Month: October 2004

Here’s a report that sends chills down my spine:

Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

Where has the stuff gone? Why was it left unguarded? Another money quote:

The United States also has not publicly commented on earlier U.N. inspectors’ reports disclosing the dismantling of a range of key weapons-making sites, raising the question of whether it was unable to monitor the sites. In the absence of any U.S. or Iraqi accounting, council diplomats said the satellite images could mean the gear had been moved to new sites inside Iraq or stolen. If stolen, it could end up in the hands of a government or terrorist group seeking nuclear weapons.
“We simply don’t know, although we are trying to get the information,” said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. U.S. officials had no immediate comment on the report.

It’s about time they did, don’t you think?

Matt Bai’s piece in Sunday’s NYT magazine has generated a lot of ink. From the coverage, I expected to read in it a parody of 1990s liberalism but that’s not what I found. It’s clear Kerry believes that countering Jihadist terrorism is primarily a matter of international police work, alliance building, terrorism, monitoring financial transactions, use of special forces and special ops. But Bush believes all this as well. It’s just that he also believes in the transformative effect of regime change and democratization in the Arab world, and Kerry appears to be a skeptic in this respect. Count me with Bush on this one (with a few reservations). But notice this irony: Kerry’s is clearly the more conservative position here. Conservatives have traditionally been doubters with regard to the transmission of Western values easily onto non-Western societies. They certainly don’t believe it can happen overnight. Bush is therefore running as a Gladstonian liberal in foreign affairs, which is why it’s strange to hear some conservatives writing as if Kerry’s candidacy is the equivalent of Armageddon.

PRAGMATISM AND THE WAR: The question we keep coming back to, therefore, is which emphasis is most appropriate at this stage in the war. Kerryism alone would have been a disaster these past three years. Saddam, for one, would still be in power. But Bush’s Gladstonian big stick alone is also problematic. It’s not a great thing that we have alienated almost every ally (and you should hear what even pro-war Brits say about Bush’s diplomatic skills); it is not a gain that we may have exacerbated Jihadist fervor in some parts of the world; it’s not an advantage in a war of ideas that we have managed to make this country despised in so many places (including Iraq) whose support we need for victory. I can’t believe even Bush’s most fervent partisans think otherwise. It is therefore primarily a pragmatic decision we now face about which approach – Bush’s Gladstone or Kerry’s Disraeli – is best suited for the next four years. My own view is that I do not see any prospect for a forced regime change under Bush in the next four years (and so I’m not so sure it makes a huge difference). Bush has wrecked the credibility of US intelligence and over-stretched our military so as to make any further major pre-emptive wars all but impossible. If our task in the current mop-up stage is therefore nation-building and diplomacy and better police work and more allied cooperation, then Kerry is not unthinkable. Of course, this still leaves the question of whether Kerry will be interested in bringing Iraq into a democratic future. I think he has to be. But he could wimp out. I agree it’s a risk. That’s why I’m still undecided. Who is that libertarian candidate, after all … ?

KERRY’S “NUISANCE” LINE: Powerline says it best. Kerry, in some quarters, is being taken out of context. On the broader issue, it’s hard not to agree with Rudy. I lived through the era of “an acceptable level of terrorism” in Northern Ireland. I loathed it then and I loathe it now. But it is equally true that, as the president has stated, we will probably never live in a world without all terrorism. Suicide bombing is too easy. What we have to do is prevent terrorism from being the major tactic of a world-wide enemy – Jihadist Islam – and prevent the Jihadists from getting hold of WMDs. That requires military action and international cooperation, regime change and nation-building. It requires scaring the hell out of some while charming the bejeezus out of others. It’s not like other wars. Ideally, I’d like Bush + Kerry. But that’s not on the table.

“You know, Josh Burkeen is our rep down here in the southeast area. He lives in Colgate and travels out of Atoka. He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us?” – Senate candidate Tom Coburn, in Oklahoma.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “They stand for Christian leadership and putting down the disgusting rights of queers. It’s going to be a great day when they shoot that down,” – Illinois Republican supporter, Debbie Dammann, on what she believes is the agenda of Alan Keyes and George W. Bush.

BUSH, KERRY, DEFICITS: Kerry is better on fiscal matters, argues Jon Cohn.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Your posts on Kerry make me feel like I’m watching a bad Woody Allen movie, where some neurotic, forty-something Manhattanite is trying to convince herself that she really is in love with the off-putting proctologist who just proposed to her. For the love of God, please come to your senses.” Fair enough. But no gay proctology jokes, please.

