Hubris about Tora Bora

Andy McCarthy is, shall we say, a little worked up about Senator Kerry's repeated criticism concerning Tora Bora. Here is just a sample:

"In August 1998, the embassies were bombed, killing 257 people. This was a coordinated military attack on sovereign American installations. President Clinton, whom Kerry would emulate (as he reminded everyone in Philadelphia this week), lobbed a few ineffectual cruise missiles on a single day. . . .

"In October 2000, the Cole was bombed, killing 17 American sailors -- a direct attack on the American military. It turns out, though, that by Cole standards, the embassy retalliation was robust. President Clinton did absolutely nothing -- not even cruise missiles -- to respond. Again, there was no Bin Laden manhunt and no disruption of al Qaeda's command structure at a time when everyone in the Clinton administration, and everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee on which the Junior Senator from Massachusetts sat, knew that more attacks were being planned.

"Against that background, the Tora Bora BS is not only infuriating but insulting to the intelligence. . . . This war didn't start on 9/11. These people had YEARS to try to grab this guy -- while everyone knew he was planning atrocities such as the one that occurred on 9/11 -- and they never even tried. . . . They didn't have the nerve. . . .

"The last time the Democrats had the wheel, neither Bin Laden nor al Qaeda's infrastructure was touched even though the Clinton administration knew exactly what they were trying to do. Did Senator Kerry ever convene a congressional hearing to probe why the Clinton administration was not using the Defense Department to hunt down and capture or kill Bin Laden? Did he ever demand answers for why the response to al Qaeda attacks in 1998 and 2000 was so pusillanimous? I must have missed those. The Kerry campaign has some nerve complaining about the failure to capture Bin Laden."

The indignation is appropriate. Read the whole thing.

Re: Osama's endorsement

There have been some interesting and provocative comments on this post, which are always appreciated. The best response, however, has already been written:

"The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender."

Hat tip: The Corner. I doubt that sending a message by videotape is the way OBL prefers to inject himself into our election. But the responses seem contradictory. On the one hand, OBL is cornered, "cut off." On the other, he is roaming free to wreak havoc. The former is probably a more accurate assessment. I pray events do not prove this wrong. But I have no doubt that whatever the outcome next week, OBL will be caught. How he will be treated by either Bush or Kerry is another matter. I hope Kerry would not treat OBL as he did Madame Binh, negotiating with the enemy while an officer of the United States.

Osama's endorsement

Osama bin Laden has released a video that has been aired on al Jazeera. In the video, he has for the first time acknowledged in his multimedia series of tapes that he was responsible for the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Bin Laden accuses Bush of misleading Americans, and states that unless American policy changes, there could be more attacks.

I refuse to be threatened into capitulating to a terrorist. That is not the character of our nation. If OBL thinks that by releasing a video on the eve of the election that parrots Michael Moore in the hopes of influencing the outcome, he has "misunderestimated" the resolve of the American people. Take the advice of a World Series champion -- vote Bush.

Swift Vets may break news

It is the Friday before the presidential election, and news is breaking faster than it can be absorbed. Keep an eye on this story over the weekend, if it isn't overwhelmed by OBL: John Kerry may have received something other than an honorable discharge from the United States military. The Swift Vets are working the story.

Congratulations, Red Sox

World Series Champions for the first time since 1918. A dominating performance in the Series following the dramatic comeback against the Yankees in the ALCS. Enjoy this, Boston.

Russia moved the explosives?

Via Drudge: The Washington Times is reporting that "Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation." The Times reports that "John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, 'almost certainly' removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility."

If true, this is a huge development. It also goes a long way to explain Russia's reticence to sign on to another UN Security Council resolution finding Iraq in material breach of Resolution 1441 and the cease-fire from the 1991 war. Previous stories have documented Russia's dealings with the Saddam regime, which it certainly did not want exposed to international scrutiny. I am sure that this story will develop quickly.

Power corrupts

One of the more disturbing trends in recent elections, and one which has reached new heights in this election year, is the repeated allegation of voter fraud/voter registration fraud/voter intimidation, and more stories are sure to come in the next few weeks. Both sides are accusing the other of doing nefarious deeds designed to suppress the turnout for the opponent. Both sides simultaneously plead that they are innocent of anything bad their opponent says about them.

I believe that the underlying basis for all of these allegations is the same on both sides -- the quest to gain, or retain, power. Because the government has morphed into a leviathan that the Founders would hardly recognize as the fruit of their labors, there is tremendous power to be had by occupying public office. It has come to be seen as an opportunity to wield great influence over the lives of fellow citizens, rather than being what holding office was intended to be -- a public service, where elected officials were sent to their positions to serve the interests of their constituents, rather than lord over them.

