Coulter Fails to disappoint

I can see now why Coulter's earlier efforts lacked that necessary insane pizazz. She was saving it up for this statement on Hannity and Colmes. Upon hearing that more women were planning to vote for President Bush, she commented, "I'm so pleased with my gender. We're not that bright." Just goes to show, when it comes to mean-spirited insanity, Ann Coulter is still as good as it gets.

Ann Coulter than opined that "women, though they're not as bright, don't want to die any more than men."

What amazes me is that the RNC haven't used Ann more. Wouldn't you like to see Ann's unique perspective on womanhood in a larger audience? I think that if he wins reelection, President Bush should make Ann Coulter his press secretary. Not because it would be useful or anything, but just because I'd never run out of material.

By the way, it is the editorial opinion of Make Me a Commentator!!! that women (with certain notable exceptions) are smarter then men.

Terrorists for Kerry!

Joe Conason takes on this important story, one that we touched on earlier in the week. According to some on the right, Terrorists want Kerry in power. I've noticed they don't usually offer up much "evidence" or "proof." Usually they just heap scorn on anybody who would dare to suggest that the terrorists might be satisfied with President Bush.

Joe Conason, on the other hand, actually takes the daring step of analyzing what the terrorists want and lining it up to how President Bush has done.

The Europeans, whose assistance we rely upon in Afghanistan, and whose help we continue to need both there and in Iraq, believe that the invasion and occupation have "increased the threat of terrorism" around the world. (Incidentally, the same poll shows that 49 percent of Americans agree with that dismal assessment, while only 20 percent believe that the Iraq war has diminished the terrorist threat.)

It isn't that the Europeans don't worry about terrorism, since 71 percent of them said that international terror is an "important or extremely important" problem. It's just that they have lost confidence in the world's sole superpower to lead the war against the terrorists.

Thanks to Bush, the nations that united behind America after 9/11 are now divided and dispirited. Why would bin Laden want that to change?

But of course, who cares what Europe thinks. America has the best military in the world. All we need to do is get the terrorists to go stand somewhere in Afghanistan in a big line, like a real army, and we can mow them down. We don't need no stinking diplomats to like talk other nations into sharing information with us. We don't need no cops or FBI agents to investigate leads and put together dossiers on our enemies, and we certainly don't need any foreign cops or intelligence operatives. All we need to do is get our enemies to stand in a line somewhere so our military can take them out.

OK that might have been a little over the top, and I certainly don't want to give the impression that I don't respect or admire the brave efforts of our men and women in uniform. I do. But I am getting a little tired of pretending that the Bush Administration and their surrogates in the media aren't causing us harm when they pretend that the only legitimate way to fight terrorism is with the military. You might argue that they haven't done that. But that is precisely what they are criticizing Kerry on.

Senator Kerry wants a multi pronged attack on this problem, one that utilizes all of our resources, and the resources of our allies. President Bush, and particularly Vice President Cheney, denigrate this approach as weak. So what conclusions can we draw?

Anyway go read the Conason article, it's quite good.

Round the Horn 2022; Space Gangster Show

OK, let's do this space thing.

Pen Elyane on the Web drives past on her hover Porsche and shares a few choice words on Cat Stevens.

Respectful of Otters stands on the futuristic street corner and talks about the acceptable terrorists.

Bark Bark Wolf Wolf pulls out his space glock and reports on matters at CBS according to the Daily Show.

blogAmy throws a suspiciously heavy Future-Turkish-Rug off the bridge and has further reasonable and passionate comments on the CBS memogate story.

Reasonably Passionate would be a good name for a shoegazer band.

Collective Sigh shares a few space words about the old Cajun methods of eliminating the competition, as practiced in Alabama (hint: it involves Alligators).

Iddybud has a story in the Space Trunk of her Hover Chrysler on Michael Moore's recent speech in Syracuse.

