September 2004 Archives

These will be my impressions of the debate proceedings as we go. You know the drill. I intend to judge many points utilizing traditional karate scoring calls (Ippon - full point, Waza-ari - half point, etc...). I'll explain that as we go. As this will be a live blog and I'm not sure this idea will work out at all, I reserve the right to go back and edit this stuff. I'll upload updates as I have the chance.

My analysis of things will be pretty "average guy" level - at least, if they start pulling a bunch of statistics and numbers out of their butts, I probably won't be able to judge it live. That'll be for other blogs and later analysis.

Friendly bow to each other - I feel more comfortable already.

TSUZUKETE HAJIME [BEGIN!]

Will you do a better job of keeping America safe?

Kerry goes on listing a wide-ranging list of subjects...Bush on point. WAZA-ARI (Half-Point) Bush.

Will the election of Kerry increase chances of another 9/11?

Says no. Bush very good on explaining the big picture of the War on Terror. Kerry narrows it and talks about outsourcing the war (but he wants to bring other nations in to help us elsewhere?) Sorry, IPPON (full point) Bush.

(Missed this question)

Kerry laundry-lists again. Complains about American causalities but complains about not enough troops committed. Doesn't understand the difference in tactics between Afghanistan and Iraq...Bush comes back with Kerry's quote about the removal of Saddam and fitness to be President. "When Iraq is free, America will be more secure."

Kerry talks about diverting troops from Tommy Franks to send to Iraq - not true, read Franks' book..."worse by the day" here comes the doomsaying..."we don't have enough troops there..." (but Mr. Kerry doesn't want to send more there, right?)

Bush asks for a rebuttal. He's good on this message. Kerry rebuts the rebuttal and now has to go back and explain how he can support the troops even with his glooming, defeatist message.

IPPON Bush.

Question about specifics for homeland safety.

Kerry laundry-lists homeland problems - this works better.

Bush's response about a tax gap - uggg...the first uncomfortable moment. Childish. Gets back on message...sounding better now. "Best way to protect America is to stay on the offense."

Kerry rebuts about the tax cuts and the untranslated FBI documents.

WAZA-ARI Kerry.

How do you know it's time to bring the troops home?

(Bush is getting too excited and seems to be taking things too personally...calm down. You were winning.) Bush talks about getting the Iraqis working for themselves and the promises of a free Iraq.

Kerry is calmer. (2nd Kerry reference to his own service.) Pretty good answer.

Bush asks for another rebuttal...not necessary. Should have waited. Gave Kerry an opening for his 87 billion dollars flip-flop...[this was the only thing that came close to a soundbite for the night] Kerry talks about his service again (3rd time).

Asked about Kerry's quote "How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake" Is Iraq a mistake?

Kerry says No. Huh? That's not what you've been saying so far. Kerry is caught between his two faces. (Bush has had a sour face all evening. No good.)

Bush calls Kerry's remarks "absurd." Takes Kerry to task for denigrating our allies and claiming we haven't cooperating with the UN. Good comment: How do you ask other countries to come in and join us in a diversion?

TORIMASEN (No conclusive point - advantage Bush, but it wasn't quite enough to merit a score)

(Missed this question again - have to listen and type)

Bush is very on-message about not sending mixed signals to allies and the world. "It is hard work." "A free Iraq is going to make the world a more peaceful place."

Kerry is talking about how few troops the other countries have in country (of course, they don't have many to send).

TORIMASEN (no point granted)

Next question about Kerry's statements about Bush lying.

Kerry talks about Bush's supposed lies in his State of the Union, etc...

Bush needs to relax and be more Presidential. He has substance on his side, but he's starting to sound shrill.

Fox is doing a split screen much of the time. It doesn't work well for Bush.

IPPON Kerry (style points - substance for Bush)

Has the war been worth it?

Bush just named a name. I hope to hell he got the name right. He sounds sincere...decent answer.

Kerry: Fourth and fifth 'nam references. Don't confuse the war with the warrior? Kerry talks about his "plan" for success in Iraq.

Bush begs a rebuttal - too many times with the wrong war, wrong time, etc...but his response is pretty good.

WAZA-ARi Bush.

Can you give us a time certain for troop withdrawal (to Kerry)?

Talks about his "plan" some more...sorry, Kerry and his plan, though he is delivering it well here, ring extremely hollow to me.

Bush: There's 100,000 troops trained...talks about the inability of Kerry to change conditions on the ground by insulting Allawi - Bush talks more about consistency.

This opens another chance for Bush to talk about consistency and Iraq as a part of the WoT.

WAZA-ARI Bush

Does the Iraq experience make you less likely to commit troops in a preemptive way in the future?

Bush: By speaking clearly and standing by our word and showing we mean what we say, it's less likely we'll need to use force.

Kerry mentions Darfur - would he go without the UN?

TORIMASEN

(Missed question)

Kerry talks about his fighting for anti-proliferation the entire time he's been in Congress - yeah, American proliferation...

Bush talks about his position on the ICC - internationally unpopular position, but not in our interests.

WAZA-Ari Bush

Will diplomacy solve nuclear problems with N Korea and Iran?

Bush: With N Korea - yes. Talks about building a coalition against N Korea. Same with Iran.

Kerry talks about offering nuclear fuel to Iran and then instituting sanctions if it doesn't work. Why not? It's always worked before. Not.

Moderator breaks in to define positions - Bush is the multilateralist. Bush points out there already are sanctions on Iran.

WAZA-Ari Bush.

Darfur - why no troops?

Kerry goes back to the Iran question again to try to cast the use of sanctions as an example of Bush unilateralism...this is almost a JOGAI (step out of bounds), but he gets back on the question...talks about the "back door draft." Kerry talks about adding more troops to Army "but not for Iraq"

Bush points out the Iran sanctions were put in place long before his time in Washington. IPPON (Full Point) Good answer on the subject.

Question to Bush about his opponent's character flaws.

Bush is extremely gracious here. Takes an opportunity to compliment Kerry on a list of issues. But..."In the councils of government there must be certainty from the US President." This question gives Bush a chance to lighten up a bit and breath a little. I hope he takes advantage of it.

Kerry is also gracious in return. Talks about differences..."Certainty sometimes can get you in trouble."

Kerry talks about the threat of force to disarm Saddam...

...TORIMASEN

The most serious threat to the United States is...?

Kerry: Nuclear Proliferation. Talks about securing Russia's nuke material. I haven't heard this as a major issue before? Is this an attempt to bring in an issue with some numbers Bush can't possibly be prepared to rebut? Talks about mixed messages by researching new weapons. Do most people not see the difference between American nukes and nukes elsewhere? Yes, but Northern Liberals don't.

Bush does rebut and says they've increased funding against nuke proliferation by 35%? I dunno who's right. Talks about an initiative I didn't catch...also busting AQ Khan and Libya, also the missile shield and points out Kerry is against it.

Kerry talks about bi-lateral talks with N Korea giving Bush a chance to cast himself as the multilateralist.

WAZA-Ari Bush.

Did you misjudge Putin?

Bush takes opportunity to criticize Putin, but says Russia shares our fight - refers to him as "Vladimir." Notes that he needs to keep a useful relationship with Putin. It's important.

Kerry: The KGB basement at "Treblinka Square"? Is there such a place? Goes back to talking about N Korea and Iraq again.

Bush rebuts and gives Kerry an opening to talk about Iraq again. Bad job, but he was good up to that point.

WAZA-Ari Bush.

Closing statements:

Sixth Kerry 'nam reference. Talks about his "plan" in Iraq - not about leaving, about winning [Part of what he would have done better seems to be that he would have dealt with a coalition of the bribed and the coerced, etc...only he would have bribed and coerced them more effectively.]. Is that what he's been doing? It doesn't feel like it. He's been talking about leaving. Concludes with "God Bless America"

Bush: If America shows weakness, the world will drift toward tragedy. "The military will be an all-volunteer Army." (Gotta kill those rumors). (Bush is calm again - this is much better.)

I'm giving this WAZA-Ari to Bush. He was back on target again and finished well, as he began.

Ooooh...John Kerry just kissed Theresa!! ptooi The Bush girls are mega-cute.

There were no real zingers tonight. No "You're no John Kennedy" moment. Bush was shrill, Kerry far more relaxed and Presidential. I didn't know the entire thing was going to be over Iraq and foreign policy - nothing on domestic issues.

I'm looking forward to reading the fallout and punditry.

I've got to tally up my score now. OK, 7.5 Bush, 1.5 Kerry - well, I'm a partisan after all, and I have my opinions already set on the substance of a variety of these issues. The game was much closer than the score implies. On horse-race, I think Kerry benefited tonight.

George Bush, NO-KACHI Match decision to Bush.

But that's not the whole story. I predict increased numbers for Kerry tomorrow on style and soundbite. The President had a lot of the right messages, I just wish he were a tad more articulate - yeah, that's the understatement of the year. One last thought on Bush's demeanor: While I thought the sour face and clear annoyance on Bush's part didn't "sell" well, there is an aspect of it I liked, and it holds with my overall image of the guy. He is for real. There's nothing fake there. He's genuinely annoyed when his record is twisted, or when he feels his position is being mischaracterized and he wants to get in there and respond. I like that. It's just not very "Presidential" - whatever the hell that means.

Update: Transcript is here.

Busy day explains lack of posting. Lots of good links on the side-bar.

I will likely be live-blogging the debate later. At least that's the plan. See you then!

Monday I noted the report of a leaked memo and a senior CIA employee seeking to score political points against the President.

Today, OpinionJournal has more on the story. Not surprisingly, the bits the leaker and the media culled from the report are only a small part of the story. The OpinionJournal editors come to the same conclusion many of us have - Porter Goss has some work to do.

OpinionJournal: The CIA's Insurgency - The agency's political disinformation campaign.:

I just bought one of these shirts (For the uninitiated, that's the Israel Defense Forces logo) at a mall Army-Navy Surplus store. They have a rack of these, Israeli Air Force shirts and Hebrew logo Coca-Cola shirts. The guy told me these are his biggest selling t-shirts - all three styles. He said he never expected it. "I just stocked 'em to annoy people." Hey, why do you think people buy 'em?

"Mission Accomplished." I thought it was a great moment, and a well deserved moment for the troops and all involved. But there are those who have to find fault and turn a great moment around for their own purposes. It's understandable (if not excusable).

From Tommy Franks' book:

So the mission was accomplished, and in spectacular fashion - even if there were more missions to come. And the announcement had a practical purpose - to trigger the involvement of nations who did not want to engage in Phase III, but were willing to help in reconstruction - even if some nations had no intention of doing so, instead hoping for American failure.

