| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2004/10/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34395 Activity:high |
10/27 Economist endorses Kerry. Come on, someone be snarky!
\_ GIRLY MAN ECONOMICS!!1!!1!!!
\_ Ok. BUSH/CHENEY! THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES EVEN CONSERVATIVES HATE
\_ let's see the URL
\_ It's in their subscriber only content for now. But here's
someone who was kind enough to transcribe the print for you:
http://csua.org/u/9ou (foreigndispatches.typepad.com)
If you do happen to have a subscription, the article is here:
http://csua.org/u/9ov (economist.com)
\-I think the E'ist will endorse Kerry if they do endorse
somebody [and I'd be surprised if they didnt ... they
live for this kind of thing]. The E'ist was really angry
about AbuG and Guantanamo, they are not religious fanatics,
the dont get nervous when the hear the "dont change horses
midstream" rhetoric ... they know Kerry wont give Manhattan
to the UN, the Louisiana Purchase back to France and TX back
to Mexico. The may be slightly worried about some of Kerry's
tax plans and protectionism and I think Kerry's recent semi-
disingenuous claims may have slightly tainited his position
in academic terms, but it's a nasty election and BUSHCO made
it that way. We'll find out in the next 24 hrs. The trajectory
of my thinking at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP --psb
of my wondering at: ~psb/MOTD/Economist.EndorseKerryP --psb
\_ Wow. Check out the big brain on psb. After reading a
magazine for how many years? he finaly picks up on how
they think. Way to go,psb. And thanks for sharing. -saarp
\-you've been alive for how many yrs and have yet
to pick up how to think? [is this really you?] --psb
\_ I see. So by inference, since you supposedly
have picked up this skill, you have free license
brag about it? One thing I have picked up:
those who boast usually have little to boast
about. And for the record, it is I. -saarp
\- i guess we'll have to recalibrate.
this is like finding out absolute
zero is lower than you thought it
was. --psb
\_ Bush made this election season nasty? Bush was dead silent
through the entire Democratic primary season where they
spent their time trying to out-smear the man. Sheesh, how
much more deluded or self blind can a guy get? For a guy
who claims to know so much and be so informed, you come
across as very ignorant and biased.
\_ Why is the free link dated in January?
\_ Sorry, I linked to the wrong article. Sully mentions the
new article here and quotes a paragraph of it:
http://csua.org/u/9oy (andrewsullivan.com)
I will try to find a link to the real article.
Here it is, for free from the Economist itself.
I'm going to delete the old links above:
http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802 |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/9ou -> foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2004/01/a_target_top_hr_5.html Resistance-Fight er, Post-War Foreign Dispatches Random Remarks on Current Affairs (and Other Things that Catch My Fancy) Periodicals * Asahi (English) * Der Spiegel * Die Zeit * Economist * FAZ (English) * Wall Street Journal * Yomiuri (English) Math/IT * Free Math Notes and Textbooks * John F Sowa * Notices of the AMS * PARC - User Interfaces * Pomo Generator * R Project * Tech Notes * W3C Semantic Web References * Classic Works of Japanese Literature * Government Accountability Office Blogs * A Different Opinion * A Fistful of Euros * Adam Smith Institute * Africapundit * Andrew Sullivan * Anticipatory Retaliation * Antipixel * Arts and Letters Daily * Back Seat Drivers * Ben Muse * Black Looks * Black Star Journal * Blame India Watch * Bonoboland * Butterflies and Wheels * Catallarchy * Catallaxy * Centre for a New Europe * Cobb * Commentary * Davids Medienkritik * EconLog * Ethiopundit * Foreign Dispatches (Blogspot) * Gene Expression * Internet Commentator * Jacques Distler * Jeffrey Zeldman * Kausfiles * Mahalanobis * Marginal Revolution * Michael Totten * MonkeyFilter * Niraj * Obsidian Wings * Oliver Willis * Pharyngula * Prometheus 6 * Randy McDonald * Reason - Hit and Run * Samizdata * Semi-Daily Journal * Simon World * Southern Cross * Tacitus * Tech Notes * The Head Heeb * The Panda's Thumb * The Sixth International * The Skeptic Sitemeter * Site Meter Technorati * Technorati Profile Math Books * K F Ireland and M Rosen: A Classical Introduction to Modern Nu mber Theory K F Ireland and M Rosen: A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory * Herbert B Enderton: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic Herbert B Enderton: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic * Robin Hartshorne: Algebraic Geometry Robin Hartshorne: Algebraic Geometry * G H Hardy, EM Wright: An Introduction to the Theory of Number s G H Hardy, EM Wright: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers * David Eisenbud: Commutative Algebra David Eisenbud: Commutative Algebra * Tom M Apostol: Introduction to Analytic Number Theory Tom M Apostol: Introduction to Analytic Number Theory * Joseph H Silverman: Rational Points on Elliptic Curves Joseph H Silverman: Rational Points on Elliptic Curves For Goodness Sake, Why? It's uncanny how often the Economist's take on events turns out to be exa ctly the same as my own. WHEN it comes to voting in an election, it is not always easy to decide which candidate you prefer. So why complicate an already difficult choice by trying to work out which candidate most other people might prefer? Mental gymnastics of this sort are coming to dominate the