Musings Musings has some other space gangster related activity to perform followed by a story about what Congress is doing with the few precious moments of the term remaining to them.

rubber hose takes a guy out into the cyber-ally and gives him the old one two, finally wringing from him a story of an ineffective justice department letting terrorists go free and punishing people who may be innocent.

Steve Gilliard's News Blog pops a space cap in the knees of the argument that Iraq isn't that bad by saying what it would be like if it were happening in the United States.

Dohiyi Mir gets gunned down in a space pizzaria with laser Tommy guns, but leaves us with some haunting words about interest in the upcoming Presidential Debates.

Just so we all know, my attempts at combining the Space show with the Gangster show are not intended to offend anyone but as another way to get through my weekly blogarounds in a mildly entertaining way; the articles really are quite good.

Hard Knock Life

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Republicans believe that guys making $20,000 a year have life a little too easy and guys making $200,000 a year have life a little too hard. Well they've done something about it.

Congressional negotiators beat back efforts yesterday to expand and preserve tax refunds for poor families, even as they added $13 billion in corporate tax breaks to a package of middle-class tax cuts that could come to a vote in the Senate today.

I particularly liked Salon's analysis of this vote.

The image of Washington politicians (Republican leadership in this case) "beating back" attempts to keep tax refunds for poor families while making sure corporations get their additional billions is too much to take. You can imagine the heated conversations that took place on Capitol Hill. A legislator with a conscience saying, "Well, if we're going to include that $13 bill for the corporations in this legislation that will add to the ballooning deficit and lead to cuts in programs that help poor people, maybe we should keep the refunds for poor people, too." How do you argue with that? Tom DeLay and Trent Lott found a way -- and they won.

Unfortunately, I doubt this particular story will get much play in the "liberal" media, not when we can focus on much more important typographical problems.

Coulter disappoints

I have to admit I was expecting a gleeful torrent of Schadenfreude, something I could really dig my teeth into. Usually if there is a chance to skewer the mainstream media, Ann jumps at it. Instead Ann Coulter's latest column is pretty formulaic, as many of her columns have been lately.

I mean she flat out says that Dan Rather knew the documents were forgeries and put them on the air anyway, which I guess is kind of crazy. And she harps on the "fact" that the swift boat vets, you know those guys who've been on every news station for months, aren't getting any news coverage.

She then refights Vietnam.

It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society.

This argument is right up there with "the Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery" in my book. It's distorting the historical record to achieve some momentary political advantage, a fact even Ann seems to acknowledge with her qualifier "It's often said . . ."

The truth is we didn't know what we wanted in Vietnam. We knew that we didn't want it to become a communist country, but we didn't know how to arrange that. This lack of focus led to a confused campaign on every level, and, eventually, to our first lost war. And ever since them, some have wanted to "blame the messenger" for pointing out things weren't going well. If only all Americans had blindly accepted what President's Johnson and Nixon told them, we would have won.

That's putting a lot of faith in the power of belief.

The Bottom Line

Here is the simplest law of business. Make whatever you make for as cheaply as possible and sell it for as much as possible. But remember the cheaper you make it the less people will want it, and the higher the price, the less people will be able to buy it.

So when you are making you widget, always look for things that don't directly effect the final product, and that's where you cut your corners. Take for example security.

Having a secure factory adds little to the end project. Your customers aren't going to pick up a bottle of glass cleaner and say, "Well I can tell this was made in a secure facility." It's like worker safety. Nobody buys a can of soup and thinks, "Well this might cost a little more, but at least the workers who made it worked in safe conditions."

Of course with worker safety, the government has stepped in and forced certain minimum safety requirements. But there are still areas where you can cut corners.

For example lets say you own a chemical plant and your plant holds chemicals deadly enough to kill thousands of Americans. According to the EPA, there are 7,605 plants in the United States where an accident or sabotage could threaten more than 1,000 people, and there are 123 plants where such an incident could threaten over a million people. Now you'd think, what with all this focus on Terrorism, that such plants would be forced to have tight security.

ell, you'd be wrong. Yep these chemical manufacturers are free to have lax security, and pass the savings on to, well, themselves.