Despite the criticism, I've never heard the President or any member of his administration say the "Mission Accomplished" event was someone else's idea or try to disown it in any way, and here's retired General Tommy Franks owning up to it in spite of not having to.

That's called accountability. It's also called leadership. It's one of the reasons George Bush is leading in the polls.

A few links as I surf:

Vanderleun on encouraging signs of muscularity vis a vis Syria and Iran: American Digest: Putting Syria in Perpetual Check

Everything's interesting at NE Republican today: The Boston Herald on the Democratic political strategy in wartime, John Podhoretz on Kerry's Iraq carping, the NY Post on Jimmeh Carter, and last but not least, Kid Rock on all those doofy musicians who dabble in politics: "Who would you trust to make your decisions, (Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld or the Dixie Chicks?" Heh.

At LGF, we find out that Cat Stevens was the guest of a Canadian Hamas front group. Who woulda thunk it? John Kerry is still talking about bringing in more foreign help to Iraq, as if the French and Germans hadn't already said they had no intention under any circumstances of doing so (But colaborating with the terrorists? That's OK.), and someone on Daily Kos suggests that it would be a wise political move for John Kerry to speak out on behalf of convicted oxygen waster, Mumia Abu-Jamal. Oh please, oh please, oh please.

Norm points to a NYT piece reminding us what a dangerous nut Saddam was. "...The director of another struggling missile project, when called upon to give a progress report, recited a poem in the dictator's honor instead. Not only did he not go to prison, Saddam Hussein applauded him.
.....
Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers..." Good thing we all agree it was a good idea to get rid of that guy...oh wait...

Israpundit points to this Daniel Pipes piece, Islam is What Its Followers Make of It.

Callimachus lauds General Patraeus' WaPo Op-Ed of the other day, and stands him in contrast to John Kerry's defeatism.

Meryl Yourish has a round-up of Israel news, including a tally of four years of terror casualties, and a PA security officer/terrorist two-fer combo.

Celestial Blue has a whole bunch of pictures of her Israel vacation posted (nice, but next time more bathing suit pics, k? Thnx.)

Eric Sheie says he's not letting Bruce Springsteen's politics ruin his feelings for the Boss's music.

Jeff has the secret election-day plans of the VRWC. Shhh...loose lips sink chits...er chads...eh, whatever...

Mudge has lots of random thoughts worth checking out.

Beth's house, like mine, has lots and lots of spiders in and around it. She has pics.

I may add to this post as I go...

Excellent web-only article on the subject by The Globe's token conservative (Well, at least it's ideological tokenism rather than the racial sort.):

Boston Globe: Bush, Kerry, and the Jewish vote

The conventional wisdom is that Republicans are strong on foreign policy and national defense and Democrats are strong on the domestic stuff. Both parties play on this perception and use it to shape their support. They consider each realm "their turf" and protect it as such - even when the reality is at odds with the perception - there are just too many people with too much invested in those perceptions not to fight to keep that ideological turf.

The effect is, of course, that it's very difficult for any politician to get credit outside of their perceived ideological province. Note how little credit George Bush gets for his domestic efforts, despite programs and spending that would choke even a moderate "conservative." The "left" will never allow him to get credit for what he's done, and the "right" doesn't particularly want the credit.

And I remember the Clinton years. In those days my politics were more left and I was a supporter of his. I remember how every time Bill Clinton even thought about a muscular response to the various threats looming abroad all we heard was, "wag the dog, wag the dog, wag the dog" - over and over and over again. Now I am not looking for a debate over whether that perception was accurate or not. To me it became impossible to sort out. Bill Clinton diddled and lied - that's his fault. But the Republicans amplified and magnified and pushed every issue they possibly could as a political wedge to cripple a sitting President and make it nearly impossible to know whether he was indeed playing cynical political games or simply doing the best he could. In either case, his hand was weakened.

Honest disagreement from a loyal opposition is necessary, and can't help but to probe for weakness in policy and make the final result stronger. Petty, 'say or do anything,' political games to protect partisan turf is a disgrace and an inherent weakness in our democracy.

So now I see the same thing happening. As Zell Miller said, "because of [a] Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." John Kerry has literally and concretely flip-flopped so badly that he has changed places with his erstwhile opponent Howard Dean and taken up the positions he himself chastized Dean for. It appears Kerry and the Democrats will do or say anything, no matter how cynical, to get back into power - even to the point of debasing themselves and throwing honor to the wind for the goal. As Hitchens says in his most recent, much-linked-to piece:

Is this what politics has become? Has it always been so?

When the election is over we will still face the same foes. We will still need to have a national debate on how to deal with those issues, but it must be an honest debate. People who support one plan of action today must be held accountable for their support tomorrow, unlike the 'abandon ship when the going gets tough and there's a political profit to be made' Democrats.

If George Bush is honestly wrong, then let's discuss. He needs to be held honestly and fairly accountable. But he ought not be politically weakened when he has the serious business of governing and protecting our nation to do. Because when the election is over, these guys are still going to be out there:

Ramin Parham on Iran: The Heart of Darkness - There is no word to describe the horror.:

And they're going to have nukes.

Intense destruction in slo-mo: F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH (Via Ghost of a Flea)

Jerusalem Post: Jordanian FM: Security fence threatens Jordan

Actually, it's Palestinian Arab terrorism and its supporters and excusers abroad who threaten Jordanian security - the root cause of the root cause.

CNN.com - Fiji to help guard U.N. in Iraq

Mighty France and Germany, take note.

An essay worth your time at Ghost of a Flea:

Excellent stuff.

DCI Goss needs to go in and kick a little butt, because it looks like the ideologues in his newly assigned agency are getting way out of control. There have been frequent stories of an anti-Bush culture in the CIA, and this Novak column points up the latest egregious example.

CNN.com - CIA versus Bush - Sep 27, 2004

Indeed it is. It is the President's job to take the information and analysis provided to him and decide what to do about it. The idea that an invasion of Iraq could exacerbate negative feelings toward the US in the short run is a "no duh" moment, but what it does in the long run is another question, and one for the President to answer. It's his job to cut through the "analysis paralysis" in agencies like CIA and State and decide when a plan that takes into account the balance of risks calls for action.

It is NOT the job of CIA employees to come out publicly and defend their paralysis, particularly when it has the effect of opposing the Chief Executive. Want to get the word out? Go into retirement and write a book like the rest of the Arabist State employees or join the gaggle of geriatric Gulf State Ambassadors on the lecture circuit. Do something like this in the private sector and you wouldn't see your desk again - the contents having been neatly packed on your behalf and left at the building entrance along with your severance check and unopened Secret Santa present.

Update: Power Line comments.

Update2: Dan Darling has an able and informative fisking (This is right up his alley).

Terrific, if true. But then we've gotten reports like this in the past only to be disappointed, so let's just wait on it.

If it's true, I guess Zawahiri will be appearing in his next video in an orange jumpsuit. Designer: DKNY? Non. Chez GTMO.

Jerusalem Post: Report: Top Bin Laden deputy caught in Pakistan

Very good piece by Barone on the looming issue of Iranian and North Korean nukes. If elected, will John Kerry go the way of Europe in standing back and watching it happen?

IRVAJ English - Peaceful Regime Change

Update: Henry Sokolski on some improvements for the NPT.

I've run out of superlatives to describe the writing of the fellows at Iraq the Model. Read Ali's latest on Iraqi blogger Riverbend (specifically, they believe she's lying), Alawi's speech, and the current conditions in the country.

IRAQ THE MODEL: Who's Lying?

Haaretz - Israel says it was involved in Damascus slaying of Hamas man

Dave calls this a "Familiar Tale," which indeed it is - the rejection letter received by an Israeli woman applying for a job with a European firm. Read it here, and the follow-up here.

Interesting interview with Pervez Musharraf in the Washington Post. Not a lot of new ground, really, but we hear that Musharraf and Bush communicate regularly and keep in touch on War on Terror issues. Also, Musharraf traces much of the terrorism problem and support for bin Laden to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The old "root causes" argument.

I agree to an extent, actually, although I think we may disagree as to what the root causes of the I/P conflict itself are. The trouble is that both the I/P conflict and terrorism generally have similar root-causes, so they overlap each other. Among them are the concept of dar al Islam and the difficulty Arab Muslims seem to have in compromising or in being minorities, the promulgation of Jew-hatred and Holocaust denial, Arab Muslims' seeming troubles in building functioning civil societies, their almost universal curse of corrupt leadership (particularly true with regard to the Palestinian Arabs), their sense of shame - on and on. Saying the I/P conflict is the root cause is...reaching for a metaphor here...a bit like saying the cracks in the dam are the reason the town is in danger of being flooded when the fact is that the dam is cracking because of the rain and the hurricane. You have to do something about the wind and rain before you start blaming the engineers. Bad analogy I'm sure, but the point is that if you want to solve the I/P conflict, then you have to address the "root-causes" of that issue, too. "Give the Palestinians what they want" is an easy standard for Musharraf to live up to, his responsibility toward the safety of the Israeli people is completely different from what any democratically elected Israeli leader could possibly risk - or even an undemocratically elected leader who didn't want his throat cut.

And what is it, exactly, that "the Palestinians" (And which Palestinians? The people or their corrupt leaders? And what of outside forces who want no such solution?) want? If it can be determined, can it be given? Let's look for clues.

'The Extremists Dislike Me' (washingtonpost.com)

Writing today about the media's trouble, David Broder tries lumping the SiftVets in with Ra^theerGate. Earth to Broder: The media lost credibility because of the SwiftVets, not because they paid too much attention, and not because the Vets' stories were inaccurate, but because they did everything possible to ignore the SwiftVets and pretend they didn't exist - and when they did notice them, they simply went on the attack while simultaneously demonstrating that they had absolutely no grasp of the clear substance behind the SwiftVets' feelings, as you also demonstrate.

Here is demonstrated another of the media's troubles. They just can't admit their own biases. Broder is so keyed on being even-handed that, along with the litany of issues that show the press trashing its own credibility to shill for a Kerry candidacy, he feels the need to cast about for a pro-Bush screw-up that shows balance. The problem is he has to make one up because there is no balance to be found. The MSM's problem continues to be its own inability to look itself in the face and admit that its own bias (or agenda if you prefer) is the real root of the problem. Until that happens, there will be no change.

Broder also gets the internet wrong, as well, casting the entry of internet "journalists" (his scare-quotes) as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution as they were in this case.

The Media, Losing Their Way (washingtonpost.com)

Update: Beldar has a challenge: "Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully "debunked" or fully proven to be "unsubstantiated"?"

