SENATOR KERRY: I can make America safer than President Bush has made us.
And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe. I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.
I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.
This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.
I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better.
Four years ago, I would have voted for this policy in a heartbeat. This is what I mean by not stupid in a dumb way. But it is stupid in an ignorant way.
It’s stupid because it is a precise example of how to fight the last war. We are in a World War right now. It is being fought all across the globe and the consequences of winning or losing this war will effect every person on the planet. It is World War IV. If you can’t see that then you are either not paying attention, or are mollified by our spectacular successes over the past three years.
I credit John Kerry with the genuine desire to protect this nation, because the alternative to believing that is the back alley short-cut to insanity. He has, in mind, precisely the correct formula used to protect the ideals of Liberal Democracy and ensure its victory in WWI, WWII and the long, twilight, Cold War fight of WWIII.
Allies and alliances defined the First War. After four years of mind-shattering horror, the European powers had fought themselves to utter stalemate – and those trenches might yet today mark the borders between Germany, Belgium and France were it not for the arrivals of the American allies. Don’t misunderstand me – we did not win that war on the battlefield. That credit goes to the British and the French. But the endless supply of American troops disembarking, full of confidence and optimism and raw heroism, convinced Hindenberg and Ludendorf to desperately roll the dice on the spring 1918 offensives before they faced a million fresh American troops, full of fight. But defense was king in that war, and the Ludendorf Offensives failed. The counterattacks succeeded. The alliance won that war.
The alliance won World War II – that is beyond dispute. Without Britain hanging on during the lonely and dark opening years, where would the Western invasion have come from? Soviet Russia defeated almost 70% of the strength of Nazi Germany, and the United States defeated Japan single-handedly at sea, and with a great deal of help from the British and Australians and New Zealanders in brutal island jungles. An Alliance won that war – not us. Not us alone.
For almost fifty years, the most successful alliance in history had the guts and the commitment to put American cities on the line in order to prevent Soviet tanks from crashing through the Fulda gap. American, and to a deteriorating degree, European taxpayers built and maintained the armed forces needed to keep half of Europe free while the other half slowly rotted under the weight of an ideology so corrupt that it can now only thrive in the hothouse environment of the western coffee shop or faculty lounge. That, too, was an alliance victory.
If John Kerry were running for president in 1916, or 1940, or even 1976, he would have my enthusiastic vote, for the alliance of the US and the European powers is what saved Europe and the world not once, or twice, but three times in a single lifespan. One might expect some gratitude and respect for this, but as I say, the scales fell from my eyes some time ago.
But this is not 1916, or 1940, or 1976. Europe, ruler of the world in the first war, had become a military freeloader by the end of the third. Europe was not able to muster the military muscle or political will to extinguish a genocide within Europe – and things have gotten worse since then. The French nuclear carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, returned from her sea trials with a reactor room flooded with five times the allowable level of radiation and with one of her propellers at the bottom of the Atlantic. She borrowed a screw from her predecessor, the Foch – which was faster – and now sits in port making impressive appearances during national holidays and furthermore showing that if God exists he has both a sense of justice and a sense of humor.
The Germans cannot deploy an effective force beyond her own borders. The Russians – the mighty Russians -- could not call up so much as one decent ten-man special ops squad when she and her children needed them the most. Japan has constitutional restraints – drafted in American English – preventing her from deploying her defense forces overseas: a fact that has given me many nights peaceful sleep. And as for China… even if she decided, out of the kindness of her heart, to commit her forces to help her arch-rival…who do you think, Senator, would benefit the most from us sharing our weapons, tactics, logistics and intelligence with China?
An alliance would be nice – if the allies could shoulder some of the burden. But the sad, inconvenient, disappointing fact is that there is only one army on the face of the earth that can fight on the same battlefield with the United States; whose forces, technology and training rival ours in quality if not in scale, and whose trust has been forged by three world wars when we have stood alone, together. That country is Great Britain, one of the members of what Senator Kerry called the “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted.”
The sad fact, the unpleasant reality of 2004 is that there is only one nation in the world that is of any strategic value on the battlefield, and that ally is with us as she has always been, a staunch friend through many dark nights who deserves something better, I perceive, than slander from a man proclaiming himself the greatest diplomat since.. well, since himself. I will say this for John Kerry: he is a man unrivaled in his own esteem.
An alliance of European powers is a chimera that no longer holds any significant value. That is a critical point. It is an essential point of delusion embedded in Senator Kerry’s world view. He waits for rescue from a knight long dead and moldering, sitting beneath a withered oak tree in rusted armor.
That’s point one.
Second, you cannot even throw the cloak of wishful thinking over Senator Kerry’s strategic nakedness, because as those of us in pajamas are well aware, the governments of the Grand Rescue Alliance – that is, Germany and France – have both announced publicly and in the most clear language available that regardless of who wins the election in November, they are not coming to Iraq.
That is not my opinion, that is not a product of the Republican Smear Machine…that is an official statement from the governments of the nations in question, stating unequivocally that they are not going to be a part of a coalition that is against their interests even if it is lead by an American who went to Swiss schools and speaks fluent French.
Is it possible to put this any more plainly? They do not have any meaningful capability, and they are publicly pledging that their lack of meaningful capability is…not…coming.
As a final thought on this essential issue, consider this, from your own personal experience: I have found that the only thing worse than doing a hard, dirty, thankless job by yourself is depending on help from someone who will not be there when you need them. We have a few good friends in this fight: Britain -- the Aussies, God bless them -- the Poles and the Italians and a few others: 4am friends who will drive 300 miles in a snowstorm to help us when we are broken down on the side of the road. Those are friends. Those are the people we need in a tough and dirty fight. Those people deserve gratitude and honor, not scorn and mockery.
Senator Kerry, your powerful allies don’t exist, and even if they did, they have plainly told you they are not coming. Welcome to 2004, John. It sucks, I know. That’s just what we’re dealt.
SENATOR KERRY: I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.
I’d consider voting for this policy. But John Kerry has a 20 year record of having voted against every significant weapons system the US has deployed during his term in office. This is an assertion on the Senator’s part; words from a man who has been steadfast, constant and consistent in his ability to say what he thinks his audience wants to hear. His voting record – the put your money where your mouth is record -- is the polar opposite of this assertion. I’m taking the walk over the talk on this one.
Now, assume for a moment, that you are one of the Islamicist enemies of this nation. President Kerry has outlined a plan to reach out to the Muslim world and isolate you. President Bush, on the other hand, predicates his reelection on the premise that he will
…pursue(d) al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we're after them.
By the way, for about seventy of that seventy-five percent, you can go ahead and substitute the word “killed” in place of the more delicate “brought to justice.”
As a deterrent, I honestly and regretfully don’t think our terrorist enemies are much deterred by the thought of dying. I think they are fully ready to die. People who are fully ready to die in order to kill you and your family, who are undeterred by death, are likely not to be terribly concerned by the thought of being isolated by the more sensitive approach of John Kerry’s sworn mission to hunt down, and isolate, chastise and severely reprimand terrorists.
Terrorists don’t seem to be too afraid of stern language. But I do notice, that while the fear of death does not seem to deter these people, the fact of being dead does significantly decrease their operational effectiveness. That’s a casual observation on my part – no real Harvard study to back it up. More of a hunch, really.
75% of known pre-9/11 al Qaeda killed in three years. Where’s my calculator…? 75% divided by three equals uh…25% a year. Well I’ll be a blue-blooded socialite! Why, at the rate of 25% a year, I calculate that ol’ Dubya will have bagged the whole lot of em in …one more year!
I say let’s give him the chance.
Quagmire! Quagmire!
No, not this season’s fashionable entry: I was referring to last seasons’ quagmire, Afghanistan.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Ten million [Afghani] citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.
The fact is that liberal feminists, when all is said and done, would rather have a man who can turn a witty phrase over a nice Cabernet Sauvignon than one who liberates a nation of women, and gives them the vote, to boot. What refined morality they possess.