The Bush Administration has shown little to no interest in correcting this problem, although they did switch the handling of this issue from the EPA to the Department of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security revised both of the above numbers down significantly (to 4,391 and 2 respectively), and installed security cameras in seven states, apparently.

Mr. Ridge has set in motion plans to install security cameras at chemical plants in seven states - but not in some high-threat states like Florida, Ohio and Minnesota. Although the department visits plants and offers advice, unlike the E.P.A., it doesn't have the power to enforce security measures and relies instead on voluntary efforts by the industry. Without enforceable requirements, chemical firms will remain reluctant to put sufficient safeguards in place, for fear that their competitors will scrimp on security and thus be able to undercut them on price.

I happen to live in Florida so that one jumped out at me a little bit.

We'll have to see if someone brings this up at the debates. As previously noted, John Kerry is aware of this problem, and prepared to do something about it. President Bush, thus far, seems less willing to attack this problem.

The Politics of Sensibility

Nicholas D. Kristof, writing at the New York Times, is discouraged by the tone of this campaign. Commenting on the Swift Boat attacks, he says;

Every single enlisted man who served with Mr. Kerry on his boats at the time he earned his Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars say the medals were all deserved, and they are all supporting his candidacy.

True, Democrats have also engaged in below-the-belt attacks. Some of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Michael Moore film, was the liberal equivalent of the anti-Kerry smears. Its innuendos implying that Mr. Bush arranged the war in Afghanistan so backers could profit from an oil pipeline were appalling.

But I, along with some others, immediately complained about "Fahrenheit 9/11." Aside from John McCain, where are the sensible conservatives? Why don't they denounce the Swift Boat Veterans' attacks? And why doesn't President Bush condemn those attacks, showing the kind of integrity that Mr. Dukakis showed?

The last line refers to an incident in the 1988 campaign, in which some of the men who served with President Bush 41 in WW2 accused him of ditching his plane and leaving two other men to die. There was a brief investigation, little was found, and, as Kristof notes, Dukakis condemned the attacks.

Mr. Kristof, however, does engage in a little bit of rhetorical slight of hand himself.

The only hope for stopping the mudslinging is if well-meaning people try to police their own side.

If they're intellectually consistent, Democrats will speak out not only against the Swift Boat Veterans but also against Mr. Kerry's demagoguery on trade, like his suggestion that outsourcing is the result of Mr. Bush's economic policies. Trade demagoguery may not be as felonious as an assault on a war hero's character, but it harms America by undermining support for free trade.

I certainly agree with that first statement. It is up to Republicans to reject the lies of the Swift Boat Vets and the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (I am dreading her article tomorrow, as she gets to fillet Dan Rather, a task which, I assume, she will approach with her usual gusto). I see no evidence, however, that they are interested in policing their own.

But the second part is interesting. In it, Mr. Kristof seems to suggest that telling lies about Senator Kerry's past is, in some ways, equivalent to Senator Kerry not holding the same opinion about free trade that he does. Why is Senator Kerry required to have exactly the same opinion on Free Trade that you do? Why is the Democratic Party required to have that opinion? The truth is that unregulated free trade has some serious downsides as well as a positive sides. Why shouldn't he draw attention to these problems?

And yes, President Bush might not have directly created these problems, but it's also a truism that he is completely unwilling to address fixing them (particularly if such a fix would come at the expense of corporate power).

Lies are not the same as Disagreements, Mr. Kristof. You rhetorically shoot yourself in the foot when you make them equivalent. Presumably this is what Mr. Tom Tomorrow is referring to when he labels you a Sensible Liberal.

At least I hope that is what Mr. Tomorrow is referring to. Mr. Tomorrow and Mr. Kristof have one thing in common; they both have very very strong ideas of what a Liberal must be and must think. If Senator Kerry suggests more regulation on Free Trade, than to Mr. Kristof, that's a betrayal of what a real liberal is supposed to be and a deception. If Mr. Kristof expresses support for Free Trade, than, in Mr. Tomorrow's eyes, he's betraying liberalism and must be denigrated as a phony liberal or a "sensible liberal."