If you're familiar with the record of Senator Mark Hatfield, this is one of the most remarkable endorsements of President Bush, yet. It certainly beats Zell Miller, Ed Koch and Ron Silver. Hatfield has been one of the most consistently anti-war votes in the US Senate dating back to Vietnam when he had John Kerry's Winter Soldier hearings entered into the Congressional Record. This endorsement shows that there are still people out there, and not just youngsters, still capable of removing their blinders and taking a fresh look around. Inspiring, really. Read it all. (via Roger L. Simon)

Mark O. Hatfield: For me, choice for president is clear: Bush

That's what I think after reading the entire OpinionJournal piece linked to at LGF , Guess Who's a GOP Booster? While reading the first part I reveled in the idea of Dan Rather cracking walnuts between his butt-cheeks upon hearing that Sumner Redstone was voting for George Bush, the remainder of the article makes leaves one far less sanguine.

First of all, Sumner's protestations ring like BS from the start, since there's no way that someone can actually think that standing on a stage and saying that "from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal" is an effective endorsement of George Bush. Second, you read on and find out...

Redstone is doing a CYA in overdrive.

This post has two levels of entertainment attached to it. Both involve Nigerian spam scammers.

Friend and frequent commenter on this blog, "Arthuresq" decided to have a little fun stringing along one of these guys. You can read a lot of the exchange on his new blog, here. The best part is the end of the exchange where he lets his cover down, but I see he hasn't posted that yet. I'll see about putting it up.

The most interesting part is that "Arthuresq" actually has a client who fell for one of these scams and got in some serious trouble.

ArthurEsq: Why Bother:

There's more.

Regime change.

Michael Ledeen: Iran, Impossible? Nope. The mullahs will go the way of the Evil Empire.

Ahhh...toilet humor.

An amazing interview with a man who's not afraid to be a "collaborator." I could never in a million years be that brave.

Do read the whole thing.

Jerusalem Post: "If saving lives means I'm a traitor, so be it"

Right here. (Via American Digest)

More soil on the grave of the idea that suicide bombers are desperate losers.

Arutz Sheva - Suicide Bomber Was Children´s TV Show Hostess (Via LGF)

Mark Steyn makes a lot of the points I make below, only he makes them better (hat tip: mal):

The Spectator: The doomed defeatist:

Pieter responds to some feedback on the state of John Kerry's campaign. As I've had a few thoughts stewing about my brain for the past couple of days since I heard the bits of Kerry's speech of the other day billed as "major" and laying out his own Iraq plan, I thought I'd take a moment to get a few of them down on "paper."

Several things struck me as I listened to Kerry lay out the groundwork as build-up for his much-vaunted "plan." So he's going through this laundry-list of horrors - how bad things are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc...he's really making the world sound like a dangerous mess with lots of issues that are going to being flying in our faces the next few years. I know what he's trying to do. He's trying to paint the Bush tenure as a failure, as having made us less safe - but the fact is, I, and I'm sure many others are hearing this and thinking, "Wow...sounds dangerous...better stick with Bush." Very few people are going to vote for the Democrats on national security and for protecting us in a dangerous world. That's a fact that long pre-dates this campaign, and is NOT a creation of Karl Rove. It's something that the Bush campaign shrewdly plays into, but they didn't create it, it's a long-term trend.

Kerry could try to take Bush on, but on this ground he's clearly playing into Bush's strength. I know, I know, some Kerry supporters think that the picture Kerry paints and the way he wants us to understand it is accurate - that's why he keeps going down this road, but that just shows how tone-deaf the Kerry campaign is, because the fact is that MOST people don't feel that way. The more Kerry makes the world sound unsafe, the more they'll run into the arms of the Republicans.

He could possibly neutralize this strength, if he were to actually pose a real plan for success in the war as he was billed to do, but instead one was left with a "Huh? Isn't that pretty much what we're doing?" feeling. John Kerry seems genetically incapable of taking a clear, solid, straightforward position. Unfortunately, after having run a stealth-hawk candidacy, he's run straight back into the arms of the Howard Dean wing of the party. Didn't anyone notice that Howard Dead lost - even amongst Democrats? And you cannot simultaneously appeal to the fruit-loop branch of the party and convincingly sell your plan for victory.

Also, can he not stop talking about Vietnam already? Does he not get that it just isn't working for him? It's just more evidence of the tone-deafness.

Wow. I had almost convinced myself that stuff from 30 years ago didn't matter, but you've just put the image of John "Jenjis Khan" Kerry and his back-stabbing of our troops right back into the front of my head again. Smooth move, ex-lax.

He paints horrible images of things going badly for the Iraqi people, yet the only solution I can read from him is, "Get the hell out as soon as possible - there are too many problems there."

He, and the rest of the Dems, keep harping on the talking-point of the "rush to war," but again, what do they offer in return? What it sounds to me is like John Kerry and the Democrats, rather than "rushing" to war, will wait until Boston is radioactive, or thousands are dropping dead with funny red spots all over them. THEN they'll fight back, and then they'll still go surgically after the perpetrators, rather than pursuing a more long-term, strategic battle against terror - something Kerry's people won't admit that Iraq is a part of.

A negative message requires an immediate answer as to what you'll do about all those problem you've pointed up, and that's John Kerry's problem - he has no plan, and when he offers it, it's clearly a joke. He's simply offering no reason to change leadership, because he offers no leadership alternative.

So Kerry in effect walked out onto perfectly dry sand to give a speech that may as well have amounted to pouring buckets of water at his feet and then his supporters wonder why he's having trouble climbing out. If the best he can do is offer a defeatist message, coupled with scare and horror stories, wouldn't it be better to avoid the issue altogether and stick to your domestic strengths? Of course it's not possible, but it's just as obvious what the source of Kerry's difficulties are - they're the difficulties of a liberal Democrat trying to run in a time when national security is a big issue, and doing it ineptly, as well. His troubles are inherent in the nature of his party and the character of the candidate. Nothing else. The system is working.

...in this front page piece. The theme of this article is not whether or not the flip-flopper label is fair and whether or not it could also apply to the President, but simply that it is unfair and that it does apply to the President.

Despite Bush Flip-Flops, Kerry Gets Label (washingtonpost.com)

One thing they always fail to point out. George Bush already has the job. Making decisions and getting policies passed (something John Kerry, despite his inconsistencies, has spent a career being rotten at), requires compromise and occassional course changes. (I wish they'd make up their minds - is George Bush too bull-headed and incapable of admitting error, or is he too indecisive?) John Kerry is a flip-flopper because he doesn't even have the job yet and he's already all over the map. We already know what kind of President George Bush is, we've seen him at work, and so far he comes off as fairly consistent. The voters are trying to see what kind of man John Kerry is and he has yet to inspire any confidence.

I'll give the Post credit for the concluding quote, though:

Indeed. And it's show itself well calibrated so far.

Album cover by Terra Taco. Heheh. Warning: Contains profanity. (But then, so does the subject.)

Here's the latest bulletin on the type of stuff showing on Palestinian TV from Palestinian Media Watch (they tend not to get their email bulletins up on their site for a couple days, so this is in full):

Striking new PA TV Hate Video

Israel behind all world terror and wars
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Introduction

A new and most striking hate music video, entitled "The Game" started appearing yesterday on Palestinian Authority (PA) TV. The clip, which is sung in English, starts with the female vocalist, looking down from heaven, singing about "hundreds of years" of "peaceful living" on earth. Then suddenly "heaven's gates opened wide" and waves of victims start to arrive. (Visuals of Arabs and Africans.) The singer decides to go to earth to see for herself what has caused this death wave and discovers a world so horrific she is happy "not to be alive." The world has been engulfed in "the game of terror". Interspersed throughout the clip primarily of Palestinians, are archival scenes of injured and suffering people from around the world. Dead bodies and victims of massacres, horrific close ups of mutilated bodies, including scenes of victims from Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Africa, and even the well-known picture of a tractor pushing piles of Holocaust victims into a grave. The atomic-bomb mushroom cloud appears followed by pictures of victims. (Below.)

The repeating refrain of the song: "In the name of terror, innocents die. It's a game of horror, I don't know why."

The lyrics on their own suggest this is a song condemning terror, however, the visuals paint a different picture: Israel is to blame for all world terror and suffering. While the victims are from numerous conflicts, the only soldiers shown are Israelis, often in shooting positions, and Israeli soldiers appear at least ten times. The text also includes the words: "How could anyone have survived? I was happy to be not alive. How could anyone, through occupation, survive?" The word "occupation", of course, being the word the PA uses in English to define Israel's rule over the disputed territories, and in Arabic to define all of Israel.

The message of this hate-clip is a common theme promoted by PA and Arab leadership: Israeli and/or Jews are behind all world conflict and suffering, either directly, or indirectly by forcing the hand of world powers. It is likewise interesting to note that following standard propaganda tactic, killer and victim are switched. Though Israel has been the most repeated terror victim in recent years, Israel is depicted in this clip as the perpetrator of terror. And whereas perpetrators of international terror have been predominantly Arabs and Muslims, there is not even one scene showing either Arab terror, such as, the world trade center, or victims of Arab terror.

The visuals are very powerful and tell the main story. The scenes of victims of massacres and dead bodies interspersed with pictures of Israeli soldiers, send a clear hate-message.

The following is the full text. As mentioned, the song is in English and all language mistakes below are in the original.

We don't really learn much new from this front-page Washington Post article which purports to be on the growing "supporting role" taken by the US in Iraq. Instead, the reader may actually find himself more confused. By trying to show both sides of the coin, this article is a good example of the sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" negativist journalism we've had to filter all of our Iraq coverage through. No wonder people think our Iraq policy is a mess, and everything's chaos. The reporting can't simply make a point and stick to it. In other words, they don't give us a story and stick to it, then perhaps have a second story, or section in the same, or better yet an op-ed (which reporting on individual person's opinions really is) with analysis - supporting or skeptical of the news.

WaPo: U.S. Now Taking Supporting Role in Iraq, Officials Say - Concern Surrounds Whether Power Shift Is Too Late

Right away the headline has me thinking, "Well what were they supposed to do? At what earlier point exactly were the Iraqis ready for more power? We're all aware of the debates over timelines, and the many criticisms the Administration took for appearing to rush things - sometimes accused of doing so as a form of premature cut-and-run. So now the Post is implying it's already too late. Wonderful.

A year ago? Does anyone think the Iraqis were ready to take on authority over themselves - to say nothing of American resources - a year ago? And the large-scale reconstruction projects that have been going on for the past year and a half? That's not the place for the local contractor guy.

Can you imagine what the criticisms, to say nothing of the current state of things, would be had the US done those things?

First, an unnamed Marine Colonel with a quote in isolation serves as the voice of the article's authors. Secondly we have the same bit of "can do no right" criticism about the government. The Iraqis are still not set up for full scale elections, how can we expect anything but a leader who;s rule has been facilitated by the occupation authorities. Later in the article it's stated that Allawi has about 60% support amongst Iraqis. That sounds pretty good to me, and to have a leader selected and who rules through some form of consensus authority - which Allawi was, we recall, selected through - compared to thirty years of brutal dictatorship with no popular consent at all...it sounds to me like a pretty good deal. See, you can't criticize without being honest about the alternatives.