You know what our enemies really fear? Women. Women scare the hell out of them.
Hey, there’s no shame in that: women scare the hell out of me, too, only I don’t shoot them in the head in their burkas in front of a cheering crowd in a soccer stadium. And in that regard, I find I am exactly like the Taliban…because they're not doing it either. They are dead or in caves. Has this president deterred atrocities coming our way from Afghanistan, home of the International Jihad 2001 Road Tour? You’re damn right he has. I have a word for how that makes me feel. It’s an archaic, old English word, no longer in common usage. It’s pronounced, “GRAT-eh-tood”
You liberate the women of the world and Islamic Terror evaporates. They fear this the way we fear interruption of our Cable TV service. It is the death knell for their tradition of dominance and brutality, and it is not just the sight, but the very idea, of liberated, independent and unafraid women that causes them such hatred and revulsion when they look to the West.
Ladies, President Bush has freed the women of Afghanistan, and shut down the state-run rape and torture of women in Iraq. And for every one of those women who was raped and tortured to death, remember that half the entire country lived in daily fear of being spotted by some Ba’athist pig with too much time on his hands as he hid behind the tinted windows of his limousine, cruising the streets of Baghdad or Mosul or Basrah looking for a little fun.
Senator Kerry, on the other hand, has not only said, he has promised that he will do no such thing.
SENATOR KERRY: But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking it off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Somewhere, in an infinity of alternate universes, there must be a place where at this very moment, Ben Stein is wandering the wasteland of Tora Bora with clipboard in hand, stumbling over the rocks, never looking up, and saying, “Osama..? Osama..? Osama..?”
God, the restraint that the President must have when that murdering bastard’s name is mentioned in derision as a sign of Bush’s incompetence. It’s practically superhuman.
First of all, you may recall that three years ago, the President -- correctly, in my estimation -- pointed out that this was not a criminal manhunt for Public Enemy Number One, but rather,
Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
“Secret even in success…” An interesting phrase, that. What does that mean?
Osama bin Laden has not been seen since the battle of Tora Bora in December of 2001. Remember now, this is not someone like Abu Nidal, a genuine terror mastermind described by the US State Department as having carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. Major attacks included the Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul and the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and the City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in Greece in July 1988
Abu Nidal was rightfully phobic about being photographed. Anonymity was camouflage to him: incredibly tight operational security, even plastic surgery. The man wanted to remain unseen. In fact he did remain unseen, retiring in his golden years to a nice apartment in Baghdad until he was assassinated by Saddam just before the war to maintain the well-established fact that Saddam had no ties to terrorism. No living ties to terrorism. Well, to that terrorist. It’s all very nuanced and sophisticated.
Contrast this behavior to that of Osama bin Laden, who did not operationally plan the 9/11 attacks (see dead underlings, above) but was rather the figurehead for an international organization of many thousands of fanatics, their numbers much thinned now.
Osama made endless videotapes. Lecturing, preaching, instructing, firing an AK-47: all the things that make young jihadis feel funny in the pants. After 9/11, he wowed ‘em in several tapes gloating and laughing over the attack and its aftermath. He was reliably heard on the radio during the final phase of Tora Bora, then…nothing.
Maybe he escaped. It’s possible.
Then came the videotape condemning the Israeli incursion into Ramallah and Jenin…only it didn’t. The US corporate scandals? Silence. Anniversary of Holy Tuesday? Cue the tumbleweeds.
The freaking invasion of a Muslim country by the Great Satan, and this new Caliph, the Leader of the Oppressed, cannot bring himself to shoot a crummy VHS in front of a white wall condemning this outrage? This glory-seeking egomaniac, the New Saladin riding the White Horse across the desert, who practically put out a 10 DVD commemorative set every time the US so much as hiccupped, is now suddenly silent, and has been for three years?
You may call that a Terror Mastermind. I call it a greasy wet spot on the wall of a cave in Afghanistan.
The man is dead. Dead, or just possibly captured. The likelihood of him having been killed at Tora Bora by US “outsourcing” was rising with his deafening silence concerning each American counterstroke and became 100% when nothing was heard from the late Osama after the US invasion of Iraq.
Does President Bush know what became of him? I would say, very likely. We know what did not become of him: he didn’t become a Martyr. He did not become the symbol of Glorious Death resisting the Great Satan. He did not become a Symbol or a Cause or an Example to Them All.
He became, if you will pardon the expression, AWOL. Bugged out. Handed in his walking papers. Fizzle…poof. Gone.
Brilliant.
Unfortunately, I do not have fake (but accurate!) documents to back this claim up. I just have common sense, a psychological history, and the ability to see Naked Emperors. The man is dead – just possibly captured; he has been for years.
Now, do I fault President Bush for not announcing this? I do not. For the President to not disclose something so beneficial to himself, politically, must mean that there is a reason of great magnitude behind the official silence. Are we, the American People, entitled to know what this secret is?
We are not.
We are not, for the same reason we were not entitled to know that allied cryptographers won WWII by breaking the Japanese and German codes and having the good sense to shut up about it. But don’t dare breathe such sentiments to the current editors of The New York Times. Had those people been running the paper in 1943, tomorrow's headline would have read:
AMERICAN AND BRITISH CRYPTOGRAPHERS BREAK JAP AND NAZI WAR CODES – ALL FUTURE ENEMY MOVEMENTS NOW KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY BY ALLIED HIGH COMMAND.
I suspect that if I live another ten years, I’ll be sitting watching the History Channel some night in my pajamas and all will be revealed to me. Until then, I’m happy not to know. I know some people have a hard time with that. Go to hell. This is serious business. Not everything is about you.
Has President Bush deterred bin Laden from repeating his attack on the US? I don’t honestly see what Osama can do these days, what with him being in several thousand crispy pieces and all.
One nice thing about those hyperbaric bombs, developed by that Vietnamese immigrant who fled to the US after certain people’s ideological heroes overran her country and likely killed most of her extended family: they make a small boom, release some nastiness, and then make a much louder boom.
I hope that son of a bitch knew what the sound of that first little boom meant.
And now, finally, the piece de resistance, the Main Event.
Iraq.
SENATOR KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?
First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections…
…And we pushed our allies aside.
Yes, after only thirteen brief years of Iraq’s causus belli of repeatedly and energetically violating every clause of the cease-fire agreement that stayed the US hand in 1991 when he was down, out and routed, and after only fourteen barely-have-time-to-pee months of non-stop, back-to-back UN sessions, resolutions, meetings, condemnations, threats, blocked inspections, harsh language, sanctions, embargoes and Saddam’s willful disregard of international protest, the Smirking Chimp ordered the raring-to-go German, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Belgian armored divisions out of theater so that he could have his unilateral war.
Thanks for clarifying that opaque moment in history, Senator.
And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion -- $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq.
The inference being, I suppose, that a more sophisticated foreign policy and lack of Texas accent could have persuaded France, Germany, Russia, indeed, the entire UN – all with their hands deep in the oily pockets of Saddam – to put their billions back on the table and step up like good fellows to trade their cash for some decent-sized share of the casualties…three or four hundred killed, perhaps, something in that ballpark. Yes, exactly: the Kerry team, using the same impeccable diplomatic finesse they displayed in calling the desperately courageous leader of Iraq a “puppet” and our true, abiding friends a rabble of bribed, coerced, bought and extorted lapdogs, will convince the most selfish, perfidious and unreliable “ally” in human history to step up and do the right thing because he is asking them?
And Bush is arrogant?
But wait! There’s more!
John Kerry, in his bones, cannot envision winning a tough fight. He supported the effort in Iraq when we had a three-week victory, just as the anti-war activist and enemy collaborator has now fashioned himself as Rambo gunning down commies in a hail of bullets. But now that things are just a dirty, nasty, slugfest – a war that is nothing more or less, in fact, than French premier Clemenceau’s description of a series of catastrophes that results in victory, this defeatist says he alone can save us from the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place?