Inequality

Before talking about Walter E. Williams, let me just say what a breath of fresh air his columns are. I mean Williams is pretty nuts and I disagree with him on almost every issue; but at least he doesn't feel he needs to spend every column trashing Kerry. Instead Williams is going on about his normal business.

Plus Williams makes a rare good point today, although my application of it would be different than his. He spends most of his article discussing why we are willing to reward Shaq or Mel Gibson enormous sums of money, and not willing to give others money. He then concludes his article with this paragraph.

Far better good could be done for our fellow man by focusing more of our attention on productive inequality rather than income inequality. Income inequality is a result, and it's productive inequality that mostly explains that result rather than some insidious plot afoot. Whether it's individuals or countries, one seldom sees highly productive people poor or highly unproductive people rich unless there are government restrictions and subsidies at play. Making people more productive is the challenge. Whining about income inequality is a cop-out.

Mr. Williams is right in that the real problem is letting people be as productive. Where we would disagree, however, is what can be done to help people become more productive. Williams would place such responsibility entirely on the shoulders of the individual. I would place some of the responsibility on society. In other words, if a child isn't provided the tools to succeed, say by attending a loser high school, than that hurts us all. We, as a society, lose the potential of that child, and in fact, such children who grow up without the tools to succeed may turn against society through crime or drugs or weasel sniffing.

I will say there is some income inequality I think we as society do need to be concerned with. Mr. Williams is right when he says that millions want to see Shaq play, so he's worth millions. But when it comes to CEOs making six and seven figure salaries and providing little concrete to their employers than I have to say something is out of whack. As a stockholder myself, it bothers me that so much of our economy goes to pay people who's contributions to the companies they run (and sometimes ruin) seems nebulous at best. I'm not saying they shouldn't be well paid; I'm just saying their payment is out of proportion to what they contribute.

The Soldier Vote

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article about how soldiers in the field may not be as 100% behind President Bush as previously thought.

Three factors make the military vote more in play for Democrats this year than in 2000, he says: the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's tense relationship with the Army, and Bush's limited ability as an incumbent to make sweeping promises akin to Senator Kerry's pledge to add 40,000 new troops and relieve an overstretched force.

"The military as a whole supports the Iraq war," Mr. Feaver says, noting a historical tendency of troops to back the commander in chief in wartime. "But you can go across the military and find pockets where they are more ambivalent," he says, especially among the National Guard and Reserve. "The war has not gone as swimmingly as they thought, and that has caused disaffection.

I wouldn't give this 100% credence, as it is filled with a million qualifiers, but it is worth looking at.

Not Exactly A Revelation

When it comes to Governing, Conservatives and Liberals seem to approach issues with a completely different mindset.

Liberals often discuss the merits of programs in terms of more effective and less effective; Conservatives often see programs in terms of right or wrong.

Take Iraq; the main Liberal contention is that it has been an expensive program that has been an expensive program that has not achieve the foreign policy goal of making the United States safer. The common Republican counter punch, "so you'd prefer to see Saddam Hussein still killing helpless Iraqis?" is implicitly a statement about right or wrong, and calls into question the Liberals morality.

If the Liberal were a good person he would be happy to see Saddam Hussein gone (and, to be sure, many if not most liberals are happy with that particular part of the equation). But did we get rid of him in the most effective fashion, taking into account our long term goals?

Consider this analogy. You are standing outside of your house with your body the Red De-Atomizer. You comment, "Boy that tree in front of my house sure is an eyesore."

He puts his hand on your shoulder and says, "Leave that to me." Raising one mighty hand, he blasts the trunk of the tree causing it to disintegrate. The remainder of the tree topples over and destroys your hovercar.

Looking at him incredulously, he looks back quite unperturbed. Finally he says, "Didn't you want that tree destroyed?"

