Monday, October 25, 2004
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Maybe John Kerry should read it.
Obeidi's book is one of the three or four accounts that anyone remotely interested in the Iraq debate will simply have to read. Apart from its insight into the workings of the Saddam nuclear project, it provides a haunting account of the atmosphere of sheer evil that permeated every crevice of Iraqi life under the old regime. It is morally impossible to read it and not rejoice at that system's ignominious and long-overdue removal.
In winning, Howard brushed aside voter concerns about Australia's participation in Iraq. Like the U.S., the country is badly split over the U.S.-led war. But Iraq, and terrorism fears, were warfed in the campaign by domestic issues. "It didn't hurt them," Tiffen said of Iraq.
In victory, Howard was unapologetic for his role as an ally of President Bush in the war on terror. As evidence for the war's success, he cited the election in Afghanistan, which occurred even as Australians voted.
"That election has been made possible by the fact that a number of countries, including Australia, were prepared to take a stand for democracy and a stand against terrorismâ€¦We should be proud of the role we have played in their liberation," he said.
The Belmont Club takes a look at the Australian Laborites agony.
Meanwhile has anyone heard from Kerry's sister?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
Removing the message from the media (television and radio) one can reasonably argue that Bush comes off better than Kerry if one reads the transcript from last week's debate.
Here's is MSNBC's Tom Curry account of the soon-to-be famous "global test" remark.
What prompted Bushâ€™s attack was Kerryâ€™s statement that when the United States goes to war, â€œyou have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.â€�
Bush snapped, â€œI'm not exactly sure what you mean, â€˜passes the global test,â€™ you take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.â€�
Toward the end of the debate, Kerry made a point that crystallized the fact that this is an election that poses a choice of temperaments and personalities: Kerry referred to â€œthis issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong â€¦ certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.â€�
Bush is certain of where he stands; Kerry did not say what the opposite of certainty is. Kerryâ€™s pitch to voters was: "Iâ€™m the man to get us out of trouble."
But again that all hinges on those other nations.
Yes Kerry the Internationalist -- putting the security of the U.S. at the whim's of Old Europe. Imagine "proving to the world" full of dictators and despots that we have a right to defend ourselves by killing terrorists.
Question is: will Kerry pay politically for his "global test" remark. The latest polls suggest maybe?
President Bush continues to lead rival Sen. John F. Kerry among likely voters
despite surging enthusiasm for Kerry among Democrats and new doubts about
whether the president has a clear plan to deal with terrorism and the
situation in Iraq, according to the Washington Post tracking poll.
Who has the "doubts" about the president's "clear plan to deal with terrorism?" The media mavens themselves. Yes Kerry won the first debate on style; there's very little question about that. But when the junior senator from Massachusetts starts talking about meeting "global test" the ambiguity is all his. You might not like Bush's plan but at least his plan isn't nuanced. Little should be when it comes to protecting this country. Meanwhile where exactly is the Kerry bounce?
Sunday, October 03, 2004
We talk a lot about freedom these days. When you get to the bottom of this talk you realize that, first, very few know what freedom is and, second, still fewer want it. The fact is that what we call freedom is an increase in wages (or doles), more profits (or subsidies), or a bottomless abundance of privileges. For such things we -- particularly the affluent among us -- are ready to lay freedom on the line. The essence of freedom, which is an inflexible respect for oneself, is being bartered every day for mere trifles."Henry David Thoreau," Fugitive Essays, Frank Chodorov, Liberty Press, 1980.