John Kerry would look at this fellow profiled in this Seattle Times piece, and say, "I'll bet against you.":
It might have been the Airheads. Or maybe the keychains. Then again, there was the concession stand.
Jeff Becker caught the business bug during elementary school, selling candy at baseball games, then, later, right out of his locker.
But now, just over a year out of the University of Washington School of Business, his company, Kotis Design is doing it the right way: office, computers and employees (two, plus his business partner).
And he projects they'll bring in $700,000 this year designing, printing and shipping fraternity and sorority clothes, college apparel, corporate uniforms and other items such as water bottles and pens.
Becker is a rarity — a business-school graduate who goes out and starts a business. He was on a short list of recent UW graduates to do that, a list supplied by the university's media-relations office.
....Becker said that starting your own business right out of college is a good option that many recent grads don't consider.
...."I feel like friends complain about their jobs all the time and they're not complaining because they're working too much [or] they're not being paid enough," Becker, 24, said. "They're really complaining because they get no satisfaction out of their job. Every single thing I do, every single decision I make directly impacts me, and that's an unbelievable feeling. I go home, I feel satisfied."
Becker says this from a meeting table in his sparse office, bachelor pad-esque with its mini fridge, George Foreman grill and piles of clothes (up for sale, though, not waiting for the laundry).
He is intense with a nervous energy that pours out in spurts. He trips over streams of words then stops short, waiting for the next thing. Usually it's another call on his cellphone, which vibrates at least five times in an hour.
He is guarded about divulging secrets about how his business is run but says keeping your mouth shut about some things is good business advice.
He reluctantly agrees to say how much he's making right now (about $30,000 a year: "enough to get by") ... how much he'd like to be making himself ($500,000: "Is that too much?" he asks, laughing).
Sunday, October 10, 2004
NY Times Magazine: You'd Have To Be Crazy To Vote For Kerry
Matt Bai says: John, we hardly knew ye...were as dumb as a post:
Theoretically, Kerry could still find a way to wrap his ideas into some bold and cohesive construct for the next half-century -- a Kerry Doctrine, perhaps, or a campaign against chaos, rather than a war on terror -- that people will understand and relate to. But he has always been a man who prides himself on appreciating the subtleties of public policy, and everything in his experience has conditioned him to avoid unsubtle constructs and grand designs. His aversion to Big Think has resulted in one of the campaign's oddities: it is Bush, the man vilified by liberals as intellectually vapid, who has emerged as the de facto visionary in the campaign, trying to impose some long-term thematic order on a dangerous and disorderly world, while Kerry carves the globe into a series of discrete problems with specific solutions.
When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be.
Not that Matt himself isn't a little post-like, because he wrote the above after he'd written:
It's perhaps not surprising, then, that Kerry hasn't been eager to challenge Bush's grand notion of a war on terror; such a distinction might sound weak, equivocal or, worse yet, nuanced. It's equally unsurprising that, in the recent Times poll, 57 percent of the respondents said Kerry hadn't made his plans for the country clear, and 63 percent believed he said what he thought people wanted to hear, rather than what he actually thought. This reflected savage Republican attacks on Kerry's character, to be sure, but it probably also had something to do with the fact that he hadn't made his plans clear and seemed to be saying what he thought people wanted to hear.
Uh, Matt, out here in real people land, we say people believe it because it's blindingly obviously true. Not because of:
When I asked Kerry's campaign advisers about these poll numbers, what I heard from some of them in response was that Kerry's theories on global affairs were just too complex for the electorate and would have been ignored -- or, worse yet, mangled -- by the press. ''Yes, he should have laid out this issue and many others in greater detail and with more intellectual creativity, there's no question,'' one adviser told me. ''But it would have had no effect.''
This is, of course, a common Democratic refrain: Republicans sound more coherent because they see the world in such a rudimentary way, while Democrats, 10 steps ahead of the rest of the country, wrestle with profound policy issues that don't lend themselves to slogans.
Well, Jim Lehrer asked Kerry about one of his slogans; "How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?". And it didn't go over too well for the big fella. Something like:
"I actually said it is a mistake. Before, I say it isn't a mistake. Before I say it is a mistake, again."
In the time span of a ninety minute debate.
But then, he's just talking to a bunch of losers who--he can tell by looking at them--couldn't ever earn $200,000 a year. Or marry someone who does.
Electable....Very electable.
Theoretically, Kerry could still find a way to wrap his ideas into some bold and cohesive construct for the next half-century -- a Kerry Doctrine, perhaps, or a campaign against chaos, rather than a war on terror -- that people will understand and relate to. But he has always been a man who prides himself on appreciating the subtleties of public policy, and everything in his experience has conditioned him to avoid unsubtle constructs and grand designs. His aversion to Big Think has resulted in one of the campaign's oddities: it is Bush, the man vilified by liberals as intellectually vapid, who has emerged as the de facto visionary in the campaign, trying to impose some long-term thematic order on a dangerous and disorderly world, while Kerry carves the globe into a series of discrete problems with specific solutions.
When Kerry first told me that Sept. 11 had not changed him, I was surprised. I assumed everyone in America -- and certainly in Washington -- had been changed by that day. I assumed he was being overly cautious, afraid of providing his opponents with yet another cheap opportunity to call him a flip-flopper. What I came to understand was that, in fact, the attacks really had not changed the way Kerry viewed or talked about terrorism -- which is exactly why he has come across, to some voters, as less of a leader than he could be.
Not that Matt himself isn't a little post-like, because he wrote the above after he'd written:
It's perhaps not surprising, then, that Kerry hasn't been eager to challenge Bush's grand notion of a war on terror; such a distinction might sound weak, equivocal or, worse yet, nuanced. It's equally unsurprising that, in the recent Times poll, 57 percent of the respondents said Kerry hadn't made his plans for the country clear, and 63 percent believed he said what he thought people wanted to hear, rather than what he actually thought. This reflected savage Republican attacks on Kerry's character, to be sure, but it probably also had something to do with the fact that he hadn't made his plans clear and seemed to be saying what he thought people wanted to hear.
Uh, Matt, out here in real people land, we say people believe it because it's blindingly obviously true. Not because of:
When I asked Kerry's campaign advisers about these poll numbers, what I heard from some of them in response was that Kerry's theories on global affairs were just too complex for the electorate and would have been ignored -- or, worse yet, mangled -- by the press. ''Yes, he should have laid out this issue and many others in greater detail and with more intellectual creativity, there's no question,'' one adviser told me. ''But it would have had no effect.''
This is, of course, a common Democratic refrain: Republicans sound more coherent because they see the world in such a rudimentary way, while Democrats, 10 steps ahead of the rest of the country, wrestle with profound policy issues that don't lend themselves to slogans.
Well, Jim Lehrer asked Kerry about one of his slogans; "How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?". And it didn't go over too well for the big fella. Something like:
"I actually said it is a mistake. Before, I say it isn't a mistake. Before I say it is a mistake, again."
In the time span of a ninety minute debate.
But then, he's just talking to a bunch of losers who--he can tell by looking at them--couldn't ever earn $200,000 a year. Or marry someone who does.
Electable....Very electable.
When Even Clueless NY Times Reporters Think You're Weird...
You have a problem with your electability quotient. Witness this, "water, Jack?" moment:
Kerry and I met, for the second of three conversations about terrorism and national security, in a hotel room overlooking the Ferris wheel on the Santa Monica pier. A row of Evian water bottles had been thoughtfully placed on a nearby table. Kerry frowned.
''Can we get any of my water?'' he asked Stephanie Cutter, his communications director, who dutifully scurried from the room. I asked Kerry, out of sheer curiosity, what he didn't like about Evian.
''I hate that stuff,'' Kerry explained to me. ''They pack it full of minerals.''
''What kind of water do you drink?'' I asked, trying to make conversation.
''Plain old American water,'' he said.
''You mean tap water?''
''No,'' Kerry replied deliberately. He seemed now to sense some kind of trap. I was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink bottled water, then he might say I'm out of touch with ordinary voters. But doesn't demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then again, Evian is French -- important to stay away from anything even remotely French.
''There are all kinds of waters,'' he said finally. Pause. ''Saratoga Spring.'' This seemed to have exhausted his list. ''Sometimes I drink tap water,'' he added.
Kerry and I met, for the second of three conversations about terrorism and national security, in a hotel room overlooking the Ferris wheel on the Santa Monica pier. A row of Evian water bottles had been thoughtfully placed on a nearby table. Kerry frowned.
''Can we get any of my water?'' he asked Stephanie Cutter, his communications director, who dutifully scurried from the room. I asked Kerry, out of sheer curiosity, what he didn't like about Evian.
''I hate that stuff,'' Kerry explained to me. ''They pack it full of minerals.''
''What kind of water do you drink?'' I asked, trying to make conversation.
''Plain old American water,'' he said.
''You mean tap water?''
''No,'' Kerry replied deliberately. He seemed now to sense some kind of trap. I was left to imagine what was going through his head. If I admit that I drink bottled water, then he might say I'm out of touch with ordinary voters. But doesn't demanding my own brand of water seem even more aristocratic? Then again, Evian is French -- important to stay away from anything even remotely French.
''There are all kinds of waters,'' he said finally. Pause. ''Saratoga Spring.'' This seemed to have exhausted his list. ''Sometimes I drink tap water,'' he added.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
What This Country Needs Is A Pistol In Every Holster
A caller to KTTH's Dan Sytman Show this morning had a rather intriguing take on John Kerry's argument last night to a woman who'd asked him not to spend taxpayer dollars on abortions. Hiding his commitment to NARAL within:
I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.
Mr. Sytman's caller after duly noting that there is no constitutional right to an abortion--and as Scrappleface has pointed out; if your name is Rush, you don't have a right to privacy either--wondered if Mr. Kerry's logic wouldn't require that, under the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, poor Americans be provided with firearms at taxpayer expense.
Come to think of it...if the FLUBA has a First Amendment right to publish...why should it be restricted to this buggy blogging software? Criminal suspects who can't afford a lawyer get one courtesy of taxpayers, why not suspect bloggers getting their own television shows?
I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.
Mr. Sytman's caller after duly noting that there is no constitutional right to an abortion--and as Scrappleface has pointed out; if your name is Rush, you don't have a right to privacy either--wondered if Mr. Kerry's logic wouldn't require that, under the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, poor Americans be provided with firearms at taxpayer expense.
Come to think of it...if the FLUBA has a First Amendment right to publish...why should it be restricted to this buggy blogging software? Criminal suspects who can't afford a lawyer get one courtesy of taxpayers, why not suspect bloggers getting their own television shows?
Area 51 For Intellectuals
"Yes. Kerry Won the Second Debate", the Professor assures us. But, those adventurous enough to click on his link can read, in a piece headlined:
Standoff in Second Debate
that:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush battled each other to a virtual tie in Friday night's presidential debate, according to a random sample of 515 registered voters who watched the event.
That post is followed by:
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket: What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week? According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece
Which moves the Professor to say: The first interesting question is whether they tried--albeit unsuccessfully--to assist Bush with an audio signal.
Standoff in Second Debate
that:
PRINCETON, NJ -- Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush battled each other to a virtual tie in Friday night's presidential debate, according to a random sample of 515 registered voters who watched the event.
That post is followed by:
The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket: What was that bulge in the back of President Bush's suit jacket at the presidential debate in Miami last week? According to rumors racing across the Internet this week, the rectangular bulge visible between Mr. Bush's shoulder blades was a radio receiver, getting answers from an offstage counselor into a hidden presidential earpiece
Which moves the Professor to say: The first interesting question is whether they tried--albeit unsuccessfully--to assist Bush with an audio signal.
Need Some Wood?
How about that slab that's between the tall guy's ears? The guy who obviously hasn't heard about video tape. Because if he had, why would he have told millions of potential voters, last night:
Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq.
You mean, "not if you don't count the first 20 times, that is", Flipper?
Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq.
You mean, "not if you don't count the first 20 times, that is", Flipper?
Friday, October 08, 2004
Credit Where Credit is Due
[Update below]
The New York Times Business Section reports:
NEW YORK (AP) -- Martha Stewart has reported to a West Virginia prison to begin her five-month sentence for lying about a stock sale, the Bureau of Prisons said Friday.