I think it's nice that we got rid of Saddam Hussein. But the methods President Bush and his advisors used to accomplish this worthy goal have brought other results that are nothing short of catastrophic.

This sort of thinking explains why Conservatives see Kerry's questioning of the methods President Bush is using to fight the war on Terror as proof that he doesn't really want to fight the war on terror. Because President Bush's plan is the Right plan (as distinct from the most effective plan), and because Senator Kerry doesn't support that plan, Senator Kerry must be a low down dirty dog.

This does give them a rhetorical leg up; it's always easier to frame your arguments in terms of right and wrong vs. less effective and more effective. It has a simple clarity to it and it makes you opponent look like, well, a low down dirty dog. I'm not sure why this is an insult, as I love dogs, but apparently it is. Instead of debating who has the more effective plan to fight terrorism, you debate why your candidate apparently doesn't even want to protect America.

Something to think about, at any rate.

Filth

I haven't dealt with David Limbaugh in quite a while it feels like. Truthfully I've started avoiding his articles. His whole modus operandi right now is to destroy Senator Kerry. So he's not fun to read. I mean he doesn't have the joie de vivre of his brother, nor does he have the charming insanity of Ann Coulter. Just a grim mean spiritedness that is unpleasant to read.

But I don't get paid the no bucks to just do easy articles. So let's dive right in.

Next, Senator, let's take you at your word -- as utterly unbelievable as it is -- that in 2002 you voted to give President Bush authority to attack Iraq with the understanding -- that you must have divined from some powerful '60s tea leaves -- that he would not attack until he'd satisfied a number of conditions. One of those conditions was that the president would continue to grovel at the defiant feet of Saddam Hussein and ask him countless more times to please quit being so mean to the U.N. weapons inspectors.

OK let's run this down.

I like how Limbaugh makes a big show of taking Senator Kerry at his word and then proceeds to completely distort what he says. Limbaugh can do this, because most people who read his column aren't going to bother going back and seeing what Kerry actually said. That would be work, and as we know, that's too much work.

So aren't you lucky you read Make me a Commentator!!! (ask for it by name). Here is what Kerry actually said.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President . . . any President . . . would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Why did the inspections have to end at the time at which they did? I've never heard a good answer to that question (although I've often heard the non-sequitur "Look we gave him 10 years to disarm."). Limbaugh is apparently pretending, as many on the right do (including the President on occasion) that Saddam Hussein didn't let the inspectors back in. It's also worth noting that Limbaugh, his brother, and others on the right were furious at the inspectors for not finding the WMDs immediately, to the point that they accused them of working for Saddam.

I don't know what to say about the suggestion that Kerry required Bush to "grovel at the feet of Saddam Hussein" other than to suggest that Limbaugh may be simply delusional. Or, more likely, he can say what ever he wants and knows it.

Wake Up Everybody!

I don't know whether this is a good name for this one or not. Anyway it's about President Kerry's big speech yesterday, which was, in my opinion, a home run speech. Here's an excerpt.

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaida or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength. Strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values - each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

Now see, to me that doesn't sound like a guy who wants to surrender or give up on defeating America's enemies. Certainly doesn't sound like someone who wants to be sensitive to Terrorists.

The rest of the speech is very good as well, taking apart exactly where Bush went wrong and giving several suggestions on how a Kerry Presidency will do better.

Another Sighting

Yep, William Saffire also uses the meme "Iraqi Insurgents are Killing American Troops to Persuade voters to vote for Senator Kerry" in his latest article. In it he puts himself in the mind of Senator Kerry, using previously unseen psychic powers. Speaking as the mind of John Kerry, he says the following.

Above all, win back the women who used to be with the Democrats. Bush has them believing that the fighting in Iraq is for the security of their families. Too many women can't get it through their heads that Iraq is just a distraction from the global terror war. And Bush's pitch about "better fighting over there than here" - tying Iraq to Al Qaeda - closes what used to be our huge gender gap. So I have to move on to "while he's spinning, we're losing" - and never mind that it makes me dependent on escalation by Zarqawi and pessimism from C.I.A. flip-floppers who were wrong before but who now want jobs in my administration.

