Month: October 2004

Yasser Arafat is joined in enthusiastically endorsing John Kerry by one of his brothers-in-arms:

Addressing the American people, bin Laden says in the video: “Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic candidate John) Kerry or (US President George W.) Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands ….”

In what could be read as a bizarre endorsement of Bush’s Democratic challenger John Kerry, bin Laden, addressing the American people, said “best way to avoid another disaster” was to avoid provoking Arab anger. “Liberals do not neglect their security, contradicting Bush, who says that we hate freedom,” bin Laden said.

If he hoped to influence the US elections, the ploy could backfire. Kerry, whom Bush has attempted to paint as soft on terrorism, is unlikely to benefit from what appears to be praise from bin Laden.

Mr. Laden echoes the sentiments of Michael Moore and John Kerry throughout the tape, lambasting the president for sitting through the My Pet Goat story before misleading the American people.

I tend to believe that this endorsement is going to backfire for the bin Laden/Moore/Kerry axis.

Blogs for Bush speculates that bin Laden must be one of the “world leaders” who want Kerry to win.

From Best of the Web Today, the official Al Qaeda endorsement of John Kerry:

“No, my fellow countrymen you are guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. You are as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You’re as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell,” he says in what he calls his message to America. “After decades of American tyranny and oppression, now it’s your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood matching drop for drop the blood of America’s victims.”

Any questions?

Washington Post puts the Al QaQaa story in context:

“There is something truly absurd about focusing on 377 tons of rather ordinary explosives, regardless of what actually happened at al Qaqaa,” Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in an assessment yesterday. “The munitions at al Qaqaa were at most around 0.06 percent of the total.”

Do you want a president who can’t tell the important issues from the unimportant ones? I don’t.

See Roger Simon and Jeff Goldstein for more on this non-story

Thomas P.M. Barnett explains it all:

I know the temptation of appealing to people’s fears during difficult times. I also know of the challenge of the challenger in getting a frightened public to get rid of a powerful leader during uncertain times. But the Dems have made two fatefully bad choices in this election by choosing to focus on tactics (kill terrorists) and operations (defend America) instead of real strategy (beat the enemy to the finish line). They have selected downer subjects, where Kerry’s sophisticated understanding of things actually works against him, leaving Bush to exploit the high ground, where his simplistic-yet-very-sincere delivery works like a charm.

And this guy’s a Democrat.

H/t the Shark.

Megan McArdle offers a thoughtful analysis of the presidential candidates and concludes that Bush is the lesser evil. If you’re into that kind of thing, go check it out. Here’s a teaser:

What about Kerry? He’s been on the wrong side of pretty much every foriegn policy issue he addressed before he began running for president, from nuclear freeze to the first Iraq war. He’s been a borderline incompetent as a senator. I like Joe Biden, who is advising him on foreign policy, but that’s about all he has going for him. His votes since 9/11 have been so coldly opportunistic that I, the ultimate political cynic, actually feel a little tinge of disgust. So though liberals keep telling me that 9/11 changed everything, I have no way of knowing whether they changed John Kerry. Columns telling me to listen to what he’s saying elicit only a hollow laugh, since John Kerry has already made it abundantly clear that he’ll say pretty much anything to get elected. Not that this is exactly surprising behaviour in a politician.

Does it matter? There’s a pretty compelling argument to be made that the Bush administration has screwed up so badly that it’s practically impossible that the Kerry team could be worse. I have two problems with this argument. The first is that the people who’ve been making it to me mostly hated Bush before Iraq, before 9/11, and indeed before he got the Republican Party’s 2000 nomination. Bush could have been running the greatest foreign policy since Machiavelli, and they would still be arguing for me to take Kerry’s prospects on blind faith. And second, I’m not sure it’s true. Pulling out of Iraq would be worse than leaving a blundering administration there, and as Mickey Kaus said of The Economist’s Kerry endorsement “it’s always a shaky moment in these non-peacenik endorsements when the writer tries to convince himself or herself that Kerry won’t bail out on Iraq prematurely, isn’t it? (Kerry has been ‘forthright about the need to win in Iraq,’ but do you trust him and if so why? Because Andrew Sullivan’s blogging will keep him honest?)” Still, the administration has screwed up in some major ways, leaving me wrestling with the question: how bad could Kerry be?