As a result, we see repeated claims that voter registration cards have been destroyed, fictional characters are registered to vote, voter registration cards are filled out with non-existent addresses listed, campaign signs are destroyed, violence against campaign headquarters, and so on, all in an effort to ensure power. Both political parties are guilty of this to one degree or another. This is a consequence, and should be a warning sign about the dangers of, a government that has expanded beyond its intended scope.

Bush responds

On the stump in Pennsylvania, President Bush has hit back at Senator Kerry's charges about mismanagement of the al-Qaqaa munitions facility:

“After repeatedly calling Iraq the ‘wrong war,’ and a ‘diversion,’ Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq was a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons. The Senator used to know that, even though he seems to have forgotten it over the course of the campaign, but after all that’s why we’re there. Iraq was a dangerous place run by a dangerous tyrant who had a lot of weapons. We have seized or destroyed more than 400,000 tons of munitions, including explosives, and more than — thousands of different sites, and we’re continuing to round up more weapons everyday.

“I want to remind the American people, if Senator Kerry had his way, we would still be taking our 'global test.' Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control all those weapons and explosives and could have shared them with our terrorist enemies.

"Now the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'we do not know the facts.' Think about that. The Senator's denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts. Unfortunately, that's part of a pattern of saying almost anything to get elected — like when Senator Kerry charged that our military failed to get Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, even though our top military commander, General Tommy Franks, said the Senator's understanding of events does not square with reality, and our intelligence reports placed bin Laden in any of several different countries at the time. Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing — and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief.

"When it comes to your security, when it comes to the security of our families, my opponent takes a very different approach. He says that September the 11th did not change him much at all. And his policies make that clear. He says the War on Terror is primarily a law enforcement and intelligence-gathering operation. Well, September 11th changed me. I remember the day I was in the — at Ground Zero, September the 14th, 2001. It's a day I will never forget; there were workers in hard hats there yelling at me at the top of their lungs, 'whatever it takes.' I remember a man grabbed me by the arm, he looked me square in the eye, and he said, 'Do not let me down.' Ever since that day, I wake up every morning trying to figure out how to better protect America. I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes."

This has already been posted at a number of places, including The Kerry Spot and Powerline.

The Electoral College

Gary Gregg, director of the McConnell Center for Political Leadership at the University of Louisville, has written for National Review Online a three-part series on the wisdom of having, and the utility of keeping, the Electoral College. His defense of the Electoral College can be found here, here and here.

The second installment in the series is the most comprehensive. I hope to add additional information about why the Electoral College is a good idea this weekend.

This breakdown of the 2000 vote by county is always fascinating to consider.

Further explosives update

The Belmont Club has an excellent analysis of the Iraq/al Qaqaa explosives story here. (Hat tip The Corner.)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Instapundit also has a nice roundup here.

Who the terrorists want to win

I hardly think that the Kerry campaign is welcoming this "endorsement" today:

"Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency [in Iraq] say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"'If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people,' said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

"Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.

"'American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together,' he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. 'We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud.'"

Could our choice now be any clearer?

Does Kerry respect American troops?

Because I saw this on The Kerry Spot before I had a chance to post it myself, I must give credit where credit is due. But the uproar surrounding the missing explosives story, and Kerry's response to it, highlight an important detail about his attitude toward the American military.

Thirty years ago, Kerry criticized American troops by stating that they had committed "war crimes . . . not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He claimed that they had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war."

Thirty years later, he has a more polished manner of offering criticism, that comes from years as a politician. The substance remains the same, however. Now, he has said of the alleged weapons pilfering, "our country and our troops are less safe because this president failed to do the basics. This is one of the great blunders of the Bush policy in Iraq." And in his speech at Green Bay, he said, "Just as the Bush Administration’s failure to secure Iraq’s borders has led to thousands of terrorists flooding into the country, their failure to secure those explosives threatens American troops and the American people."

When Kerry speaks of the "Bush Administration" here, he is not talking about George W. Bush. He is actually talking about the troops on the ground in Iraq, and saying that they failed to do their job. For Kerry, old habits, like demeaning American troops, die hard.

More on the weapons

Apparently the 3rd Infantry Division was at al-Qaqaa on April 4, 2003, six days before the arrival of the 101st Airborne. But is it possible that the explosives could have been carted away in that short time span? Instapundit posts this comment from a member of the 101st AD who was present when they relieved the 3rd ID, arguing that it would not have been possible. If that is the case, then the explosives were never there for the U.S. military to guard, as they had been removed earlier.