So rememember every time you see an American Casuality . . . oh wait a second you aren't allowed to see those. Every time you hear of an American Casuality, don't think, "I wonder if President Bush's plan for Iraq is really working all that well." Instead, if you would, please think, "There's another soldier, killed by Iraqi dogs, on behalf of John Kerry's electoral hopes."

Media Matters has another example of this meme from William Krondacke, one of FOX's Beltway Boys, and CNN had Bill Shneider of the American Enterprise Institute on, and he made the similar claim that terrorists are hoping to use terror to affect the election in November. But that might be old news; what's new is linking it to the Iraqi resistance.

CBS, Rush Limbaugh, and The Way it Goes

CBS has admitted that they now believe the memos to be forgeries. So today's a good day to be Rush Limbaugh. Was listening to him at lunch as I drove around, and he was practically gleeful as he, more or less, called for CBS news to shut down, and for Dan Rather to resign in disgrace.

And of course saying as often as possible that it's likely these forged documents came from the Kerry Campaign. If he's right than the campaign is probably over.

Which is kind of sad when you think about it. I mean the central issue, whether or not President Bush actually fulfilled his duty in the guard, is still unresolved. And, as many have noted, it's a distraction from the real issues of this campaign.

Personally I don't think that the documents came from the Kerry campaign because that would just be too stupid a move to make. But I can't be 100% sure; after all this swift boat veteran story has riled a lot of people up, including some in the campaign I would guess. It's hard to listen to the media parrot such patently false charges and not want to strike back. Particularly if you believe President Kerry served honorably and nobly in Vietnam, and President Bush ducked the war. So it is possible that a Democratic operative passed on the memos. But I doubt it, and I hope not.

Watch them All Fall Down!

Bob Herbert has a good article over at Working For Change on the Flip-Flop Mantra. His take on it isn't entirely new, but it is entertaining.

Recently, several Bush supporters took issue with my suggesting that the president's stance on winning the war on terror was indeed a flip-flop.

In addition to calling me "terminally stupid" and reminding me of Sen. John Kerry's numerous flip-flops over the years, one individual posed a direct question: "How can anyone support a candidate who flip-flops?"

His question gave me cause for self-reflection.

My terminal stupidity notwithstanding, I ultimately came to the conclusion that the gentleman was correct. How could anyone support a candidate who flip-flops? Americans want a guy who says what he means and does not deviate. We want Howard Roarke incarnate!

I thought how fortunate we were to have a president who was immune from flip-flops. Could you imagine if President Bush were guilty of flip-flopping? That might change the whole rationale for supporting his candidacy.

He then proceeds to list a few the dozens of times President Bush has flip-flopped. Such as on the need for a Homeland Security office or Campaign Finance Reform. But of course, President Bush by virtue of being President Bush, a Republican, a Conservative, cannot really flip-flop. When he appears to flip flop, and it's often, you need to look a little closer to realize how it's not really a flip flop. Or something.

What Terrorists Want!

Jay Bryant makes an interesting statement in his latest article, which is dedicated to a new theory the Bush campaign and their surrogates are floating; Iraqi Insurgents want Senator John Kerry to win. We'll return to that in a moment, but first this statement.

So if you were al-Qaida, what would you do?

You desperately want George Bush out of office. Anyone who doesn't believe that (and liberal apologists sometimes try to claim otherwise) belongs in a can labeled "Planters."

Anybody who believes that the terrorists prefer President Bush to John Kerry is clearly nuts. Hmmmmmm. If you will excuse me for a moment, I am going to make a quick visit to my psychologist Ludwig Von Ludovich.

Nope, Dr. Von Ludovich says I'm about as sane as normal (normal for me, anyway). So let's deal with this question.