US marines are killing Ba’athist remnants and Syrian and Iranian mercenaries at a ratio of something like 600 to one, which, I might point out, is a damn sight better than the 150 to one against us that those 19 hijackers pulled off on 9/11. The insurgency in Iraq is burning casualties at an absolutely insane and unsustainable – indeed, ruinous pace. Why? Well, they have been paying close attention to Senator Kerry and his history, and saw how unsustainable, devastating, insurmountable NVA and VC losses during the Tet offensive bought victory because we decided we had had enough. Because we were told we were nothing more than a modern day horde of Ghengis Khan and the people whose freedom we were fighting for did not have the guts or the spine to stand up for their own defense. Today, that nation – Vietnam -- remains a basket case while the rest of Asia rocketed out of the stone age.
That is the model Senator Kerry has for Iraq. I’m not claiming he’s malicious. Not at all. I genuinely don’t think he gives much thought to Iraqis or Vietnamese at all.
I do know what he does give a lot of thought to, and that is the melodious sound of the phrase, President Kerry.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
Yes, almost got it, Mr. President. But what the hell does this policy say to our enemies? Does this deter attacks on our troops? Or does it say, in the clearest and most unmistakable terms, that as long as you blow up our men and women, President Kerry will begin plans to pull them out as soon as the hand comes down on Inauguration Day?
Does it not ultimately say that this “mistake” was another War Crime? That it was an unjustified and unwarranted attack on an innocent and harmless nation? Does this not make any future preemptive action on the part of President Kerry for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve? Does this “Global Test” nonsense mean every single nation in the world must approve of our pre-emptive actions, including the one we mean to invade to defend our people? No? How many then? 90% of the globe must agree? Fifty percent? France? Who?
But of course, there’s a four point plan at www.JohnKerry.com that will “change the dynamic on the ground.” Yes, this plan on a website will stop Improvised Explosive Devices from detonating. This plan will bring the sworn enemies of this nation into a series of binding arbitrations that will convince them this is all one jolly misunderstanding. This plan – unlike any military plan in human history – will survive contact with the enemy, and his intentions, his will and his capabilities will melt away like the morning dew because Senator John Kerry has a four-point plan at www.JohnKerry.com.
Finally, and most tellingly, Senator Kerry says that Iraq is “a long, long way from the fight on terror.”
Senator, you might choose to read some history: it might broaden your perspective. The last time this country was attacked, it was by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy, whose capitol city was Tokyo.
The first land battle the US Army fought after Pearl Harbor was at Kasserine Pass. Kasserine Pass, Senator, is in Tunisia. Tunisia is in Africa. Africa is a long, long way from Japan.
Tunisia did not attack the United States, Senator Kerry. Tunisia, in fact, was a far, far more innocent battlefield than Iraq, which had spent the preceding decade, and then some, committing overt acts of war against British and American aircraft flying missions to enforce UN mandates.
US troops fought in Tunisia – and they fought badly; infinitely worse than they do in Iraq – because people of vision and courage and great intelligence perceived that this was the first, best front against an enemy that straddled the entire globe. We did not begin our war by launching an armada of landing craft filled with Marines on a suicide mission from Midway to Tokyo. We did not send fleets of transports to get shot down over Berlin carrying fifty divisions of paratroopers.
We attacked in Tunisia because it was the soft underbelly of a powerful enemy. There is a word for this type of action, Senator Kerry, and that word is “foothold.” It is a place where the enemy is weak. It is a place we can capture, fortify, defend and launch further attacks from. As Tunisia, so Africa. As Africa, so Italy. As Italy, so Germany.
We were not attacked by the natives of the Marianas, or the Solomans, or the Marshall islands, and yet these innocent people died along with our troops. It was part of a strategy for victory, Senator. I know you understand the term ‘strategy.’ It’s the other term that seems to me to stick in your craw as I examine your entire career.
Here’s something you might want to read up on aboard the campaign jet: bright people have done studies on what the operational limits of a terror cell are. It’s actually kind of… biological. See, as a terror cell grows in members, it gains not only mutually-reinforcing enthusiasm, but capability. However, the bigger the cell, the less secure it becomes.
Zarqawi’s cells having been fighting us from the day Saddam’s statue fell. So I ask you, Senator: if there were no terrorists in Iraq, where did these organized units come from? Did they parachute in? Saddam’s Fedayeen are not and did not behave as a defeated military unit, but as an organized, cell-based structure. Where did they come from? And poor, unlamented Abu Nidal? And how many others?
When operating outside of rogue nations, law-enforcement pressure limits the cell to about 80 members, and the operational center is much smaller. Any larger and the cell fragments into smaller, more secure, but less capable splinter cells.
However, when protected by a nation-state, such as Syria or Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan having been wiped off the blackboard in this regard in a puff of chalk dust, and Libya having suddenly found religion – there is effectively no limit to how large and capable a terror organization can become, since there are no law-enforcement pressures limiting its growth.
Putting a democracy – even a very bad democracy – in the heart of the Middle East is a dagger at our enemy’s heart. It is as if Canada were overrun by the Taliban: inconceivable, unnaccaptable and intolerable. It draws all the enemy’s resources. It provides a fatal example that people of Arab lands can live in freedom, and eventually, prosperity. A free Iraq is a fatal, deadly poison to the Ideology of Death that threatens this nation and the world.
The essence of deterrence, Senator, is to cause uncertainty in the mind of your opponent. The missile defense system, which you oppose, does precisely this. It doesn’t matter if it has a 3 out of 5 success rate. Fifty such anti-missile installations enormously, in fact fatally complicates an enemy’s ability to plan a first strike or, far more likely, to issue nuclear blackmail.
You have made it clear that you would cancel the bunker-busting bombs that cause uncertainty – deterrence, Senator – in the minds of unstable lunatics like Kim Jung Il and the Iranian Thugocracy.
They do not have to guess what you will do, Senator: you have already given that away, in the same way you gave away the atrocity fictions the Vietnamese Communists were torturing your “Band of Brothers” to obtain, without success.
President Bush believes that a free and democratic state provides a shockingly clear example that there is another way for Arab peoples to live. He believes, as I do, that all people want to live free and determine the course of their own lives. You claim that this is a mistake. You seem to be determined to fulfill that prophesy.
You lack the vision, Senator, to see this as a many-front war. You lack the insight to see how the sight of Saddam crawling from a hole inspired an identical self-possessed lunatic to give up Libya's nuclear weapons program. Iraq deterred Libya, you eternal defeatist. And all of the rest of the former free-range dictators now hang on the results of this election to see whether they will get a man who has capitulation in his very marrow, or one who has weathered unbelievable pressure, slurs and insults, and very likely thrown away his second term, to face reality and do something. Something unpopular. Something that he knew would make his poll numbers go down.
I know. I know, John. Inconceivable.
Senator Kerry, I do not desire to be President of the United States. I will settle for being the head coach of the Florida Gators. I have a four-point plan on how to win against the Tennessee Volunteers. My plan is foolproof, and it will change the dynamic on the field. I place little weight on the fact that the game I have in mind was played several weeks ago: that is why my four-point plan is so perfect! I have analyzed all of the Florida errors, and they will not be repeated when I replay that game in my head.
And I might add I have won every Monday morning game I have ever quarterbacked.
Vote for me.
My friends, if any of you think this may in any way convince people unsure of what to think about this critical election, for God's sake print out as many NON-COMMERCIAL (Short form: that means, no charge) copies as you can and drop them out of airplanes if you are able. This election is entirely too close.
Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:
1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.
2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.
3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!
Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!
Comments
TAH-DAHHH!
Wow! I think there's a nail or two in there with their heads squarely hit.
AND I'm FIRST!
And now I've got to go to work. Damn. More later, I guess.