Even with all of the controversy swirling around this story, Kerry has already cut and released an ad criticizing the president for failing to properly guard the weapons depot. That requires nerve. Maybe al Baradei is one of Kerry's supportive "foreign leaders."

How do you guard something you are never in possession of?

The media's October surprise

CBS is at it again. Fresh off its "60 Minutes" forged Texas Air National Guard documents fiasco, the network was prepared to run a story damaging to the president on October 31, two days before the election (reminiscent of the 2000 Bush DUI story that ran the weekend prior to election day). The story, apparently too hot to hold, however, ran yesterday in the New York Times.

The story, in a nutshell, is that the U.S. military failed to guard an ammunition dump in Iraq and 380 tons of explosives disappeared from that site. Senator Kerry was quick to jump on the story, labeling it "one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration," and further claiming that the "unbelievable blindness, stubbornness, arrogance of this administration to do the basics has now allowed this president to once again fail the test of being the commander in chief." Wow. Almost as if George W. Bush himself should have been standing post at al-Qaqaa.

It seems, however, that the story may have been too good to be true. Last night NBC News ran a story stating that an NBC crew was embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne Division that arrived at the site on April 10, 2003, one day after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. According to this MSNBC report, "troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives." The weapons were not there when the military arrived, making it impossible to blame the disappearance of the explosives on looters who ransacked the depot following the fall of the regime, and therefore the fault of a lax U.S. military. From ABC's The Note:

"An NBC News report last night suggested that those explosives went missing before April 10, 2003 — before U.S. troops ever got to the site in Iraq, leading to an avalanche of push-back from the Bush campaign last night. If the 101st Airborne Division was indeed there one day after liberation and they could not find any of the high grade explosives, that does cast doubt on the suggestion that the Bush Administration's alleged failure to plan for post-war eventualities was to blame.

"(Timing is a critical issue here: the Times story yesterday include this paragraph: 'Earlier this month, in a letter to the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, a senior official from Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology wrote that the stockpile disappeared after early April 2003 because of "'the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security.'"' (emphasis ours).

"The NBC story does not exonerate the president, but it does add context that rebuts, at least to some extent, the most hyperbolic charges that we heard yesterday."

Then there is this intriguing post from Cliff May at The Corner:

"Sent to me by a source in the government: 'The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.'"

CBS has no credibility to begin with after its "fake but accurate" smear on the president. The NYT just published a full-throated endorsement of Kerry, and has been scathing it is coverage of Bush throughout the campaign. And now there is the strong possibility that those two "news" organizations may have conspired with a U.N. agency to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election by floating a false story which, if CBS had its druthers, would have run 24 hours before the election with no opportunity to correct the record. Shameful.

But they ran with it a week early and got caught with their figurative pants down. Surprise!

Senate races

John J. Miller has an interesting roundup of this year's Senate races here. Of particular interest is the following summary of the race between Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky) and his challenger, Dr. Daniel Mongiardo:

"KENTUCKY: Liberals jumped for joy when they saw a recent poll showing Republican senator Jim Bunning tied at 43 percent against Democrat Dan Mongiardo. This result — released by a Democratic firm — was almost certainly a fluke. Another fresh survey (conducted by a GOP firm) puts Bunning ahead, 50 percent to 39 percent. Bunning won election to the Senate six years ago by a tiny margin. Odds are he'll get a return ticket but that he won't humiliate Mongiardo. LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION"

I don't believe the race is tied at 43, but I also don't believe that Bunning has an 11-point lead right now. He has just come through one of the worst patches of his campaign, and fortunately for him there is only one week left until the election. If he manages to get back to the 11-point margin over the next seven days, it will be a surprise. I would guess more like a 7-8 point win for Bunning. Certainly nothing to brag about for the incumbent,but at least Kentucky will not be responsible if the balance of power shifts in the Senate.

UPDATE: Here is a story detailing the recent troubles of Kentucky's junior senator.

The Chief Justice & Supreme Court politics

News today that Chief Justice William Rehnquist is being treated for thyroid cancer in a Washington-area hospital, and had a tracheotomy over the weekend to ease his breathing. My thoughts and prayers are with the Chief Justice and his family for a full and speedy recovery.

This news, however, serves to highlight an issue that has, for the most part, flown under the radar screen in this election. For the past two presidential election cycles (1996 and 2000), those warning of the potential of Supreme Court vacancies have been rendered by events into the little boy who cried "wolf." There has not been an appointment to the Supreme Court since Stephen Breyer, who took his oath of office on August 3, 1994.

This is a significant development, as it may guarantee at least one vacancy on the Court in the next presidential administration, through the retirement of Rehnquist. Because federal judges have lifetime tenure during "good behavior," a judge may be on the federal bench for thirty to forty years. Rehnquist himself has been on the Supreme Court for thirty-two years.