This is a schizoid article. On the one hand it tells us what's actually happening, then on the other it uses individual man on the street views (sometimes anonymous like our Marine Colonel, sometimes expert like Ken Pollack and Larry Diamond, sometimes just a "supermarket owner's" opinion) to undercut its own story.

The article's conclusion:

I like Ken Pollack, his book was a great help in informing my views in the run-up to war, but does he really think there was any possibility of turning over real authority to an Iraqi government 18 months ago? WHAT Iraqi government? And just imagine the complaints had we tried to do so! I'll give Pollack the benefit of the doubt here and assume the authors, in the rush to craft their piece, haven't really done his views justice.

Starts a bit slow, but keep watching.

I didn't hear it live outside of a few soundbites, but reading the transcript I'd say it looks pretty good.

I liked this:

And this:

This part is excellent:

The first US President to call for the creation of a Palestinian State:

I almost regurgitated when he said this, although I understand why. I didn't write the speech, so I can't expect to agree with every last word. Some people are easily humiliated. Trust me on this:

Bleh.

It might have been improved a bit more if the President had brought a few debating implements with him. Never mind the shotgun, I prefer the chainsaw:

...begins with a single step...or a single handshake...

Jerusalem Post: Shalom chats with new Iraqi PM

An important report from the folks at Honest Reporting. Similar to Eason Jordan's admission of failing to report the whole truth from Saddam's Iraq, Reuters has admitted they avoid the use of the word "terrorist" because they want to protect their reporters.

Reuters Admits Appeasing Terrorists

Read the whole thing.

Oh, is the blogosphere gonna have a good time with this one.

CNN.com - ElBaradei tipped as Nobel favorite

I don't suppose they'd consider awarding the prize to someone who's actually accomplished something on that front, like say, Bush, Blair and Howard? Naaah... The prize will be awarded by a bunch of talkers to a fellow talker. Walkers are out.

The only better candidate would be, oh, I dunno...Hans Bli...

Good Lord. Who could write such stuff? And who could publish it? Why, James Carroll and The Boston Globe respectively, of course. Must be read to be believed.

Boston Globe: Why Americans back the war

Carroll reaches back all the way to the firebombing of Tokyo, through the Cold War and on to the present day in a laundry-list of American sins. In the classical style of the Northeast Liberal Elite point of view, America, far from being vindicated by history, has actually been its villain.

What of the present war? More of the same. A horrible, criminal, illegal waste. The deaths of our guys, the limbs lost? For no purpose whatsoever, no, not even that - an evil purpose, actually. For freedom abroad and safety at home? Not if the likes of the Globe and James Carroll have anything to say about it.

Don't worry you current servicemen, you are in very good company. He is equally condemnatory of the war of our fathers and grandfathers (and great-grandfathers?) that stopped a Nazi-like occupation and replaced a rampaging expansionist empire with a peaceful, functioning democracy to this day:

Good company indeed.

In an odd moment of lucidity, Carroll asks that we face the consequences of our actions:

Can Carroll face the consequences of his own condemnations? Here is my answer to that.

It is no wonder that Carroll concludes this kangaroo-court reading of charges with an advocacy of the Kerry candidacy. Men like Carroll and Kerry know only one thing - how to trade on the shame and defeat of America, and where it does not exist, create it.

I'm going to experiment with putting up a mailing list. It'll be used to send out a pointer to new posts - not all of them, just the ones I spend a bit of time on, or if I think I've got a clever turn of phrase or two in some post or another.

To subscribe, send a blank email to solomonialist-subscribe -at- solomonia.com. I will be the only person to see your address, and of course I will not under any circumstances make it available to anyone. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you subscribe, please keep checking back at the site since I won't be sending a complete daily digest of all posts. Volume will be a maximum of one notification a day - probably less.

This is experimental, so bear with me.

This story has been swishing around the back of my brain the past few days. I know most have seen it by now.

BBC NEWS: Iraq war illegal, says Annan:

As though we have to care what Kofi Annan thinks. Well, sadly, his words do have impact in some quarters. As if Mr. Annan is the final arbiter of legality and illegality. As if legality or illegality according to a UN bureaucrat is synonymous with right and wrong, or just and unjust, wise or unwise. I will not bother running down the list of sins of commission and omission and the systemic problems extant in that body right up to this very minute. This blog and many others run them down on a regular basis [For instance, see this post, currently at the top of Norm Geras's blog.].

I would, however, like to take a moment to graphically illustrate what the consequences on the ground would be of taking Mr. Annan's view of things. What, in practical terms, adopting Mr. Annan's view of things leads to.

A couple of notes: I am not the greatest image Googler. I had some images in mind that I wanted to post, but I couldn't really find them. I think you'll get the point, though.

Second, I know this is not an original idea. I'm sure I saw a very, very similar presentation on another blog. If someone knows where, please feel free to post the link. I felt the need to do this for myself, but I want to give credit where it's due. Someone planted the seed.

Click the extended entry to see the images. [Warning: Some readers may find some photos disturbing.]

Remember the mini-flap created when a few of the players were quoted making negative comments about President Bush? Ays at Iraq at a Glance got a few minutes with the goalie. Interesting - and a lesson in the ability of the press to make whatever story they really want to...all they have to do is go looking for it.

Here's the latest from Palestinian Media Watch:

Here's a good sum-up of the Ra^therGate story so far by Howard Kurtz & Co. The trouble with such accounts is, of course, that you don't get the sense of what it all meant as it was happening - just how much CBS was and is becoming a laughingstock as the fraud became clear, and thereby really understant how bad CBS looks. Again, it's not just the crime, it's the cover-up - and CBS has done plenty of that.

Further, after four pages of describing how a CBS story fell to pieces like a dandelion in the wind, they still allow the final word to end on a note of, "It sure is a shame people are getting hooked on the document thing and missing the real underlying story," when the fact is that to date, even with all the months of Bush Guard allegations, the "story" remains so devoid of substance that it belongs in the gossip rags and nowhere else. The only difference between the two being that the MSM covers politicians and The Star covers Hollywood celebs. Of course, even the Washington Post can't bear to throw this story out with the Dan Rather bath-water, since it's something they themselves want to continue to peddle - calling for a bit of CPR and an adrenaline drip at the end. This is the kind of smeary nonsense they used to accuse the internet of peddling. How things have changed.

In Rush to Air, CBS Quashed Memo Worries (washingtonpost.com)

Update: Tom points out an instance in which the press (& Co.) will be only too glad to accept the vagueries of records over 30 years old.

...the temperature at which the brain begins to die.

Watch this powerful trailer for a new movie about the lies of Michael Moore. (Via Accidental Verbosity)

No kidding.

Jeff Jacoby on the disappearing significance of "Election Day."

Boston Globe: The declining importance of Election Day:

But does the "fetishizing" increase participation? Probably not, but fraud? Maybe.

Well, it's under the heading, "CBS Documents," which one would think would be an article that questions the credibility of CBS, but somehow The Globe (and AP) manage to twist this back on the President. Isn't it the press's job to try to provide answers, not end with leading questions? Sure it is. Especially when they should know the answers already. The Globe (and the AP) continue to serve as Terry McAuliffe's mouth-piece by pushing the doubts without the proof.

You would think that with the public's professional respect for journalists hovering somewhere around what they feel toward pirates and alien physicians with a penchant for the human rectum, the print media, at least, would be laboring to change that impression. You would be wrong.

Boston.com: President is said to review disputed Guard records

Thus the story ends - still about Bush, and not about Dan Rather or the DNC's constant accusations based on little substance and much forgery.

Of course, the Globe could have answered some of these questions themselves quite easily...were their real desire to inform (as it should be). They could read Captain's Quarters, who's been all over the story:

They could just read the mainstream media like ABC, and see what retired Colonel Staudt has to say:

Of course, the facts aren't as useful. Far better to end on a quote from Terry McAuliffe.

One thing the Guard controversy shows is how tough it is to prove a negative, and that once things start to be repeated about you, the allegations themselves become the story - something that becomes impossible to stop.

It's becoming a matter of less and less importance to Bush supporters, anyway (although it is still important to discuss and point out - worry not, the pajamahadeen are on the job). What do you call a scandal that actually ends up with a positive impact on the subject? You can't really call it a "Gate," can you? I mean, for CBS it's RatherGate, but for Bush? The docubump?

Update: Silly me, I knew the name "Lindlaw" (the AP reporter) sounded familiar. Squaring the Globe points out that he's the same guy responsible for the (shall we say fraudulant?) 'story of the booing at Bush's announcement of Clinton’s illness.' See Squaring the Globe for the links.

Via Who Knew and Norman Geras. I kept thinking, "sometimes" on a lot of the questions, or "I dunno, I'm married, I don't have 'relationships' anymore." Enough with the excuses. Someone get me some meds.

Personality Disorder Test - Personality Test

Apparently, I am a walking bundle of neuroses - meaning I'm rather ordinary.

Update: Norm surveys the blogger results: "No question about which blogger here is the most... er, disorderly. Well, let's say he's the Sir Donald Bradman in this field. Yo, Sol!"

First I had to Google Donald Bradman, which BOTHERED ME. Then I wondered why I'm the one being picked on. Then I'm thinkin', why a cricket guy, why not Babe Ruth or something? Is this some sort of test? Are people watching me?! How do I look?

How is a guy supposed to SLEEP with all this stuff to consider?

Oh yes, please. Finally cement the uselessness of the UN for all time.

Obviously not going to happen...I think...

Daily Times - Iran to back Khatami for top UN post:

Captain Ed has a very important message sent in from a Marine Major currently serving Iraq. This deserves to be read in full and spread widely.

Captain's Quarters: At The Front: No Doom And Gloom Here

Words to consider when deciding whether or not to vote for a man campaigning (for the second time in his life) on the advocacy of American defeat. Irresolution in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia did great damage to America and complicated our foreign policy choices (not to mention eviscerating out clout) for decades. We need this election and this battle to reverse it.

Martin Indyk has made some ill-advised and vastly over-looked comments regarding the Golan Heights:

The American Thinker: Kerry's Middle East advisor wants to reward Syria

TigerHawk finds John Kerry's sister running around overseas saying some extremely irresponsible things.

(Via Roger L. Simon) Well, someone (namely ABC) finally thought to talk to retired Col. Walter Staudt, the guy named in the "Killian" memos, and Bush's commander in the Texas Air Guard. He's saying some pretty good things about the young Mr. Bush, and that no one pressured him to admit Bush to the Guard, and he never pressured anyone to give Bush any favors.