"Dear Friends," Stewart's Web site said, "By the time you read this, I will have reported to a minimum-security prison in Alderson, West Virginia, to begin serving my five-month sentence."
...she and former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic were convicted in March of lying to federal investigators about why Stewart sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems Inc. stock in December 2001.
Which is accurate. She was not, contrary to the beliefs of many, including at least one of the jurors who convicted her, guilty of illegal conduct (insider trading) regarding the actual sale of said stock.
Speaking of Orwellian. We have the spectacle of a high profile Democrat fundraiser, put into a federal prison by the Ashcroft Justice Dept. for lying about something that is no business of anyone, but Martha.
And there's not a peep from the likes of Carville, McAuliffe, her friends Bill and Hill, nor The Two Johns of the Good Hair. Why is that?
[update, 1:00 PM, Oct 8th:]
Inquiring minds want to know, what difference it makes that Martha didn't commit a crime in selling her stock, if she did in lying about it.
The short answer is that she undoubtedly wouldn't have been convicted of lying (and not under oath) about her private business affairs, had her attorneys not been prohibitted by the trial judge from explaining that she'd not done anything wrong in the first place--unlike her friend Sam Waksal, the CEO of Imclone, who undeniably did violate the insider trading laws.
At least one juror publicly admitted he voted to convict, to send a message to the big guys who might be tempted to cheat little guys like himself by selling stock to them behind insider information. Which is going to be the core of the appellate court's reversal of this appalling (and costly) persecution.
However, it is unlikely that Martha was even lying about her stop loss order at $ 60. She probably did tell the truth. Stockbrokers are commissioned salesmen. Meetings with clients are opportunities to earn money, and you'd better have a strategy to do so, before they arrive.
Bacanovic probably had three target stocks circled on the paper listing her holdings before she came in on Dec. 20th. Martha, being a former broker, would have known what he was up to. She might have figured she'd let him sell two of them so he could "get paid", but maybe didn't feel right about getting completely out of her friend's Imclone (she'd sold something like 50,000 shares a few months earlier).
Or maybe she just didn't want to be a wuss. So, she rejects his sales pitch on that one.
He, a trained salesman, would attempt to overcome her objections. If he couldn't, he'd move to a fall back position: "Well, Martha, I really think we should watch this one carefully. I just don't have a good feeling for upside potential. Let's think about a price below which we just can't hang on to it. What do you think would be a fair target?"
$60 would be logical, and it's a way for broker and client to compromise. If she bit, I can see him reaching into his desk, grabbing the first pen he feels--which turns out not to be the same pen he used earlier in the day to circle the three stocks--and writing @60 next to Imclone.
Then,a week later, when he hears about Waksal putting some of his Imclone stock up for sale, he's got his opportunity to make a few bucks commission.
In fact, he might have had a fiduciary duty to inform her, because he knows that Waksal, as a corporate insider at Imclone (which Martha is not) must file a disclosure with the SEC that he's selling stock. That's public information. If he doesn't tell Martha, then other market traders have an advantage (or not, it was trading about $75 last time I checked) over her.
It's not an easy ethical decision for the broker with two clients owning the same stock. Or so rules the Ethics Subcommittee at the FLUBA.
The New York Times Business Section reports:
NEW YORK (AP) -- Martha Stewart has reported to a West Virginia prison to begin her five-month sentence for lying about a stock sale, the Bureau of Prisons said Friday.
"Dear Friends," Stewart's Web site said, "By the time you read this, I will have reported to a minimum-security prison in Alderson, West Virginia, to begin serving my five-month sentence."
...she and former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic were convicted in March of lying to federal investigators about why Stewart sold 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems Inc. stock in December 2001.
Which is accurate. She was not, contrary to the beliefs of many, including at least one of the jurors who convicted her, guilty of illegal conduct (insider trading) regarding the actual sale of said stock.
Speaking of Orwellian. We have the spectacle of a high profile Democrat fundraiser, put into a federal prison by the Ashcroft Justice Dept. for lying about something that is no business of anyone, but Martha.
And there's not a peep from the likes of Carville, McAuliffe, her friends Bill and Hill, nor The Two Johns of the Good Hair. Why is that?
[update, 1:00 PM, Oct 8th:]
Inquiring minds want to know, what difference it makes that Martha didn't commit a crime in selling her stock, if she did in lying about it.
The short answer is that she undoubtedly wouldn't have been convicted of lying (and not under oath) about her private business affairs, had her attorneys not been prohibitted by the trial judge from explaining that she'd not done anything wrong in the first place--unlike her friend Sam Waksal, the CEO of Imclone, who undeniably did violate the insider trading laws.
At least one juror publicly admitted he voted to convict, to send a message to the big guys who might be tempted to cheat little guys like himself by selling stock to them behind insider information. Which is going to be the core of the appellate court's reversal of this appalling (and costly) persecution.
However, it is unlikely that Martha was even lying about her stop loss order at $ 60. She probably did tell the truth. Stockbrokers are commissioned salesmen. Meetings with clients are opportunities to earn money, and you'd better have a strategy to do so, before they arrive.
Bacanovic probably had three target stocks circled on the paper listing her holdings before she came in on Dec. 20th. Martha, being a former broker, would have known what he was up to. She might have figured she'd let him sell two of them so he could "get paid", but maybe didn't feel right about getting completely out of her friend's Imclone (she'd sold something like 50,000 shares a few months earlier).
Or maybe she just didn't want to be a wuss. So, she rejects his sales pitch on that one.
He, a trained salesman, would attempt to overcome her objections. If he couldn't, he'd move to a fall back position: "Well, Martha, I really think we should watch this one carefully. I just don't have a good feeling for upside potential. Let's think about a price below which we just can't hang on to it. What do you think would be a fair target?"
$60 would be logical, and it's a way for broker and client to compromise. If she bit, I can see him reaching into his desk, grabbing the first pen he feels--which turns out not to be the same pen he used earlier in the day to circle the three stocks--and writing @60 next to Imclone.
Then,a week later, when he hears about Waksal putting some of his Imclone stock up for sale, he's got his opportunity to make a few bucks commission.
In fact, he might have had a fiduciary duty to inform her, because he knows that Waksal, as a corporate insider at Imclone (which Martha is not) must file a disclosure with the SEC that he's selling stock. That's public information. If he doesn't tell Martha, then other market traders have an advantage (or not, it was trading about $75 last time I checked) over her.
It's not an easy ethical decision for the broker with two clients owning the same stock. Or so rules the Ethics Subcommittee at the FLUBA.
Dept. of: Indignation Isn't Intelligence
With the self awareness for which he is famous, the Formerly Respected Economist revisits the Orwell thing this morning:
Ignorance Isn't Strength
It still isn't pretty:
George W. Bush surrounds himself with people who insist that up is down, and ignorance is strength. But the full costs of his denial of reality....
...an unparalleled ability to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts. ....
...This has allowed them to engage in what Orwell called "reality control." ....
When leaders live in an invented reality, they do a bad job of dealing with real reality. ....
...ability of the Bush administration to deny reality - to live in an invented world ....
...power to pretend that he's infallible, and uses that power to avoid ever admitting mistakes, eventually makes mistakes so large that they can't be covered up. And that's what's happening to Mr. Bush.
Can we say, "glass houses...stones", Paul? The reason being that in this column of yours, you write:
They wanted to believe - months after everyone outside the administration realized that we were facing a large, dangerous insurgency and needed more troops - that the attackers were a handful of foreign terrorists and Baathist dead-enders; nobody could tell them different.
Yet, right there on the same page is this:
What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III
In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.
In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.
This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.
It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.
But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.
Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.
So, Paul, let's begin your journey of a thousand miles to "real reality": Say, "I was wrong".
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Assistance for the Reading Impaired
As a public service to those who rely on the NY Times for information, here is what the Duelfer Report on Iraq's WMD actually said (and it's a bad hair day for a couple of Senators):
• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
• Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
• The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Gee, that would seem to mean that the only way he was not going to get nuclear weapons would be if someone removed him from power. Aka, "Regime Change". Which, last I checked--though the day is still young, so he might change his mind--John Kerry was saying he wouldn't have done, given the information we have today.
Is that your position, Bunky?
Famous Last Words
Soon to join: "The atom bomb will never work. And I speak as an expert on explosives.", "[Wade Boggs is] not a major league prospect." and "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?", will be:
before the magnitude of Cheney's disaster had a chance to sink in...
Some pretty good material from the supporting cast too:
These joe-six-pack types watch the debate, but normally do not sit down with a east-coast big-time newspaper and try to disseminate the facts from truth and fiction.So, that is why Cheney repeats the lie over-and-over again- it works.
and
I feel no one can anticipate how many seniors who are pissed off, and young voters whom normally never vote are going to be poured on the scales of voting tabulations. The centrists who voted for Bush last election are not riding the fence anymore. The registration has been quietly going on to the Republicans' dismay. Watch out, you may be surprised by 'the sleeping giant' (The American apathetic underground has been aroused, fear of draft, medicare, oil prices, economy, health care, et cetera.
before the magnitude of Cheney's disaster had a chance to sink in...
Some pretty good material from the supporting cast too:
These joe-six-pack types watch the debate, but normally do not sit down with a east-coast big-time newspaper and try to disseminate the facts from truth and fiction.So, that is why Cheney repeats the lie over-and-over again- it works.
and
I feel no one can anticipate how many seniors who are pissed off, and young voters whom normally never vote are going to be poured on the scales of voting tabulations. The centrists who voted for Bush last election are not riding the fence anymore. The registration has been quietly going on to the Republicans' dismay. Watch out, you may be surprised by 'the sleeping giant' (The American apathetic underground has been aroused, fear of draft, medicare, oil prices, economy, health care, et cetera.
Beldar and the Babe Meet John Edwards
Wherein a Houston litigator shares what he has in common with the soon to be unemployed politician.
And everyone is welcome, for the BB threepeat.
And everyone is welcome, for the BB threepeat.
Girly Man For Veep, 2004
Speaking of beautiful blondes for Cheney, Ann Coulter goes for intellectual hunks too:
After Dick Cheney had beaten Edwards about the head for a while during the debate, Edwards waved his girlish hands and said: "There are 60 countries who have members of al-Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?"
The Democrats' silver-tongued boy thought he had made a very clever point. In fact, I believe this is the first time we've gotten any Democrat to admit that the entire al-Qaida terrorist network is not living in a narrow mountainous path between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Democrats are now on the record: 60 countries harbor al-Qaida. But apparently the one nation that had managed to entirely purge itself of all al-Qaida members was Iraq – under the great statesman Saddam Hussein! Iraq is the only country in the world liberals believe was hermetically sealed from al-Qaida.
Not only would the Democrats not have attacked Iraq, they would have given Saddam Hussein an award for having so thoroughly rid his nation of al-Qaida members. (And I know these Democrats are very proud of their superior manicures, but someone should tell Edwards to keep those girlish hands down.)
After Dick Cheney had beaten Edwards about the head for a while during the debate, Edwards waved his girlish hands and said: "There are 60 countries who have members of al-Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?"
The Democrats' silver-tongued boy thought he had made a very clever point. In fact, I believe this is the first time we've gotten any Democrat to admit that the entire al-Qaida terrorist network is not living in a narrow mountainous path between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Democrats are now on the record: 60 countries harbor al-Qaida. But apparently the one nation that had managed to entirely purge itself of all al-Qaida members was Iraq – under the great statesman Saddam Hussein! Iraq is the only country in the world liberals believe was hermetically sealed from al-Qaida.
Not only would the Democrats not have attacked Iraq, they would have given Saddam Hussein an award for having so thoroughly rid his nation of al-Qaida members. (And I know these Democrats are very proud of their superior manicures, but someone should tell Edwards to keep those girlish hands down.)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
At Least We Know the Names of the Two Biggest Idiots in American Politics
As well as the name of the biggest hypocrite in congress:
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Democrats have in recent months been involved in a "hoax" to convince the public that the Bush administration had a secret, post-election plan for restoring the draft.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the top Democrat on that committee, accused Republican leaders of holding the vote just for political gain.
"We have seen something I haven't seen in 28 years in the House of Representatives — someone bringing a bill to the House they don't support," Skelton said.
[Rep. Charles] Rangel voted against his own bill because it was not subjected to hearings and testimony from Bush administration officials. "This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," he said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill."