Democratic presidential campaignand making John Kerry the clear front-runner. This week, as the Democrats in New Hampshire plumped for the senator from Massachusetts, the chiselled New Englander's chief selling-point was once again his apparent electabilitythe idea that he stands the best chance of beating George Bush in November. In it to winGood. Democratic America is beginning to think with its head, not its heart. At the beginning of this month, Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont whose fearsome anti-war rhetoric had made him the darling of many Democratic activists, had a 20-point lead in New Hampshire; Mr Kerry, who had voted for the Iraq war, was stuck in third place, behind Wesley Clark, another anti-war outsider. But then doubts about Mr Dean set in. Would America really vote for a man who refused to admit that Saddam Hussein's capture might be helpful and who wanted to repeal all Mr Bush's tax cuts? Democrats began to look at Mr Kerry's years of experience in the Senate and his record as a war hero in Vietnam in a new light. The odds still favour Mr Bush (see article). But on paper at least, a Kerry-Edwards ticket would stand a chance of snatching from the Republicans a Carolina in the south, as well as, say, West Virginia and maybe even New Hampshire. Given Mr Bush's non-existent majority in 2000, that could prove to be enough. Yet first Mr Kerry would have to start landing blows on the president. Mr Kerry's strongest card, though, could prove to be foreign policy. As a supporter of the Iraq war, he can convincingly criticise the White House's exaggerations about weapons of mass destruction. The former war hero can credibly chide the administration for its post-war incompetence, especially if American casualties continue to mount. And, as a foreign-policy expert with a long record of internationalism behind him, he can plausibly broaden the debate, demanding explanations for why Mr Bush's foreign policy has left America so unpopular in so many corners of the world. Mr Bush ought to be able to summon up good answers to these questions. But it is in America's interest that they are raised and debated by a Democrat who stands a chance of winning. For all his faults, Mr Kerry looks closer to fulfilling that role than any of the current alternatives. My thoughts exactly. I supported the decision to go to war, and I still think it was the right thing to do, but there are questions about the way the issue was framed to the public, as well as the way in which the aftermath has been handled, that Bush needs to be made to give answers to. He simply must not be allowed to waltz to a landslide re-election. Comments Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Comments: Preview Post About Recent Comments * Mats on Jante Law * ogunsiron on You're Pulling My Leg! Abiola Lapite on One More Reason Not to Vote for Bush * Mycroft on One More Reason Not to Vote for Bush * Brian on One More Reason Not to Vote for Bush * Frank McGahon on One More Reason Not to Vote for Bush * Brian on Well Said * Brian on Well Said * Mrs Tilton on Love You Long Time * gene berman on Love You Long Time Recent Posts * One More Reason Not to Vote for Bush * Jante Law * You're Pulling My Leg! The Game Theory of Swing States * Cheaper Than It Looks * SGA 1 * Showdown in Russia * Achebe vs. Obasanjo * Love You Long Time * Great Minds Think Alike Archives * October 2004 * September 2004 * August 2004 * July 2004 * June 2004 * May 2004 * April 2004 * March 2004 * February 2004 * January 2004 Categories * Administration * Africa * Books * Computer Science * Economics * Entertainment * History * International Affairs * Linguistics * Literature * Mathematics * Philosophy * Politics * Religion * Science * Technology Syndicate this site (XML) Econ Books * David Romer: Advanced Macroeconomics David Romer: Advanced Macroeconomics * Andreu Mas-Colell: Microeconomic Theory Andreu Mas-Colell: Microeconomic Theory * Thomas C Schelling: Strategy of Conflict Thomas C Schelling: Strategy of Conflict * William Easterly: The Elusive Quest for Growth William Easterly: The Elusive Quest for Growth * David S Landes: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations David S Landes: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations * Joseph E Stiglitz: Whither Socialism? Joseph E Stiglitz: Whither Socialism? Music * Bach, JS (Glenn Gould): Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I Bach, JS (Glenn Gould): Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I * Bach, JS (Herreweghe): St. Matthew Passion Bach, JS (Herreweghe): St. Hidden links: 178. |
| csua.org/u/9ov -> www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=2384492&tranMode=none Help Assessing John Kerry Jan 29th 2004 From The Economist print edition WHEN it comes to voting in an election, it is not always easy to decide w hich candidate you prefer. So why complicate an already difficult choice by trying to work out which candidate most other people might prefer? M ental gymnastics of this sort are coming to dominate the Democratic pres idential campaignand making John Kerry the clear front-runner. |