GHS
Posted by: GreatHairySilverback | October 6, 2004 4:35 AM
From all of us Aussies: Great to see you back Bill! Excellent, as usual. We face our own election this very weekend, and our political dynamic is very close to yours. Pray that there are 50.1 of us here who agree with your words, just as we pray for the same in the U.S.
You mentioned FDR's Pearl Harbor speech, and the famous line from that speech:
"We will gain the inevitable triumph, SO HELP US GOD!"
has echoed thru my mind over the last few years. We will win, eventually, because we must....LLL's not withstanding.
Keep up the good work mate!
Posted by: Angry Oz Warrior | October 6, 2004 4:36 AM
Great stuff, once again. I can use this in many discussions to come.
Oh.. and welcome back :-)
JoJo
Posted by: JoJo | October 6, 2004 5:34 AM
Thanks Bill, I needed that!!
Welcome back, I've been waaaaaaaiting.
Now off to spread the word!!!!
Posted by: MargeinMI | October 6, 2004 5:44 AM
Thank God you're back, Bill. Just in the nick of time!
Deb
Posted by: Deborah | October 6, 2004 6:08 AM
Excellent, your desperation is showing.
Your "logic" is long-winded, specious, and sarcastic. The rush to press of this incoherent nonsense can only be a result of your sudden lack of certainty at what Nov. 2 will bring.
While I am NOT certain what will happen, I can only hope (desperately as well) that this Bush abomination will come to an end.
You folks are overlooking one positive thing for your camp though: smugness is never worn with much elegance and, since last Thursday, it has suddenly and thoroughly disappeared from the right as a whole.
Spanky
Posted by: Spanky Johnson | October 6, 2004 6:26 AM
Bill:
Thank you for articulating what many of us believe. Keep the faith......
Posted by: cabinboy | October 6, 2004 6:34 AM
Bill,
The Aussies have stood by us in every war of the last 100 years.
Please give them credit. (Now, I'm back to read from that point onward. EXCELLENT post, Sir!)
Posted by: Carridine | October 6, 2004 6:36 AM
Kirk,
Hopefully this splendid essay will, as a secondary yet needed benefit, inspire Spock to lend his voice to the fray again soon...
Outstanding. Inspiring. Nifty. It was all those things, and more.
A society is only as perfect as the people that populate it.
Your voice lends to the perfection we stumble our way toward.
That is why we succeed.
There can be no quarter.
Braintrust
Posted by: Braintrust | October 6, 2004 6:38 AM
Bill,
Thanks for another great read. I could wish that Bush possessed some of your eloquence, but that's just another form of Monday morning quarterbacking. As Spanky proves above, it's much easier to snipe at the plans of others than to implement (or even voice) and defend your own. I'll be passing this along to as many as I can get to read it.
Rick
Posted by: Rick | October 6, 2004 6:50 AM
Bill,
Thanks for this. Copies(non-commercial, of course) are being routed to many recipient right now. And yes, this election is entirely too close.
Posted by: physics geek | October 6, 2004 6:56 AM
The Conservative Zone congradulates you on yet another prose-filled missive of extraordinary quality. Glad to see you back. I was getting worried there for a while.
Posted by: MemphisMark | October 6, 2004 7:01 AM
"Smugness is never worn with much elegance...."
That certainly explains why Kerry needs the Botox.
Good stuff Bill.
Posted by: Thresh | October 6, 2004 7:01 AM
Thanks Bill!
Just like always, just when i was beginning to waiver and loose the slightest amount of faith, you have restored it.
Next time, don't wait so long. Please!
Posted by: Rainking | October 6, 2004 7:07 AM
Excellent work Bill. I am off to Kinko's. I am volunteering to stump for Bush for the next few weeks here in Washington. I would be proud to hand out this essay to anyone willing to take the time to read it.
Posted by: ApolloPT | October 6, 2004 7:19 AM
Thank you Bill. Reading President Bush's speech from 9/20/2001 brought it all back for me. I only wish he could be as inspiring today as he was then. Thank you and your compatriots for filling the void and doing the work that a very tired President can no longer handle on his own. It must be devastatingly difficult to fight the Islamofacist across the globe and the fifth column here at home. The President needs our support and I will only be too happy to pass on your work to those who still don't get it.
Posted by: Wonko | October 6, 2004 7:24 AM
Thank you. You have provided another tool for the work that needs to be done.
My greatest fear is that so many people could have watched the planes smash into the towers... could have watched the towers crumble... and yet still not grasp the simple brutal reality that we are in a war. There is a deeply rooted perverseness in that, maybe denial on a scale so vast that it needs a new name.
Joseph Heller did one small service in the story of "Catch-22."As the story unfolds, Yossarian returns repeatedly to the mission in which he tried to give first aid to his wounded crewmate. Each time the scene is replayed he is able to recall and face the memory in more detail. In stages, he is repulsed, paralysed, but finally steels himself to examine the gunner’s wound, and hesitantly apply his rudimentary first aid skills to the minor wound he finds.
But the scene keeps coming back. It’s not over.
He’d got it wrong, and there was much worse to come.
Finally, Yossarian has to replay the scene in its full horror--- the gunner indicates another wound, seemingly minor, which requires Yossarian unfasten the gunner’s flack vest for examination. Of course, unfastening the vest reveals in the most horrible way possible that the boy is dying; that no amount of rudimentary first aid can begin to help.
Yossarian's utter inability to deal with the MEMORY of the gunner’s catastrophic gut wound and his own utter impotence in the event, is a perfect metaphor for modern Liberalism.
My heart tells me that no amount of thoughtful eloquent passionate reasoning will penetrate the obstinate denial of reality; only further lessons by terrorists will do.
Posted by: David March, animator & fiddler | October 6, 2004 7:37 AM
Women scare the hell out of you? Good to know ;^)
Seriously, I'll share the URL in hopes of raising the blood pressure -- or inspiring some contemplation -- of various liberal friends and relatives. Please wish me luck.
BTW, 18th!
Posted by: A Recovering Liberal | October 6, 2004 7:48 AM
Thank you so much. I'm forwarding this to my sons in Iraq and my daughter in college as required reading. What a perfect birthday present!
Posted by: Marty | October 6, 2004 8:05 AM
Heh ... it's my birthday as well, Marty. I thought the exact same thing - how lucky am I to get TWO Bill Whittle essays marking the day I was born!
Excellent work, Bill. I've already linked to both parts of DETERRENCE and I'll be printing out a couple copies to drop on the appropriate friends and relatives.
S
Posted by: sandor at the zoo | October 6, 2004 8:24 AM
Thanks, Bill!
More, please.
Posted by: Owen | October 6, 2004 9:00 AM
This essay is the best birthday present I could have hoped for! SO glad to see you back, Bill. I really needed to hear someone put down so eloquently what I have been thinking.
Posted by: elaine | October 6, 2004 9:07 AM
Thanks, Bill. I needed that! In this election year with politics-as-usual, with even more nasty stuff added (forged documents/Rathergate), I have been drooping.
I voted for W in 2K only because I did not want to see Gore win, thus possibly giving Bill Clinton access to the White House for another 4 to 8 years, and to female interns. He was bad enough when there was a possibility to paying the bill (impeachment), but I figured that a "no pay to play" world would be just what Clinton wanted.
Then, came 9/11/01 and W's subsequent speech. I suddenly realized that I had stepped into the right vote the year before. Your essay has reminded me of those dark days, that great speech by W that made me feel so uplifted. And, your essay has reminded me of why we have come the way we have, and how any other way would have been worse and probably more fatal.
Thanks, Bill! --Don
Posted by: don | October 6, 2004 9:30 AM
I am a soldier in the United States army. I was in Iraq with the Fourth Infantry Division.
I was guarding some Iraqi workers one day. Their task was to fill sandbags for our base. The temperature was at least 120. I had to sit there with full gear on and monitor them. I was sitting and drinking water, and I could barely tolerate the heat, so I directed the workers to go to the shade and sit and drink water. I let them rest for about 20 minutes. Then a staff sergeant told me that they didn't need a break, and that they were to fill sandbags until the cows come home. He told the Iraqis to go back to work.