ABCNEWS.com : Guard Officer Denies Seeking Help for Bush

Meanwhile, Bush's signing of Form 180 (something Senator Kerry has refused to do) continues to result in the release of more documents, documents that continue to make the young Mr. Bush sound very good, and continue to provide more excuses to show a young Mr. Bush looking good in a flight suit. That can never be a bad thing.

This CNN report needs to deviate from reporting on the documents (real ones, not fake) - which say nothing bad - to a toss in on Kitty Kelly and generalities from "Bush critics."

*cough*cheapshot*cough*

So CBS's new journalistic standards include fraudulent documents and using little old ladies - CNN's include Kitty Kelly.

Hat tip to Larry for pointing me to this five part series from NRO's Jay Nordlinger - dispatches from his trip to Israel. If you're one of the people who visits this blog and sort of skims the Israel stuff, this may be a series you should stop and take the time to read more thoroughly. It's really written as a bloggy travel-log, and in the process it hits a lot of the interesting points on the conflict you can pick up in an easy format. Take a look.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Any question as to whether the advertisement for the Spanish paper described below was a hoax have been erased, as El Pais has released an unequivocal apology for the content of the mailing...

Via Barcepundit comes this translation from Southern Watch:

As everyone else has commented: CBS, take note.

Believe it or not. Remembering 9/11 three years on with the BBC Arabic web site forums.

Translations at IRAQ THE MODEL.

Lots of interesting tid-bits on a range of subjects people actually care about in Franks' book:

But asking octogenarians leading questions in a desperate attempt to rescue your reputation is oh-so-much more important.

Tom informs us that a fire at a local school in his neck of the woods has had a fire and needs a bit of help. Take a look at the story if you get a chance, here.

...but rumors that I blog in a Dora the Explorer outfit are wildly exagerated. Everyone knows that tails are where it's at. I blog as Boots.

Dan Rather's ratings are seeking the level of his credibility, which is to say they're going down faster than Peggy Sue on prom night in the back of daddy's '57 Chevy.

It is one of the iconic images that emerged from the Intifada - an Arab man and his boy sheltering behind a barrel as bullets come in at them. A few shots hit the wall behind them as they crouch. Suddenly a spray of bullets kicks up the dust in front of them. The media informs us that the boy, Muhammed Aldura is dead, his father badly wounded. Another victim of brutal Israeli violence - this time captured live on camera. How could soldiers have shot at this innocent pair? It is a powerful image.

But is it real?

Sometimes the eyes deceive, and they especially deceive when what we are being shown is intended to do so.

Last Thursday I attended a video presentation by Richard Landes, a Professor of Millennial Studies at Boston University. Billed as a "Film on Palestinian Manipulation of the Media," I was anxious to see what was in store. Canny media observers know that there's almost always more to the story when it comes to media reporting of any contentious issue - and that's particularly true with regard to Middle East reporting, where journalists are routinely given access based upon their sympathy and performance in advocating for the Palestinian Arab cause (at least, as dictated by the establishment groups), and those who do not are literally at risk of life and limb.

Professor Landes' opening remarks contained a perspective one would expect from someone who'd spent his professional life examining the history of Apocalyptic beliefs. Modern Jihadism is a sort of modern "active Apocalypticism," whereby its practitioners are seeking to bring about, through their own hand, the promise of a (Muslim) utopia on Earth. An intrinsic aspect of this effort, it was explained, is of course, the existence of a "Dajjal," a sort of end-of-times Muslim anti-Christ. And who fits this role better than the Jews? One doesn't have to seek far to witness this literal demonization at work every day in the areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority and beyond.

And what better method to demonize than with visual proof of the demons at work, slaying an innocent child? In older times, a particular demonization of the Jews was known as the Blood Libel. The incident filmed on September the 30th, 2000 is, as the Professor pointed out, is a perfect modern version of the same.

The Blood Libel, the demonization of the Jews, the casting of them as a sort of Muslim anti-Christ can only lead in one direction - as the Professor pointed out, they add up to what Norman Cohn set as the title to his book on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they are a "Warrant for Genocide."

We watched the film in VHS on a normal sized TV. The production is clearly in a first draft form. Sound was bad, and eventually the Professor ended up simply narrating the images live from the podium. It was made in only a few weeks using what amounted to donated studio space. The video used was obtained from Israeli Investigator Nahum Shahaf, as well as some other footage obtained from other sources. Almost all of the footage was from that one day in September, and serves to give a very important overall impression on what was going on that day.

The first part of the presentation focused not on the Aldura material, but on the other activity going on at the crossroads that day. A bit of "pulling the camera back" in order to give us the perspective necessary to see the images anew - to re-train our eyes as it were.

Entitled "Pallywood," we start with some shots of Bob Simon of 60 Minutes doing a report on the day...but something's amiss we're told. We begin to look at the images again, but from more angles, and this time we leave in the parts who's only witness previously was the cutting-room-floor.

We see a man shot in the leg and drop to the ground, only to be grabbed by that leg and loaded into an ambulance that appears conveniently on the scene immediately...loaded in laying on his wounded leg. A close examination of the film shows that no blood is visible on the man's clothing - an examination not possible when seeing the film as it is displayed on the nightly news.

We see a dramatic scene of an Arab man in civilian clothing firing an AK-47 through a hole in a building, presumably at the Israeli position. Then we are shown what wasn't shown by the media - the scenes immediately before. First, a shot showing the interior of the building the man is about to be firing into - it is an empty room that, due to its location, could not possibly permit the man to fire at the Israelis. We see an Arab civilian giving direction, shooing away the group of bystanders clustered nonchalantly around, clearing the area and getting the shooter into position for filming. Now when we see the same footage of the man shooting, we know what we are seeing - a staged shot of a man firing into an empty room.

A cut is included to emphasize the point of how staged these things can be. This is surveillance footage taken by the Israeli military of a group of men carrying was is supposed to be a corpse for a funeral. The problem? Several times on the tape the corpse is seen to be dropped, whereupon he gets up, dusts himself off and climbs right back on to the shoulders of his friends. No matter to the crowd that begins to gather and surround the procession. They know their roles.

We have everything we need for a Hollywood production. There are actors, extras, props and an audience.

Most of the action takes place right in front of the Israeli strongpoint, from which this withering fire is supposed to have been issuing. Yet it is clear from the tape that those present have no concern whatsoever for their own safety. Cars drive past, the crowd gathers, chats, smokes, laughs and takes direction from handlers. PA cameramen lollygag in the middle of the street.

Men lay in the street - in the edited news film they look like corpses, or desperate people sheltering from the gunshots - yet a longer and closer look shows one man chatting on his cell phone, and other shots show other people simply wandering by them. Landes calls these curb-huggers simply, "sunbathers." They have their role to play

In the hours of footage Landes saw, he says he only noticed one person who may have actually been injured.

Now that our eye has been re-trained on how to view the footage, it's time to revisit the Aldura film. In the uncut footage we see crowds of other people running past Aldura and his father, yet they stay in place. Even a PA cameraman stops and shelters next to them for a moment. All of this taking place while PA camerman Talal Abu Rachman had testified that the pair were pinned in place by "withering" Israeli fire. None is seen on the film, and it is quite clear the two could have moved easily had they wanted to, as many others did. We even see one of the ubiquitous "directors" motioning people.

The first few bullets do finally come in, but they come in at the wrong angle to have come from the Israeli position - they come from straight-on, not at the angle Israeli fire would have come from. When the first few bullets hit the wall behind the pair, we hear a man shouting in Arabic, "The boy is dead, the boy is dead!" But he has not apparently even been shot yet, and is still sitting up. In the final moments of the available film, after the boy is supposed to be dead, he is even seen to raise his hand and his feet and look up. This part was cut out of the original sequence broadcast by France 2 Television. They said it was footage of the boy "in his death throws" - so horrible they refused to release it. I have never seen anyone "in their death throws," but this certainly does not look horrible, and no worse than the rest of the footage. Might they have had another agenda at work in their editor's scissors?

Finally, we are shown footage taken that day and the following morning that show the sidewalk that this supposedly gut-shot boy and his badly wounded father lay. The is no blood visible there. It's not until a news crew arrives the following afternoon that a small puddle of blood makes its appearance for the cameras.

Landes emphasized he takes no position on whether, for a certainty, the boy is alive or dead, or whether he was killed that day in September. He does feel, however, that when the evidence is examined in full context, there is sufficient doubt about what actually occurred that day. When combined with the obvious explosive nature of the footage, a responsible news organization would think twice about airing it.

But air it they did. Few other images have been used to incite such hatred and violence as those images have. They helped drive the violent intifada. They were fodder for encouraging people to strap on explosive vests and commit genuine mass-murder.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is violent enough without help from outside. Some think that the staging and fabrication of images is OK, because after all, Arab kids are killed, and even if it's a question of whether this one was, what's the difference? But they're not killed like this, and if they are, it's essential that we know it for sure, not have it staged for us. Images have the ability to kill as efficiently as any bullet or bomb. It is essential that those images tell the truth, and not just a "sort of" truth. If we allow that, we allow ourselves to be used, to be manipulated, to be robbed of our ability to understand the world as it is, rather than as it is served up to us in a created reality.

It's in the real world that we need to make decisions and find solutions, and that means understanding that real world as it is. If we don't do that, we'll never understand why our solutions just don't seem to be working. And that means that everyone - American, European, Israeli and Palestinian will continue to suffer for it.

I would never sit idly by while my house was being robbed, why would I do anything less while my mind is robbed? Truth is essential.

Note: Per my usual practice, I will scan in and post my notes later.

Update: Notes scan, for what it's worth: Page1, Page2

A jaw-dropping ad for subscriptions to a major Spanish paper: Barcepundit in English: "You can do a lot in one single day; just imagine what can happen in three months

...of a very long road of disrespect.

Terra Taco: Dan Ra^ther at Burger King

From respected news man (OK, in some quarters) to internet laughing-stock in less than a week.

This is quite stunning if true. (Via Jihad Watch)

Channelnewsasia.com: Syria tested chemical arms on civilians in Darfur region: press:

Would Syria or Sudan be so sure that no one would find out that they would do this? Or are they so cocky that they figure even if someone finds out, no one will be able or willing to do anything anyway...

Here's the latest update from Palestinian Media Watch. While some national media seem only able to vilify Israel and America (See Honest Reporting's Sad Situation in Sweden), it's important to understand what, exactly, is tolerated and encouraged by the entity the Israelis are expected to negotiate peace with.

