Month: September 2004

Another theory as to OBL’s whereabouts. But why no video?

Well, kudos to the blogosphere, although big media didn’t give Powerline the credit they deserve. I’d say, given the preponderance of expert opinion, that it now looks probable that the Killian memos were hoaxes. Maybe this would have emerged without blogs. But it sure emerged more quickly because of them. Now the real question: who hoaxed CBS? And why?

THE PLAIN MEANING: Yes, I’ve looked at the full quote of Dick Cheney’s comments about a terrorist attack if Kerry is elected. Yes, he clearly did mean that the full scope of Kerry’s anti-terror approach would make us more vulnerable, a perfectly fair point. But it’s also indisuptable that his words are most persuasively interpreted the way everyone first interpreted them. Here they are in full:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Maybe Cheney misspoke, and it’s certainly fair for a politician to clarify his remarks in retrospect. But Cheney makes no apology. He just says “I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack.” This is what gets me about the guy. He cannot acknowledge even minor error. His attitude is essentially: I’m running a war and critics can go fuck themselves. Remember his response to Abu Ghraib? People should “get off [Rumsfeld’s] case.” The sheer effrontery of people trying to hold someone accountable for one of the worst humiliations for the U.S. in decades. Cheney’s arrogance and his absolute refusal even to countenance the views of others are dangers for this country. In a second term, all his worst instincts will be reinforced.

I’ve believed this for a long time now, but the latest video from al Qaeda’s “Number Two,” Ayman al-Zawahri, gives more credence to the belief. We haven’t had a real, live, authentically-dated video that authenticates bin Laden’s existence for well over a year. Why not? Wouldn’t it be of extreme importance to his followers that they be reassured that he is still alive? If they can put together a video of al-Zawahri, why not one with OBL? This isn’t completely salient to the war on terror which is far broader than one man. But I’m working under the assumption that what remains of the mass murderer is under a rock somewhere on the Pakistani border. I don’t want to ruin Maureen Dowd’s day but that’s by far the most plausible explanation for his long, inexplicable silence and absence.

“Perle’s depiction of his delight at first meeting the future president reads like Fagin relating his initial encounter with the young Oliver Twist.” – Patrick Buchanan, in his new book on the neocons, as noted by Tim Noah.

FOX’S POLLING: Fox’s polling has always been pretty reliable to my mind and their data showing a razor-thin lead for Bush seems more credible to me than the Washington Post poll. Or maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. The undecideds – once a key segment for Kerry – are still less anti-Kerry than anti-Bush but it’s close. Bottom-line: Bush has shaken some vets and independents away from Kerry and had huge success in bolstering Kerry’s negatives. But this is not an election already decided. And even the Washington Post poll shows a far closer race in the swing states.

WRITE A BUSH SPEECH! Here’s how.

CATO BALKS: Here’s an interesting quote from a new piece at TNR.com (subscribers only, alas):

“Most people at the Institute have no plans to vote for the president this time,” said one member of the Cato policy staff who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “There will be some votes for Kerry inside the Cato Institute this year.” Of course, given that Cato has only a few dozen staff members, Bush doesn’t have to worry about losing the think tank’s vote this November. To be sure, Bush’s nascent “ownership society” agenda, which is said to include renewed efforts at social security privatization, could win back some at Cato (see Jonathan Chait, “Up and Away,” page 22). But, judging by the depth of the animosity toward him at the Institute right now, it will take a lot more than a stump speech to do so. Moreover, its antipathy is indicative of a growing belief among the GOP’s fiscally conservative constituencies–not just libertarian ideologues, but big-business executives, small-business owners, virtually any voting bloc concerned with fiscal restraint–that Bush has been an abject failure. And, in a close election, that could make a difference.-

I have to say I’m delighted by Cato’s stand. Bush is slowly destroying conservatism’s small government credentials and commitment to expanding personal freedom. It isn’t “going left” to abandon his big-government philosophy; it’s staying true to conservative principles.

“For an incumbent with such stunning vulnerability on so many issues, with such an established record of failures, missed opportunities etc., how is George W. Bush even surviving, let alone prevailing, at this point in the game?
Can it simply be that JFK is Re-Dukakis? Even that doesn’t explain GWB’s perpetually high trust numbers in precisely the areas his administration has done so poorly at.
Could it be that the one-big-thing, his steadfastness, trumps all? I’ve got a sick feeling the country is going to wake up to the details, of Iraq and terror, but especially Iraq, right around March of next year. Some of the reporting, even from hawkish types, strikes me as sobering… and the CSIS report reads like the private enterprise second coming of the Pentagon papers. Need someone talk me off a ledge?” Nah. Come off the ledge and trust the people. They’re only beginning to sort all this stuff out. And I’d say a huge amount of what’s going on is simply the fact that John Kerry is a dreadful, brain-locked, spineless candidate. People look at him and listen to him and they do not see a president. That doesn’t mean George W. Bush deserves re-election. It just means the alternative may be too awful to contemplate.

The fruits of German appeasement of Iran’s mullahs.

THE DIRT FACTOR: Here’s an email that makes sense to me:

I once considered the possibility that I may one day want to run for some office. I don’t know if I would be elected, but I dreamed of playing some role in redefining conservatism for my generation (I am a libertarian-leaning conservative working on my Ph.D.) As a rare ‘independent-thinker’ in academia, I really entertained the idea that politics, some day, may be a good place for me. However, I am the first to admit that I have not led a perfect life. After seeing the disgustingness of this campaign -on both sides, though I must admit I find the venom from the radical left viler – I have resigned myself to realize the sins of my college-days will haunt me forever if I wanted to enter public life in any capacity.
I mean, does Bush’s youth and mediocre service 30+ years ago diminish his capacity to lead a nation today? Are we defined for life by who we are at age 22? Especially, as in Bush’s case, you admit you regret who you were then and have reformed. These are questions we as a nation need to grapple with and I fear, with the growth of the 527s, the answer will be that politics is only going to get dirtier and dirtier.

More to the point: even if you volunteer for military service, you will still get even your medals denigrated later in life. As I’ve said before: there is no zone of privacy left in public life; everything you have ever done in private or public will one day be exposed. The best recourse for sane people is to stay out of politics, never seek elected office, and at least live life as it should be lived: fearlessly.

The Bush-wing of the blogosphere keeps asking questions, which is a good thing. But it seems to me the money graf in the latest AP report is the following:

CBS stood by its reporting. “As a standard practice at CBS, each of the documents broadcast on “60 Minutes” was thoroughly investigated by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity,” CBS News said in a statement.
The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

But we’ll see, won’t we?

In my TNR piece, I tried to recall a record poster to illustrate Dick Cheney’s assertion that if we don’t all vote for him we’ll be incinerated. The original inspiration is, of course, this National Lampoon cover. Enjoy.

… Or the little dog dies. My take on Cheney’s opinion that I’ll be dead if Kerry becomes president is now up at The New Republic Online.

To clarify something. When I said that the Killian memos were “devastating” to Bush, I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean devastating to his re-election prospects. They’re a blip on the radar screen of the campaign. Just devastating to the idea that he never got special treatment because of his privileged background during the Vietnam war. Of course he did. And a lot of other people did too. Bush still did a hefty stint of service – certainly heftier than, say, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft. And now the forgery theory seems to be gaining momentum, thanks to Drudge. I have no expertise in these matters, as I’ve already said. But if they are forgeries and the forgers are in any way connected to the Kerry campaign, then they really could be devastating to Kerry’s campaign. But I don’t know. My gut tells me they’re probably genuine; and if they were forgeries, I don’t see why the White House would also send them out. But we’ll see, won’t we?