So the question each voter must ask before November 2 is, what kind of judge will the presidential candidate nominate for the federal bench, particularly the Supreme Court? I agree with this analysis over at The Corner. I think Bush has already made clear that his nominations would protect traditional marriage, faithfully interpret the Constitution (as opposed to "making new law"), view cases without regard to the color of the litigant's skin, and ensure that people of faith will remain welcome in the public debate. This is a solid foundation on which to base a decision for a nomination to the Supreme Court.

Senator Kerry, on the other hand, stated in the third debate that "I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to. I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade." Later in the debate, he elaborated on this point: "I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right. So I don't intend to see it undone."

Leaving aside the issue of the morality of abortion itself, upon which many Americans profoundly disagree. Kerry, like the Supreme Court in Roe, is unable to define where exactly in the Constitution the right to abortion exists. "The First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today." So he is left with his initial proclamation: "I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade."

The last time I looked, Roe was not a constitutional amendment in and of itself. Roe has been criticized from the start. This article notes that "The dissenters -- justices Rehnquist and Byron R. White -- asserted what other people have frequently repeated since the decision: The court's judgment was directed by its own dislikes, not by any constitutional compass. In the absence of any guiding principles, the critics declared, the justices in the majority simply substituted their views for the views of the state legislatures, whose abortion regulations they invalidated. Academic critics also pounded the opinion, noting that the court had struck down legislation in the absence of any expressed constitutional provision or history."

Kerry's dogmatic adherence to a decision that has been criticized by many scholars as one of the most poorly reasoned, from a constitutional law standpoint, Supreme Court decisions in the history of the nation, a decision lacking any support in constitutional text or history, does not bode well for those considering his judgment in nominating members to the federal bench.

UPDATE: One additional point. It's ironic that Kerry claims to believe that abortion is wrong, as his church has explicitly stated, but he won't take that article of faith and legislate it on the American public (or some such paraphrase). At the same time, he "believe[s] that the right of choice is a constitutional right." This, despite the fact that it lacks textual support in the Constitution itself. Yet he is more than willing to impose this belief, this "article of faith," if you will, on America. Character still counts, and this hypocrisy does not speak well for the junior senator from Massachusetts.

Kerry's (non) meetings at the UN

Here is the story mentioned yesterday by Powerline about Kerry's foreign policy, well, exaggerations. He claimed on several occasions that he had met with the entire UN Security Council for a couple of hours before casting his October 2002 vote in favor of the use of force in Iraq. Apparently ambassadors for several nations on the Security Council have denied ever meeting with Kerry.

The story is potentially damaging, because it undermines Kerry's "integrity, integrity, integrity." But I do not believe it will result in any lasting damage to Kerry, if for no other reason than the mainstream media will refuse to consider this newsworthy.

More double standard

Some time back I posted concerning the seeming double standard of the silence when Democrats actively campaign in churches compared to the uproar whenever conservative churches speak about issues. It has happened again. According to this article, even the Associated Press described Kerry's speech in a church as "partisan." John Edwards spoke at a church in Ohio where he was introduced by the minister as a man who is "eventually going to be president of the United States."

Now, I do not believe there is anything wrong, under current federal law, with a candidate speaking at a church. The candidate is not to make pleas for votes, however, if my understanding is correct. How else to interpret the fans being held by these ladies if not Democratic electioneering in church? I will not hold my breath waiting for any consequences from what the Democrats are doing in these churches, however.

Major story?

Powerline claims there will be a potentially damaging story late this weekend from a major newspaper regarding John Kerry, foreign policy, and his veracity. I will follow this and link to any developments.

Everything old is new again

Recently, there have been murmurs in different news organizations speculating that, in an ironic twist of fate, George W. Bush could win the popular vote, which he failed to do in 2000, but lose the Electoral College vote, where he eked out a win over Al Gore four years ago.

I felt a strange sense of deja vu when I first heard this story this year, because it sounded oddly familiar to stories I thought had run four years ago prior to the election. I thought I remembered stories from before the 2000 contest that Bush could win the popular vote but fall short in the electoral vote. Sure enough, I found stories here and here that ran in the mainstream media outlining that very scenario.

The Business Week story said the following:

"Only three times in history--the last in 1888--has a candidate lost the popular vote and triumphed in the Electoral College. While unlikely in 2000, it's plausible. Why? Gore's big-state edge. If the Democrat adds, say, Michigan or Florida to his tally, he could eke out an Electoral College victory while trailing Bush in the popular vote.