After 30 minutes, I let them have a break again, thus disobeying orders. If these were soldiers working, in this heat, those soldiers would be bound to a 10-minute work, 50-minute rest cycle, to prevent heat casualties. Again the staff sergeant came and sent the Iraqis back to work and told me I could sit in the shade. I told him no, I had to be out there with them so that when I started to need water, then they would definitely need water. He told me that wasn't necessary, and that they live here, and that they are used to it.
After he left, I put the Iraqis back into the shade. I could tell that some were very dehydrated; most of them were thin enough to be on an international food aid commercial. I would not treat my fellow soldiers in this manner, so I did not treat the Iraqi workers this way either.
This went on for eight months while I was in Iraq, and going through it told me that we were not there for their freedom, we were not there for WMD. We had no idea what we were fighting for anymore.
Posted by: Joseph Cherwinski Joseph Cherwinski | October 6, 2004 9:33 AM
All it told you, chief, was that your unit has a crap NCO or two. Extrapolating beyond that is unwise -- unless you think your E-6 is the walking embodiment of American strategic policy in Iraq.
Posted by: Tacitus | October 6, 2004 9:36 AM
Good to see a new essay Bill. Well writ, as usual.
Posted by: krakatoa | October 6, 2004 9:42 AM
Agreed- Good to see you back, Bill.
I echo Angry Oz Warrior: we Aussies are proud to be in this war. I don't like John Howard on a lot of things - he's socially far too conservative but still refuses to give us a decent tax cut, not to mention his abominable preference deal with a truly despicable minor party - but I'll be voting for him this time around just on this issue.
We were with you in Vietnam until the end. You've just articulated why we need to be in Iraq until we're done.
Thank you. I'll be sending this one to a lot of my AU friends; it's almost as relevant down there as it is up here.
Leo
Posted by: Leo | October 6, 2004 9:50 AM
Awesome piece. Mindblowing. you have my sincere congratulations for spelling out so precisely and clearly what many've deeply felt.
Posted by: voletti | October 6, 2004 9:54 AM
Bill,
A fantastic job here, particularly in directly explaining how foolish and completely superfluous an old-Europe "alliance" is to winning this war.
I was reminded of the old Cold War era joke:
What does NATO stand for?
Needs Americans To Operate
Posted by: Mike | October 6, 2004 9:57 AM
I'm awed. That was just so damned splendid. Gratitude.
Posted by: jinnderella | October 6, 2004 10:06 AM
A great read as always, Bill. Thank you for reaffirming my faith.
Posted by: Analog Mouse | October 6, 2004 10:08 AM
Shout it from the mountaintops! Bill is back!!!!
Posted by: Nick Bourbaki | October 6, 2004 10:10 AM
Senator Kerry's comments at Thursday's debate indicate to me that he is more concerned about the security of Somalians than he is about that of Americans.
Quotes are from the transcript at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html of 30 September debate.
In his answer to why he has not discussed sending US troops into Darfur, Sen. Kerry starts with this: " I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold. Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support."
Followed by this: "I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended."
His reasoning appears to be that we haven't sent US troops because the African Union can do the work, and besides, we don't have anyone available.
He continues on with this, however: "But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.
KERRY: It's the moral responsibility for us and the world."
To which I think, "Alright. Fine. Sen. Kerry thinks that US military power should be used to solve other countries' problems."
What I want to know is where is his statement to the effect that we could never allow another September 11th?
Where is his explanation of why invading Sudan--with UN approval or not--to solve their internal problems is a legitimate use of US military force while invading Iraq to finally defuse the threat Hussein's regime posed to the US is not?
Is there another legitimate way to understand what he has said?
Posted by: Tim | October 6, 2004 10:25 AM
Bill, you're the best argument I've ever heard for gay marriage.
Because I love you.
Please don't tell my wife.
(Tongue very firmly in cheek)
Posted by: Opinionated Bastard | October 6, 2004 10:28 AM
Bill,
Important style/trechnical comment:
Some of us linke to get your essays with ONE link. The "Part 2 is continued below" bit at the end of Part 1 should be a hyperlink, so someone I've sent to you can just click and keep reading. (They may arrive several months later, too, so going back to your home page is no guarantee of anything.)
On to the essay:
Good essay, as usual. Putting my editor hat on, here are some thoughts as you think about what you wrote, and think about reworking it for the book...
The Kerry shots are deserved, but the "liberals are insane" type shots are counterproductive if you're trying to convince folks on the fence. Some liberals are not insane, and they're a key audience of potential allies given your goals, and so no point insulting them.
Leave that approach to Kerry, ok?
If it's a point you feel you must make, talk about yourself only. Nothing wrong with "I believed that, too, once. I was wrong." or even "I must have been insane to believe that. It's the privilege of the young, and I abused the privilege. I'm better now. How about you?"
Channel Lileks for those parts, not Misha. You do that most of the time, but you only have the break the pattern once or twice to undo everything else.
Osama...
I believe Osama is alive, though it's not a certainty. He's a patient man. Don't underestimate him. I also believe George W. Bush isn't sure where Osama is or what happened to him. Neither of us knows, so all we can say is "we'll see."
The larger point about "not being entitled to know everything" was worthy, but I would have stressed Osama's quietness as the victory and given the speculation re: his death a passing mention only. As it is, your stuff about Osama being dead is a distracting target amidst a more more important argument.
Finally, if you're reworking the essay for the book, consider keeping most of the content but reworking its order and tightening the specific points each section addresses. Ideally, each secton should be complete in itself, make its case strongly, and not leave any major arguments related to that point for later.
I know this is working in my writing when all I have to say later on is "as I noted earlier (finish the recap in one sentence)" or words to that effect. When I see myself 'adding on' to an earlier argument, it makes me go back and restructure.
Hope some of this helps - I know how tough a large writing project like a book is, especially when you're also putting pressure on yourself because of the stakes.
And welcome back!
Posted by: Joe KAtzman | October 6, 2004 10:28 AM
Nice essay. In part 1, you distinguish between stick and carrot men, albeit with no room for *nuance*. How about those who might beleive in a little of both? How about just common sense men?
You say the scales fell from your eyes on the morning of 11 September. Why? Do you really beleive that our (USA's) conduct has been so fundamentally good and just that we should be loved and respected by the whole world? We DO have enemies, and on that September morning, they got lucky. You then speak of deterring these enemies. Might it not ultimately be more beneficial to examine why we have so many enemies, and to ask ourselves what we can do about it? I think so, though maybe I'm too much of a lily livered, weak willed, liberal When I look at the world three years on, I see a slowly worsening quagmire in Iraq, where the security situation is such that even those who were sympathetic to our cause there are getting fed up with us Yanks. We say that we bring the battle to the terrorists over there so that they dont mess with us here at home. But to the average Iraqi, it is as if we are turning their land into a magnet for terrorists who want to fight us. For what? For 11 September? WHat did Iraq have to do with that? Why should Iraqis be paying the price today for what Afghan based Saudis did three years ago in the USA?
The situation in Afghanistan is only slightly better, and the best we can hope for there is a state on the model of Colombia. (think narcostate...)
You state that we have survived wars on drugs, poverty, and public lasciviousness. Arent these ongoing even today? How many Americans are in prison today for the crime of just trying to get high? I guess I'd sign on to Bush's vision of an open ended War on Terror if he had first won the war on drugs. THe way I see it, they are about equally winnable.
Your analysis of why our enemies attack us using terroristic tactics is pretty good. They aren't stupid, and deniability certainly plays a role here. More importantly though, is the fact that there is no other way to attack us. As I said, our enemies arent stupid.
