Month: October 2004

In response to the criticisms of the Kerry campaign and of the press, the Bush administration has now begun to explain better where they have gone wrong in Iraq and how they hope to set things on a better path. That, in itself, is progress. One wonders why it didn’t occur to the White House to let us know sooner, to explain more fully, to detail exactly what they have been doing. Still, it’s good news:

For each of the cities identified as guerrilla strongholds or vulnerable to falling into insurgent hands, a set of measurements was created to track whether the rebels’ grip was being loosened by initiatives of the new Iraqi government, using such criteria as the numbers of Iraqi security personnel on patrol, voter registration, economic development and health care. And for each city, a timeline was established for military action to establish Iraqi local control if purely political steps by the central government proved insufficient. “We’re working on them by population size, by importance to the election,” said one senior administration official, who added that the ultimate objective was to make sure that the main Sunni Muslim cities were able to take part in free elections. “That’s where the bad security situations are, and that’s where we really need to make some major political and economic changes in the next several months if we’re going to have a successful nationwide election,” he said.

I may be too suspicious in seeing some classic Bush payback in the criticisms leveled at Paul Bremer in the briefing to the New York Times – but the White House is now saying that for an entire year, Sanchez and Bremer were working at cross purposes. The plan reassures me, at least, that national elections are still being planned; and the experience in Samarra is also hopeful as to the possibility of success. We can pray it works. My criticisms of the occupation have not been in order to discredit it, but to goad the administration into explaining what the heck it’s up to. It’s just a shame that it’s only the prospect of losing an election that has promoted them to tell their own citizens what is exactly going on.

EMAIL OF THE DAY I: “Slow down on the Republican bashing, my boy. We understand that you’re unhappy with the way the war is being handled, as are many of us. But dear God! Do you really think Kerry would improve things? The guy has no clue how to lead a country in a time of war. He and his little bitch boy, Edwards, are completely out of their league. You may be swinging votes to the left with all your ‘honesty’, but can the world afford to have these two $600 haircut getting dipshits in office?”

EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I can’t say I agree with you on every point, but the gist of your arguments is compelling, and I think the Bush/Cheney days are numbered. They certainly deserve it for the conduct of post-war Iraq, and for the incredibly inept way in which they have handled the communications of the war. And if Lieberman or Gephardt were running against Bush, I would happily vote Democrat. But for all the praise you heap on Kerry and Edwards, I am not convinced that their current positions aren’t just election season posturing. In this I think the past IS relevant, and both Kerry and Edwards’ prior votes on national security issues are disquieting. Furthermore, when Kerry is elected, I have to think the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, which has pulled out all the stops for the guy, will call in their chits. The prospect of an already decision-challenged Kerry trying to balance the demands of his anti-war constituency and the winning of the war itself does not fill me with the warm fuzzies. Throw in the fact that Edwards wants to go medieval on the pharma industry, and I am just depressed as hell…” My feelings entirely.

Mickey Kaus asks me to deal with John Kerry’s statement yesterday about marriage rights:

“I think you have to draw that line, so the answer is yes, they reached beyond that line, and in my judgment they’re trying to exploit certain issues,” he said. “The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they’re out there misleading people and exploiting it.”

I should be plain. I have never trusted Kerry on gay civil rights, still don’t, and wrote a piece earlier this year for the Advocate, warning gay voters not to trust him. So, yes, Mickey, I am aware of his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on civil rights for gay couples. (This, of course, is indistinguishable from his slippery, unprincipled and vacuous stand on almost every other issue as well). I trust Kerry about as much as I trusted Bill Clinton. The similarity is not just that both Bush and Kerry oppose equal marriage rights for gay couples but that neither have ever given a single argument in defense of their position. Kerry tried to pull the civil-marriage-is-procreation point, until he realized that his own current civil marriage has nothing to do with procreation. In general I have been struck both by how ignorant Kerry has been about some basic facts – like the content of the Missouri amendment, for example – and how eager to pander to both sides. Surprise.

VIVE LA DIFFERENCE: The difference, however, is obvious. Kerry supports civil unions that contain all the rights and responsiblities of civil marriages; Bush doesn’t. In fact, Bush has endorsed a federal amendment that would bar both gay marriage and any civil arrangements that, like civil unions or even domestic partnerships, would give gay couples even basic protections. So the difference is stark. And, of course, the constitutional amendment is a HUGE deal. I endorsed Bush in 2000 knowing full well he opposed civil marriage rights, had backed criminalization of gay sex, and opposed including gays in hate crime laws (while inexplicably supporting such laws for other minorities). I’ve never regarded support for civil marriage rights a litmus test for supporting a candidate. But elevating this to the level of a completely unnecessary constitutional amendment was a new development, an unprecedented attack on gay citizens, on states’ rights and the constitution. Kerry’s opposition to such an amendment is a vast and vital distinction. For gay voters, there is therefore no meaningful choice.