I wondered how long it would take our illustrious media to take the news of 1000 war dead and somehow turn it on its head as a device to undermine the cause in which these brave men and women died. Not long, it turns out. I had imagined some anti-Bush group would take out a full-paged add with 1000 coffins on it, tacking on some anti-war message by rote. Silly me, they did not need to pay for the space. The Boston Globe was kind enough to donate Op-Ed space for the message.

Boston.com: A thousand lives by Thomas Starr

You can see the accompanying graphic at the link above.

Leaving aside the falsehood that photojournalists are not allowed to depict coffins (It's not against the law, they're simply disallowed from taking photos of the coffins coming off the planes. Want a picture of a flag-draped coffin? Go visit a funeral and see how the family feels about it.) Starr seems actually dismayed that today, the papers print the real pictures of the dead - images of them while they were still living. It would seem odd at first that an art professor known for organizing anti-war exhibits would actually be dismayed that the faces of the real people who fought and died would be shown in lieu of generic coffins. Wouldn't the actual photo be more effective to bring the cost of war home? Of course. But then perhaps we'd be forced to confront the individual and their sacrifice. We may end up feeling a bit guilty not doing everything we could to make sure their efforts were successful and that they did not die in vain. Or worse, we may feel a pang of guilt actually working against them and helping to ensure a vain death.

Besides, generic images fit a generic message far more easily.

Let us not be coy. Starr's anti-war message is a generic one that started before the conflict and has remained unencumbered by the images of mass-graves, children's prisons, cut off tongues and hands and gassed villages. It is unencumbered by the specific images of the young Americans who have given their lives in the cause of freedom and to crack open one of the worst destabilizing regimes in the Middle East so that we might be safer here at home.

These coffins are not an attempt to honor their sacrifice, they are an attempt to convey a feeling of shame, and a generic one at that. I feel none, nor should you.

Let us again be honest. The text that accompanies the picture is a meaningless tack-on included as the merest excuse to try to justify what is, in fact, a boring and obvious work that any non-artist could as easily have dreamed up and created. The text is senseless because that's what happens when you try to write and hide your cards at the same time. It's dishonest because the author won't come right out and say what his agenda really is. Worry not. We've puzzled it.

Starr: "In Colonial Massachusetts, photographic portraits were not an option, but war deaths were still reported visually: with the simple silhouette of a coffin for each casualty."

Here is the type of image he's talking about:

That image is typical of a type of sheet printed immediately in the aftermath of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. They were conveyed by fast courier all up and down the Atlantic coast to each colony one by one. The coffins depicted the dead of the battle, and the number grew in subsequent printings as more men died of their wounds.

Far from being distributed to instill a sense of shame and inculcate a feeling of hopeless paralysis, these propaganda posters inflamed the public. They were the ear-splitting ring that made the shot heard 'round the world what it was. They fomented the Revolution. They were a brush fire that General Gage and the rest were unable to put out.

Those coffins said to the people, "Look! Look what they've done! Our people are dead and murdered, now what are you going to do about it?" As Churchill would say a century and a half later, "What kind of people do they think we are?"

Starr's illustration, and the Boston Globe's printing of it are a very different type of propaganda - but of the type one might expect to find in a foreign paper, not one here at home.

I have a question, then: By showing us these images, what kind of people do Thomas Starr and the Boston Globe think we are?

The gossip rags are notorious for going out, finding a person who's willing to tell them something juicy and then reporting on it. Never mind vetting too deeply, it's the story the readers want, and it's the story the readers get. If it turns out not to be true...eh, 'that's what we were told,' they can always say. Now, one might expect such standards from sources like the Enquirer or The Star, but the big guys, like say...CBS, one expects better from. Take a look at these two entries at Power Line to see how the standards of the vintage media have slipped. The first comes off as something directly out of the Enquirer playbook, the second concerns how poorly the documents CBS has relied on would fair in a court of law.

Power Line: The Real Robert Strong

(As a side note on the power and usefullness of the blogosphere, see this comment at Roger L. Simon's blog posted by the father of the Power Line source.)

Power Line: A Good Question:

Update: OceanGuy says:

Exactly, which is why Bush's lead continues strong, in spite of these silly attacks. Sometimes I suspect the Democrats of either willfull incompetence or some of the worst delusional group-think I've ever seen. Do they really think this is an effective line of attack? And this is it for them, because at the same time these attacks are happening, their man is still busy hiding from the media.

Zell Miller does yoeman's work in his own defense in this OpinionJournal piece. Almost as effective as the original speech.

OpinionJournal: Telling It Like It Is - I will never trust John Kerry with my family's safety.

Memo to Spielberg: We're facing a 'War of the Worlds'

Well, good for Chirac. They've got a big problem in France now, and I suppose this is one way they're trying to do something about it, weak though it may be.

But on another level, there are few better examples of the world's (and particularly Europe's and Hollywood's) ability to wring its hands and cry rivers over dead Jews while condemning and pointing fingers at the live ones. The Holocaust is over. The victims dead and buried or incinerated. It's easy to wring hands over deceased nations we no longer need fear we will be forced to actually do anything to help. Talk is cheap, and this is the ultimate cheap talk. The leaders who sent the boys to die in foreign wars are dead and gone, as are the boys they sent - buried in graves so many decades old the grass over them may as well never have been disturbed for all one can tell now. Is anyone really in there?

There's no argument over what to do now, it's been had. So it's easy to make the movies, furrow our brows and make pronouncements - but what of the living? I speak not just of the Jews and Israel, but of all of us. We're all Jews now. All of us. The people in Darfur for whom the world shrinks from labeling what is happening a "genocide" for fear they may actually have to do something more than wag a finger, as well as those live Jews in Israel today facing a murderous onslaught of hate unseen since the '30's. Recognizing the evil of the Holocaust as it was is all well and good, but what of a recognition of the evil we all face today? Is it more important to climb in the sack with Arafat, Assad and Rafsanjani? Is it perhaps more tempting to take the opportunity to balance the the old European accounts by wagging a finger at the Jews of today and amplifying every perceived wrong so that European guilt over the events of the past may somehow be mollified? Is the Hollywood elite so tentative because they fear if they actually recognize the evil as it is, they may have to face the fact that politicians of the "wrong" political party may actually be right?

I'm tired of self-flagellation over past events, and somnambulant politicians and artists slapping each other on the back and congratulating themselves for every new gyration and twist that helps them avoid facing today's reality. Show me the past lessons learned, and how you're going to apply those lessons to we the living.

That will be worth a medal.

Read the transcript, or better yet, watch the actual video of this Egyptian television program in which denial of the Holocaust is discussed as something as ordinary and accepted as whether the earth is round and the sun rises every day. Let me rephrase that. It's not that Holocause denial is discussed, it's that the non-existence of any such thing is taken as a simple given that everyone understands. It is surreal. Think, as you watch this clip, how alien the world-view is compared to what one would find in America, or even Europe still, and ask yourself, the next time someone starts talking about how it's our fault that "they hate us," or that we need to do a better job of selling ourselves to the greater Middle East, or that we should be a more neutral broker between both sides - think about how long a row that's going to be to hoe, about what sides you're being asked to be neutral between exactly, and about who you're being asked to get into bed with.

MEMRI: Former Editor-in-Chief of Egyptian Government Paper: 'We were Educated from Childhood that the Holocaust is a Big Lie'

In order for there to be real change, there needs to be a pull as well as a push. We can push our ideas and our culture through our commerce and outreach in broadcast media, but there needs to be a corresponding pull as well, or it will amount to nothing more than trying to shove a bunch of wet spaghetti. Totalitarian governments are naturally conservative and suspicious of the pull of new ideas, and without a change at the top, there's very little chance of success. At least, it hasn't worked thus far, has it? If these societies open up, might there not just be a better chance of the widespread curiosity of human nature being unleashed to provide the pull we need to start changing these attitudes? Well, that seems to be the current plan. I think it's worth a go.

[Update: It occurs to me that many people out there with somewhat isolationist tendencies may wonder why we have to care about these attitudes existing in the Arab/Muslim World. Well people weened on these views are responsible for mass immigration in Europe, and are finding their political voice here in the United States, too. Think about it.]

(P.S. Back to posting - spent the weekend assembling my new Athlon64 system, and then...well...there's a copy of Doom 3 sitting there...and we can't let all that horsepower go to waste...if I'm going to go right back to blog posting, I may as well be using an IBM Selectric...and nobody does that anymore!)

Light blogging (at best) through the weekend. I just received some new computer parts in the mail, and I'll likely be spending the weekend doing a full hardware and software rebuild. This is gonna be fun (I hope!).

Laugh of the day has been listening to the sound-bites of a desperate Terry McAuliffe telling everyone to ignore the forged documents - the real issue is the fact that you can't trust George Bush. BwahahahahaLOLOLOLOL... Attacking George Bush's Guard record has been a loser of an idea from the beginning, as was running on John Kerry's Vietnam record. Why is this guy still employed? Yeesh.

Oh, and Dan Rather, please don't forget to shut off the lights on your way out the door. Fired, resigned or not, he's just a walking shadow now.

Sorry for the lack of posting. The site has been down today until just now. I attended an interesting talk and film showing this evening presented by BU Professor Richard Landes (last seen here). The film (still in its first-draft form) uses raw, unedited video footage to demonstrate the way the international press shirks its responsibility to convey the truth of the Middle East Conflict, with particular focus on the "death" of Mohammed Aldura. Highly illuminating. I'll be doing one of my reports later.

It's been amusing to watch the media gyrations today as CBS is exposed as so desperate to shill for their candidate they're down to using forged documents. Question now: What's the provenance of the docs? Someone should really explain to them that if they absolutely insist on dragging their man across the finish-line, they really shouldn't do it while holding him around the neck. By the time the race is finished, they'll find their guy is dead.

Power Line has scans of the 1984 John Kerry press-release detailing the laundry-list of weapons systems the Senator wanted to cut. These are not reluctant cuts as part of some legislative compromise. They are calls for specific cuts of specific systems as a matter of policy.

Thinking about Iran, their ongoing quest for The Bomb, their backing of the men killing our guys in Iraq, their backing of international terrorism past and present...honestly, it makes me sick. What are we doing about it? The Bush Administration has been effectively hand-cuffed while the Europeans are closing their eyes and cutting deals to keep themselves blissfully ignorant. There is no international organization of a permanent nature, or even a temporary grouping of nations capable of doing anything but appeasing the monsters of Tehran.

Weekly Standard: Europe's Iran Fantasy (hat tip: mal)

If the worst happens again, there will be nothing natural, or even unforseeable about it.

Another vet has stepped forward to repudiate what he said and did 33 years ago. Once again, it doesn't leave John Kerry looking very good.

(Via LGF) www.wintersoldier.com - Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers

There's a lot of catharsis happening out there, and John Kerry's footing the bill for it.