Only Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark of California voted for it.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Democrats have in recent months been involved in a "hoax" to convince the public that the Bush administration had a secret, post-election plan for restoring the draft.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the top Democrat on that committee, accused Republican leaders of holding the vote just for political gain.
"We have seen something I haven't seen in 28 years in the House of Representatives — someone bringing a bill to the House they don't support," Skelton said.
[Rep. Charles] Rangel voted against his own bill because it was not subjected to hearings and testimony from Bush administration officials. "This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," he said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill."
Only Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark of California voted for it.
Out of Touch With 70% of America...And Proud of It
Robert Musil has a useful post of past statements by Democrats about Iraq. Samples:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Which are at odds with the current party line, that there was no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. But put that aside. Is it smart politics to take a position, in an election campaign, that over 2/3 of the country doesn't believe?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Which are at odds with the current party line, that there was no connection between Iraq and the War on Terror. But put that aside. Is it smart politics to take a position, in an election campaign, that over 2/3 of the country doesn't believe?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
You're Grounded, Give Me the Car Keys and Go Clean Your Room
All during the debate I kept thinking that when American Bandstand's Dick Clark dies, John Edwards would be a great candidate for Country's Oldest Teen-ager. But that's a pretty pathetic credential to put up alongside a former White House Chief of Staff, Congressman, Defense Secretary, CEO of a major corporation, and the sitting Vice-President.
What an embarrassment for a supposedly serious political party. John Edwards didn't even know that the pay of soldiers in combat zones is exempt from federal income taxes. And, do we really want to go there (i.e., millionaires sitting by their pools) if our running mate is married to one of the richest women in the world?
Though I'm glad to learn that "Global Test" has a catchy beat, and you can dance to it, John. Now, you and your sister go wash the dishes.
What an embarrassment for a supposedly serious political party. John Edwards didn't even know that the pay of soldiers in combat zones is exempt from federal income taxes. And, do we really want to go there (i.e., millionaires sitting by their pools) if our running mate is married to one of the richest women in the world?
Though I'm glad to learn that "Global Test" has a catchy beat, and you can dance to it, John. Now, you and your sister go wash the dishes.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
They Said You Wuz High Class?
Kevin Drum indulges a blatant ad ignorantum fallacy:
Yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that Saddam Hussein never had any strong ties to al-Qaeda. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.
Colloquially: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence The above two sentences are not equal to one another. This error in basic reasoning is particularly common in those who have an emotional need to disbelieve.
Kevin is actually committing a double fallacy; 1. That Rumsfeld has never seen such evidence does not mean such evidence does not exist, and 2. Even if such evidence does not exist--and we can never really know that--it doesn't mean there is no connection.
This is not an episode of Law and Order, where the prosecutor gets his strongest evidence thrown out by the judge because the policemen didn't sufficientlyMirandize the perp. We need to err on the side of prudence.
Saddam Hussein had good reasons to want American troops out of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden said, on videotape, he attacked America because of the presence of those same troops. Saddam had plenty of cash to throw at anyone who could help him, and Osama needed plenty of cash to maintain his following and fund their activities.
Further, when things were going sour for Osama in Sudan, Saddam sent an emmissary to him and invited him to relocate to Iraq. He turned that offer down for what he thought would be better; Afghanistan. But members of Al Qaeda indisputable were in Iraq in the 90s and early 2000s. Including the man who made the bomb for the 1993 WTC attack.
Motives, means, and opportunities. All existed. It's elementary, Sherlock.
Yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that Saddam Hussein never had any strong ties to al-Qaeda. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said.
Colloquially: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence The above two sentences are not equal to one another. This error in basic reasoning is particularly common in those who have an emotional need to disbelieve.
Kevin is actually committing a double fallacy; 1. That Rumsfeld has never seen such evidence does not mean such evidence does not exist, and 2. Even if such evidence does not exist--and we can never really know that--it doesn't mean there is no connection.
This is not an episode of Law and Order, where the prosecutor gets his strongest evidence thrown out by the judge because the policemen didn't sufficientlyMirandize the perp. We need to err on the side of prudence.
Saddam Hussein had good reasons to want American troops out of Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden said, on videotape, he attacked America because of the presence of those same troops. Saddam had plenty of cash to throw at anyone who could help him, and Osama needed plenty of cash to maintain his following and fund their activities.
Further, when things were going sour for Osama in Sudan, Saddam sent an emmissary to him and invited him to relocate to Iraq. He turned that offer down for what he thought would be better; Afghanistan. But members of Al Qaeda indisputable were in Iraq in the 90s and early 2000s. Including the man who made the bomb for the 1993 WTC attack.
Motives, means, and opportunities. All existed. It's elementary, Sherlock.
Drunk and Disorderly? You Can Still Vote; Kerry-Edwards 2004
Continuing with today's Coulterian theme, we are not making this stuff up:
There's a captive audience of unregistered, mostly undecided, potential voters whom candidates have paid almost no attention to.
Maybe the bars scare off the campaign workers.
As Monday's voter registration deadline nears, volunteers at Just Harvest are working to register inmates at the Allegheny County Jail. An unprecedented survey of inmates by the Pittsburgh-based charity found 336 inmates who are eligible to vote and want to cast absentee ballots in the Nov. 2 election. Of those, 196 had to register to vote.
Just Harvest, which supports anti-poverty programs, put together the jail project as part of its overall voter registration drive this year, called Just Vote. The group registered about 1,100 new voters, mostly at shelters, Head Start centers and food pantries.
"There is a fair amount of misinformation telling us that people in jail can't vote, which is not necessarily true," said Chip Peters, voter registration field organizer for Just Harvest. "The only people in jail who can't vote are felons. If you are in jail awaiting trial, or serving a misdemeanor sentence such as criminal trespass, or doing 30 days because you couldn't pay a fine for, say, drunk and disorderly, you are still allowed to vote."
Inmate registration programs began appearing across the nation in the past year or two, said Charlie Sullivan, co-director of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, a Washington, D.C.-based prison advocacy group. However, Bill Schouppe, warden of the Beaver County Jail, said he hasn't seen any such efforts at his lockup.
Peters said Just Harvest is a nonpartisan organization and has no interest in promoting any parties or candidates. Wilfred Rojas, director of the office of community justice and outreach in the Philadelphia prison system, said he's found most inmates are among the undecided voters so coveted in this presidential election.
"They haven't really been engaged in the political system," said Rojas, who heads a voter registration effort that the jail began in June after a Philadelphia group similar to Just Harvest started registering inmates. So far, the jail has registered 900 inmates. Eventually, Rojas said, inmates will be able to register to vote when they're processed into the jail.
There's a captive audience of unregistered, mostly undecided, potential voters whom candidates have paid almost no attention to.
Maybe the bars scare off the campaign workers.
As Monday's voter registration deadline nears, volunteers at Just Harvest are working to register inmates at the Allegheny County Jail. An unprecedented survey of inmates by the Pittsburgh-based charity found 336 inmates who are eligible to vote and want to cast absentee ballots in the Nov. 2 election. Of those, 196 had to register to vote.
Just Harvest, which supports anti-poverty programs, put together the jail project as part of its overall voter registration drive this year, called Just Vote. The group registered about 1,100 new voters, mostly at shelters, Head Start centers and food pantries.
"There is a fair amount of misinformation telling us that people in jail can't vote, which is not necessarily true," said Chip Peters, voter registration field organizer for Just Harvest. "The only people in jail who can't vote are felons. If you are in jail awaiting trial, or serving a misdemeanor sentence such as criminal trespass, or doing 30 days because you couldn't pay a fine for, say, drunk and disorderly, you are still allowed to vote."
Inmate registration programs began appearing across the nation in the past year or two, said Charlie Sullivan, co-director of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, a Washington, D.C.-based prison advocacy group. However, Bill Schouppe, warden of the Beaver County Jail, said he hasn't seen any such efforts at his lockup.
Peters said Just Harvest is a nonpartisan organization and has no interest in promoting any parties or candidates. Wilfred Rojas, director of the office of community justice and outreach in the Philadelphia prison system, said he's found most inmates are among the undecided voters so coveted in this presidential election.
"They haven't really been engaged in the political system," said Rojas, who heads a voter registration effort that the jail began in June after a Philadelphia group similar to Just Harvest started registering inmates. So far, the jail has registered 900 inmates. Eventually, Rojas said, inmates will be able to register to vote when they're processed into the jail.
If Criminals Could Vote, Al Gore Would Be President
Don't take my word for it, there's scholarly evidence from Northwestern University and elsewhere:
Because felons are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor, disenfranchisement laws tend to take more votes from Democratic than from Republican candidates. Analysis shows that felon disenfranchisement played a decisive role in U.S. Senate elections in recent years. Moreover, at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote, and at least one Democratic presidential victory would have been jeopardized had contemporary rates of disenfranchisement prevailed during that time.
The above is courtesy of The Sentencing Project, which is not the place to go if you're looking for remedial English lessons, but is if your tastes run to:
Defying One-Person, One-Vote: Prisoners and the "Usual Residence" Principle
Disenfranchisement of Felons: The Modern Day Voting Rights Challenge, Civil Rights Journal
"Free the Vote," Amsterdam News, Ryan Haygood
"Give ex-prisoners a voice," USA Today
"Stripping Ex-Cons of the Right to Vote Should Be a Crime," Chicago Tribune
Jail-Based Voter Registration Campaigns
A timely reminder that prominent Democrat fund raiser, and friend of Bill and Hill, Martha Stewart won't be voting in this year's election. That evil Ashcroft.
Because felons are drawn disproportionately from the ranks of racial minorities and the poor, disenfranchisement laws tend to take more votes from Democratic than from Republican candidates. Analysis shows that felon disenfranchisement played a decisive role in U.S. Senate elections in recent years. Moreover, at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote, and at least one Democratic presidential victory would have been jeopardized had contemporary rates of disenfranchisement prevailed during that time.
The above is courtesy of The Sentencing Project, which is not the place to go if you're looking for remedial English lessons, but is if your tastes run to:
Defying One-Person, One-Vote: Prisoners and the "Usual Residence" Principle
Disenfranchisement of Felons: The Modern Day Voting Rights Challenge, Civil Rights Journal
"Free the Vote," Amsterdam News, Ryan Haygood
"Give ex-prisoners a voice," USA Today
"Stripping Ex-Cons of the Right to Vote Should Be a Crime," Chicago Tribune
Jail-Based Voter Registration Campaigns
A timely reminder that prominent Democrat fund raiser, and friend of Bill and Hill, Martha Stewart won't be voting in this year's election. That evil Ashcroft.
She's Blonde, She's Beautiful, She's Baaack
Liberals may want to return to their shelters. Ann Coulter's latest book is out today. From a review at Amazon.com:
Welcome to the world of Ann Coulter. .... How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) offers Coulter's unvarnished take on:
•The essence of being a liberal: "The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else."
•John Kerry: "A reporter asked Kerry, ‘Are you for or against gay marriage?' As usual, his answer was, ‘Yes.' "
•Her 9/11 comments: "I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!"
•The state of the Democratic Party: "Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of Scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party's spiritual leader."
•Her philosophy for arguing with liberals: "Tough love, except I don't love them. My ‘tough love' approach is much like the Democrats' ‘middle-class tax cuts'—everything but the last word."
•The "Treason Lobby": "Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States."
In this full-on Coulterpalooza, you'll find the real, uncensored Ann Coulter. A special concluding chapter even includes the pieces that squeamish editors refused to publish....
Welcome to the world of Ann Coulter. .... How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) offers Coulter's unvarnished take on:
•The essence of being a liberal: "The absolute conviction that there is one set of rules for you, and another, completely different set of rules for everyone else."
•John Kerry: "A reporter asked Kerry, ‘Are you for or against gay marriage?' As usual, his answer was, ‘Yes.' "
•Her 9/11 comments: "I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!"
•The state of the Democratic Party: "Teddy Kennedy crawls out of Boston Harbor with a quart of Scotch in one pocket and a pair of pantyhose in the other, and Democrats hail him as their party's spiritual leader."
•Her philosophy for arguing with liberals: "Tough love, except I don't love them. My ‘tough love' approach is much like the Democrats' ‘middle-class tax cuts'—everything but the last word."
•The "Treason Lobby": "Want to make liberals angry? Defend the United States."