Come November, I am going to vote for John Kerry. I am an American living abroad, and in my experience the opinion of America (and especially Bush) has never been lower. Contrary to what many conservatives think here, its not about a popularity contest. Its much more important than that. Its about our credibility, and its about working together with others, who share our values, to defeat those who dont share our values.
Im going to support Kerry, because I'm hopeful that his somewhat more nuanced outlook on things will allow for a reassesment of our policy of supporting thugs while talking nice about democracy and human rights. Maybe Kerry will be more willing to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing in terms of the number one destabilizing issue in the Middle East, if not the whole world: bringing about a just solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Im convinced that a just solution to this problem will do more in terms of lowering the threat of terrorism against America than anything GWB might consider, whether spending hundreds of billions on the military to attacking all the countries in the axis of evil.
Whoever wins in November, terrorism will not be defeated and will not disappear. WHat we can hope for, however, is to reduce the appeal and sympathy that terrorist attacks generate, and eventually, in this way, reduce the likelihood of such attacks being planned & carried out in the first place, or failing this, reducing the chance of such attacks succeeding. Just as we will never defeat the scourge of illegal drugs, terrorism will never go away in an absolute sense. With common sense though, with a little carrot, a little stick, and above all, a little bit more smarts as to how we go about things, we can have a much bigger effect on the chance that terrorist attacks against us will be attempted, period. This is why I am going to vote for Kerry next month.
Posted by: nicolas | October 6, 2004 10:30 AM
Bill credits the President for a good speech--the credit goes to the speech writers and the idealogues who control the President and these writers.
You saw Bush in the first debate against Kerry and wondered: Where is the eloquence?
You've cringed through those (deliberately rare) press conferences, interviews, praying he doesn't mangle a sentence or a word or a thought.
Bush armed with a script is a totally different person (sometimes he appears to learn along, absorb, as he reads...).
Now we know why Bush sat there motionless when informed of the 9/11 attacks--he had no clue what to think or do. I don't buy the "he didn't want to scare the children" crap any longer.
What would Clinton have done that morning? Bush Sr.? Reagan? Kennedy?
This is what's so scary. We expect the leader of the free world to be able to think and speak for himself. Can Bush even write a coherent op-ed by himself (as Reagan and Clinton often did) to defend their positions?
Yesterday, we saw the real President--Dick Cheney.
Unquestionably the war on terror is a "multifront" war, as Bush noted during the debates. The question is, is he the right person to wage it? Is Rumsfeld (who questioned whether this approach is creating more terrorists than it is destoying) the right person to be Secretary of Defense?
There are too many ideologues, far too many egotistical characters in this administration who believe in not changing paths or adapting for fear of being labeled flip-floppers, despite the fact that they have all flip-flopped, especially on Iraq:
* Tenet ("slam dunk")
* Rumsfeld (from "bulletproof" evidence of Saddam-Al Qaeda connection to no "hard evidence"; from we are winning the WoT to not sure and back to we are winning)
* Bush (we are winning the WoT to not sure and back to we are winning)
* Wolfowitz (wildly off mark on US casualties in Iraq; changes his story when caught)
Cheney and Wolfowitz told Bush this was going to be a cakewalk--rose petals etc. Rumsfeld wanted to prove he could win with his flexible, agile military and told Bush we needed no more than 130,000 troops for this best-scenario invasion.
This appealed to Bush who wanted to prove Clinton and his dad wrong for shrinking from removing Saddam. Bush Sr. sent 660,000 troops in 1990; Bush Jr liked the idea of doing it with a fifth as many.
Even Bremer said we needed more troops. But even today, as the US cedes control of major towns to insurgents, no one wants to change anything because it is better to "stay the course" than flip-flop.
Well, this ex-supporter flip-flopped and will vote for Kerry as will many other conservatives who were embarassed by the neocons.
Posted by: adam | October 6, 2004 10:39 AM
nicolas says:
Maybe Kerry will be more willing to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing ...
And so President Bush is guilty of doing "the popular thing"? Didn't you just finish griping about how unpopular his policies are in Europe? I myself am only moderately concerned with doing the right thing and even less with doing the popular thing. I am very, very concerned wuth doing the necessary thing.
We do what must be done first, what can be done second, and what they'll like us for doing last. You are welcome to vote for John Kerry in November, nicolas; voting for whom you like is your right and privilage. I myself am a registered Democrat - I have been all of my adult life - and I'm voting for George Bush. So far I've gotten four other Democrats on board with me ... it's the least I can do to make sure the right man ends up in the White House.
S
Posted by: sandor at the zoo | October 6, 2004 10:46 AM
Thank you, Mr. Whittle, for your clarifying eloquence.
I am reminded, strangely, of a book on the Rocky Mountain Locust, the scourge of farmers in the nineteenth century. Every few years, it seemed, the locusts would arise and eat the crops and make life fairly hellish.
And then, somewhere around the turn of the century, they disappeared.
Nobody worried about it; farmers held their breath for a few years, and slowly relaxed and eventually forgot about it. It wasn't until recent years that a biologist studying records managed to figure out why the locust had disappeared - it had two life stages, the second, locust, form being when population pressure forced a change in behavior. The primary form was that of a solitary grasshopper, one whose birthplace and critical habitat was linked to a small group of valleys in the Rocky Mountains.
A small group of very fertile valleys.
The locust was literally plowed out of existence; the farmers who cultivated those valleys knew nothing of the scourge of the Midwest that they were removing.
Why do I bring this up? The comment that "terrorism will not be defeated and will not disappear" may be true, but it also is not the major goal. We may not be able to get rid of all the grasshoppers, but we might be able to reduce them below the critical point that turns them into locusts...
Posted by: B. Durbin | October 6, 2004 10:47 AM
Excellent piece as always.
I've been saying much the same things myself lately.
I figure if we all keep up the logic and insight for another couple of weeks we can all convert another liberal back from the Duh Side.
So far I have a count of 6, and with your essay I'm going to attempt to bag another 6.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: steven s | October 6, 2004 10:53 AM
Wow. Pulled the thoughts right out of my past and my cerebral cortext, organized them and eloquently expressed them and it didn't hurt at all.
I often rue my "Ideology Days" and the pompous arrogance that went along with that mindset. My Dad always told me that after I grew up, "things will look a whole lot different to you.". Still have that liberal "wish it were so" mentality sometimes, because I sure do wish I knew then what I know now!
Thanks for writing this . . . . Dad?
Posted by: WacoWacko | October 6, 2004 10:58 AM
sandor:
I think that the right thing and the necessary thing are one in the same.
And so President Bush is guilty of doing "the popular thing"? Didn't you just finish griping about how unpopular his policies are in Europe?
Insofar as his policy vis a vis Israel and the Palestinians, yes, he is doing the popular thing (amongst mainly fundy Christians in USA) as opposed to the right and/or necessary thing.
Bush is unpopular not just in Europe, but pretty much everywhere. Even in the UK, our number one ally, Bush has something like a 70% disapproval rating. THe numbers go much higher in the ME and Asia. I'm not sure about Central and South America, but my guess is that his numbers there arent good either.
Being unpopular sucks, but being unpopular and wrong at the same time really sucks. Its because of these reasons that I'll be voting against Bush come November. Its funny, you say you are a registered democrat, while I am a registered Republican (though really more a libertarian....) Most libertarians I know are either not planning on voting, or voting Kerry in disgust with Bush. You can also vote for who you like Sandor. It is also your right and privilege.
Posted by: nicolas | October 6, 2004 11:00 AM
This is quite simply the best posting I've ever read on a blog. Thank you. I'll be by to read more!
Posted by: Birkel | October 6, 2004 11:01 AM
Great Work Bill! I hope this reaches the undecided. I will do my part.
But one has to remember that Fact and Logic do not work on all people.
Posted by: Tully Mars | October 6, 2004 11:03 AM
Joe, thanks for bringing up the derogatory liberal comments. Although I can overlook them, most of my liberal friends will not. They'll see those insults and shut down any open-mindedness to the good stuff in Bill's essays -- which completely negates the italicized graf at the end of Part 2.