"Another electoral oddity: Bush holds a huge edge in his home state, which carries far more weight in terms of the popular vote than the Electoral College. Indeed, current computer projections find that a Texas landslide could skew the national popular vote by about 1.5 percentage points. But Bush gets the same 32 electoral votes from Texas whether he wins by 1% or 31%. In what could be the closest race since Gerald Ford/Jimmy Carter in 1976, Gore's secret weapon might end up being the Electoral College."

And CNN stated, "Diverging trends in national and state polls are adding another level of uncertainty to the closest presidential race in decades -- and inspiring speculation that Al Gore might lose the popular vote yet still win an electoral college majority that places him in the White House."

It may very well be a legitimate story this year, but it's hardly new, and shouldn't be presented that way. The media hoped Bush would lose in 2000; they hope he loses this year. They have one note, and they play it loud and long.

By the way, look for an onslaught of media coverage critical of the Electoral College, and certain politicians calling for its abolition following the election. It's a bad idea to dump the college, which I will explain about in more detail later.

Response to Tora Bora

One of John Kerry's strongest debating points, and seemingly strong arguments against the management of the War on Terror, has been his complaint that the Bush administration "outsourced" the job of getting Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Tora Bora in Afghanistan, and the tribals who were given the job of finding OBL let him slip away. Kerry criticized Bush for this in the first and third debates, and the Breck Girl (link via The Corner) chimed in during the vice-presidential debate.

Now, Mickey Kaus has posted a quote from Kerry during an appearance on "Larry King Live" from December 14, 2001. Responding to a question about the use of flamethrowers to get the al Qaeda remnant out of Tora Bora, Kerry remarked, "But for the moment, what we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." In another portion of the interview, he stated, regarding the war in Afghanistan, "I think we have been smart, I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on right track."

Interesting. No criticism of outsourcing the job, just praise for protecting the troops in the best way possible. Of course, three years ago his campaign for president had hardly begun. But it's notable that Kerry himself was uncritical of the manner in which the administration was using troops in Afghanistan at the time, and has only started the disingenuous "Tora Bora" mantra in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign.

UPDATE: Kerry has renewed the claim of "outsourcing" bin Laden at a recent campaign rally. Can someone please remind him of what he said at the time? Of course, it's wishful thinking to hope that he might actually acknowledge that he used to thinkthe administration "ha[d] done it well ans [was] on [the] right track."

Kerry barred from presidency by Constitution? No, but . . .

For those who are interested, there is a fascinating analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy on whether section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionally bars John Kerry from becoming president. That section states:

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

The anti-Kerry argument is that, while a member of the military (and therefore an "officer of the United States") he gave aid and comfort to the enemy by meeting with North Vietnamese delegations in Paris in 1971 while the United States was still engaged in hostilities with North Vietnam, or by his war protests, strengthened the resolve of the enemy.

I have great respect for Professor Volokh, who concludes that this section does not bar Kerry from the presidency. The analysis seems sound, but it is interesting reading if you are into arcane legal matters!

"Faith and Patriotism"

Here's a sample of what Archbishop Charles Chaput had to say in today's New York Times:

"Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works.

"Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.

"People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws? . . .

"The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic.

"Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and nonviolently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible."

I am not a Catholic, but the stalwart defense of innocent human life offered by the archbishop, and the defense of people of faith to be active in civic affairs, is a stirring read, and I agree with his column. Read it all here.

Kerry and his faith

Less than two weeks from the election, Senator Kerry has decided to begin emphasizing the role that faith plays in his life. As a general principle, I support the notion of candidates having a belief system that acknowledges that the individual is not the ultimate authority. It is a part of our nation's heritage, and our leaders have expressed their belief in God from our nation's founding. So in a town hall meeting yesterday, in keeping with that tradition, Kerry said, "I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me."

This is fine, so far as it goes, but Kerry has made other comments about his faith and the role it would play in his public life. He made this interesting comment to the Boston Globe in an interview in April of this year: "There is separation of church and state in America. We have prided ourselves on that all of my lifetime.... I fully intend to continue to practice my religion as separately from what I do with respect to my public life, and that's the way it ought to be in America."

And you may recall that in the third debate, he stated that he "can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith."

The senator realizes that this will be a close election, and has decided to reject Howard Dean's primary call to stop campaigning on "God, guns, and gays." I will not call Kerry a flip-flopper on this issue (after all, there's nothing wrong with the flip, it's the flop that gets you in trouble). Kerry's previous comments on his faith, including his speech at the Democratic National Convention, where he proudly claimed, "I don't wear my faith on my sleeve," are difficult to square with the faith coat of armor he now is wearing. The only word that comes to mind to describe such a turnaround is -- opportunistic. And it is a disturbing pattern of opportunism that Kerry has developed.