In this full-on Coulterpalooza, you'll find the real, uncensored Ann Coulter. A special concluding chapter even includes the pieces that squeamish editors refused to publish....
Monday, October 04, 2004
Colonel William Campenni Strafes the Bush Was AWOL Meme
Early drive-time listeners to Seattle radio station KTTH's Mike Siegel show this morning, witnessed the wholesale destruction of the enem... Ur, the DeLong-Drum-Barnes-Rather Axis of Ev... Ur, the argument that George W. Bush received a pilot slot through political influence, and was treated unfairly favorably during his tour of duty. According to the Fly Under the Bridge Academy's roving correspondent for all things Texas ANG.
Col (retired) Campenni flew with Lt Bush in 1970-71 in the 111th FIS at Ellington AFB. And after a stint with the Pennsylvania ANG, rejoined the 111th in Houston in 1973. Contrary to the ill-informed opinions of many who have spouted off, George W. Bush joined the Texas ANG for the specific purpose of training to fly fighter jets.
In 1968, the year of the Pueblo incident and the Tet Offensive. With 540,000 Americans fighting and dying in Vietnam (some of them F-102 pilots from the same 111th FIS that Bush signed with) thanks to LBJ's recent escalation of that conflict. No political influence was necessary to get into this dangerous business. The Guard was short of pilots at the time. There were five slots open, and George W. Bush got one of those, with the others going to sons of welders and ranch hands.
Lt Bush was considered a good pilot. He was liked, not resented. No one would have known he was a congressman's son unless they'd been told. In fact, at the time, being a Republican might have been reason to withhold a pilot slot, not grant one. As Campenni pointed out, Texas was not a Republican state, but a Democrat one. LBJ was President when Bush was accepted, and Bush's father lost an election to Lloyd Bentsen for one of the state's Senate seats while Bush served in the Texas ANG.
When the host marvelled that Col Campenni's first hand information hadn't gotten more widespread circulation in the news media, and asked if the President shouldn't be telling the nation what the Col had just been sharing, Campenni astutely noted that, it's awkward for the President to do so himself. However, the President's spokesmen should be doing exactly that to counter the ignorant claims that Bush did not fulfill his military obligation. Or had tried to avoid combat.
Mission accomplished, and the FLUBA salutes you, Colonel.
Col (retired) Campenni flew with Lt Bush in 1970-71 in the 111th FIS at Ellington AFB. And after a stint with the Pennsylvania ANG, rejoined the 111th in Houston in 1973. Contrary to the ill-informed opinions of many who have spouted off, George W. Bush joined the Texas ANG for the specific purpose of training to fly fighter jets.
In 1968, the year of the Pueblo incident and the Tet Offensive. With 540,000 Americans fighting and dying in Vietnam (some of them F-102 pilots from the same 111th FIS that Bush signed with) thanks to LBJ's recent escalation of that conflict. No political influence was necessary to get into this dangerous business. The Guard was short of pilots at the time. There were five slots open, and George W. Bush got one of those, with the others going to sons of welders and ranch hands.
Lt Bush was considered a good pilot. He was liked, not resented. No one would have known he was a congressman's son unless they'd been told. In fact, at the time, being a Republican might have been reason to withhold a pilot slot, not grant one. As Campenni pointed out, Texas was not a Republican state, but a Democrat one. LBJ was President when Bush was accepted, and Bush's father lost an election to Lloyd Bentsen for one of the state's Senate seats while Bush served in the Texas ANG.
When the host marvelled that Col Campenni's first hand information hadn't gotten more widespread circulation in the news media, and asked if the President shouldn't be telling the nation what the Col had just been sharing, Campenni astutely noted that, it's awkward for the President to do so himself. However, the President's spokesmen should be doing exactly that to counter the ignorant claims that Bush did not fulfill his military obligation. Or had tried to avoid combat.
Mission accomplished, and the FLUBA salutes you, Colonel.
Loose Cannon Sighting
This ought to be real helpful in attracting the shrew vote:
By sending American troops to Iraq instead of to Afghanistan, Bush permitted Osama bin Laden to escape, Heinz Kerry said.
"Osama bin Laden is Osama been lost," she said.
"The Taliban is back running Afghanistan," Heinz Kerry said.
Anyone nostalgic for the "brutal Afghan winter"?
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a hotbed on terrorism, but it is now, she said.
"No American boy or girl should lose their lives for oil," she said.
Americans need to think of security in broader terms than bombs and terror, Heinz Kerry said.
"Seldom do we think of security in terms of one's job, one's health care benefits, education," she said.
By sending American troops to Iraq instead of to Afghanistan, Bush permitted Osama bin Laden to escape, Heinz Kerry said.
"Osama bin Laden is Osama been lost," she said.
"The Taliban is back running Afghanistan," Heinz Kerry said.
Anyone nostalgic for the "brutal Afghan winter"?
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a hotbed on terrorism, but it is now, she said.
"No American boy or girl should lose their lives for oil," she said.
Americans need to think of security in broader terms than bombs and terror, Heinz Kerry said.
"Seldom do we think of security in terms of one's job, one's health care benefits, education," she said.
That'll frighten the pants off the (probably late) Osama. Imagine the fear inspired in terrorists by a President who says he will lower the unemployment rate.
In addition, her husband plans to provide every student in America with four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of community service, and to provide parents with a $4,000 tax credit for college tuition they pay, Heinz Kerry said.
So, in exchange for repealing the 13th Amendment, the American taxpayer will have to cough up more dough to subsidize colleges. Smart, Teresa...very smart.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Gentlemen, Meet the Real Thomas Jefferson
In a classic case of taking a quote wildly out of context, Mark Kleiman says:
The original phrase, I think, was "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind."
But then Thomas Jefferson was sort of ... well, French ... wasn't he?
Kerry might well say:
The President isn't criticizing me. He's criticizing the signers of the Declaration of Independence. They proposed the first global test. They called it "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
And, you'll never guess who approves. All the worse, since when a commenter points out the obvious (more on that shortly) we get:
Are you saying that Jefferson's reasons are weak, and insufficient proof?
No, he is merely pointing out that Jefferson's context is missing. First, George W. Bush wasn't seceding from the Iraqi Empire:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Second, Jefferson isn't asserting proof. Nor seeking the world's permission. After the fact (Hint, we've already opened the hostilities, at Lexington and Concord, and now we're declaring our independence; take it or leave it) . He's merely explaining what is in the best interest of the new republic.
Which Bush did before starting the invasion, with a coalition, and explained to a far greater extent, "the causes which impell" us to act.
Btw, how far would a challenger for Jefferson's presidency have gotten arguing that Jefferson's handiwork was, The wrong declaration, in the wrong place, at the wrong time?
The original phrase, I think, was "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind."
But then Thomas Jefferson was sort of ... well, French ... wasn't he?
Kerry might well say:
The President isn't criticizing me. He's criticizing the signers of the Declaration of Independence. They proposed the first global test. They called it "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
And, you'll never guess who approves. All the worse, since when a commenter points out the obvious (more on that shortly) we get:
Are you saying that Jefferson's reasons are weak, and insufficient proof?
No, he is merely pointing out that Jefferson's context is missing. First, George W. Bush wasn't seceding from the Iraqi Empire:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Second, Jefferson isn't asserting proof. Nor seeking the world's permission. After the fact (Hint, we've already opened the hostilities, at Lexington and Concord, and now we're declaring our independence; take it or leave it) . He's merely explaining what is in the best interest of the new republic.
Which Bush did before starting the invasion, with a coalition, and explained to a far greater extent, "the causes which impell" us to act.
Btw, how far would a challenger for Jefferson's presidency have gotten arguing that Jefferson's handiwork was, The wrong declaration, in the wrong place, at the wrong time?
Saddam Failed the Global Test Bush Put To Him, That's Why John
The Minute Man is contending with a comments section that has a few blondes, insisting they're locked inside their cars, participating. We'll call it the Blumenstock Syndrome:
Erica Goode, New York Times
Tuesday, January 18, 2000
There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning.... professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent. ....
One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, ... suggested ... a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology.
"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote ....[Dr] Dunning [and a colleague, Dr. Kruger]. ....
In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to "grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed. ....
Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated there are many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency and not be aware of it. ....
In various situations, feedback is absent, or at least ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out "You stink!'' -- truthful though this assessment may be.
Let's Fly Under the Bridge, dedicated to countering excess self-esteem by providing feedback not found in polite company. You're very welcome.
Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies FindThey're Blind to Own Failings, Others' Skills
Erica Goode, New York Times
Tuesday, January 18, 2000
There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning.... professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent. ....
One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, ... suggested ... a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology.
"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote ....[Dr] Dunning [and a colleague, Dr. Kruger]. ....
In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to "grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed. ....
Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated there are many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency and not be aware of it. ....
In various situations, feedback is absent, or at least ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out "You stink!'' -- truthful though this assessment may be.
Let's Fly Under the Bridge, dedicated to countering excess self-esteem by providing feedback not found in polite company. You're very welcome.
Shorter 'Kerry Won the Debate'
Congressman Jim McDermott has managed to obtain this recorded conversation of a distressed usual suspect. (For those other usual suspects, you have to click on "download" once you arrive.)
Chattering Class Prejudice Alert
Continuing with the cardinal rule of the FLUBA, that it is a far, far better thing to shine a thousand points of light on them, than to curse their obtuseness, we provide James Fallows (and his admirers) the rope with which to hang himself (yes, we are committed to normal-guy-mixed-metaphors in honor of W):
What made it a bad performance for Bush was not what he said but how he looked and the way he comported himself.... This was near the top of Kerry's past performances.... What made it a good performance for him was less what he said, though that mattered, than the way he looked and carried himself. With no sound on, if you had to choose "The President" from watching the two men on the screen, it would be the big one with the square shoulders and the relaxed air you'd pick.
Substantially wrong, fellas. The electorate doesn't vote on appearances. They vote the economy. And an incumbent President with the economic statistics we have today has never lost.
However, that's beside the point. Bush didn't lose the debate. You are so consumed with hatred for those with contempt for articulated rationality as a decision making strategy (technically; Krugman Disease) you can't believe that your candidate got creamed last Thursday. What is truly funny about your state of denial is that you don't have the self-awareness to realize that you've got to ignore the substance of the debate (what was actually said, guys) and focus on the looks, to maintain your course on that river in Egypt.
I'm laughing too hard to be able to explain it, so I'm going to let Mark Steyn speak for me:
If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.
Have I got that right?
Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit. And once John Kerry holds that summit all our troubles are over. Summit time and the livin' is easy, fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin' ... No, hang on, your wife is rich and your manicure's good-lookin' ...
....
Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. It's not what it's about: Noel Coward would run rings round Mike Tyson in the prematch press conference, but then what? But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly. He communicates the reality of the post-9/11 world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest.
A majority of the American people -- albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be -- get this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate.
And Kerry isn't the only one losing debates, and looking ridiculous into the bargain.
What made it a bad performance for Bush was not what he said but how he looked and the way he comported himself.... This was near the top of Kerry's past performances.... What made it a good performance for him was less what he said, though that mattered, than the way he looked and carried himself. With no sound on, if you had to choose "The President" from watching the two men on the screen, it would be the big one with the square shoulders and the relaxed air you'd pick.
Substantially wrong, fellas. The electorate doesn't vote on appearances. They vote the economy. And an incumbent President with the economic statistics we have today has never lost.
However, that's beside the point. Bush didn't lose the debate. You are so consumed with hatred for those with contempt for articulated rationality as a decision making strategy (technically; Krugman Disease) you can't believe that your candidate got creamed last Thursday. What is truly funny about your state of denial is that you don't have the self-awareness to realize that you've got to ignore the substance of the debate (what was actually said, guys) and focus on the looks, to maintain your course on that river in Egypt.
I'm laughing too hard to be able to explain it, so I'm going to let Mark Steyn speak for me:
If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.
Have I got that right?
