prime Minister Allawi and is now preaching a policy of retreat and defeat.”

Libertarian complaint

A libertarian pet peeve was Bush imposing steel tariffs. I shared the complaint. I viewed the imposition of steel tariffs as a blatant move to buy votes, exactly the sort of thing that always had me railing at the Democrats. The unusual thing about the steel tariffs was that they didn't last all that long. Bush removed them in the face of retaliation by trading partners. Are the Libertarians happy? Probably not, but I am, and I think the President is too.

CLEVELAND - President Bush is getting support from unlikely people in battleground states: some steelworkers who are grateful for temporary tariffs that helped the struggling steel industry begin rebounding.

...during Bush's presidency, steelworkers have been called back to work in Ohio and Indiana, and their jobs have been saved in West Virginia, he said. "That has a powerful impact on people's psyche."

Forty-two U.S. steel producers have filed for bankruptcy since late 1997, when foreign-made steel began flooding the market at prices below the cost of production.

The tariffs helped steelmakers earn more money while the industry reinvented itself through consolidation and cutting labor and other costs. At the same time, the U.S. industry boomed because it's been able to charge higher prices for steel that's in high demand as a shortage of raw materials used to make steel has kept production costs up. China has been buying all the raw materials it can get for its rapidly growing steel industry.

So it appears his vote buying bid was a success, and at this point I'm quite happy to forego a little libertarian purity if it helps him get re-elected. The most important thing right now is to elect a President who is willing to take bold steps in the war on terror. John Kerry has convinced me he will abandon the war on terror as soon as he feels it will not damage him politically to do it.

Dueling Headlines

The Washington Post has these two headlines on today's web front page. (Apologies for the lousy picture.)

First this one:

Allawi, Bush Present Optimistic Picture of Iraq

In keeping with their ongoing policy of always presenting the Kerry rebuttle, they immediately follow with this one:

Kerry: Reality Not So Bright

And we're all coming to realize:

Reality: Kerry Not So Bright

Network analysis

Wretchard has quite a fascinating and informative post about the relationship of state sponsorship of terrorism to optimum size of terrorist cells. He sums up an article by John Robb on the The Optimal Size of a Terrorist Network this way.

His last paragraph is crucial to understanding why the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein may have cripped global terrorism so badly. Without the infrastrastructure of a state sponsor, terrorism is limited to cells of about 100 members in size in order to maintain security. In the context of the current campaign in Iraq, the strategic importance of places like Falluja or "holy places" is that their enclave nature allows terrorists to grow out their networks to a larger and more potent size. Without those sanctuaries, they would be small, clandestine hunted bands. The argument that dismantling terrorist enclaves makes "America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world" inverts the logic. It is allowing the growth of terrorist enclaves that puts everyone at risk in an otherwise safe world.

It's my view that the ramp up of violence and terrorism in Iraq has been encouraged by this presidential election. I doubt that it Iraq would appear to be in such disarray if the President's challenger were someone genuinely perceived to be tough on terrorism and willing to win in Iraq. While the increase in terrorist violence may be inspired by their hope that Kerry will be elected, and as president he will capitulate, the terrorists also have their eyes on the strategic value of Iraq to global terror. They need their state sponsor. Read the whole thing.

More problems for CBS

The New York Post is reporting that advertisers may begin a quiet departure from CBS.

CBS faces a multimillion-dollar revolt by advertisers and viewers upset by the forged memos and eroding confidence in news anchor Dan Rather.

[...]

"I don't know of any companies ready to pull out yet, but if it happens it would be done later — quietly," said Bill Carroll, director of programming for Katz Media, which buys TV commercial airtime for companies.

"Advertisers don't want to inject themselves into the controversy and become part of the story."

Now we're getting to where the rubber hits the road. I have to wonder if this CBS probe will save them, especially if it's going to take any kind of time to complete. Rather and CBS are connected with criminal behavior on this one, if not their own, at least the individual who forged the memos. And the purpose of this criminal behavior was to swing a presidential election. Rather continues to claim this was a "mistake in judgment". If it was, the mistake is that he thought he could get away with it, but his judgment on that was wrong. Using phony documents in a bid to improve Kerry's election chances was deliberate and purposeful.

Andy Rooney on Imus

The New York Post has a story under the headline CBS 'HOAXER' BROKER that concludes with this ridiculous assertion by Andy Rooney. He was on Imus in the Morning talking about Dan Rather when he said it.

"He gives the impression of falseness sometimes that does not exist in his character," said Rooney. "I think he is a first-class guy, a good guy and an honest guy. And yet, there is something about the way he behaves sometimes that makes people suspicious of him, and it's too bad."

That statement was just one of a string of absurdities by Rooney. A first class guy. I heard part of that broadcast yesterday morning, and I've been hoping to find a transcript of it. If I could find the transcript I would post more of it verbatim. Understandably it's not the featured interview of the day on WFAN. Here is a little of the flavor of what Rooney said as best I can remember.

Imus using the example of a cowboy from New Mexico, asked if people might be uninterested in the details of the Ra^therGate scandal and simply conclude that Rather is lying to help Kerry. Rooney's answer was that those cowboys aren't very smart anyway and do we really want people like them voting?

Discussing journalism and journalists, Rooney announced his belief that journalists are generally more honest than people of other professions. Oh really.

He went on to relate a humorous (to him) story about some lesser mortal meeting a famous journalist and saying, being a journalist you must get to meet the most interesting poeple. The exalted newsman said, well yes but they're mostly other journalists.

I wonder if anybody else heard the same Imus in the Morning broadcast. I'd love to find that transcript, but if I were Rooney I'd demand that any and all copies of it be destroyed. Doesn't it give a remarkable picture of a mindset, from one who would certainly know.

Iraqis fight back

Omar posted this story at Iraq the Model of ordinary Iraqis fighting back against terrorists.

A group of Iraqi citizens in Al Karkh/ Khidr Al Yas arrested 6 Syrian terrorists after placing a land mine at the gate of Bab Al Mu’a dam bridge from Al Karkh side.

According to New Sabah newspaper, after a road side bomb exploded missing an American convoy that was patrolling in the area, a group of citizens who happened to be there noticed a bunch of young men who looked foreigners (turned out to be Syrians) that were gathering near the place and that looked suspicious. The citizens found their atittude very suspicious and they were not from the area, so they jumped on them and kicked them until some of them started to bleed and then turned them on to the American forces. Eyewitnesses said that the citizens were shouting “Terrorists. You are targeting our children and families. You are killing our youths”

This incident that took place near Haifa street comes after many attacks that terrorist Arabs were accused of carrying against American forces and Iraqi police stations.

You don't hear about "flypaper strategy" much these days, but there seem to be a more and more references to "militants" who are not Iraqis. Many in Mainstream Media are bewildered and downcast by the President's ability to connect the War on Terror to the War in Iraq in the minds of voters. Somehow the rise of suicide bombings in Iraq isn't enough for them to make that connection themselves. Strange isn't it?

Nabil al Shalchi had this story last Saturday.

The Iraqi national gaurds made a big operation in Baghdad in Hifa street, about 1000 soldiers from the Iraqi national gaurds did the operation and they succeed, they arrested a lot of criminals and catch a lot of ammunition, this was the biggest operation that Iraqi troops did after beating Saddam's regime. And I am so proud of them and I wish them luck to catch all the criminals and the thieves.

Why I read "Just One Minute"

Tom Maguire's latest post on Ra^therGate contains this gem.

Next, is John Kerry involved? His obvious and convincing defense would be simply to step forward and say "There is no evidence that I have been invloved with my campaign or given it direction or guidance at any point."

You gotta love it!