Apologies for the lack of updates. It was a fairly busy weekend and I thought I'd take a few days off from the "pressure to produce" and take a little break (I'll likely post some whimsical peach picking photos later). I've also had a few issues rolling around my head, but nothing that I could quite spit out. Obviously, the big one is the Russian School Massacre.

I kept wanting to do a post that somehow looked at the slightly bigger picture - how it fit in with our own War on Terror - but I kept hitting a mental wall. Not to say it doesn't fit! I just kept thinking about Putin and some of the ironies involved here. I mean you think about so many of the criticisms leveled at the US and George Bush - how the Administration has been, through its policies, flirting with fascism, stifling dissent, manipulating a coerced media...that the military can't be trusted...that personal business interests have had far more influence on policy than altruism our even a more far-sighted national-interest...that we, through our policies can be said to have brought some of what happened to us on 9/11 on ourselves - and all of that, all of it, can be said to apply to Vladimir Putin and his government far more accurately than could ever apply to George Bush in a Leftist's wet-dream.

Which is not to say that the Russians are responsible, or ought to turn inward and begin to beat their chests and throw themselves upon the fire, either. The Muslim terrorists are responsible, of course. They are the only ones who should be throwing themselves, or be thrown into, the inferno. In a wider sense of course, the people responsible are all those who would excuse - in any way - what happened in Beslan. This sort of terrorism should never, ever be rewarded. It should certainly never garner sympathy for the terrorists' cause. Indeed, if there were ever a clearer sign that a cause were not worth an ounce of sympathy, but instead should garner barrels of revulsion, it is the events that transpired in Beslan this past week.

Such sympathy is a product of what some may call the "Palestinianization" of the cause - where terror and horror's perpetrators are excused, or at least judged not so harshly, because of a world that feels sympathy for the political cause they represent. The world clings hard to its beliefs and doesn't want to let it go and turn away from it in spite of who they find themselves in bed with by not doing so. They give ideological shelter to murderers and get more of the same by sympathizing with a cause long past deserving of any sympathy.

The Palestinian Authority spokesman who, following the suicide bombings in Beersheva, said that he condemned all acts of violence against civilians, whether perpetrated by Palestinians or Israelis, is responsible for exactly the type of equivocation that encourages more of the same. Want attention for your cause? Do something depraved and get someone to draw a sympathetic connection to your issue - the more depraved and vicious, the more attention and even perverse sympathy you may receive. The PA spokesman just couldn't bring himself to unequivocally condemn the proximate act that got his statement noticed in the first place. He has another agenda and it shows. He's responsible.

But the press and world leaders who fail to point it out to him, who don't point out that he is a PA official and not an Israeli one and thus has a particular need to speak out in a particular way in this particular situation, also have a share of blame.

Saddam Hussein, the demagogue who cynically adopted the Palestinian cause, who used his propaganda engine to blast America and the Jews and who sought to work with radical Islamists for his own purposes was responsible. Fortunately thanks to the United States and her allies, his current area of responsibility involves the avoidance of buggery and little else. We did something about it, you see.

And that brings me back to Putin, the EU and others. While the United States is busy recognizing Iraq as a stepping stone on the path to victory in the greater War on Terror, while we recognize (perhaps not clearly enough, but still better than many others) how Yasser Arafat's depraved Palestinian Authority is also part of that War, and while we are recognizing Iran as part of an Axis of Evil - where are the rest?

Putin had been busy dealing fast and furious with Saddam until we did something to remove that option permanently - an action he, the EU and others (the Axis of Feckless) did everything possible to avoid. Sympathizing with the Palestinian Arabs and their cause and tactics? Check. Run cover for the Mullahs and their quest for nukes? Check again.

So now we're to accept that Putin's struggle is the same as our struggle against International Terrorism. OK, I'm game. There is undoubtedly some overlap. The people that did this are the same type of murderous fanatic that has glommed-on to issues worldwide.

I just wish there was a tad more recognition of the greater fight, the serious long-term war that we're only now dipping our toe into, from countries like Putin's Russia. This is nothing new for Russia, the terrorists have struck there before and will strike again, yet Putin has shown little enthusiasm for changing his mind-set on the larger issues and alignments - the true proximate causes of the horror of Beslan. Is it in part because, unlike George Bush, Putin the near-dictator is not as responsible to his public as our President is? The President's time in office is limited. He craves re-election, and when his two-terms are up he will have needed to have maintained the viability of his party. That means he needs to take a serious view of the war. He even may feel the pressure to take risks to protect the nation because the people demand it. What pressure does Putin feel beyond the personal? Low-grade conflict that doesn't threaten the State itself doesn't call for audacious and risky maneuvers. In this case, caution is key for the oligarch. Why take great risks?

But that's a tangent. What I puzzle over is the extent to which the attacks by the 'Chechen' terrorists representative of the Chechen cause as a whole, and to what extent is it simply a parasitic infestation of a convenient host? Are cause, tactic and society almost inextricably intertwined as they are with the Palestinian Arabs, or is it more a marriage of convenience where the Islamists have corrupted an otherwise meritorious cause, as in Iraq? If it's the former, then we might rightly say to Putin to do what you must and turn our backs on the Chechens as a whole, while if it is the latter, we may need to separate cause and tactic more fully. I suspect that while the struggle may have begun as the latter, it's becoming more and more the former. And that's another reason it's been tough to comment on - I just don't know.

Final thought. Wherever responsibility for this act may lie, one thing has to be faced: Islam has a problem. No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but so far it's only a very slight exaggeration to say that all the terrorists are Muslims - the now deceased Tim McVeigh being merely the exception that proves the rule. While we on the outside can do our part in making sure that terrorism is punished harshly and does not pay, and also in doing the soft work of proselytizing in the name of Western Values and doing PR for ourselves, it is ultimately and most intimately the work of Muslims themselves to expunge the sickness from their midst. A little less energy expended playing the innocent and working against John Ashcroft, George Bush and the Patriot Act, and a few more minutes expunging the sickness that clearly exists in their midsts would be appreciated. Is it any wonder that so many so-called moderate Muslim scholars and causes are tied in one way or another to terrorist or Islamist causes? From Tariq Ramadan to the Boston Mosque a quick search shows only a single degree of separation. The problem runs deep and wide. It's not just the people with memberships in the radical groups that are to blame, it's their massive network of supporters, idealogical excuse-makers, fellow-travelers and equivocators who are also to blame.

I'll leave off with this Opinion Journal editorial: OpinionJournal - The Children of Beslan - The unique depravity of modern Islamic terror.

And I agree with him.

New York Post: Bush's Bid For History:

There are any number of blogs I enjoy reading on a regular basis. I never talk about which sites are my favorites, there are so many good ones and I don't want to leave anyone out.

I will say that there is almost no one I so consistently learn from by reading than Oliver Kamm. And there are few subjects I enjoy reading Kamm on more than when he's doing a Chomsky take-down: Oliver Kamm: "One of the most incredible sentences I've ever seen..."

Things like this, that's why. I had meant to link to this previously. Reposted in full from Norm Geras.

normblog: Point and counterpoint:

That's the tip of the iceburg for Theodorakis, lest anyone unfamiliar suffers under the impression that the quote above was an ill-thought one-off by the composer. It wasn't.

Amazingly enough, this resolution that barely squeeked by in the Security Council was co-sponsored by Syria suck-up, France. It needed to be well-watered down, not mentioning Syria or Hezbollah by name, and of course it will accomplish zero, but it is remarkable nonetheless.

Jerusalem Post: UN's Syria-Lebanon resolution approved:

Some unintentional humor at the end of the article:

Fayrouz translates an interesting article from Al-Sharq Al-Awsat

Live From Dallas - Iran admits it provides facilities to Al-Zarqawi to conduct his operations in Iraq:

That was the last time John Kerry took press questions.

Just sayin'.

He's risking tipping his hand too early, but this is very good news as a sign for the future. Iraq had a large Jewish population at one time, particularly in Baghdad itself, and events more recently have left many Iraqis less than thrilled by the displays of solidarity shown by their "Arab Brothers," which has most often been demonstrated by supporting the terrorists and supporting their ex-dictator. Read the whole thing for the description of the underreported good news of the reconstruction, as well.

This is part of the Iraqi Freedom dividend. The shot toward the heart of Arab irredentism taking a struggling root now that the demagogue is gone and the people have a voice. Was the war on behalf of Israel? No, this is to our benefit, and peace's benefit, WMD aside.

Haaretz: Iraq's U.K. envoy: Strong Baghdad lobby wants ties with Israel:

It is beginning...intro by Fred Thompson is good live...the video stuff is a little corny for me to take completely seriously...uh oh...drawing me in...OK, story of first pitch at Yankee Stadium is good enough without making it sound like he was sporting an injury wearing a bullet-proof vest. That was a good enough moment on its own.

Wow! Magic! The President just appeared. He looks good. Obviously Bush won't be the best speaker we've seen - we've seen some real good ones.

He's doing well. Speaking carefully and slowly. Maybe a little too slowly. Education, prescription drugs...taxes...he's getting into some substance now. The boring legislative stuff most speakers have glossed over.

OK, back to the wider view...terrorism...compassionate conservatism...

Talking about the changing work environment...women in the workplace and the fulfillment of a career - clever to get that in.

Make the tax relief permanent...create jobs by making the country less dependent on foreign sources of energy...

"Frivilous lawsuits" - a code-dig at Edwards. I've heard that a few times through the convention. Expect a lot more of that. It's a winner...

Talking in specifics about expectations for the next term...simplify the Federal Tax Code. Job training...increase funding for community colleges..."American Oportunity Zones" for poorer areas...an older idea come back. Good. Health care now...access...discount and incentives on insurance...portability - a recognition of what he said earlier about recognizing the changing job scene where people change jobs more frequently than they once did.

Medical Liability Reform now - there it is again - a good issue.

Change labor laws to allow more flexibility....Ownership society...seven million more affordable homes in the next ten years to add to the already record numbers in home ownership.

"Nest egg" accounts.

Opportunity for all exists no matter the circumstances...testing and local control. Fighting "the soft bigotry of low expectations." I love that expression.

Concentration on math and science. Testing before graduation...work to get more kids into college.

There is a easy theme here, as there has been throughout the convention, particularly in the faces they've been putting forward, and the themes in the speeches - outreach to minority concerns and the poor. Not just a bow. This is deep and significant.

Mentioning Kerry now. "He's proposed 2 trillion dollars in spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a Senator from Mass..."

Kerry's going to expand the government, rather than expand possibilities. That's a path to the past.

This is great stuff. Exactly what I want to hear from my Republican Party!!!!!!

Welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work.

Mentioning "the unborn child" now. A bow to the Right. Surprising. That's it? A short bow.