Bill wrote the essay for a certain audience but wants that group to share it intact with a different audience. That's a bit of a juggling act.
Before sending the URL to those friends, I'm trying to figure out what to say in my e-mail to convince them to read the essays despite the anti-liberal sentiment in it.
Posted by: A Recovering Liberal | October 6, 2004 11:06 AM
American's so-called "opinion" won't mean a hill of beans if a nuke detonates in NYC. And lets not fool ourselves, we have support from foreign intelligence agencies abroad in the global war on terrorism whether it concerns Paris, Madrid, or Berlin, these alliances have been sewn from years of cooperation during several adminstrations. Nuance is nonsense and is afforded to those that spend their time critizing rather than acting, "its his plan with my pizzaz!!"
Has this war been difficult? From a casualty standpoint, no. We were losing 500 people every other day in WWII, we lost 50 every other day in Vietnam, we're losing two every other day in Iraq. While its harsh to break it down strictly by the numbers, I find it especially difficult given the fact I've got family and friends serving in Iraq today, I think its high time people begin to have some perspective. War is ugly, confusing and error prone. Just ask the troops during the Battle of the Bulge what its like to fight in 20 below weather waist deep in snow without winter weather clothing. The steps we've during both conflicts are unmarked in the history of warfare, in little of two years we've vanquished two facist regimes and are on the way to holding elections for some 50 million people. This may seem difficult to conceptualize for a large segment of American soecity that has no concept of duty, know's not of the realities of soldiering or warfare, but when framed against history our recent efforts are a testament to US and allied might and determination not seen in modern history.
Posted by: gibs | October 6, 2004 11:06 AM
Thank you for this terrific essay. Like your others, it's a bit hard-line in places and that may be off-putting to centrists and moderates who are not necessarily drinking the Kerry kool-aid, but so be it - that's your appeal and I would not ask you to change a word of it.
Like you, I am essentially a classic liberal who has seen the failure of the "carrot approach" (Carter and Clinton) and the success of the "stick approach" (Reagan and Bush). The ideology of Bin Laden, Zarqawi and Khomeini is anathema to the Western liberalism I cherish and took for granted for too long; it's a poison that must be defeated. I have faith that, as with Nazism and Communism we will defeat it - or at least deter it long enough for democratic thought to take hold in that part of the world - but we are at enormous risk at this point in history.
I greatly appreciated this essay and will post on it shortly.
Posted by: PurpleStater | October 6, 2004 11:11 AM
Bill, just a note on your Rambo Kerry reference: I find it interesting that you used Rambo, Sylvester Stalone's Vietnam hero character. When I first watched the Rambo movies, I was unaware of the fact that during the Vietnam war Stalone fled the country and went to europe to evade the draft. He made pornographic movies to help support himself. After the war he came home and had the audacity to star in a film where his character upon learning that he is heading back to Vietnam, says something to the effect of "can we win this time?!"
This is the level of hypocrisy I find in Kerry.
Posted by: Opinionated Vogon | October 6, 2004 11:14 AM
Wonderful essay, well written and very well thought through. I even misted up a bit at the quotes from the President's post 9/11 speech.
There is one thing that I haven't seen anyone address or explain, and maybe you or your readers can help me out here.
John Kerry has promised to send more troops into Iraq and has promised to increase the size of our military (adding two active duty divisions?) in order to do this. So, this "wanna-be" President is going to ask our brave young men and women to put their lives on the line for what he has expressly stated is the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and a "colossal diversion".
But, isn't this the exact same thing that Kerry organized and fronted a group of disenchanted vets to protest against when he returned (early) from Viet Nam? Wasn't the point of his rhetoric then that it was immoral for the government to ask soldiers to die in a war which they (and supposedly the government) no longer believed in?
I don't get it? Has he actually changed his mind about asking OTHER people to die for something the Kerry himself thinks is merely a diversion? Perhaps it is mere political expediency to merely parrot President Bush's promise to hunt down and kill terrorists (and those who harbor, support, train them) wherever (except apparently in Iraq) they may be?
Someone please help me out here? Bill? Anyone?
P.S. As a former Navy Fighter Pilot, your use of "Eject!Eject!Eject" is wonderfully appropriate for so many "beliefs" these days.
Oh and God Bless the Brits, the Aussies, the Poles, and even the Italians. Some of us will even acknowledge the tremendous courage being shown by those Iraqis who are volunteering to become targets by undergoing training to become security forces, policmen, etc. because they believe in the cause of freedom.
Posted by: Allan | October 6, 2004 11:14 AM
Regarding my anti-liberal bias...all I can add is that I have tried to show that I myself am as guilty of this way of thinking as the next idealist.
Whenever I make fun of that worldview, I try to shape it in terms of making fun of myself. I don't know how to attack the flaws I have found in my former beliefs without attacking the flaws I have found in my former beliefs. This screed is not likely to change the votes of any hard-core liberals, who would rather have Hitler in office than GWB, if we are to take them at their word. I do not want or need the affection of such people. Half the battle -- more than half --is shoring up the defenses. By trying to make everyone happy, I think I will make no one happy.
Of course, that's just how it looks to me on this Wednesday morning. As I say, I think a world full of nothing but latte-sipping liberals would be dandy. Then old crusty curmudgeons like myself could sit on the porch in our underwear and polish the old shooting irons with complete peace of mind and fade into irrelevence at our leisure.
That will be a great day. None of us will live to see it.
Posted by: Bill Whittle | October 6, 2004 11:20 AM
Wow. Simply wow.
Posted by: Nick | October 6, 2004 11:27 AM
Awesome post.
If one thinks the "War on Terror" is a punitive attack on al-Qaeda one agrees with Kerry. If you think it is a "GLOBAL War on Terror" to prevent another 9/11 from occurring, you agree with Bush.
I doubt (m)any will wake up, drop the carrots and pick up a stick on reading this.... but one can hope.
Alas, logic have lost it's power. Maybe it's something in the water? or too much tin foil headwear.
Posted by: Mark O | October 6, 2004 11:30 AM
Bill--
Thanks for the fantastic essay. I have a request. An mportant one.
If you really want to write something that will affect this election, take this masterful work, and hack it to bits. Slice and dice it until you're left with a two or three page essay that I can leave on windshields, hand out on street corners, email to friends and know they may read most of it. I know that brevity isn't your thing, but please--this is too good to only be read by the oddballs willing to wade through fourteen pages of politics, and the close friends of those oddballs. Please do this. Like you said, this election is entirely too close.
I'm willing to help, and I've had quite a bit of editing experience. If you like, drop me a line at tim@timothygoddard.com. Or don't. But please, help cover that "small gap in the lines."
Posted by: Timothy | October 6, 2004 11:35 AM
Came here via LGF, but have added you to my daily reading list. This is great stuff!
Posted by: Jorgen | October 6, 2004 11:44 AM
Bill,
Dead on. Waiting eagerly for the book.
Joseph C,
Ditto the post after yours.
Adam,
You didn't sound any better at LGF. BTW We had eloquence and he had a failed Presidency (Bubba).
Nicolas,
Did you really read Bill?
Finally,
Thanks Aussies! We do know and remember who our friends are. BTW Great wine that Yellowtail!
Posted by: Bob-O | October 6, 2004 11:46 AM
Ye gods, I can't remember when I read anything more powerful.
Posted by: slarrow | October 6, 2004 11:47 AM
You rule. You just rule. Thank you.
Posted by: kd | October 6, 2004 11:58 AM
Bill, thank you.
I wish I could do so well at extracting those flickering thoughts that (obviously) so many of us have had, and putting them all down is such a concise form.
Vicky
Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2004 11:59 AM
Bill, I totally understand "shoring up the defenses." I wonder if it's possible to accomplish that and change the votes of moderates or centrists with this screed.