Oh, and he'll call a summit. ''I have a plan to have a summit. . . . I'm going to hold that summit ... we can be successful in Iraq with a summit . . . the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together ...'' Summit old, summit new, summit borrowed, summit blue, he's got summit for everyone. Summit-chanted evening, you may see a stranger, you may see a stranger across a crowded room. But, in John Kerry's world, there are no strangers, just EU deputy defense ministers who haven't yet contributed 10,000 troops because they haven't been invited to a summit. And once John Kerry holds that summit all our troubles are over. Summit time and the livin' is easy, fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high, your daddy's rich and your ma is good-lookin' ... No, hang on, your wife is rich and your manicure's good-lookin' ...
....
Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. It's not what it's about: Noel Coward would run rings round Mike Tyson in the prematch press conference, but then what? But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly. He communicates the reality of the post-9/11 world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest.
A majority of the American people -- albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be -- get this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate.
And Kerry isn't the only one losing debates, and looking ridiculous into the bargain.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Controlled, or Otherwise, Professor?
More Substance, Please...--
Yours,
Brad DeLong
Putting aside the opportunity to say--as Steve Martin did to a naked Darryl Hannah walking alongside him in the bushes--Oh, irony...not many people do irony anymore. I'll instead invoke Friedrich Hayek. (For the diligent students, here's the more rigorous version of the story)
The Swift Boaters actually are a good example--as was Dan Rather's forged memo fiasco, and (still in progress) the merciless pounding John Kerry is taking on the internet about the silly things he said in the recent debate. But, the lesson from the example isn't what Kinsley thinks it is.
It's that the superior volume of information available from millions of sources is going to swamp that available to individual reporters. Journalism, as it's been practiced, will sooner or later disappear because it's inefficient. With modern communication technology, speedy, detailed, highly specific information, will outcompete multi-million dollar network anchormen, and the ink-stained wretches pounding reportorial beats.
Back in the days when John Kerry was fabricating war wounds to relieve himself of combat duty, even large chain grocery stores, and their corporate suppliers--especially, the one which formed the basis of John Kerry's second heiress wife's fortune--had preposterously primitive inventory control systems.
Many stores didn't even have business telephones, but relied on a pay phone inside the store to phone in orders to grocery wholesalers. Or they filled out order forms and mailed them. The basis of the order was direct personal observation by the shelf stockers on what products they were running low on. Iow, judgment calls.
Let's repeat that, slightly altered: "direct personal observation by X on what Y they were Z-ing. Iow, judgment calls."
The only difference between olden days' groceries and today's journalism is that the shelf stockers and their managers had much better-informed judgments. That, and their jobs depended on their getting it right. (No grocery store manager would have survived the kind of humongous error Dan Rather and Mary Mapes made about George W. Bush's flying career.)
Well, one fine day an industrious young man from Missouri--who had grown up in a house without indoor plumbing--arrived in New York City to take an executive position with AT&T. He was told that; AT&T wasn't really making any money off agriculture. It was a big industry, and maybe there was some way for the Bell System to cash in on that.
He spent several weeks researching the question (i.e., he went out and talked to grocery store managers, warehousemen, and food producers and packagers). Everyone told him their biggest headache was inventory control.
He saw his opportunity: Move useful knowledge more quickly and accurately to reduce waste, increase efficieny, and thus raise profits. With the side effect of lower prices, and greater varieties of food available to consumers.
Thus was born the use of the bar code for groceries. And not long after, virtually every other industry. That's going to happen to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, the NY Times, Newsweek...., too. Resistance is futile.
Odd that a professional economist didn't see this being Kinsley's substantive (note my W-like devotion to being on message) error...before a mere economic hobbyist did.
Yours,
Brad DeLong
Never let it be said that the Fly Under the Bridge Academy doesn't aim to please its devoted readership.
Semi Daily Journal has complaints with Michael Kinsley:
Michael Kinsley talks to CJR Campaign Desk about the problems of American journalism in a way that strikes me as highly evasive. He says: "The biggest problem is -- and I don't know what the solution is, so it's not a criticism, as much as it is a puzzle -- is that the conventions of objectivity make it very difficult to say that something is a lie." But he does know what the solution is. We all know what the solution is.
Let's make this concrete. Let's consider the Bush administration's statements ....
Knock me over with a feather!
I wonder though if the problem might not lie elsewhere. Say, as in what the connection is between dinosaurs, Mom and Pop groceries, family hardware stores, and the corner pharmacy. For when Michael Kinsley says:
...the conventions of objectivity make it very difficult to say that something is a lie. And they require balance, which is often just not justified by reality. The classic thing is the Swift Boats. If you follow what all the papers say, they inch close to saying what they really think by saying, "it's controversial," or "many have challenged it," euphemisms like that.Putting aside the opportunity to say--as Steve Martin did to a naked Darryl Hannah walking alongside him in the bushes--Oh, irony...not many people do irony anymore. I'll instead invoke Friedrich Hayek. (For the diligent students, here's the more rigorous version of the story)
The Swift Boaters actually are a good example--as was Dan Rather's forged memo fiasco, and (still in progress) the merciless pounding John Kerry is taking on the internet about the silly things he said in the recent debate. But, the lesson from the example isn't what Kinsley thinks it is.
It's that the superior volume of information available from millions of sources is going to swamp that available to individual reporters. Journalism, as it's been practiced, will sooner or later disappear because it's inefficient. With modern communication technology, speedy, detailed, highly specific information, will outcompete multi-million dollar network anchormen, and the ink-stained wretches pounding reportorial beats.
Back in the days when John Kerry was fabricating war wounds to relieve himself of combat duty, even large chain grocery stores, and their corporate suppliers--especially, the one which formed the basis of John Kerry's second heiress wife's fortune--had preposterously primitive inventory control systems.
Many stores didn't even have business telephones, but relied on a pay phone inside the store to phone in orders to grocery wholesalers. Or they filled out order forms and mailed them. The basis of the order was direct personal observation by the shelf stockers on what products they were running low on. Iow, judgment calls.
Let's repeat that, slightly altered: "direct personal observation by X on what Y they were Z-ing. Iow, judgment calls."
The only difference between olden days' groceries and today's journalism is that the shelf stockers and their managers had much better-informed judgments. That, and their jobs depended on their getting it right. (No grocery store manager would have survived the kind of humongous error Dan Rather and Mary Mapes made about George W. Bush's flying career.)
Well, one fine day an industrious young man from Missouri--who had grown up in a house without indoor plumbing--arrived in New York City to take an executive position with AT&T. He was told that; AT&T wasn't really making any money off agriculture. It was a big industry, and maybe there was some way for the Bell System to cash in on that.
He spent several weeks researching the question (i.e., he went out and talked to grocery store managers, warehousemen, and food producers and packagers). Everyone told him their biggest headache was inventory control.
He saw his opportunity: Move useful knowledge more quickly and accurately to reduce waste, increase efficieny, and thus raise profits. With the side effect of lower prices, and greater varieties of food available to consumers.
Thus was born the use of the bar code for groceries. And not long after, virtually every other industry. That's going to happen to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, the NY Times, Newsweek...., too. Resistance is futile.
Odd that a professional economist didn't see this being Kinsley's substantive (note my W-like devotion to being on message) error...before a mere economic hobbyist did.
And, Be Sure To Say, Hi, To Him on November 3rd, For Me
Help is on the way, Professor. I couldn't sit idly by while a child is abused.
There's this, which makes it pretty clear that Bush is seen as much more trustworthy, likeable, believable, and stronger (by a mere 17 points) by the people who watched the debate. If Kerry "won the debate", he lost the election. You know the saying about battles v. wars, don't you?
There's this, which makes it pretty clear that Bush is seen as much more trustworthy, likeable, believable, and stronger (by a mere 17 points) by the people who watched the debate. If Kerry "won the debate", he lost the election. You know the saying about battles v. wars, don't you?
What The Final Stage of Brain Death Looks Like
Beldar provides yet another picture of Kerry that is worth at least 10,000 words.
Friday, October 01, 2004
John O'Neill: Right Again
Thomas Lipscomb, writing in the NY Sun (subscription required) has been sleuthing, and finds another instance of the Swift Boat Vets being verified. The After Action Report of March 13, 1969, which was the basis for John Kerry's Bronze Star, was almost certainly written by John Kerry:
It was written by someone designated "TE 194.5.4.4/1." ..."TE" for example refers to a "task element," which is defined by the numbers to the right that shows the command structure over the task element in action. "194" is Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Admiral Roy Hoffman's Swift boat command; "4" is Commander Adrian Lonsdale's command; the last "4" is Captain George Elliot's Swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. And the final "/1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Larry Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."
According to a Navy communications expert, Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the USCGC Spencer, Commander Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night. Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer: John Kerry, Dick Pease, and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Mr. Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, an LST stationed about 25 nautical miles away, for medevac, leaving only Mr. Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 that night.
.... Mr. Kerry had no duties other than reporting to the sick bay, where according to his doctor recently he was seen at 7 that night. And he spent the night on the Spencer.
Thanks to the scrivener for the tip.
It was written by someone designated "TE 194.5.4.4/1." ..."TE" for example refers to a "task element," which is defined by the numbers to the right that shows the command structure over the task element in action. "194" is Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam; "5" is Admiral Roy Hoffman's Swift boat command; "4" is Commander Adrian Lonsdale's command; the last "4" is Captain George Elliot's Swift boat base at An Thoi, where the boats on this mission were based. And the final "/1" indicates someone other than the commander of the mission. If the report had been submitted by the mission commander, in this case Larry Thurlow, according to the operations order, it would have begun with a "C" for commander of the Task Element, and the sender would have been "CTE 194.5.4.4."
According to a Navy communications expert, Troy Jenkins, who has examined the message traffic, the report in question was sent from the USCGC Spencer, Commander Lonsdale's command ship, at 11:20 that night. Only three of the officers on the mission that day were on the Spencer: John Kerry, Dick Pease, and Donald Droz. Droz took the wounded from the mine explosion to be examined and treated at the Spencer, including the third officer, the severely wounded Dick Pease. Since the Spencer had no helipad for the evacuation of the wounded, Mr. Droz then had to return to the USS Washtenaw County, an LST stationed about 25 nautical miles away, for medevac, leaving only Mr. Kerry aboard the Spencer at the time the message was sent at 11:20 that night.
.... Mr. Kerry had no duties other than reporting to the sick bay, where according to his doctor recently he was seen at 7 that night. And he spent the night on the Spencer.
Thanks to the scrivener for the tip.
A Mistake By Any Other Name (Fun With 'Control F')
Mr Kerry:...We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there .....
Mr Kerry: Well, you know when I talked about the $87 billion I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.
Mr. Lehrer: ...after you came back from Vietnam and you said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
Mr. Kerry: No....
Mr. Kerry: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances....
Mr. Kerry: Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule, if you break it you fix it. Now if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it. Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency.
Mr Kerry: Well, you know when I talked about the $87 billion I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.
Mr. Lehrer: ...after you came back from Vietnam and you said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?'' Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
Mr. Kerry: No....
Mr. Kerry: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances....
Mr. Kerry: Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule, if you break it you fix it. Now if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it. Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency.
Caution Nose Growing Ahead
Mr. Lehrer: New question, Senator Kerry, two minutes. You have repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.
Mr. Kerry: Well, I've never ever used the harshest word as you did just then....
Kerry, thinking he was off-mike talking to union members earlier this year:
We're just getting started. These Guys Are the Most Crooked, Lying Group I've Ever Seen"
Mr. Kerry: Well, I've never ever used the harshest word as you did just then....
Kerry, thinking he was off-mike talking to union members earlier this year:
We're just getting started. These Guys Are the Most Crooked, Lying Group I've Ever Seen"
Read Em, and Weep, Usual Suspects
USA Today says it's over
5. Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq.
Kerry 43%
Bush 54%
6. Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief of the military: John Kerry, or George W. Bush?
Kerry 44%
Bush 54%
7. Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described John Kerry or George W. Bush during tonight’s debate.
A. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
Kerry 46%
Bush 49%
C. Had a good understanding of the issues
Kerry 41%
Bush 41%
D. Was more believable
Kerry 45%
Bush 50%
E. Was more likeable
Kerry 41%
Bush 48%
F. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
Kerry 37%
Bush 54%
5. Next, regardless of which presidential candidate you support, please tell me if you think John Kerry or George W. Bush would better handle the situation in Iraq.
Kerry 43%
Bush 54%
6. Who do you trust more to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief of the military: John Kerry, or George W. Bush?
Kerry 44%
Bush 54%
7. Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described John Kerry or George W. Bush during tonight’s debate.
A. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
Kerry 46%
Bush 49%
C. Had a good understanding of the issues
Kerry 41%
Bush 41%
D. Was more believable
Kerry 45%
Bush 50%
E. Was more likeable
Kerry 41%
Bush 48%
F. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
Kerry 37%
Bush 54%
Dept. of: Would the Distinguished Gentleman From Massachusetts Make Up His Mind
What were you saying about "going it alone", John?
Mr. Bush: North Korea first.... Before I was sworn in the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea. And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Tex., Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the, a nuclear-weapons-free North Korea peninsula was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest. And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States but now China. And China's got a lot of influence over North Korea. In some ways more than we do.
As well we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one. And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement he's not only doing injustice to America, be doing injustice to China as well.
And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. That's what he wants. He wants to unravel the six-party talks or the five-nation coalition that's sending him a clear message. ....
Mr. Lehrer: Yes sir, we-but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand - that the people watching here understand the differences between the two of you on this. You want to continue the multinational talks. Correct?
Mr. Bush: Right.
Mr. Lehrer: And you want - you're willing to do it.
Mr. Kerry: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the D.M.Z. issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
Mr. Lehrer: And you're opposed to that, sir. Right?
Mr. Bush: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. It's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.
Mr. Bush: North Korea first.... Before I was sworn in the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea. And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Tex., Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the, a nuclear-weapons-free North Korea peninsula was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest. And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States but now China. And China's got a lot of influence over North Korea. In some ways more than we do.
As well we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one. And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement he's not only doing injustice to America, be doing injustice to China as well.
And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. That's what he wants. He wants to unravel the six-party talks or the five-nation coalition that's sending him a clear message. ....
Mr. Lehrer: Yes sir, we-but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand - that the people watching here understand the differences between the two of you on this. You want to continue the multinational talks. Correct?
Mr. Bush: Right.
Mr. Lehrer: And you want - you're willing to do it.
Mr. Kerry: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the D.M.Z. issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
Mr. Lehrer: And you're opposed to that, sir. Right?
Mr. Bush: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. It's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants.
It's Not That He Does It So Badly, But That He Does It At All
Run for President, I mean. Because he clearly wants Kofi Annan's job:
Mr Kerry....But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test. That passes the global test ....
To which, this was the perfect reply:
Mr. Bush: Let me-I'm not exactly sure what you mean: passes the global test. You take pre-emptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take pre-emptive action in order to protect the American people. That you act in order to make this country secure.
....I just think trying to be popular kind of in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest, makes no sense. I'm interested in working with other nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.
John, The Nice Man Asking the Questions Is Already Going to Vote for You
So, why didn't you spend some time looking into the camera talking to the millions of potential voters in their living rooms?
Not that that was the stupidest thing you did last night. George W. Bush did a good job at pointing out numerous contradictory positions you staked out. That the war in Iraq was a mistake and not a mistake; "Heavens, no, our troops aren't dying for a mistake", say.
Or these devastating lines:
Mr. Bush: All right. My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does that say to our troops in harm's way? Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. That's not a message a commander in chief gives. Or this is a great diversion.
As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops. And then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. It's not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.
One Bush missed was:
Kerry: First of all, we all know that in his State of the Union message he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist.
Which was sandwiched between two slices claiming they did:
The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.
and
When you guard the oil ministry but you don't guard the nuclear facilities the message to a lot of people is maybe well, maybe they're interested in our oil.
The message is that John Kerry doesn't bother to think about what he's saying.
Not that that was the stupidest thing you did last night. George W. Bush did a good job at pointing out numerous contradictory positions you staked out. That the war in Iraq was a mistake and not a mistake; "Heavens, no, our troops aren't dying for a mistake", say.
Or these devastating lines:
Mr. Bush: All right. My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does that say to our troops in harm's way? Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. That's not a message a commander in chief gives. Or this is a great diversion.
As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops. And then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. It's not what a commander in chief does when you're trying to lead troops.
One Bush missed was:
Kerry: First of all, we all know that in his State of the Union message he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist.
Which was sandwiched between two slices claiming they did:
The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities.
and
When you guard the oil ministry but you don't guard the nuclear facilities the message to a lot of people is maybe well, maybe they're interested in our oil.
The message is that John Kerry doesn't bother to think about what he's saying.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Emily Litella's Favorite Interviewer
Chris Matthews had one of those moments last night interviewing a Democrat and Republican student at the University of Miami. The fact that the Republican (Wacholtz) was obviously much older should have been a clue, but it wasn't:
MATTHEWS: Do you want to see the draft come back?
WACHOLTZ: Absolutely not.
MATTHEWS: Do you want to see the draft come back?
KOSAR: Of course not.
MATTHEWS: Why did you say of course not?
KOSAR: Because who wants the draft?
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Do you think it‘s fair that...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who wants to go fight in Iraq?
MATTHEWS: Do you think it‘s fair that people are—and you saw the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
KOSAR: Yes, I did.
MATTHEWS: Did you see in that movie the effort to draft people, or to get people to join the Army based on economic circumstances, and to basically go after people who aren‘t at college, like you guys? They aren‘t at a great campus like this. They are hanging around shopping malls. So they go up to them and they see these kids and they recruit them based upon promises.
They get to be in music. They get to follow their career. Why do you kids get to avoid military combat? Why do you support a war you don‘t want to fight in?
WACHOLTZ: I was in the Marine Corps for six and a half years.
MATTHEWS: Good for you. You‘re covered.
(CROSSTALK)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: what about you?
By the way, touche.
MATTHEWS: Do you want to see the draft come back?
WACHOLTZ: Absolutely not.
MATTHEWS: Do you want to see the draft come back?
KOSAR: Of course not.
MATTHEWS: Why did you say of course not?
KOSAR: Because who wants the draft?
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Do you think it‘s fair that...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who wants to go fight in Iraq?
MATTHEWS: Do you think it‘s fair that people are—and you saw the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
KOSAR: Yes, I did.
MATTHEWS: Did you see in that movie the effort to draft people, or to get people to join the Army based on economic circumstances, and to basically go after people who aren‘t at college, like you guys? They aren‘t at a great campus like this. They are hanging around shopping malls. So they go up to them and they see these kids and they recruit them based upon promises.
They get to be in music. They get to follow their career. Why do you kids get to avoid military combat? Why do you support a war you don‘t want to fight in?
WACHOLTZ: I was in the Marine Corps for six and a half years.
MATTHEWS: Good for you. You‘re covered.
(CROSSTALK)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MATTHEWS: what about you?
By the way, touche.
The World Has Changed Forever: Post 9-29
Shock and awe!
At present, your Social Security benefits are yours only by grace of Congress: Congress could cut them if it wished. But if your privatized Social Security account were *yours*, then it would be yours not by grace of Congress but by right of property: courts would stand ready to defend it against any casual attempt to cut or confiscate it.
At present, your Social Security benefits are yours only by grace of Congress: Congress could cut them if it wished. But if your privatized Social Security account were *yours*, then it would be yours not by grace of Congress but by right of property: courts would stand ready to defend it against any casual attempt to cut or confiscate it.
Of course, the good Professor isn't quite ready to fully admit to just what he's done:
The problem is that I cannot see any of these as a reason for George W. Bush to be in favor of Social Security privatization. (It does seem likely to me that (1) and (3) are Marty Feldstein's and Andrew Samwick's reasons for being strong advocates of privatization, and that (4) is Kent Smetters's reason for being a strong advocate of privatization. But their reasons aren't the administration's reasons, and hence whatever plan a second Bush administration might ultimately propose would be unlikely to be crafted to achieve goals (1), (3), or (4).
That's a Berkeley Defense Mechanism, and probably to be expected. And it ain't foolin' the usual suspects:
Christ on a bike! If you don't mind my saying so, Brad, these reasons range from "weak" to "mad".
.... This is insanity of a level which requires a very great degree of intelligence to achieve. In primitive societies in the Kalahari, they are aware that the duty of the young to support the old is a moral duty. This moral duty even made it into the Ten Commandments. It takes years of education to get someone to the point where they believe that it is "immoral" to believe that the old have a claim on the young for no better reason than that they gave birth to them and raised them.
So, it's true. There are no atheists in foxholes.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
High Praise Indeed!
After reading these letters, it's easy to see why John Kerry is so weird. It rubbed off on him:
Yale's ethic of service to others, discussed in both "For Country" (May/June) and "Quarrels with Providence" (March 2001), was eloquently set as a challenge by Dean Georges May, whose welcoming speech to freshmen in 1968 focused on Andre Malraux's question, "Que m'importe ce qui n'importe qu'a moi?" [If it matters to no one but me, why should it matter to me?]
This challenges us spiritually, to transcend the ego or "smaller self," and materially, as we face unprecedented global environmental and sociopolitical problems that are largely of our own making. To not only survive but thrive, we must realize our greater selves and selflessly apply knowledge rigorously wrought -- or is that too Arminian for an institution rooted in Calvinism?
All the more reason to vote for Bush, he's largely immune to that kind of nonsense (though I do appreciate the plebian touch; translating from the French). I imagine he lives in Crawford, Texas, because it's about as far away from New Haven as he can be, and still qualify to be President.
However, the letter that actually bears on the substance of this election is this:
...I knew Kerry at Yale and was profoundly impressed with his intelligence, both extracurricular and academic. He was an eloquent public speaker; I partnered with him on the three-man team that defeated Harvard in the 75th annual Triangular Debate in 1966. He was also a brilliant essayist. As research assistant to political science chair Herbert Kaufman, I had occasion to read Kerry's senior comprehensive exam. Quite frankly, I was astonished by its intellectual maturity and its analytical rigor -- and I was not unfamiliar with what passed at Yale for academic excellence.
...."And was FDR, who took gentleman Cs at Harvard, truly less than highly intelligent?"
Kerry at Yale impressed me as having all of these qualities -- leadership, integrity, determination, and high intelligence -- the makings of the next great American president.
Bradford Snell '67,
Well, Bradford--may I call you Bradford? I feel I know you so well--I'm not unfamiliar with what (with the benefit of thirty years hindsight) is knee-slapping, roll around in convulsive, laugh til you cry, humiliation. In front of a Senate committee, no less:
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORT
A Proposal for Restructuring the Automobile, Truck, Bus & Rail Industries
What were you in 1974, about 28?
Part III presents a proposal designed to restore competition in the motor vehicle industry. In brief, it recommends reorganization of the automobile and truck industries into smaller, more competitive units. More specifically, it assumes the wisdom of the decentralized method of operations adopted by the automakers. Motor vehicle assembly, engine production, body stamping and dozens of other major automotive functions are currently undertaken in hundreds of physically distinct plants located throughout the country. This proposal would not interfere with this arrangement. It would, however, suggest a change in ownership: Each group of plants now separate in law as well. Reorganization along these general lines, it concludes, would allow for a greater degree of competition and technological flexibility at every level of motor vehicle production. In short, a competitively structured industry would be better able to anticipate and adapt to a changing world.
Too bad no one took your advice and created Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, Kia, Isuzu, Mitsubishi....
Damn barriers to entry!
So, how do you think your advice about November's election will fare?
Yale's ethic of service to others, discussed in both "For Country" (May/June) and "Quarrels with Providence" (March 2001), was eloquently set as a challenge by Dean Georges May, whose welcoming speech to freshmen in 1968 focused on Andre Malraux's question, "Que m'importe ce qui n'importe qu'a moi?" [If it matters to no one but me, why should it matter to me?]
This challenges us spiritually, to transcend the ego or "smaller self," and materially, as we face unprecedented global environmental and sociopolitical problems that are largely of our own making. To not only survive but thrive, we must realize our greater selves and selflessly apply knowledge rigorously wrought -- or is that too Arminian for an institution rooted in Calvinism?
All the more reason to vote for Bush, he's largely immune to that kind of nonsense (though I do appreciate the plebian touch; translating from the French). I imagine he lives in Crawford, Texas, because it's about as far away from New Haven as he can be, and still qualify to be President.
However, the letter that actually bears on the substance of this election is this:
...I knew Kerry at Yale and was profoundly impressed with his intelligence, both extracurricular and academic. He was an eloquent public speaker; I partnered with him on the three-man team that defeated Harvard in the 75th annual Triangular Debate in 1966. He was also a brilliant essayist. As research assistant to political science chair Herbert Kaufman, I had occasion to read Kerry's senior comprehensive exam. Quite frankly, I was astonished by its intellectual maturity and its analytical rigor -- and I was not unfamiliar with what passed at Yale for academic excellence.