How 9/11 affected the candidates

Jonah Goldberg, at The Corner on National Review Online, notes that there has been an exchange concerning whether Kerry's pre-9/11 record should matter, and that Kevin Drum and Andrew Sullivan have concluded it doesn't. Drum's analysis for ignoring Kerry's record is premised on the fact that, since we know 9/11 changed Bush and we don't hold him accountable for stating during the 2000 campaign that he was opposed to nation-building, we similarly should not hold Kerry's pre-9/11 record against him, as 9/11 surely also changed Kerry's view of the world.

That is true only if you believe what Kerry says, which is not quite the stretch it was with President Clinton, but the old question about how you can if a politician is lying (his lips are moving) has some resonance here.

Drum wrote, "We judge Bush by how he's reacted after 9/11, not by his advisors' long records before taking office — and I'd argue that we should do the same with Kerry . . . ."

That argument works only if you can also accept that 9/11 changed Kerry's view of the world. But remember the not too distant past, when Kerry gave an interview to the NYT Magazine, and consider the following:

"…When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment.

'"'It accelerated — '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.'"

By his own admission, 9/11 did not "fundamentally change [Kerry's] view of the world." For this reason, as well as the fact that Vietnam was the cornerstone of the Democratic convention and has been the raison d'etre behind Kerry's campaign, Kerry's record is, as Mary Beth Cahill might put it, fair game.

The politics of fear

John Kerry claimed in a rally that there is a "great potential" for a military draft if President Bush is re-elected. This, in spite of the fact that President Bush stated unequivocally during the debates that there would be no draft.

Looking at the recent history of the Selective Service System and the draft, one wonders how the Democrats can in good conscience make this claim. The Selective Service System was re-established in 1980, under President Carter, a Democrat. Last year, two bills were introduced in Congress to re-authorize a draft -- H.R. 163, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat, and S. 89, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Fritz Hollings, a Democrat.

John Kerry has promised to increase the size of the military by 40,000 troops. He has not indicated how he would come up with these troops, and, to be fair, he has stated opposition to a draft. I do not mean to suggest that Kerry would re-institute the draft as president, but he has not been asked, nor has he answered the question of where these troops would come from. So before the hysteria (including this from the "non-partisan" Rock the Vote) gets out of hand, these questions should be asked of and answered by the senator.

UPDATE: The Bush camp is not going to caught back on its heels on this issue, with the president declaring, "The best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me," and stating that "the person talking about a draft is my opponent."

It also appears that Kerry aides are being forced into damage control over the remark.

Midnight Madness . . .

has begun! The winningest program in college basketball history has tipped off another season! Go Cats! This is Kentucky basketball!

Rigging the vote three weeks early

I hesitated to link to this story when I first heard it, but now that the accuracy of the manual has been confirmed by the DNC, I have to say that it is a disgrace. As someone who cherishes the right to vote, even if I am only one paerson in a country of hundreds of millions, I am personally offended that any national party would encourage people to make up stories of voter intimidation for purely political purposes. Both sides play rough, I understand that, but every real instance of voter intimidation and voter fraud is cheapened by petty tricks like this, in essence becoming the party who cried "Fraud!" one too many times.

Here is a must-read rant on this subject from Vodkapundit (I don't know anything more about him than he reveals in this essay, but it is highly entertaining and emotionally charged).

The final debate . . .

. . . was the best I have seen the president look in any of the three debates. He was sharp, focused, in command, witty, and engaging. Unquestionably, John Kerry is a skilled debater, and has all the style you would expect from someone who has been in the United States Senate for twenty years. Substantively, however, I thought the senator came up lacking last night.

Speaking of Kerry's Senate tenure -- well, there's not much to say, as the president effectively pointed out last night. The Bush campaign distributed this fact sheet in response to Kerry's claim that he had "personally written" 56 bills that had passed. Only five bills and four resolutions authored by Kerry in twenty years ever became law.

The president did the best job I have heard so far in explaining the reasons behind his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment last night, acknowledging that the problem did not lie with the judgment of the legislatures of the states but with activist judges who are content to change the meaning of words in order to impose their view of what society should look like.

One of the more bizarre moments of the night came when Kerry was asked his opinion about some Catholic bishops who have suggested it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion. Commenting on why he would not appoint a judge who might overturn Roe v. Wade, Kerry said, "I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith." Fine, so far as it goes. But Kerry was pandering last night, and he immediately followed that comment with this:

"My faith affects everything I do, in truth. . . . And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of these things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."