Here’s an interesting nugget from CNN:

Friday’s town hall meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, between the two candidates did little to change the poll numbers even though Kerry was the perceived winner. Although an instant poll of debate watchers taken Friday night showed the meeting to be without a clear winner, Gallup’s two-day poll showed 45 percent of respondents picked Kerry as the winner. Just 30 percent chose Bush as the debate winner.

The two-day CW has left Kerry the winner of the first two debates. Safire is dreaming.

The longer perspective shows you where this race has been heading. CNN/Gallup shows that Bush-Cheney have lost six points since this time a month ago. Kerry-Edwards have gained nine points. That’s a huge shift. So Zogby now shows a dead heat with Kerry nominally ahead by three points. WAPO shows a Bush lead – but only back to where he was a week ago and all within the margin of error. Bottom line: the race is dead-even. A month ago, it wasn’t close. And the undecideds are leaning Kerry. Of course this is exactly the kind of moment that Kerry, like the Cubs, tends to screw up. And it’s also a scenario in which Rove unloads his dirt-bomb. Uh-oh.

Many emails responding to my musings earlier today. Thanks. We’ll be publishing several on the Letters Page. They mainly argue that, whatever Kerry says now, his record suggests he cannot be trusted. That’s Sebastian Mallaby’s point today. So we’re left with a trust issue, and that’s subjective and hard. Here’s a cogent response:

I can kind of see what you’re saying regarding forcing the Democrat hand by passing on the baton but my feeling is that it’s too early. There is still too much opportunistic mileage in fence sitting – which is exactly what is not needed at this stage. Complete and utter resolve to win is needed – and don’t think (I know you don’t) that any (Old) European ‘power’ will join Kerry. The die is cast – and those involved now (as ever) will be those involved to the bitter end. If you were Al Qaeda, etc. what would you think if Kerry won – or rather Bush was thrown out? Good news or bad news? It would put a spring in the step of any Jihadist.
I truly believe that, whilst terrorism won’t ever go away, complete resolve from those countries willing to confront it will prevail in the not too distant future. I disagree with your correspondent from the US Army who is in Iraq. I do think that the end is in sight – but slowing down now (at least for enemy morale – and morale wins wars) would send the wrong signal. More, much more, of the same is needed now (at least the threat of it) not self doubt.
I am a life-long Tory and if the Tories don’t stop carping and trying to make political capital out of this war then I will vote for Blair (first and only time I hope).
This is far too important and so more easily winnable than most people seem to think – but iron resolve is the key.

Indeed, there are some hopeful signs in the South but still trouble among the Sunnis. Can we win in Iraq? Dumb question. We have to. And the very necessity may be what keeps Kerry in line. Still, we can’t know this for certain … and so we come back to trust.

IT’S SPENDING, STUPID: Here’s another angle:

I’m tired of everyone saying essentially “its the Iraq war stupid”. Kerry’s and Bush’s position are essentially equal and Bush’s numbers on handling terrorism are continually better than Kerry’s. What many are forgetting is that a consevative governor from Texas has essentially the same fiscal irresponsibility factor as does a senator from Massachusetts. Imagine how close this race would be if Bush could just blast Kerry’s domestic fiscal policies over and over and over.. It would be Bush vs Dukakis II. Which is why Bush is soft-peddling his attacks on Kerry’s fiscal history. I can’t believe I’m even considering voting for a senator from Massachusetts because his fiscal credibility is higher than an incumbent Republican…

Me neither. But the GOP is now the Big Government party. And its deficit-mongering will mean higher taxes in the not-so-distant future. You have to believe that the terror gap between Kerry and Bush is simply massive to acquiesce in Bush’s domestic policies: fiscal insanity, social intolerance, and creeping theocracy. Bush has moved the GOP toward being the political wing of fundamentalist evangelicalism. If you’re not born-again, you increasingly do not belong there. In four more years, heaven knows what he will have accomplished. But, then, many of you think the difference in foreign policy is so great nothing else matters. That’s the calculation. You have to weigh the damage Bush is doing domestically with the damage Kerry might do internationally. I’m still weighing.

SULLY, HITCH AND RUSSERT: Here’s a transcript of our recent discussion.

BUSH AND GAYS: An account of the betrayal and the bitterness. For more than a decade, many of us fought long and hard to bring gays into the Republican fold, to defend the GOP, to advance conservative ideas in the gay community. Bush reversed all of it. Bush has done to gays nationally what Pete Wilson did for immigrants in California.