WIPED OUT: I’ll be blogging more later this morning. But I’ve just gotten back from that speaking tour – ten separate forums in less than two weeks across the country, and I’m exhausted. The T-cells need some R&R. Later.

I have to say I have been enjoying and learning from this campaign in many ways – not least from you, the readers, and from the twists and turns we have seen and will keep seeing. But now and again, it’s worth looking at the big picture. The fundamental question in this campaign is the war in Iraq. Was it worth starting? Has it been conducted well? Will it make us safer? My answers to those three questions are, briefly, yes, no, and, it depends. But from a broader perspective, the following facts are simply indisputable. The fundamental rationale for the war – the threat from Saddam’s existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn’t anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.

A SIMPLE QUESTION: Returning to Bremer. One of his early complaints was insufficient troop numbers to stop looting, restore order and protect unguarded weapon sites. Leave everything aside and focus on the latter. The war was launched because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The main fear was that these weapons might be transferred to terrorists who could use them against us. And yet in the invasion, there was little or no effort to secure these sites! And there was no effort to seal the borders to prevent their being exported, or purloined by terrorists. Why? I’ve long pondered this, but Bremer’s gaffe brings it back into focus. Why would you launch a war that failed in its very planning to avoid the disaster that you went to war to prevent? I don’t understand. We were lucky in retrospect that Saddam didn’t have any WMDs. The way this war has been run, it would have actually increased the chances of such weapons getting to America via terrorists rather than reduced them. At least, that seems to me to be the logical inference. Am I somehow wrong? Why did the administration leave weapons sites unguarded for so long? Why did they not send enough troops to secure the borders? I’m still baffled. And rattled. Can anyone explain?

YOUR TURN: Don’t miss a bumper edition of the Letters Page, tearing me a new one on the Edwards-Cheney debate.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of the influential 1995 book, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” now says he sees a higher purpose in the universe. Bob Wright breaks the news.

BREASTCASTING: The latest in interior design.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “To talk and laugh. To do each other kindnesses. To read pleasant books together; to pass from lightest joking to talk of deepest things, and back again. To differ without rancor, as a man might differ with himself… these, and such like things, proceeding from our hearts as we gave affection and received it back, and shown by face, by voice, by eyes, and by a thousand pleasing ways, kindled a flame which fused our very souls together, and, of many, made us one.” – Augustine, on friendship, in the Confessions. It was wonderful to take a break last night and talk with students at Fordham about the virtue of friendship. Someone from the event forwarded me this quote which I had forgotten. Blogs, I realize, are also a kind of friendship. Yes, I know lots of you disagree with me; and many are mad at me; and many more are supportive and engaged. But, whatever the response, it is a conversation of sorts, is it not? And whenever I meet regular readers, as I do on these speaking tours, I’m struck by the genuine bonds of friendship they seem to feel. It really is a blessing in these difficult and painful times.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “[A] Latino cheating is one who cheats his nature by having only one woman at a time, and if such a Latin man exists, it’s probably because he has Downs Syndrome.” – Julia Gorin, elevating conservative discourse, in the Jewish World Review.

Here’s a fuller explanation of why I thought Edwards triumphed over Cheney – especially among undecideds, with quotes and chapters and verses.

A RHETORIC PROF WRITES: “I would certainly agree with your assessment about undecideds. I am a professor of rhetoric, I analyze discourse in a number of ways, including persuasiveness, for a living. And the basic rule in straightup argumentative persuasion is audience analysis. It doesn’t matter if one audience, whose decision is basically irrelevant at this point, found Cheney dominating. Speaking to the right audience is the single most important factor in persuading an electorate.
And on that score, Edwards was vastly smarter. I said it before, Cheney addressed wonks, Edwards normal viewers.
When I show students clips from presidential debates, they have little to make sense of a flurry of details, the way Cheney argued. They need to be told why something is important and have it boiled down. They are not unintelligent, they just need the speaker to help them listen to complicated material. Cheney did not try to help the listener, he was speaking to his base and to pundits.
I believe it was not a clear win either way on the merits, but in terms of address, Edwards made the right choice.”

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “OK just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry – not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks – you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do.” – David Macho Man Frum, National Review.

