The Dish

“If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry.” – Mark Hyman, vice president the Sinclair Broadcast Group, defending himself against the charge that the broadcasting of an anti-Kerry propaganda movie amounts to an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. Hyman also referred to critics of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vets as “acting like Holocaust deniers, pretending these men don’t exist.”

Maybe it’s worth a second link – but this story about Bush policy toward Iran strikes me as important. Essentially, Bush has flip-flopped into agreeing to offer incentives to the mullahs to restrain their nuclear ambition. He’s following the lead of the … French! So far, he’s avoiding direct endorsement. But we all know why. Money quote:

European diplomats said that the administration was very squeamish about even discussing incentives, in part because it would represent a policy reversal that would provoke a vigorous internal debate, and in part because of the presidential campaign.

Er, yes. The new policy would differ from Kerry’s because … er … Take it away, Michael Ledeen!

“I laugh when I read your posts, because it could be me writing them! I said to my wife just last night “I may just opt out entirely and vote for the Libertarian”. Like you, I am still undecided, and I’m tortured about how to cast my precious vote.
I had been ready to vote for Kerry for a number of weeks now. Time for a “break from Bush’s history making” and time for the whole country to know that we’re in this war on terror together, that it isn’t “Bush’s war”. Being hip-deep in Iraq, we can’t make any big dramatic moves regardless of what happens over the next four years, regardless of who is president.
Of course, the big development we should expect is Iran going nuclear. Once we discover that the current talks are found to have only bought the mullahs time in their weapons building, the best case scenario would be for us to launch airstrikes and call for sanctions. A few weeks ago I would have said, “well Kerry would do that, and would be in a better position to get sanctions by far”. But would he even take any military action if necessary to stave off Iran getting nukes? He talked about how he would “engage” the mullahs (as if Bush hasn’t done so via European and IAEC proxy) and go one step further: give them the nuclear fuel they needed for their “energy program” so that we all knew that they were using it for energy and not weapons.
Of course Kerry will wimp out! There is not one moment in his life that he has shown an ounce of political courage. Not one. Even his railing against the Vietnam War after he served was the smart and easy thing for a young man of his generation with an eye towards a political career to do. He will be Jimmy Carter at a time in our history which couldn’t be worse for a Jimmy Carter.
I’m afraid we have a choice between Bush, a man who shoots first and asks questions later (or doesn’t ask them at all) and Kerry, a man who will ask questions forever and never shoot (he couldn’t even find circumstances in which he could support the ’91 Gulf War!). We have a man, Buhs, who apparently never even considered the lessons of Vietnam, and a man, Kerry, who is paralyzed by them.
It is simply too early to hand over the reins to a weak Democrat, no matter how much I would like to believe it’s time.” I’m very sympathetic to this point of view. But we just found out that the Bush administration itself has now reversed itself and is offering incentives to the mullahs in Tehran. Again: what’s the difference?

THE NYT ON AUSTRALIA: It’s amazing what a few days can mean. Before John Howard’s victory, it was clear that Iraq was an important issue in the election campaign. Here’s Ray Bonner’s headline: “War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia.” We learned that

On Iraq, the differences are stark. Mr. Howard has defended his decision to go to war and has said the 800 Australian troops in the Persian Gulf region will stay there as long as needed. Mr. Latham has said that he will have the troops home by Christmas. Opponents of the Iraq war got a lift in August when 43 retired senior military commanders and senior diplomats issued a public statement saying that Australia went to war “on the basis of false assumptions and the deception of the Australian people.” The signers included a former chief of the navy, a former chief of the air force and a former secretary of defense. Australia’s “unquestioning support for the Bush administration” has harmed Australia, they wrote. “Terrorist activity, instead of being contained, has increased.”

We also learned that it was surprising, given the economic boom, that there was a close race at all – with the implication that Iraq was the reason. But after the election, we discover:

Iraq loomed in the background during the campaign, but Australian political analysts cautioned that the voting was not a referendum on the war. The main issue was the economy, and that is booming.

Same reporter. Same paper. Same spin.

Another cheap all-but-racist shot at the National Security Adviser. Bigotry knows no party.

You can agree or disagree with his analysis, but Kevin Drum at least puts out there the varying inaccuracies of Bush and Kerry in last Friday’s debate, and grades them. It seems to me that Mark Halperin is correct. The distortions coming from Bush are markedly worse than those coming from Kerry. But decide for yourself.

DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE: “[A]bortion is in our day what slavery was in Lincoln’s. To vote for John Kerry in 2004 would be far worse, however, than to have voted against Lincoln and for his Democratic opponent in 1860. Stephen Douglas at least supported allowing states that opposed slavery to ban it. And he did not favor federal funding or subsidies for slavery. John Kerry takes the opposite view on both points when it comes to abortion. On the great evil of his own day, Senator Douglas was merely John Kerry-lite.” – Robert George and Gerald Bradley, co-authors of the FMA, in NRO. Now I get the Dred Scott reference.

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.