“Yesterday was a huge defeat for the Taliban. The Taliban didn’t show,” – Lt. Gen. David Barno, commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Yep, democracy is to the theocrats and terrorists what light is to darkness. And it’s worth repeating again and again: without the United States, Afghans would still be laboring under an unspeakable terrorist-controlled tyranny. Whatever happens in America’s own election, no one can ever take this legacy away from this president.

One of the central questions in this election is simply: can John Kerry be trusted to fight the war on terror? Worrying about this is what keeps me from making the jump to supporting him. I’m a believer in the notion that we are at war, that you cannot ignore state sponsors of terrorism, and that the 1990s approach obviously failed. Bush rightly shifted our direction toward regime change rather than police work, something long overdue. But when you look ahead, it’s more difficult to see where the differences between Kerry and Bush would actually lie. Bush, after all, doesn’t deny the importance of police work or nation-building in the war (indeed, at this point, they’re the bulk of his policy). And Kerry has no option but to acquiesce in regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the future policy mix is bound to be somewhat similar. More to the point: I don’t see a huge difference between Bush’s and Kerry’s approaches to North Korea and Iran. In some respects, Kerry even seems tougher on Saudi Arabia than Bush is. In Iraq, Bush declared last Friday night that Kerry’s plan was a carbon copy of his own. Why, then, would Kerry be such a risk?

BUSH AS BAD COP: Kerry also brings some obvious advantages. In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has committed any successor to a process of lengthy and difficult nation-building. If that truly is the major task of the next few years, wouldn’t it be better to have people who have experience in nation-building and who actually believe in it (like Holbrooke), rather than people like Rummy and Cheney who clearly disdain it and keep under-funding and under-manning it? One of the advantages of being a democracy in wartime is that we can shift leaders and tactics as circumstances permit. Think of this strategy as a bad-cop-good-cop routine in a war against an elusive enemy. Bush has scared the living daylights out of our foes, removed two dictatorships and regained the initiative against Jihadism (all very, very good). But it’s in America’s interests also to show that we can reach out to moderate Muslims, placate the Europeans, and expand the anti-terror alliance. Why wouldn’t a Kerry administration be effective in that respect? As long as it is seen as a shift in tactics, rather than an exercise in appeasement, I don’t see the major downside. We’re fighting two wars: one against the terror-masters in Jihadist regimes, and another in world and Muslim opinion against the ideology of Islamo-fascism. Bush has done well in the former and not-so-well in the latter. A hammer clad in a little Kerry velvet might not be so bad a weapon in the coming four years.

KERRY AS GOOD COP: The major objection to this, of course, is that Kerry simply cannot be trusted. He won’t simply change tactics in the war; he’ll change direction. His long record of appeasing America’s enemies certainly suggests as much. And I don’t blame anyone who thinks that’s enough evidence and votes for Bush as a result. But it behooves fair-minded people also to listen to what Kerry has actually said in this campaign: that he won’t relent against terrorism. He isn’t Howard Dean. And 9/11 has changed things – even within the Democratic party. Moreover, the war on terror, if we are going to succeed in the long run, has to be a bipartisan affair. By far the most worrying legacy of the Bush years is the sense that this is a Republican war: that one party owns it and that our partisan battles will define it. Simply put: that’s bad for the country and bad for the war. Electing Kerry would force the Democrats to take responsibility for a war that is theirs’ as well. It would deny the Deaniac-Mooreish wing a perpetual chance to whine and pretend that we are not threatened, or to entertain such excrescences as the notion that president Bush is as big a threat as al Qaeda or Saddam. It would call their bluff and force the Democrats to get serious again about defending this country. Maybe I’m naive in hoping this could happen. But it is not an inappropriate hope. And it is offered in the broader belief that we can win this war – united rather than divided.

That, I suspect, will become the conventional wisdom, however crude Bill Safire’s spin. Why? Because Kerry persuaded independents and undecideds. Bush just rallied his base. But don’t take my word for it. MysteryPollster crunches the numbers and finds the data persuasive.

When the president said he wasn’t going to appoint justices who would write a decision like Dred Scott, I was puzzled. I didn’t know slavery was still a live issue. But I was reassured, I guess, that Bush wasn’t intending to put pro-slavery jurists on the court. But I was missing something. It seems it was a coded reference to repealing Roe vs Wade.

KERRY’S BIG MO: My latest Sunday Times column, now posted.

THREE CHEERS FOR GRIDLOCK: Why divided government works – especially in fiscal matters.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “I feel we’re going to be here for years and years and years. I don’t think anything is going to get better; I think it’s going to get a lot worse. It’s going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We’re going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence … We’re always going to be here. We’re never going to leave.” – Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J., in the Washington Post.