| csua.org/u/9oy -> www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_24_dish_archive.html#109893493453398900 get out some more: Doctors are blaming a rare electrical imbalance in the brain for the biz arre death of a blogger whose head literally exploded in the final week of the election! No one else was hurt in the fatal explosion but a sma ll room at the blogger's residence was sprayed with blood and brain mat ter when Gerard Van der Leun's head suddenly blew apart. Experts say he suffered from a condition called Hyper-Cerebral Blogosis or HCB . "He was deep in concentration with his eyes focused on the screen and hi s fingers frozen over the keyboard," said Laguna Beach early responder, Miguel Wilsonista. "He seems to have hit 'Post' for what had to be the 3,456,856th item of inept political photoshopping this year when the b last occurred. "His browser history documents that he went from Drudge to Real Clear Po litics to Talking Points Memo to Instapundit to Fox News to the New Yor k Times to MSNBC to Kos to Roger Simon to Little Green Footballs to The Corner to Atrios to Google News to Allah to Belmont Club to Wonkette a nd finally, and probably fatally, to Andrew Sullivan. All of a sudden h is hands flew to his temples and he screamed in pain. Seals and surfers far below on Main Beach in Laguna looked up from the water startled by the shrieks of agony cascading down from Arch Beach Heights. Then, as if someone had put a bomb in his cranium, Van der Leun's head popped li ke a firecracker." evidence lends credence to the notion that al Qa Qaa was indeed looted after the occupation, and not before. But th ere's a question: why does the Pentagon not know for sure? The missing armaments have been known to the Pent agon for well over a year. The very fact that they still don't know what happened - or even when the site was looted - by itself proves negligen ce with respect to this issue. And it's worth reiterating that this is n o indictment whatsoever of the troops. The only people scapegoating the troops are, yes, the Republicans. broadside against the Democrat from my friend, Marty Peretz: John Kerry speaks, not unfairly, of George W Bush's habits of denial. He is in denial about the Australian election that returned to office for an unprecedented fourth term its prime minister who has been, with his country, a pillar of the Iraq coalition. He is in denial about Jap an, whose government, unlike Germany's and France's, does not carp at t he United States. He is in denial about Afghanistan, where, for the fir st time in history, men and women, riding on donkeys and walking barefo ot across great distances, have exercised the right to choose those who govern them. The Jordanian daily Al Ra'i recently called Moqtada Al Sadr's apparent retreat from armed str uggle "a farewell to arms" that is as politically significant as the es tablishment of the provisional authority. Has he acknowledged that the Bush administration has negot iated with nato a plan to send, starting in November, up to 3,000 soldi ers to train Iraqi troops? These soldiers will be under the command of General David Petraeus, who is mustering the military might and politic al will to retake much of the Sunni triangle. Many Iraqis now have seco nd thoughts about opposing the coalition. And if Kerry wins, he can expect to be subjected to relentless s crutiny from pro-war types like Marty and, ahem, your humble blogger. As many as 10,00 0 other conventional-arms dumps dotted around Iraq are believed to have been looted after the US invasion, the officials say. In addition, a s many as 30 out of 90 of Saddam's known nuclear research facilities we re also stripped downsome to the groundby looters. While much of the material taken from the nuclear sites is believed to h ave been "dual use" manufacturing equipment largely useless to terroris ts, the looting of conventional-arms depots means that Zarqawi and the ex-Baathists are not unlikely to run out of weapons any time soonand th at the insurgency may have a long way to go before it runs out of steam . Bill Kristol points out in one of the weakest defenses of the administration yet, the NYT story "didn't put it into context how import ant 380 tons are when there are tens of thousands of explosives in the c ountry." Compared to all the other munitions sites th at were looted during and after the invasion, al Qa Qaa is not that deva stating. What about the fact that a war begun as a means to restrain Saddam's weaponry actually helped dispe rse it? And as the facts emerge, I've become conv inced of one astounding thing: the Bush administration didn't care very much about the dangers from Saddam's alleged WMDs, or conventional munit ions. Safeguarding those sites, keeping those weapons out of the hands o f terrorists, was not a major priority. AP story on al Qa Qaa: As the rest of Perkins' brigade moved on, the 3rd Battalion spent two da ys in the area, sweeping for other Iraqi forces, Perkins said. The troo ps didn't specifically search for any high explosives, although they we re aware that Al-Qaqaa was an important site for what was believed to b e Iraqs weapons of mass destruction programs. this piece by Peter Galbraith, a support er of the war who was appalled by what he saw in the invasion's aftermat h He reported back to Paul Wolfowitz: I also described two particularly disturbing incidents -- one I had witn essed and the other I had heard about. On April 16, 2003, a mob attacke d and looted the Iraqi equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control, t aking live HIV and black fever virus among other potentially lethal mat erials. US troops were stationed across the street but did not interven e because they didn't know the building was important. When he found out, the young American lieutenant was devastated. He shoo k his head and said, "I hope I am not responsible for Armageddon." Abou t the same time, looters entered the warehouses at Iraq's sprawling nuc lear facilities at Tuwaitha on Baghdad's outskirts. They