...."And was FDR, who took gentleman Cs at Harvard, truly less than highly intelligent?"
Kerry at Yale impressed me as having all of these qualities -- leadership, integrity, determination, and high intelligence -- the makings of the next great American president.
Bradford Snell '67,
Well, Bradford--may I call you Bradford? I feel I know you so well--I'm not unfamiliar with what (with the benefit of thirty years hindsight) is knee-slapping, roll around in convulsive, laugh til you cry, humiliation. In front of a Senate committee, no less:
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORT
A Proposal for Restructuring the Automobile, Truck, Bus & Rail Industries
What were you in 1974, about 28?
Part III presents a proposal designed to restore competition in the motor vehicle industry. In brief, it recommends reorganization of the automobile and truck industries into smaller, more competitive units. More specifically, it assumes the wisdom of the decentralized method of operations adopted by the automakers. Motor vehicle assembly, engine production, body stamping and dozens of other major automotive functions are currently undertaken in hundreds of physically distinct plants located throughout the country. This proposal would not interfere with this arrangement. It would, however, suggest a change in ownership: Each group of plants now separate in law as well. Reorganization along these general lines, it concludes, would allow for a greater degree of competition and technological flexibility at every level of motor vehicle production. In short, a competitively structured industry would be better able to anticipate and adapt to a changing world.
Too bad no one took your advice and created Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, Kia, Isuzu, Mitsubishi....
Damn barriers to entry!
So, how do you think your advice about November's election will fare?
Next Op-ed: How To Authenticate Documents, by Dan Rather?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, are given space on the NY Times Op-ed page. Scheduled for the future:
How To Keep Your Man From Straying, by Hillary Rodham Clinton
How To Get That Special Job, by Omarosa
How To Make a Sincere Apology, by Paul Krugman
How To Win Friends and Influence Prosecutors, by Martha Stewart
How To Tan, Not Burn, With a Coppertone Tan, by John Kerry
How To Keep Your Man From Straying, by Hillary Rodham Clinton
How To Get That Special Job, by Omarosa
How To Make a Sincere Apology, by Paul Krugman
How To Win Friends and Influence Prosecutors, by Martha Stewart
How To Tan, Not Burn, With a Coppertone Tan, by John Kerry
Clang, Clang, Clang, Went the Conspiracy Nut
It seems The Fly Under the Bridge Academy is an expert on Kerry's debating techniques:
Many of Mr. Kerry's oldest friends express exasperation at his willingness to drift at times in his campaigns. His tendency to focus best in the crunch is a longtime habit, dating at least to his days as a champion debater at Yale, and one that cannot be explained as a result of mere procrastination or inattention.
"He was so incredibly overcommitted to activities, it was hard getting him together," said Bradford Snell, one of his debate partners in those days.
If it's the same Snell as:
The StreetCar Conspiracy - How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit by Bradford Snell
Then Kerry is consorting with less than reputable characters:
Who shudda shot the author of "American Ground Transport"
What is it about these Bradford guys.
Many of Mr. Kerry's oldest friends express exasperation at his willingness to drift at times in his campaigns. His tendency to focus best in the crunch is a longtime habit, dating at least to his days as a champion debater at Yale, and one that cannot be explained as a result of mere procrastination or inattention.
"He was so incredibly overcommitted to activities, it was hard getting him together," said Bradford Snell, one of his debate partners in those days.
If it's the same Snell as:
The StreetCar Conspiracy - How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit by Bradford Snell
Then Kerry is consorting with less than reputable characters:
Who shudda shot the author of "American Ground Transport"
What is it about these Bradford guys.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Is That Another Towel I See In The Ring?
When The Rabid who lead the Even More Rabid, are coming to terms with the inevitable:
What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term? One word: scandal.
A few errors of grade school arithmetic are assured:
...a phenomenon that shrewd political observer Kevin Phillips calls "the sixth-year itch." It's like a political SAT: What's the next year in the series 1958, 1974, 1986, 1998?
You don't have to be a math whiz to know that 2006 is the next stop.
Umm, Kevin, you're missing 1952, 1968, 1980, and 2000. Not to mention that you need a headline writer with a proper sense of chronology:
The Scandals Finally Break
isn't appropriate for a prediction.
What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term? One word: scandal.
A few errors of grade school arithmetic are assured:
...a phenomenon that shrewd political observer Kevin Phillips calls "the sixth-year itch." It's like a political SAT: What's the next year in the series 1958, 1974, 1986, 1998?
You don't have to be a math whiz to know that 2006 is the next stop.
Umm, Kevin, you're missing 1952, 1968, 1980, and 2000. Not to mention that you need a headline writer with a proper sense of chronology:
The Scandals Finally Break
isn't appropriate for a prediction.
So, Your New Pet Does Pre-emptive Concessions
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at this
I also want to pay tribute to my dog Togo, who died three years ago today, and whom I love very much. He was a beautiful red Finnish Spitz, and we named him after the famous Siberian Husky who ran farther than anyone in leading the team of sled dogs in the "serum drive" that brought medicine from Anchorage for the diptheria outbreak in Nome, Alaska. Unfortunately, another dog named Balto got all the credit.
-Bobby
And now he's been replaced with another pet whose bark is worse than his bite:
Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner.
Since comparatively few watch cable news, what difference will that make, Paul? Do you think Dan--The Man--Rather, will have been retired by Thursday? Methinks the economist doth protest too much:
But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's lies - "against the other's minor errors."
Big time?
Speaking of lies:
There's also North Korea, which Mr. Bush declared part of the "axis of evil," then ignored when its regime started building nuclear weapons. Recently, when a reporter asked Mr. Bush about reports that North Korea has half a dozen bombs, he simply shrugged.
Paul, you really ought to get in the habit of reading your own newspaper at least as well as Donald Luskin does:
According to the Times interview, after shrugging,
"He said he would continue diplomatic pressure -- using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran -- and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action. "'I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does,' he said of the diplomatic approach."
It is an "error" (polite word for "lie") that Bush "simply shrugged."
Hey, my politeness policy is to call a spade a spade. When Paul Krugman says:
Last week, after Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Kerry "would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today," The Associated Press pointed out that this "twisted his rival's words" - and then quoted what John Kerry actually said.
And, those actual Kerry words were:
We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
We gotta go with; Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.
That, and; Paul's throwing in the towel before the fight even begins, because even he realizes how hopeless the Democrat nominee is.
I also want to pay tribute to my dog Togo, who died three years ago today, and whom I love very much. He was a beautiful red Finnish Spitz, and we named him after the famous Siberian Husky who ran farther than anyone in leading the team of sled dogs in the "serum drive" that brought medicine from Anchorage for the diptheria outbreak in Nome, Alaska. Unfortunately, another dog named Balto got all the credit.
-Bobby
And now he's been replaced with another pet whose bark is worse than his bite:
Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner.
Since comparatively few watch cable news, what difference will that make, Paul? Do you think Dan--The Man--Rather, will have been retired by Thursday? Methinks the economist doth protest too much:
But as Adam Clymer pointed out yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Mr. Gore's sighs, but nothing about Mr. Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Mr. Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" - that is, Mr. Bush's lies - "against the other's minor errors."
Big time?
Speaking of lies:
There's also North Korea, which Mr. Bush declared part of the "axis of evil," then ignored when its regime started building nuclear weapons. Recently, when a reporter asked Mr. Bush about reports that North Korea has half a dozen bombs, he simply shrugged.
Paul, you really ought to get in the habit of reading your own newspaper at least as well as Donald Luskin does:
According to the Times interview, after shrugging,
"He said he would continue diplomatic pressure -- using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran -- and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action. "'I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does,' he said of the diplomatic approach."
It is an "error" (polite word for "lie") that Bush "simply shrugged."
Hey, my politeness policy is to call a spade a spade. When Paul Krugman says:
Last week, after Mr. Bush declared that Mr. Kerry "would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today," The Associated Press pointed out that this "twisted his rival's words" - and then quoted what John Kerry actually said.
And, those actual Kerry words were:
We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
We gotta go with; Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.
That, and; Paul's throwing in the towel before the fight even begins, because even he realizes how hopeless the Democrat nominee is.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Dept. of; Don't Quit Your Day Job, Professor
A Berkeley Economist walks into a bar, and says:
Q: How does George W. Bush change a lightbulb?
A: John Kerry says that the light bulb needs to be changed. Flip-flopper. We do not need to change the lightbulb! We need to stay the course!
No, I'm not making this up. And, yes, he's a lot funnier when he isn't trying.
Q: How does George W. Bush change a lightbulb?
A: John Kerry says that the light bulb needs to be changed. Flip-flopper. We do not need to change the lightbulb! We need to stay the course!
No, I'm not making this up. And, yes, he's a lot funnier when he isn't trying.
He's the Very Model of a Blue State Personality
Craig Newmark spots life:
Why do the delegates to the Republican convention have neater haircuts and less interesting clothes?
I ponder these questions when I drive past the home of one of my neighbors, a man with very strong opinions. I don't know the man, but I know about his opinions because he paints them on slabs of wood and nails the slabs up on tree trunks in his front yard. He is in favor of Supporting Our Troops. And vehemently opposed to a new addition that was built onto the 100-year-old public library, at least judging by one of his more interesting signs: "LIBRARY OFFICIALS EATING STEAK WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS."
Coming from a certain direction I drive by this man's yard, and a few times I've seen him sitting out there in a lawn chair, glaring at passersby as if to say: "What are you looking at? You want to start something?" He doesn't have a rifle across his knees, but I almost remember him that way. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but then again, a sign tacked onto one tree reads: "KILL THY ENEMY."
And then, sometimes on the same drive, I'll pull up at a traffic light beside a smiling, shaggy-headed soul at the wheel of a foreign-made car festooned with bumper stickers like: "Magic Happens." "Free Leonard Peltier." "I Brake for Animals." "War is Not the Answer."
At their essence, conservatives are on guard, bristling, armed with a righteous anger, prone to mockery of their enemies, sure of themselves, unwilling to criticize America, especially by comparing it to anyplace else. The attacks of Sept. 11 only confirmed their world view: We are constantly at risk.
Liberals are mannered, sensitive, armed with intellectual cynicism, self-critical, eager to learn from other cultures, wanting there to be no pain in the world. The attacks made them sad and angry, too, but their reflex was more pensive than vengeful.
imitating James Lileks' art:
The [NY Times] Magazine.
Let’s begin! A little humorous piece – not funny haha funny, but, you know, arch, which is very urbane.
Then there’s an essay on words, which is wonderful because you love words, and then a big serious piece about that horrible situation the administration isn’t doing anything about. You’ll read it later – skim the pull quotes for now.
Best of all are the ads, because you really wouldn’t want to wear any of that stuff but it’s fun to look at.
Remember back home in Iowa? Nothing like this on Sunday. The paper was thicker than usual, but that was mostly ads for toilet paper and underwear and lawn tractors, and there was that awful Parade magazine. Walter Scott’s Personality Parade. You remember that why, exactly? Because you read it every week, and you wondered who Walter Scott was. Something like Ed Sullivan or Walter Winchell. Fedora, heavy black phone, manual typewriter, friend to the stars but not above flicking a speck of dirt towards someone who’d truly earned it. Then there was a cartoon about a big dog – Howard Huge. Do they still print Parade? Probably. Probably find ten copies on the counter at Perkins after the Sunday lunch shift ends.
Dad used to let you order anything on Sunday morning at Perkins.
Perkins always dusted the French Toast with powdered sugar. Remember?
Why do the delegates to the Republican convention have neater haircuts and less interesting clothes?
I ponder these questions when I drive past the home of one of my neighbors, a man with very strong opinions. I don't know the man, but I know about his opinions because he paints them on slabs of wood and nails the slabs up on tree trunks in his front yard. He is in favor of Supporting Our Troops. And vehemently opposed to a new addition that was built onto the 100-year-old public library, at least judging by one of his more interesting signs: "LIBRARY OFFICIALS EATING STEAK WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS."