So you see, Kerry's faith is important to him, and it permits him to fight against poverty, equality, and justice and to protect the earth, and legislating in that vein is perfectly acceptable. But when it comes to fighting to protect the most innocent among us -- the unborn -- well, he is compelled to set his faith aside, because in that limited circumstance he can't impose it on anyone else, notwithstanding all of the other instances in which he does feel free to impose his faith.

Kerry's cafeteria-style faith is not a luxury that people of faith can indulge in. If, as he said, his faith affects everything he does, how could he not, at the very least, have said straight up in the previous debate that he would not permit federal tax dollars to be spent to subsidize a practice that he claims runs counter to his beliefs?

Kerry's response to whether he would appont judges who might overturn Roe v. Wade was abysmal. "I'm not going to appoint a judge who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right."

The slip of the tongue about rights given by the courts is telling. But which of the amendments to the Constitution provides the right of choice that Kerry believes is a constitutional right? None, individually. Roe may be one of the worst constitutional opinions in the history of the Court. To find this right of choice, it followed Griswold v. Connecticut, which declared that certain rights are not explicit in the Constitution, but that they "emanate from the penumbras" of the amendments to the Constitution. Roe had penumbras too. Simply put, they made it up. And now it has been given the full force and effect of constitutional law, just as the right to free speech or freedom of the press of against self-incrimination, which are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. But choice? Don't strain your eyes reading the Constitution to find it; it emanates from the penumbras!

Both candidates were disappointing in their answers on immigration, because both said, in effect, that those who had come here illegally would be rewarded in some fashion. The president tried to skirt this by claiming that he opposes amnesty, but his guest worker program is an invitation to disaster. Kerry was no better, though, offering an "earned-legalization" program to people who had been here a long time (illegally), paid their taxes, and stayed out of trouble. Kerry said, "We got to start moving then toward full citizenship, out of the shadows." Sheesh. I didn't think he could do worse than Bush on this answer, but he proved me wrong.

Finally, Bob Schieffer of CBS did his best to exact revenge for the scorn that was rightfully heaped on his colleague Dan Rather for running a story critical of the president based on fake documents. The questions were incredibly skewed in Kerry's favor, with softball after softball lobbed to Kerry, while Bush was facing tough, critical questions. Ah, the mainstream media -- independent and objective? Hardly.

Mass Graves and Justice

The Iraqi Special Tribunal, seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for war crimes, has unearthed a mass grave in the northern Iraqi city of Hatra. Seeing the headline of the article is saddening, but reading the story is gruesome indeed. And if there is any question about the sense of justice that some of our "allies" in Europe possess, note the juxtaposition of these two portions of the story:

"The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead. One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face. The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said US investigating anthropologist P Willey. "'Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick.'"

Then this, about the level of cooperation in the search and the length of time it is taking:

"Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part. The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death."

I do not mean to paint with a broad brush. There are probably some Europeans assisting in the search, but the story fails to identify them. But these actions lack any sense of proportionality. "The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face. . . . The Europeans . . . were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam to death."

I wonder if these are the same Europeans that have been implicated for taking bribes from Saddam through the U.N.'s "oil-for-food" scam?

More on the Ten Commandments

Davis Barton, president of WallBuilders, filed this affidavit with the United States District Court in the McCreary County case, which has now been granted review by the United States Supreme Court. The affidavit is incredibly thorough, and shows the effect that each Commandment has had on the development of American law. If you have any interest or even a slight opinion about the merits of the Ten Commandments cases, it is a must read.

Rise and be Healed, says Rev. Edwards

In perhaps the most demagogic, morally reprehensible campaign plea of the season, John Edwards made the following remarks following the recent death of actor Christopher Reeve:

"When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

I saw a clip of the rally with Edwards making these remarks, and was stunned speechless when I heard it. It is a shameless political plea, claiming that a change of administrations will result in miraculous scientific breakthroughs. My other thought, though, was that Edwards is a lawyer (I'm also in the fraternity, and feel justified in criticizing) and was simply doing what made him a multi-millionaire -- playing on the emotions of his audience (here a political rally, previously juries) to achieve a desired result, and using hyperbole to accomplish the goal. I have heard (or read) similar types of statements from attorneys more times than I care to count, but it seems particularly crass to make these comments so soon after the death of Christopher Reeve, and to associate them with such a naked political plea.

Nine Supremes to Weigh Ten Commandments

The United States Supreme Court finally dares to go where it has not trod in nearly twenty-five years, and has agreed to hear two cases,one from Texas and the other from Kentucky, on the constitutionality of displays of the Ten Commandments in and around government buildings. The Kentucky case involves displays that were in county courthouses, and in which the Decalogue was subsequently surrounded by other historical documents, such as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, to show the development of legal thought in Western civilization. The Texas case involves a six-foot monument donated to a county by the Fraternal Order of Eagles four decades ago and displayed on courthouse grounds.