took barrels o f yellowcake (raw uranium), apparently dumping the uranium and using th e barrels to hold water. It appears that troops did not receive relevant intelligence abou t Iraq's WMD facilities, nor was there any plan to secure them. Even af ter my briefing, the Pentagon leaders did nothing to safeguard Iraq's n uclear sites. Yes, as Hitchens has put it, this is near-impeachable negligence. How can anyone say that Bush is our best bet in t he war on terrorism when his own conduct has put this country at grave d anger from the very weapons he was supposed to defend us from? And when his campaign then comes out and says that this kind of criticism is smea ring the troops, they have told us all we need to know. The e ditor, Bill Emmott, put it this way: "It was a difficult call, given tha t we endorsed George Bush in 2000 and supported the war in Iraq. But in the end we felt he has been too incompetent to deserve re-election." Ouc h I'm glad they focused on Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, two huge blows to America's reputation as a guarantor of human rights, and two issues lar gely missing from the debates: The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years t o come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own l egal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot ne utralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guantnamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justi ce, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, w hether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representat ion. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, mere ly compounds the problem. Due out ear ly next year, scholar CA ... |
| economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802 E-mail this America's next president The incompetent or the incoherent? Oct 28th 2004 From The Economist print edition With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist at tack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical pol itical and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would b e an especially elevated and notable affair. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something o nly once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerr y, not Mr Bush. Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protes t that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our no ses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that p rotesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at ev ery presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our voteif we had one. The case against George Bush That decision cannot be separated from the terrible memory of September 1 1th, nor can it fail to begin as an evaluation of the way in which Mr Bu sh and his administration responded to that day. For Mr Bush's record du ring the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing. Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself. His military response in Afghanistan was not the sort of poorly dire cted lashing out that Bill Clinton had used in 1998 after al-Qaeda destr oyed two American embassies in east Africa: it was a resolute, measured effort, which was reassuringly sober about the likely length of the camp aign against Osama bin Laden and the elusiveness of anything worth the n ame of victory. Mistakes were made, notably when at Tora Bora Mr bin Lad en and other leaders probably escaped, and when following the war both A merica and its allies devoted insufficient military and financial resour ces to helping Afghanistan rebuild itself. But overall, the mission has achieved a lot: the Taliban were removed, al-Qaeda lost its training cam ps and its base, and Afghanistan has just held elections that bring caut ious hope for the central government's future ability to bring stability and prosperity. The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of th em to the American base at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a leg al limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of havin g captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want t o kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politi cally controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guantnamo Bay offe rs constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it . This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innoce nt or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds th e problem. When Mr Bush decided to frame his foreign policy in the sort of language and objectives previously associated with Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy o r Ronald Reagan, he was bound to be greeted with cynicism. To paraphrase a formula invented by his ally, Tony Blair, Mr Bush was promising to be tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism, and the latter he attributed to the lack of democracy, human rights and opportunity in much of the world, especially the Arab countr ies. To call for an effort to change that lamentable state of affairs wa s inspiring and surely correct. The credibility of the call was enhanced by this month's Afghan election, and may in future be enhanced by succe ssful and free elections in Iraq. But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guant namo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristi c thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abus es at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that t he mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned. Although