The biggest news of the week was not the vice-presidential debate, of course. It was the revelation that the major criticism that many of us have made about the management of the Iraq war – that we never had enough troops and still don’t – was shared all along by none other than L. Paul Bremer! That’s a staggering concession – and one that Cheney had no real response to last night. Wretchard of the Belmont Club blog immediately countered by saying that what Bremer meant was that there were too few troops merely at the very beginning of the occupation, and that Bremer’s criticism was directly related to the absence of the Fourth Infantry Division, caused by the Turks’ refusal to allow the U.S. to use their country as an invasion point. Nice try. Bremer’s full quote is as follows: “The single most important change – the one thing that would have improved the situation – would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout” the occupation. (My italics.) Wretchard either removed the words “and throughout,” or missed them. Either way, his case collapses. Traveling yesterday, I missed those two crucial words myself and was far too conciliatory in myposting. Not only that but even the administration now concedes that Bremer kept pressing for more troops. According to the NYT, “‘The reality is that Paul kept pressing the issue, because it was immediately clear that a lot of facilities – even arms stockpiles – were unguarded,’ said one senior official who was part of that debate but insisted on anonymity.” Case closed. Wretchard claims that his only goal is the articulation of military strategy and that I don’t know what I’m talking about. The alternative explanation is that he is a partisan Republican, spinning the facts for political purposes. I link. You decide.

More great news from Baghdad:

From: “Baghdad, USConsul”
To: “Baghdad, USConsul”
Subject: Warden Message
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:36:13 +0000

Warden Message – Increased Security Awareness within the International Zone

On October 5, 2004, at approximately 1 pm, U.S. Embassy security personnel discovered an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) at the Green Zone Café. A U.S. Military Explosive Ordnance Detachment safely disarmed the IED.
American citizens living or working in the International Zone are strongly encouraged to take the following security precautions:

* Limit non-essential movement within the International Zone, especially at night.
* Travel in groups of two or more.
* Carry several means of communication.
* Avoid the Green Zone Café, the Chinese Restaurants, the Lone Star restaurant and Vendor Alley.
* Conduct physical fitness training within a compound perimeter.
* Notify office personnel or friends of your travel plans in the International Zone.
**** Conduct a thorough search of your vehicle prior to entering it.

Consular Section
US Embassy Baghdad

Apart from being unable to maintain security even within the Green Zone, “we’re making progress in Iraq,” as the vice president said last night.

Here’s an email that confirms my view of how well Edwards did with swing voters:

If you do some simple math, you can figure out that your instinct about the ABC news poll is right. Because the 38% in the sample who were Republicans gave it overwhelmingly to Cheney, with only a few Repubs calling it a draw, and because a substantial plurality of Democracts called it a draw (approx 30%), you can figure out how the 32 percent of the sample who were independents must have called it. On my math, it comes out approximately 43 for Edwards, 34 for Cheney, and 23 a draw. That puts the ABC poll figures for independents awfully close to the CBS poll for uncommiteds.

Exactly. The Republican base saw the election slipping away last Thursday. They needed a win and they convinced themselves they had one. But Edwards directed his answers to the undecideds. And, unless the pro-Cheney spin gets deafening, he scored big.
CORRECTION: The reader is wrong. The ABC poll shows independents favoring Cheney 42 – 37 percent.

Will Saletan agrees with me that Edwards destroyed Cheney last night:

If you watched this debate as an uninformed voter, you heard an avalanche of reasons to vote for Kerry. You heard 23 times that Kerry has a “plan” for some big problem or that Bush doesn’t. You heard 10 references to Halliburton, with multiple allegations of bribes, no-bid contracts, and overcharges. You heard 13 associations of Bush with drug or insurance companies. You heard four attacks on him for outsourcing. You heard again and again that he opposed the 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security, that he “diverted” resources from the fight against al-Qaida to the invasion of Iraq, and that while our troops “were on the ground fighting, [the administration] lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay.” You heard that Kerry served in Vietnam and would “double the special forces.” You heard that Bush is coddling the Saudis, that Cheney “cut over 80 weapons systems,” and that the administration has no air-cargo screening or unified terrorist watch list.

On all the critical questions in this election – why is Osama bin Laden still at large? why did we invade Iraq? why has the Iraq occupation come unglued? why the poor jobs record? why the record deficits? – Cheney had almost no answer at all. If you’re already a committed Bush voter, it must have felt great to see a candidate articluate and aggressive. But any undecided voter would have sided with Edwards. That’s what matters. (Btw, here’s what Jonah said last night, after calling me “batty” for believing that Cheney was eviscerated: “I’d go so far as to predict that Sullivan is the only big name/mainstream pundit in America who has that opinion.” Hmmm. Does the political correspondent for Slate count?)

Last night was a blogathon, so my first post on the debate is way down there. For convenience’s sake, if you’re just tuning in, here it is. I thought Edwards won easily.