Analyzing what Presidential candidate al-Qaida would prefer requires looking at what al-Qaida's long term goals are. Al-Qaida doesn't want to commit acts of terror just for the sake of committing acts of terror. OK, there are probably some who do, but the leadership have larger goals and a larger ideology in mind. Their biggest long term goal is to defeat and humiliate the West. They have other smaller goals; like changing our policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.

A second point; they think they will win. God is on their side. Even now, with displays of American Military might in Iraq and Afghanistan, they think that our culture is weak and that they can defeat us. They are fighting a transformative war; one that will transform their culture to more closely approximate what they believe an Islamic society is supposed to be.

For a parallel look at American Neo-Conservatives. They wanted a war too. A transformative war that would show the Middle East how to be Democratic and America Loving. So would they have really been enthused by, say, Saddam Hussein stepping down and naming one of his ministers president in his place? Probably not. Certainly you can't imagine them saying, "Oh boy, with Saddam gone, this war will certainly be easier." The idea is laughable; while I am sure they are concerned about the health and welfare of American troops, they are also extremely confident in our Soldier's ability to defeat nearly any enemy.

Why are terrorists supposed to favor John Kerry over President Bush? Because John Kerry, according to Republicans, is a cowardly two-faced liar who will immediately begin surrendering in the war on terror.

Why would that be a positive thing for Terrorists? Instead of winning the terror war, they would get a forfeit, at best. Not the victory that could transform the middle east and possibly the world into their version of utopia.

Anyway, on to a new Republican Talking Point. The Iraqi insurgents are killing American troops because they want John Kerry to be the next President of the United States. Apparently this has popped up in a number of places, including Jay Bryants article. Atrios has a piece on the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who has made this point. Michael Barone uses it as a sideline in his article.

Before a grudgingly polite National Guard Association, Kerry argued that the Bush administration's record in Iraq is one of mistakes and failures. He can point to increasing violence and casualties. But Bush can respond that the terrorists are just trying to affect our elections and shake our resolve -- he will have a forum this week when Iraqi interim president Ayad Allawi visits Washington.

And Jay Bryant dedicates his whole article to a theory which is not, he is quick to deny, a conspiracy theory. It runs like this in short form.

The National Intelligence Committee, Al-Qaida, and John Kerry all want President Bush to lose in November. The National Intelligence Committee agrees to publish a very negative report on Iraq at just the right time. The Terrorists, conferring with their allies in the states, realize that an attack on US soil will help Bush. They realize, however, that attacking in Iraq will hurt President Bush by making his war look like a failure. So naturally they use a go-between to let Senator Kerry know that it's time to focus on Iraq, while stepping up their own campaign there.

To use Bryant's own words.

If Kerry finally stops flip-flopping on Iraq and sticks to the rhetoric of his National Guard speech, it will be prima facie evidence of his confidence that the Iraqi security situation will not improve before November, though he may not himself know why. If he should happen to win, his strategy, and that of America's worst enemies, will have succeeded.

I mean it was inevitable that the Bush Campaign and their surrogates were going to paint Senator Kerry as the al-Qaida candidate, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But it is still depressing to know where this campaign is.

For those of you who feel this is a valid talking point, let's turn it around. How about if I wrote a piece along these lines.

Anybody who thinks that Al-Qaida wants President Bush to be defeated in November is clearly deluded. The terrorists have had so much more success with this Republican President than they have ever had in the past, that I can't believe they would want a change. First of all, they had their single deadliest attack on American Soil ever, killing nearly 3,000 people. That didn't happen under Clinton. It happened under good old George W. Bush. So it's clear. If you want more terrorism, vote for President Bush. If you want to be protected from terrorism, vote for Senator Kerry.

I can tell how typing that made me feel. Part of me was happy, but it was a small mean-spirited part of me. But if you are going to support this talking point, or Vice President Cheney's words a couple of weeks ago, you have to concede that this argument is at least as valid.

New Quote, New Format!

Here we go. First of all a new quote. And a new Quotes page.

And of course we are changing the format again.