the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, wit h hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since t he first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. The containment scheme deployed around him was unsustainable and politically damaging: military bases in holy Saudi Arabia, sanction s that impoverished and even killed Iraqis and would have collapsed. But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remn ant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Ir aqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers. The eventu al success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unneces sary jeopardy. So has America's reputation in the Islamic world, both fo r effectiveness and for moral probity. If Mr Bush had meanwhile been making progress elsewhere in the Middle Eas t, such mistakes might have been neutralised. Israel and Palestine remain in their bitter conflict, with America readily accusabl e of bias. In Iran the conservatives have become stronger and the countr y has moved closer to making nuclear weapons. Egypt, Syria and Saudi Ara bia have not turned hostile, but neither have they been terribly support ive nor reform-minded. Libya's renunciation of WMD is the sole clear pie ce of progress. This only makes the longer-term project more important, not less. To succ eed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything: even after Abu Ghraib, when he had a perfect opportunity to di smiss Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and declare a new start, h e chose not to. Instead, he treated the abuses as if they were a low-lev el, disciplinary issue. The current approach in Iraq, of training Iraqi security forces and preparing for elections to establish an Iraqi government with popular support, certainly represe nts an improvement, although America still has too few troops. And no on e knows, for example, whether Mr Rumsfeld will stay in his job, or go. I n the end, one can do no more than guess about whether in a second term Mr Bush would prove more competent. Making sense of John Kerry That does at least place him on equal terms with his rival, Mr Kerry. Wit h any challenger, voters have to make a leap of faith about what the new man might be like in office. What he says during the campaign is a poor guide: Mr Bush said in 2000 that America should be a humble nation, bu t strong and sh... |
| economist.com Mobile Phone Accessories Phone Batteries, Chargers, Cases, Sim Cards, Aerials, Handsfrees, Dual Sims, Data Cables, Fast Free UK Delivery Tel 01946-591764 Take your French, German, Italian or Spanish towards fluency by subscribing to C Audiomagazines. UPDATED Sep 10th 2004 EPA A car bomb at the Australian embassy in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, has killed at least eight people. The attack suggests the Jemaah Islamiah militant group remains a threat--and that it may be trying to influence both countries' forthcoming elections ... |
| andrewsullivan.com Friday, October 29, 2004 SO HE'S ALIVE II: Some of you have had the opposite reaction to the OBL t ape. Here's a typical email: Kerry's sharpest critique is that we have not done enough kill or captur e bin Laden. Seeing bin Laden alive and well reinforces--to me at least --that the president has not done his job. Because I had no reason to b elieve that bin Laden was dead before this video, seeing him now doesn' t make me more afraid of him or of an attack. And rather that making me recall good feelings about the president in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I am filled with renewed emotions of disappointment in him. Reme mber: Bush is the one that said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive" and that he "can ran but not hide." Although I suspect it will help Bush a lot, my hope is that it will have no effect either way. I don't w ant that murderous bastard to have any say on what this democracy decide s I just hope that whoever gets elected next Tuesday manages to find an d kill him. The parroting of idiotic Michael Moore points was a little pathetic for an alleged spiritual mastermind. And the re-calibration of the rationale for 9/11 - again retroactively talking of Palestinians - was the usual vile opportunism. Any reminder of the 9 /11 attacks will provoke a national rallying to the commander-in-chief. The deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the president back the n is Bush's strongest weapon in this election, and OBL has just revived it. I have a feeling that this will tip the election decisively toward the incumbent. A few hours ago, I thought Ker ry was headed for victory. I also have a sinki ng feeling that that was entirely bin Laden's objective. surprising supporters for the president amng Ara b regimes. Money quote: The Iraq quagmire may also explain why Hasan Rowhani and some other Iran ian officials (though not, by any means, all of them) would like Bush t o have a second term. So long as the US is bogged down in Iraq, it cann ot seriously contemplate toppling the regime in Iran - or, for that mat ter, in Syria. Prospects for the US remaining bogged down look rather b etter under Bush than Kerry. take on the election: Someone asked me the other day why I supported President Bush, "aside fr om the family thing" as he put it. I said I was supporting him because I thought he understood The Issue at stake better than anyone alive. And that he was on the right side of that issue from day one and every day thereafter. And tha t he was devoted to committing this nation to a course of