Isn't there a difference in delivery when preaching to the choir vs. seeking converts? As Joe mentioned, maybe it's the difference between Misha and Lileks.
Crawling back into my hole to return photo submissions and edit articles now...
Posted by: A Recovering Liberal | October 6, 2004 12:00 PM
Bill,
You missed the point of the suggestions for getting rid of the insane liberals label. If you wrote it just for us who agree with you, you wasted your time.
Your comments are very good and deserve a wider audience, and by refusing to take out the insulting language your comments are much less useful than they could be.
Maybe you watch Survivor. Everybody claims they are there to win a million bucks. But invariably most of them figure they "have to be themselves" or "I say what I think". Its cool to have those opinions but it doesn't advance the goal they are there for and invariably they are voted off. They get to be right, but without the million bucks.
We want to win this election for George Bush and if you are going to neuter extra help because you insist on insulting the liberals that might help you, I can't believe you are serious. Do you want all the help you can get? Then rewrite your essay minus the baggage so we can use it without embarrassment.
Ribbet
Posted by: Froggy | October 6, 2004 12:05 PM
Bravo!! Bravo!!!
Posted by: Becky | October 6, 2004 12:05 PM
As always, Mr. Whittle...thank you for your thoughts and the effort of putting them into words. It's good to see you back in action.
Posted by: apotheosis | October 6, 2004 12:06 PM
Bill,
You didn't just hit it out of the park this time.
You slammed it off the whole damned planet, on its way out of the solar system.
Booya.
(And just last night I was slightly worried that Silent America's Emmissary might not show up in time for the election. Never again shall I doubt.)
Posted by: geekWithA.45 | October 6, 2004 12:11 PM
nicolas: One thing that constantly amazes me is the diversity of people who classify themselves as "libertarian". It's common among socially liberal Republicans - those are the folks we expect to identify with libertarianism - but there are many fiscally conservative Democrats in there too. I'm one of them.
I never switched my party affiliation to "Libertarian" or "Independent" because, until 2000, I still saw enough of value in the Democratic Party to keep me from leaving it (men like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller still make me want to stay). But the behavior of liberals since the War on Terror began has been so atrociuos - so vindictive and mean and downright slanderous - that I think I will be switching to "Independent" after the elections.
In any case, I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the WoT and President Bush's strategy. Old Europe was never going to join the fight and putting Kerry in office won't change that. The reason the Germans and French hate us is becaue we do what's in our best interest without consulting (read: "paying deference to") them first. The Arabs hate us because we're dragging them, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century. The Islamist radicals hate us because in our civilization they see an end to the facist theocracies they dream of imposing on the entire human race.
So be it. They'll like us when we win.
And it is nice when the "right thing" and the "necessary thing" are the same thing. I prefer it that way myself. But if you think that real life works that way all of the time then you're living in the same dream world that the far-left liberals are when they preach pacifism. It sucks, but sometimes people have to suffer, bleed, and die in order for a larger peace to come about. Like Bill and everyone else here, I wish that weren't so. But it is.
Again, so be it.
I bet President Bush, like me, wishes he could sound "nicer" ... it'd make it way easier to sway moderates and independents. It'd disarm the liberals. But being "nice" in matters of war means either weakness or deception; since I won't allow myself to be guilty of either I'm forced to adopt the "stubborn" and "hawkish" stance (i.e., "find the enemy and destroy him regarless of who it pisses off").
The subtlety and nuance of Kerry-esque liberals might have a place in domestic politics. But in war, conviction and leadership ability are far more important. President Bush has both in spades. That's why I'm voting for the man, and it's why every person who carefully and critically considers the situation will vote for him too.
S
Posted by: sandor at the zoo | October 6, 2004 12:11 PM
What an extraordinary essay! It's as if you took all the random thoughts buzzing around in my own head about Bush, Kerry, and the nature of the current war, catalogued them, fact-checked and annotated them and then most eloquently expressed them. Thank you!
And to those commenters who note that 90% of this or that European nation's population don't like Bush:
1. They don't vote.
2. Considering that they have been fed anti-Bush propaganda consistently since the day he was elected by such "news" organizations as Reuters and AP, it's not surprising.
3. Considering, further, that the capability and willingness of the United States to act only serves to demonstrate how ineffectual their own militaries are, it's even less surprising. Lots of people like being free riders, but don't like being identified as such.
4. If and when the truth about Oil for Food corruption is fully disclosed, I suspect it will clearly demonstrate why their own governments opposed any action against Iraq. I read that a recent poll showed that the same populations would have approved the Iraq war if it had been sanctioned by the UNSC. Considering that France and Russia were both sucking greedily at the Oil for Food teat, the probability that they would not veto any resolution approving such action is only a little lower than the probability of winning the Powerball lottery.
5. I suspect -- just a hunch -- that those sophisticated, nuanced folks can't get past Bush's Texas accent.
Posted by: ExRat | October 6, 2004 12:15 PM
Nicholas writes that Bush is doing the popular thing rather than right thing regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Nicholas argues that the right course will produce a just peace. It seems that for Nicholas and for Europe the just peace is too put the squeeze on Israel to make all the concessions.
I would rather argue that the current Palestinian leadership is incapable of a just peace as it is ideed composed of terrorists. Israel was willing long ago to trade land for peace, but Arafat rejected that. Visiting the PLO website showed me that they are not willing to live with Israel. Their map shows only the country of Palestine with no Israel. IS that the just peace that Nicholas and his European friends want?
Posted by: storkdoc | October 6, 2004 12:27 PM
This post was fascinating! Great job!
I say, please could you apply for the job of president's advisor in the coming debates ASAP?
We need this president in oofice for 4 more years, and you have just proven this fact in as articulate was as possible.
Keep it up, please.
Posted by: Borzu | October 6, 2004 12:36 PM
Another wonderful essay! We (meaning my whole office) really missed reading your stuff.
Thanks Bill!
Posted by: Rick | October 6, 2004 12:55 PM
God bless you, Bill. God bless.
Posted by: Kacie Landrum | October 6, 2004 1:00 PM
Reading this essay just made my day.
Posted by: Strat | October 6, 2004 1:01 PM
Welcome back, Bill!
This one's going out to a lot more people than I usually forward your URL to.
It's not 'History', but it's still excellent. I still consider 'History' and 'Courage' to be your finest, but then, I am a student of history and have been privileged to have some involvement through most of my life with America's aerospace industry and the space program, so my bias is easy to come by in those regards.
Again, welcome back.
Posted by: JohnMPerchalski | October 6, 2004 1:01 PM
As always, wonderful!
Posted by: Nierka | October 6, 2004 1:07 PM
I started out being impressed by your passionate writing. Then I became downright moved by your sense of history.
What a great tragedy that your nation's passion and its sense of history appear these days to be ever so gradually atrophied by complacent, lazy thought and irrelevant philosophies.
What a great tragedy that we should have to look for essays of this quality on - with all due respect - little-known weblogs, when they should be published in your nation's greatest newspapers.
I do not have the privilege to vote in your upcoming elections, but for those of you who do, ask yourselves this question: if your enemies were allowed to vote, whom would they choose? Then, for the sake of everything you hold dear, please vote the opposite.
Thanks.
Posted by: atrophied462 | October 6, 2004 1:07 PM
nicholas wrote:
Maybe Kerry will be more willing to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing in terms of the number one destabilizing issue in the Middle East, if not the whole world: bringing about a just solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Im convinced that a just solution to this problem will do more in terms of lowering the threat of terrorism against America than anything GWB might consider, whether spending hundreds of billions on the military to attacking all the countries in the axis of evil.
Okay, I'll bite: what is the just thing to do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Abandon Israel to the wolves? Pressure them into immediate withdrawal and acceptance of a Palestinian state? Gather all to a large campfire and sing camp songs?
When I visited Israel years ago as part of an Anglican tour which included Arab-Israeli Christians (who certa