Month: September 2004

The White House copies of the Killian memos turn out to be copies of CBS’s.

The Bush administration continues its policy of inaction.

It’s now official.

If the docs are forgeries, why would the White House have released two identical copies that it had in its possession after the CBS broadcast? Did the White House forge them as well? One more obvious question: how is it that this White House keeps “finding” new documents it previously claimed were lost? Did Hillary somehow get hired?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “When the instapundits began the comparison of the military situation in Iraq to Vietnam about a year ago, it was clear the comparison was ridiculous. As a reluctant supporter of the need to topple the Bathists in 2003, I agreed the use of that analogy was baseless and political. But can someone, anyone, please tell me how that analogy has not come to pass in the last six months? A high school history student could point out the awful comparisons of the current state of affairs with those of the war in Southeast Asia:

– The insurgency now has very broad popular support and is growing.

– Weapons and fighters are flowing into the country from Iran and Syria.

– US forces are conducting “search and destroy” missions and airstrikes whose effectiveness evaporates the minute the smoke clears.

– The interim government is seen as an illegitimate US puppet, and the “Iraqification” of the country’s security situation has been wrought with desertion and failure.

– And above all you have the administration here at home in ghastly denial, saying all is well and that the turning point is “just around the corner” (a variation of “light at the end of the tunnel” phrase from 35 years ago).

I am on the brink of despair at what the situation has gradually become, both for the Iraqi people, for US moral and military credibility in the broader struggle, and for the historically urgent need to bring some form of hope to the vipers nest of the Arab Middle East.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

Well, here’s a strong reason not to take the Killian memos seriously. The pro-Bush blogosphere is claiming that they are obvious forgeries. I’m no expert in these matters and cannot tell if this analysis is sound. But we sure should find out, shouldn’t we? Powerline has the most comprehensive treatment. The blogs prove one thing, though. If these documents are legit, they are devastating to Bush.

This isn’t getting any prettier, is it? But it’s always been obvious that, during Vietnam, George W. Bush benefited from the soft affirmative action of pedigreed privilege. The CBS-recovered forms are pretty devastating in this repsect, I’d say. Money quote:

Another memo refers to a phone call from the lieutenant in which he and his commander “discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November.” And that due to other commitments “he may not have time.”
On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered.
A year after Lt. Bush’s suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment.
Killian’s memo, titled ‘CYA’ reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, “I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job.”

You’ve got that and the guy who pulled the strings to get Bush in the Guard saying he’s now ashamed of what he did. Now: I hate this kind of sleaze. But the Bush campaign’s attack on Kerry’s military service makes it all sadly legit. Is there a real, substantive response to this (and I don’t mean sliming Barnes as a Democrat)? Are the forms forgeries? Is Barnes lying? I’d be more than happy to read (or run) a cogent, factual rebuttal.

QUOTE OF THE DAY I: “Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims. The kidnappers of the students in Ossetia are Muslims. The kidnappers and killers of the Nepalese workers and cooks are also Muslims. Those who rape and murder in Darfour are Muslims, and their victims are Muslims as well. Those who blew up the residential complexes in Riyadh and Al-Khobar are Muslims. Those who kidnapped the two French journalists are Muslims. The two [women] who blew up the two planes [over Russia] a week ago are Muslims. Bin Laden is a Muslim and Al-Houthi [the head of a terrorist group in Yemen] is a Muslim. The majority of those who carried out suicide operations against buses, schools, houses, and buildings around the world in the last ten years are also Muslims. “What a terrible record. Does this not say something about us, about our society and our culture?
If we put all of these pictures together in one day, we will see that these pictures are difficult, embarrassing, and humiliating for us. However, instead of avoiding them and justifying them it is incumbent upon us first of all to recognize their authenticity rather than to compose eloquent articles and speeches proclaiming our innocence…
Islam has suffered an injustice at the hands of the new Muslims… We will only be able to clear our reputation once we have admitted the clear and shameful fact that most of the terrorist acts in the world today are carried out by Muslims. We have to realize that we cannot correct the condition of our youth who carry out these disgraceful operations until we have treated the minds of our sheikhs who have turned themselves into pulpit revolutionaries who send the children of others to fight while they send their own children to European schools.” – Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, former editor of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “No one that I know of, to include the most pessimistic experts, predicted a full-scale insurgency would break out within a couple of months of the overthrow of the old regime … the current situation may be sustained for a very long time.” – Steven Metz, a guerrilla warfare expert at the Army War College. It is becoming harder and harder to ignore the grim news from Iraq. I take absolutely no pleasure in facing up to what the war has become in Iraq. But the bottom line is: we’re not winning. And the gap between the president’s rhetoric – which could have been crafted a year ago – and the reality on the ground keeps growing. One thing I’ve noticed from the pro-Bush blogs and pundits. None of them mentions what’s actually happening in Iraq now. They daren’t. If Kerry is at all smart, he will.

I mentioned it yesterday. Read it for yourself here. While you’re at it, this Larry Diamond piece in Foreign Affairs is sobering as well.

FAREED CALLS IT: My old friend and fellow-conservative, Fareed Zakaria, has been writing up a storm lately. He too is unwilling simply to overlook the growing crisis in Iraq, or the burden that president Bush’s legacy of disarray is placing on the war against terror. Money quote:

Bush is right to note that after World War II, because “generations of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world.” But in those years the United States adopted a series of wise, generous policies and a conciliatory style that made it much loved in the countries we were trying to help. Spreading democracy requires allies, particularly among the targets of one’s affection.
The picture could not be more different today. Bush does not seem aware that the intense hostility toward him in every country in the world (save Israel) has made it very difficult for the United States to be the agent of freedom. In every Arab country that I have been to in the last two years, the liberals, reformers and businessmen say, “Please don’t support us. American support today is the kiss of death.”

I’m past making excuses for this – because I want us to win the war against terrorism. Less than five percent of the reconstruction funds pledged by the Congress has actually been spent in Iraq. The follow-through is close to non-existent. And unforgivable.

BESLAN THOUGHTS: I cannot do better than David Brooks in his revulsion at the inhumanity and depravity of the Jihadists. But the Chechnya situation strikes me as one in which the necessary distinction between terrorists’ methods and the injustices that sometimes fuel them is not as iron-clad as, say, in our war against al Qaeda or against Saddam. The truth is: Putin has treated Chechnya barbarically, and his brutal suppression of legitimate demands for autonomy is partially responsible for the chaos in that region and the violence across Russia. We should therefore not give in to the easy notion that Putin and we are on the same side in this war. Putin is trying to destroy self-government in Chechnya in favor of Russian imperialism. We are trying to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq from unspeakable tyranny. There is a difference here.

Check out the discrepancies between the results in Newsweek’s regular poll and its online version. Yes, you have to answer the questions to find out. Memo to self: NEVER trust online polls. (Hat tip: Volokh).

“You have to watch TV. It’s great! Every New Year’s I make a vow to watch more TV.” – Ann Coulter. Says it all, doesn’t it?

That’s part of the extremely depressing message from the latest CSIS report on the liberation. Reconstruction is pitiful; the Shi’a and Sunni insurgencies remain intact; there is growing restlessness in the north. I don’t think CSIS has an ax to grind; and their report is chock-full of data and interviews and on-the-ground reporting. It seems to me that the question of how we turn things around should be the most important question of the campaign. And yet it’s barely mentioned.