offensive eng agement with the terror apparatus that might, just might, save us all h ere in the United States. The issue, of course, is the fight against Al Qaeda, its associates, enablers and like-mindeds. The President Bush I read about in the papers and the newsweeklies and t he blogs bears almost no resemblance to the President Bush I know and v isit with from time to time. He is decent and honest and true, which cannot be said of man y of his critics. Because over-riding everything is the issue and on this iss ue President Bush has been steadfast and strong and right as rain, whil e his opponent has rambled and waffled and weaseled every which way. Our enemies will brace for four more years of hell if Bush is re-elected . As I've said before, it's a choice between incompetenc e and irresolution. The question we have to ask is: can we afford four m ore years like the last one, when our enemies foiled us in Iraq, when ou r intelligence fell apart, when our moral standing was undermined, and w hen our president seemed unable even to recognize difficulties, let alon e fix them? Bush is a gambl e whose recent performance is execrable. I begrudge no one an honest dec ision, and I won't be heartbroken by either result. Money quo te: I was 24 years old when my mother, through a series of mishaps, found ou t I was gay. My mother came over to where I worked, screaming, and told me I was "dead" to the family. For more than five years after that day, I heard nothing from my family. No birthday cards, no invitations to Christmas or Thanksgiving events. It wasn't just the loss of my immediate family that was difficult, but the loss of my extended family as well. Since my mother refused to be in the same room with me, it forced my aunts and uncles to choose sides . I have not been to a family reunion in more than a decade. There you have the anti-family agenda of the religious right. By next wee k, they will have passed bans on any protections for gay couples in eigh t states. report on the widespread failure to secure muni tions sites in Iraq: Six months after the fall of Baghdad, a vast Iraqi weapons depot with te ns of thousands of artillery rounds and other explosives remained ungua rded, according to two US aid workers who say they reported looting o f the site to US military officials. Ricardo S Sanchez, the highe st ranking Army officer in Iraq in October 2003 but were told that the United States did not have enough troops to seal off the facility, whic h included more than 60 bunkers packed with munitions. "We were outraged," said Wes Hare, city manager of La Grande, who was wo rking in Iraq as part of a rebuilding program. A colleague who also vis ited the depot, Jerry Kuhaida, said it appeared that the explosives at the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area had found their way to insurgents targeting US forces. "There's no question in my mind that the stuff in Ukhaider was used by t errorists," said Kuhaida. But i f you didn't believe there would be an insurgency, why would you guard t hese dumps? There weren't enough troops to maintain order, let alone sec ure hundreds of sites. You can see the logic for the administration's po sition. Th e Miami Herald's Jim Defede concludes: According to the Herald poll, done by Zogby International, Kerry is posi tioned to win Miami-Dade by anywhere from 90,000 to 100,000 votes. A ma rgin that large in Florida's most populous county would be hard for Bus h to make up across the rest of the state. Now I realize if the poll's margin of error were to fall in the presiden t's favor, Kerry would beat Bush, 53 to 46 percent (instead of 56-43). But even then, because of new voters, Kerry would still walk away with 50,000 more votes than Bush. Between 2000 and 2004, the split between Democrats and Republican is virtually the same in almost every category... The one group that is ra dically different -- and it is why the poll makes sense -- is a shift a mong non-Cuban Hispanics, who are backing Kerry almost two-to-one. M unitions found in April have the IAEA seal about as solid a proof possib le that they had not been removed before the war. On Aaron Brown last ni ght, David Kay confirmed it, calling it "Game, set and match". Money quote from ABC: Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the universal markings on the barrels are c lear that these are highly dangerous explosives. "I talked to a former inspector who's a colleague of mine, and he confirmed that, indeed, the se pictures look just like what he remembers seeing inside those bunker s," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and Int ernational Security in Washington. The barrels were found inside sealed bunkers, which American soldiers ar e seen on the videotape cutting through. Inspectors from the Internatio nal Atomic Energy Agency sealed the bunkers where the explosives were k ept just before the war began. "The fact that there's a photo of what looks like an IAEA seal means that what's behind those doors is HM X They only sealed bunkers that had HMX in them." After the bunkers were opened, the 101st was not ordered to secure the f acility. A senior officer told ABC News the division would not have had nearly enough soldiers to do so. What we're seeing is the slow exposure of the reality of th e Iraq war. Tommy Franks last night: "Now, I'll tel l you, I don't know Senator Kerry's plan for victory. I don't know what it is, but I do know -- but I do know that his criticism of military conduct of our global war on terrorism denigrates, disrespects our troops." Is Franks saying tha... |