While it will be nice to have some clarity on this issue, I am not necessarily heartened by this Court's grant of certiorari in these cases. This is a Court that has recently ruled that scholarship money otherwise available to any party may be denied to someone who wants to use the money for seminary training, found a fundamental right to commit sodomy in the Constitution, ruled that prayers over the public address system at high school football games violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and any number of other decisions seemingly hostile to religious freedom. While it is possible that four justices favorably disposed to displays of the Decalogue voted to hear the case, it is equally plausible that four justices determined to complete the cleansing of religious expression from the public square believe they have a fifth vote to do just that.

As Margaret Thatcher might say, however, this is no time to go wobbly. There are strong historical arguments, strong factual arguments, and strong legal arguments supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments, and the team arguing the case on behalf of the counties will marshal each and every one of these arguments for the cases. Hope springs eternal . . . .

Rudy on the "Nuisance" of Terrorism

The Kerry Spot has some great comments by Rudy Giuliani in response to John Kerry's view that terrorism is a nuisance that should be treated like prostitution or illegal gambling. If Rudy weren't so socially liberal, I would already be on his team for '08.

The full text of Rudy's press release is here. Here are two paragraphs that capture the essence, although it is well worth reading in full:

"As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn’t not [sic] on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

"The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking."

David, Jesus . . . John Kerry?

For a bit of flavor about what was said during the Kerry campmeeting service, the Washington Times provides this interesting report. (Hat tip Michelle Malkin)

Double standard on religion and politics?

Have you ever wondered why it seems that Democratic candidates are so often pictured giving speeches/sermons in churches with hardly a word of criticism, but when a church takes a conservative moral stand that also happens to be critical of a candidate's position on the issues there is an uproar? John Hinderaker at Powerline has an interesting take on this, complete with pictures, that include "Kerry/Edwards" signs being waved in a church service this weekend.

Kerry self-destructs

John Kerry said some remarkable things about fighting the war on terror in a New York Times Magazine article this weekend. The money quote:

"'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.'"

Comparing acts of terror to prostitution and illegal gambling? Terrorism is a nuisance? As an analogy, it's a bit of a stretch, and that's being charitable in the assessment of the comments.

For far more detailed analyses of these remarks, check out The Kerry Spot, Hugh Hewitt, and The Volokh Conspiracy. Also, the Bush campaign has put out an ad highlighting the remarks. The ad can be seen here.

The remarks, to me, do not reflect a serious assessment of the reality of terrorism as an act of pseudo-war by a non-state actor. I don't think bin Laden and associates are going to be frightened by indictments (the indictment of bin Laden during the Clinton administration did not seem to be much of a deterrent on September 11, 2001). Cruise missiles and Special Forces are an entirely different matter.

Vote "yes" on traditional marriage

As the November election nears, it is important to remember that the presidential election, while garnering the lion's share of attention, is not the only matter on the ballot. Here in Kentucky, voters will be asked to vote on a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as only the union between a man and a woman.

Some useful resources on this amendment are available here and here. Vote "yes" to preserve traditional marriage!

The second debate

The president looked much better in last night's debate than he did in the first, while Kerry looked tired and seemed as though he were only repeating his own talking points without saying anything of substance. Kerry continues to amaze with his ability to confuse his own statements, while insisting that he is being consistent.

For instance, there was this response from Kerry on Saddam Hussein: "Well, let me tell you straight up. I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat." Then, a few short minutes later, he was asked about the threat posed by a potential nuclear-armed Iran. His response: "And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

So Kerry's logic (and his allegedly "consistent" position) boils down to this: Saddam Hussein was a threat. Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. There was no threat in Iraq.

It's not just that Kerry can be caught in an occasional mis-statement during a debate. His entire platform on the war in Iraq has been dismantled by events, and by his own statements. His plan has been to bring in other countries to "share the burden," while at the same time reducing the American troop presence in Iraq. France and Germany, the two allies to whom he has always been referring, have stated that even if Kerry is elected, they will not commit troops, and Kerry conceded this point earlier this week. So what is his Plan B? There isn't one.

Introduction

Welcome to my blog! This is a new venture for me, and I hope you find it entertaining, informative, and practical.

I am politically conservative, and believe that the federalist system of government in America, with shared sovereignty between the states and the federal government, is something to be cherished and preserved. The title to the blog comes from the anecdote often told about Benjamin Franklin, who, after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, was asked by a concerned citizen of Philadelphia what type of government had been created after four months of closed-door meetings by the delegates. He responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

And off we go, doing a small part to keep the republic.