In the end, it comes down to how much risk the candidates will take. The Democratic policy on foriegn policy risk has been pretty much the same since McGovern: they won’t take any. They bug out at the first sign of casualties, and go in only when the foe is so tiny that we can smash them without committing ground troops.

The Republicans take risk. Bush took on a lot of it — and with it, the possibility that something could go wrong.

For me, the question is pretty simple: Kerry’s a pussy, Bush isn’t. I support Bush.

Bush cousin John Ellis sums it up:

Our enemies will brace for four more years of hell if Bush is re-elected. They will celebrate if Senator Kerry wins.

Here’s to four more years of hell.

Amen.

Some of the more delusional among us refuse to admit that the terrorists want the President to be removed from office. I know, how can I take anyone who harbors this delusion seriously — OK, I can’t. Here’s an old Krauthammer column on the subject:

The terrorists’ obvious objective is to drive from power those governments most deeply involved in the war against them — in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else.

But Spain and Australia — Britain, with Tony Blair up for re-election next year, will surely be next — are merely supporting actors. The real prize is America. An electoral repudiation of President Bush would be seen by the world as a repudiation of Bush’s foreign policy, specifically his aggressive, pre-emptive and often unilateral prosecution of the war on terror, most especially Iraq. It would be a correct interpretation because John Kerry has made clear that he is fighting this election on precisely those grounds.

The terrorists have no particular interest in Kerry. What they care about is Bush. He could be running against a moose, and Osama and Zarqawi would be for the moose.

How to elect the moose? A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As 9/11 showed, attacking the American homeland would cause a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide.

It is still prudent to be on high alert at home, because it is not wise to bank on the political sophistication of the enemy. The enemy is nonetheless far more likely to understand that the way to bring down Bush is not by attack at home but by debilitating guerrilla war abroad, namely in Iraq. Hence the escalation of bloodshed by Zarqawi and Co. It is not just aimed at intimidating Iraqis and preventing the Iraqi election. It is aimed at demoralizing Americans and affecting the American election.

The Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are conducting their own Tet Offensive with the same objective as the one in 1968: to demoralize the American citizenry and convince it that the war cannot be won.

It is perfectly true, as Bush critics constantly point out, that many millions around the world — from Jacques Chirac to the Arab street — dislike Bush and want to see him defeated. It is ridiculous to pretend that Osama, Zarqawi and the other barbarians are not among them.

Why else would the violence be increasing on Iraq right now?

Germany’s largest newspaper, Bild, has endorsed President Bush’s re-election:

In sechs Tagen, am 2. November, hat Amerika die Wahl: George W. Bush oder John Kerry? Hier nennt BILD-Autor Hugo M?ller-Vogg seine zehn Gr?nde, warum es f?r Deutschland, die Welt und Amerika besser w?re, wenn George W. Bush Pr?sident bleibt*.

So we have Koizumi, Putin, Curt Schilling, Mike Timlin, Pedro Martinez, and Germany for Bush, and Arafat and Al Qaeda for Kerry. Interesting.

*In six days, on 2 November, America has a choice: George W. Bush or John Kerry? Bild publisher Hugo Mueller Vogg lists ten reasons why it would be better for Germany, the world and America, if George W. Bush remains president.

1. Bush has clear priorities.

2. Bush has learned that military strength is the only answer to fanatics.

3. Under Bush, the US will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism.

4. Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation.

5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners.

6. Bush knows Europe is militarily weak, so he won’t ask them for help.

7. Under Bush, America will remain a strong partner for Israel in its fight for survival.

8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats.

9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his.

10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, we don’t.

via Medienkritik.

From Power Line, an interview with Curt Schilling:

GIBSON: “Well, well said, Curt and Shonda. You both have certainly lifelong membership now in the Red Sox nation. It was a great thing to watch, and I think everybody ? whether they were great Red Sox fans or not — had to admire what this team did. It was extraordinary, and one of the great stories of sport. And sport always produces such great stories. Curt, Shonda, great to have you with us. Congratulations.”

SCHILLING: “And make sure you tell everybody to vote, and vote Bush next week.”

There you have it.