Another short bow - supporting the protection of marriage against activist judges.

Going after Kerry again. Some great one-liners, tieing him to Hollywood and against Reagan. Good stuff.

Back to 9/11 again..."I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes." Homeland security - "Striking terrorists abroad, so we do not have to face them at home...working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East..." [as a way to long-term peace] Detailing the progress across the Middle East now...excellent, more of this please. Framing the struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan as a piece of the long-term battle against terrorism. Saddam now..."We must and we will confront threats to America before it is too late." Refreshing us on the history of the build-up, the trips to the UN, the fact that Kerry and Edwards voted to allow force...always takes the choice to defend America after 9/11.

More than 10 million Afghans have registered to vote...an endorsement of democracy...

"When America gives its word, America must keep its word."

Free societies will help us keep the peace. We will train their troops, and our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Addressing the troops and their families directly now: "Because of you the world is more just and will be more peaceful." We will give you all the tools, all the resources and all the support you need for victory. My opponent and I have different approaches..." Brings up the K/E vote against the $87billion.

Talks about the Coalition and Kerry's insults to it. Effective!

Talks about the seven Iraqi men who had their hands removed and visited him in the Oval Office. Moving.

A democratic Iraq will be a bulwark by example against the terrorists. "Freedom is on the march." "I believe in the transformational power of Liberty." Lots along these lines. This is important. He can't make these points often enough.

Takes a shot at the New York Times...blog readers are familiar with the quote....because we stood firm then, we live in a better world today.

"Freedom is not America's gift to the world. It is the almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world."

"Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word."..."I ask you to stand with me."

Some self-depricating humor now - "People sometimes have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when even Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it." Makes fun of his swagger - in Texas called 'walking.' Heh.

Talking about the troops and families he's met. Tears in his eyes... "...seen the character of great nation - decent, idealistic and strong"

"Here buildings fell, here nations rose."

"Our tested and confident nation can achieve anything...we have reached a time for hope. This young century will be liberty's century..."

Over.

GO BALLOONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He started slowly...deliberately...too slowly...but he hit his stride about 15 minutes in and built from there. Bush is at his best talking about the big issues - the spread of liberty and the actions of the troops and the travails of the families. He is dead-on serious and sincere. The emotion is palpable. This guy isn't a cynical line reader.

I didn't think Bush could equal the other speakers we've seen. He did. This performance was great. In style and substance. I swear, I am inspired. This guy has to win.

He made me feel that I am NOT voting against John Kerry. I am voting FOR George Bush. If there are more like me, that's a big success in this day and age.

Satisfying.

Update: Watching the late night Kerry/Edwards rally. Just saw Edwards speak...we've gone from destiny from beyond the stars to "standing at the edge of a cliff..." He's certainly slick. No wonder Kerry carts him around wherever he goes.

Kerry now...he's undoubtedly way slicker off the mark than Bush. RNC=Really Not Compassionate...har..."they attacked my patriotism"...Wow, now he's attacking Cheney's deferments...I don't recall any of the Republicans attacking Kerry's service. Not one word. Misleading the nation into war...allowing the Saudis to set oil prices...Halliburton....snore... Why am I doing this to myself after that treat of a political speech i just saw? (Did someone just start chanting "Yankees, Yankees..."?) Waaaah! I just saw Dennis Kucinich in the background.

It's time for bed.

I've had a day to think about it, and I'm sure...Zell Miller rocked. I damn well liked that speech, but I was beginning to think I was crazy with all the negative stuff I've been hearing. Maybe it's just a chance for some of the bloggers who spin light right most of the time to shore up their 'moderate and rational' bona fides by trashing Zell's stridency and nit-picking his sentences. Some people need a lesson in the difference between an effective political show and reading your Master's Thesis aloud before a live audience a la Dick Cheney.

Miller spoke for all we 'second thoughts' 9/11 Republicans (or is that Democrats?) who became sick, tired and disgusted with so many of our peers and their weak-kneed doubt and self-loathing. I can understand how Democrats who don't get it on the WoT would be digusted by Miller, but that sure ain't me. I've watched it twice and I just wish my wife were interested enough to watch it with me because I need to share this feeling with someone. Hold me!

Lots of the speeches, including Miller's are here.

No live blog of the convention last night, sorry. I was tired, and like tonight, I'm flipping back and forth between that and the Sox-Angels game. Great games and a pennant race. Too much entertainment!

A couple of quick impressions from last night. I didn't mind the Bush girls so much as some people I've read. They were what I was expecting. Kids. Mrs. Bush wasn't a polished or impressive speaker, but she has a very appealing style. Compared to Teresa...my lord...the Bush family wins hands down. You want Laura Bush to be your mom. That's what she is, America's mom. Teraaaayza makes you want to slam a door in her face. Win for the Republicans on that speech. Laura is a can't miss.

And Arnold? What a treat! A home run all the way. This isn't just partisanship. Lord knows, I'm not above taking a shot at the guy, especially for a cheep laugh, but if you missed his speech, do yourself a favor and try to catch it on video someplace online. I swear...the guy was inspiring. I don't know what's wrong with the air in the Garden, but it seems that a lot of the people who were there watching live didn't enjoy it nearly as much as those of us watching on TV at home. The conservative commentators on FOX (Kristol and Barnes) were more lukewarm than the liberals on it, and Roger L. Simon sounds downright depressed. Come on guys, it was good stuff.

OK, on to tonight. A couple of quick impressions. First of all, I'm impressed with the number of minority faces and issues they're putting in front of the cameras. You might try to say that that's hypocrisy since race isn't supposed to count to the Republicans, but that's not really true - they just don't believe that unqualified people should have an advantage due to the color of their skin alone. Besides, the reality is, people identify themselves through their ethnicity, and the Republican Party's job is to win elections. You want absolute ideological purity, vote Libertarian...but they never win anything. The fact is, these appear to be qualified, top-notch people. Delegates, elected officials and hosts - in number, not as tokens. Good move. (Aside: This Joanna de la Tores person is like a skinny Ricki Lake.) The live music is good stuff, too. Are these Republicans rocking like this? Yes, they are.

Regarding Barneycam: Wow! Karl Rove doing a Howard Dean impression. I actually thought that was funny. They'll take a lot of hits for this Barneycam thing, but I think it's pretty clever. My kid likes it, and it's showing all these top-level "arch" Republicans in a light way. Takes the edge way off. Two thumbs way up on Barneycam.

There's some dude in the audience who the camera keeps going to when the music is playing. They've done it every night since the start of the convention. He's really gettin' down! Heheheh. That's about a six beer dance for me.

Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey is speaking now. A stand-up comic she ain't. Please stop smiling and laughing at yourself...OK, here's Mitt...hmmm...there's some humor here, but again, Mitt's no comic. He's stiff...ok, expected...

...eh...sorry, no great insight from me. Decent job. I like the guy, but it was no career maker. [Sox are up 12-6 right now, BTW!]

Zell Miller now: "My family is more important than my party." "Where are such statesment today? Where is the bipartisanship when we need it most?" This is powerful. "...because of a Democrat's manic obssession to bring down a Commander in Chief."

I can't excerpt this. Impossible. Wow. I heard some of the commentators who got an advance view of this speech say it was hard hitting - that ain't the half of it. This is the kind of hawkish speech only a Democrat can give (in only Nixon can go to China fashion).

"The world cannot afford an indecisive America."

Wow again. Fire and brimstone. Another one to catch on video if you missed it. I may watch it again, myself. He brought the house down. The note was too negative for the Republicans to risk doing again, but once, with Miller doing it was a good gamble.

Now Lynne Cheney is on to intro the VP. How the hell do you follow that act?

Big test for Cheney now. His chance to speak up for himself.

Speech going....audience providing the fire that Cheney himself can't...a few jokes to start, funny....Cheney is a nerd and delivers a speech like one...protester being carted out of the hall -Code Pink?...please people, I know you're doing it to keep from falling asleep, but you do not need to applaud after every sentence...Cheney is gonna need an appearance on Barneycam after this to lighten his image...this is wearying...please finish...done!

Tonight was attack night for the GOP. Cheney went for the throat, too. It's time to open the attack on Kerry's Senate record.

I think I'll watch the Miller video again before I pass out.

Lots of video here.

Harvard Square has been my stomping grounds for a long time. I remember as a kid, around fifth grade, getting together with a couple of friends. We'd get a few bucks from our parents, walk, ride-bikes or get a ride over to Arlington Heights, and for a quarter we'd grab the bus down Mass Ave. into the Square. Thinking back on it now, I can't believe as fifth graders we were allowed to do this on our own, but we did. I guess times were different, and we had a great time.

We'd make the rounds and return on the bus with brown bags filled with vinyl records, comic books, and little knick-knacks and candies from some of the shops, returning home to listen to the records (mostly from used shops), read the comics and munch the sweets. Freedom combined with parental largess is a fundamental good.

Anyway, that was the beginning of my relationship with Cambridge culture. As we got older and entered High School, we stayed after the stores closed, watching the street musicians, hanging at some of the restaurants and loitering at the exit to the Harvard T stop smoking clove cigarettes. After I graduated, my folks sold the big house in the suburb and bought a condo right there in the Square. I stayed there during the summers and when I'd come home to visit from my dorm across the river at BU. I also used to party with my friend who was attending Harvard (I didn't get in, alas, and our lives have taken separate turns. Last I checked he was a magazine editor, while I...have a blog...).

Boston suburb, hangin' at Harvard Square...it's no wonder I grew up a card carrying member of the liberal left. It was like mother's milk. Democrat by default. All the smart people, the cool people, supported Democrats. To do otherwise was unthinkable. You swim in it. It becomes the sort of dementia a man kept too long in too small a cage out of the reach of the sun might get - forgetting there's a world beyond his walls and finding himself unable to relate. I understand completely how all those people in New York, and all those media outlets located there can start suffering a similar group dementia.

How times change. How a change of scenery can change the times.

I returned to Harvard Square today. I had a little business nearby, so I blew out of my office early, grabbed the family and off we went. A beautiful day in the city today, and a nice opportunity to walk around and waste some time.

I was not so at home as I once was. My politics just don't match the landscape anymore. How can you tell just by walking around in a place whether you "fit politically?" How can you feel it so strongly? Come on. This is Harvard Square, Cambridge we're talking about here! Every single store was full of all the requisite vicious barking moonbat "Bush is dumber than me" paraphernalia. I mean it was everywhere. You couldn't miss it. Add in a few guys on the street with DNC t-shirts asking people if they want to defeat George Bush (Sounds like they have a lot of faith in whoever it is they're selling - they couldn't even say his name.) and you know where you are.

It was a wake-up.

Anyway, we had a good time, and, our day over, we gassed up the SUV on clean-burning whale oil and headed home.