Coming from a certain direction I drive by this man's yard, and a few times I've seen him sitting out there in a lawn chair, glaring at passersby as if to say: "What are you looking at? You want to start something?" He doesn't have a rifle across his knees, but I almost remember him that way. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but then again, a sign tacked onto one tree reads: "KILL THY ENEMY."
And then, sometimes on the same drive, I'll pull up at a traffic light beside a smiling, shaggy-headed soul at the wheel of a foreign-made car festooned with bumper stickers like: "Magic Happens." "Free Leonard Peltier." "I Brake for Animals." "War is Not the Answer."
At their essence, conservatives are on guard, bristling, armed with a righteous anger, prone to mockery of their enemies, sure of themselves, unwilling to criticize America, especially by comparing it to anyplace else. The attacks of Sept. 11 only confirmed their world view: We are constantly at risk.
Liberals are mannered, sensitive, armed with intellectual cynicism, self-critical, eager to learn from other cultures, wanting there to be no pain in the world. The attacks made them sad and angry, too, but their reflex was more pensive than vengeful.
imitating James Lileks' art:
The [NY Times] Magazine.
Let’s begin! A little humorous piece – not funny haha funny, but, you know, arch, which is very urbane.
Then there’s an essay on words, which is wonderful because you love words, and then a big serious piece about that horrible situation the administration isn’t doing anything about. You’ll read it later – skim the pull quotes for now.
Best of all are the ads, because you really wouldn’t want to wear any of that stuff but it’s fun to look at.
Remember back home in Iowa? Nothing like this on Sunday. The paper was thicker than usual, but that was mostly ads for toilet paper and underwear and lawn tractors, and there was that awful Parade magazine. Walter Scott’s Personality Parade. You remember that why, exactly? Because you read it every week, and you wondered who Walter Scott was. Something like Ed Sullivan or Walter Winchell. Fedora, heavy black phone, manual typewriter, friend to the stars but not above flicking a speck of dirt towards someone who’d truly earned it. Then there was a cartoon about a big dog – Howard Huge. Do they still print Parade? Probably. Probably find ten copies on the counter at Perkins after the Sunday lunch shift ends.
Dad used to let you order anything on Sunday morning at Perkins.
Perkins always dusted the French Toast with powdered sugar. Remember?
Freud...Sigmund Freud
"There used to be a time when aiding and abetting the enemy was a treasonous offense," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said in an interview.
I doubt that your party's nominee is going to be Fonda that remark, Senator.
I doubt that your party's nominee is going to be Fonda that remark, Senator.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
I Knew Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein Was No Friend of Mine. Senator, You've Got a Little in Common With Saddam Hussein.
In an Op-ed the headline writers missed a chance to title: The Bomb and I, Mahdi Obeidi (the author of "The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind) tells us:
...the West never understood the delusional nature of Saddam Hussein's mind. By 2002, when the United States and Britain were threatening war, he had lost touch with the reality of his diminished military might. By that time I had been promoted to director of projects for the country's entire military-industrial complex, and I witnessed firsthand the fantasy world in which he was living.
Speaking of living in a fantasy world, in his speech last week at New York University, John Kerry said
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
...the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions … from the beginning … in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
.... If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
Not exactly, John John. In addition to Gen'l Mike DeLong's new book (referenced in the post immediately preceding this one) where he says:
We’ve done calculations that you could probably bury 16 Eiffel Towers or Empire State Buildings and never find them in the desert. Just four months ago, they were digging for something out in the middle of the desert and they hit something. It was a MIG-25 Foxbat that the Iraqis buried in the sand. We never would have found this thing.Biological Weapons, you could put almost your whole program in a suitcase. You could probably put your whole chemical weapons industry inside a van. Yes, they did have it and right today they can’t find it. The people we’ve captured, like Dr. Germ and Chemical Ali, the murderer of the Kurds, aren’t talking.
Dr Obeidi says in his Op-ed:
... our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
And, since Kerry also said in his NYU speech:
The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
To have left Saddam in power in Iraq, and complacently rest assured he wouldn't one day share his knowledge about nukes with Al Qaeda--and pretty clearly, he shared his chemical weapons with them--would seem to be, "delusional [in] nature". And evidence of "the fantasy world in which [John Kerry is] living".
...the West never understood the delusional nature of Saddam Hussein's mind. By 2002, when the United States and Britain were threatening war, he had lost touch with the reality of his diminished military might. By that time I had been promoted to director of projects for the country's entire military-industrial complex, and I witnessed firsthand the fantasy world in which he was living.
Speaking of living in a fantasy world, in his speech last week at New York University, John Kerry said
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
...the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions … from the beginning … in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
.... If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
Not exactly, John John. In addition to Gen'l Mike DeLong's new book (referenced in the post immediately preceding this one) where he says:
We’ve done calculations that you could probably bury 16 Eiffel Towers or Empire State Buildings and never find them in the desert. Just four months ago, they were digging for something out in the middle of the desert and they hit something. It was a MIG-25 Foxbat that the Iraqis buried in the sand. We never would have found this thing.Biological Weapons, you could put almost your whole program in a suitcase. You could probably put your whole chemical weapons industry inside a van. Yes, they did have it and right today they can’t find it. The people we’ve captured, like Dr. Germ and Chemical Ali, the murderer of the Kurds, aren’t talking.
Dr Obeidi says in his Op-ed:
... our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
And, since Kerry also said in his NYU speech:
The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
To have left Saddam in power in Iraq, and complacently rest assured he wouldn't one day share his knowledge about nukes with Al Qaeda--and pretty clearly, he shared his chemical weapons with them--would seem to be, "delusional [in] nature". And evidence of "the fantasy world in which [John Kerry is] living".
DeLong Trashes Kerry
The General...not the Professor, that is. Thanks to the Divine Mrs N for the tip to this article, from which:
Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.
In an interview with The Command Post General Michael DeLong bolsters the above:
I can state, unequivocally, there was WMD in Iraq before and during the war. You have multiple-source intelligence. Also, from other Arab leaders – as Tommy Franks says in his book – King Abdullah said Saddam has WMD. President Mubarek of Egypt said you have to be very careful going in, because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Other leaders who have chosen not to be named said the same thing. We had technical intelligence that saw the same thing.
Two days before March 19, 2003, we saw quite a number of vehicles going into Syria. We could not go after them because we said we’d give Saddam 48 hours. A lot of (Iraqi) leaders went into Syria, and a lot of WMD went into Syria. We’ve gotten indications some went into Lebanon, and probably some went into Iran.
As bad as that makes the judgment of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and the other usual suspects look, DeLong doesn't do them any good with this either:
TCP: Sen. Kerry has said more than once that President Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. In your book, to say the least,you explain it much differently.
DeLong: Sen. Kerry didn’t know what happened. He’s no more better informed than the armchair generals who went after us (on TV.) And what was going on at the time, where bin Laden was in the Tora Bora caves, there was a tribal area that was full of civilians. You couldn’t go up there with soldiers of any force – especially us – because we would have been fighting them to get to bin Laden. Whether we would have gotten to him remains to be seen. This was a tribe on the border, and the only people who were accepted up there was the Pakistani army. You know how tough guarding a border is – with Texas and New Mexico and Arizona for example.
We didn’t kill any civilians unnecessarily up there. We know for a fact from our multiple intelligence sources that we wounded bin Laden. But yes, he did get away. If we had killed a number of civilians, our chances of getting elections in Afghanistan would have never happened. It was a diplomatic, not a political call. It was a call to get this country back together again. We knew the death or capture of bin Laden was important. But getting rid of al Qaeda and getting the country feeling good, feeling nationalistic, was important.
Meaning, John F Kerry is a blithering idiot. And it is sweet and poetic justice that the intellectual left, in the persons of Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, Max Sawicky, Kevin Drum et al, are stuck with Theresa's blushing beau.
Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.
In an interview with The Command Post General Michael DeLong bolsters the above:
I can state, unequivocally, there was WMD in Iraq before and during the war. You have multiple-source intelligence. Also, from other Arab leaders – as Tommy Franks says in his book – King Abdullah said Saddam has WMD. President Mubarek of Egypt said you have to be very careful going in, because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Other leaders who have chosen not to be named said the same thing. We had technical intelligence that saw the same thing.
Two days before March 19, 2003, we saw quite a number of vehicles going into Syria. We could not go after them because we said we’d give Saddam 48 hours. A lot of (Iraqi) leaders went into Syria, and a lot of WMD went into Syria. We’ve gotten indications some went into Lebanon, and probably some went into Iran.
As bad as that makes the judgment of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Terry McAuliffe, James Carville, and the other usual suspects look, DeLong doesn't do them any good with this either:
TCP: Sen. Kerry has said more than once that President Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. In your book, to say the least,you explain it much differently.
DeLong: Sen. Kerry didn’t know what happened. He’s no more better informed than the armchair generals who went after us (on TV.) And what was going on at the time, where bin Laden was in the Tora Bora caves, there was a tribal area that was full of civilians. You couldn’t go up there with soldiers of any force – especially us – because we would have been fighting them to get to bin Laden. Whether we would have gotten to him remains to be seen. This was a tribe on the border, and the only people who were accepted up there was the Pakistani army. You know how tough guarding a border is – with Texas and New Mexico and Arizona for example.
We didn’t kill any civilians unnecessarily up there. We know for a fact from our multiple intelligence sources that we wounded bin Laden. But yes, he did get away. If we had killed a number of civilians, our chances of getting elections in Afghanistan would have never happened. It was a diplomatic, not a political call. It was a call to get this country back together again. We knew the death or capture of bin Laden was important. But getting rid of al Qaeda and getting the country feeling good, feeling nationalistic, was important.
Meaning, John F Kerry is a blithering idiot. And it is sweet and poetic justice that the intellectual left, in the persons of Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, Max Sawicky, Kevin Drum et al, are stuck with Theresa's blushing beau.
Son of Motto Lotto
The contest without a winner cries for an encore, with today's NY Times :
a four-term senator with comparatively little management experience
moved slowly against a swift opponent
slow in taking action, bogged down in the very details
spent four weeks mulling the design of his campaign logo
most influenced by the last person who has his ear
"he's a thinker," said the Rev. Jesse Jackson
Unlike Mr. Bush... has little experience in managing any kind of large operation
a learning experience for him
sometimes leaving phone messages for his friends ...offering critiques of their performances
in an often wandering quest for data
repeatedly upended his staff... dismissing aides outright
threatened to run off the tracks
few people who call themselves his friends
focusing on his campaign's problems
the daily gallows humor at Kerry headquarters
none of them have too much authority
provided by people you don't know
little history with the man
a constant source of irritation
Mr. Kerry drifts off
apt to exhibit a blank face
affected the pottery industry
senses his candidacy is in peril
on the phone much more than other presidential candidates
waiting on a Nantucket beach for the wind to pick up so he could go kite-surfing
his cellphone is a negative for him
reduces the orderliness of the campaign
Kerry does not always take it
urging him to keep his speech short
"I've given up,"
" he doesn't listen sometimes."
a four-term senator with comparatively little management experience
moved slowly against a swift opponent
slow in taking action, bogged down in the very details
spent four weeks mulling the design of his campaign logo
most influenced by the last person who has his ear
"he's a thinker," said the Rev. Jesse Jackson
Unlike Mr. Bush... has little experience in managing any kind of large operation
a learning experience for him
sometimes leaving phone messages for his friends ...offering critiques of their performances
in an often wandering quest for data
repeatedly upended his staff... dismissing aides outright
threatened to run off the tracks
few people who call themselves his friends
focusing on his campaign's problems
the daily gallows humor at Kerry headquarters
none of them have too much authority
provided by people you don't know
little history with the man
a constant source of irritation
Mr. Kerry drifts off
apt to exhibit a blank face
affected the pottery industry
senses his candidacy is in peril
on the phone much more than other presidential candidates
waiting on a Nantucket beach for the wind to pick up so he could go kite-surfing
his cellphone is a negative for him
reduces the orderliness of the campaign
Kerry does not always take it
urging him to keep his speech short
"I've given up,"
" he doesn't listen sometimes."
Friday, September 24, 2004
And the Wreckage Was Vacuumed Up by the Alien Space Ship?
I certainly am out of my league trying to compete with this creationist. The highlights appear to be:
I've long thought that it was a live possibility that George W. Bush crashed a plane in the winter of 1972--and thereafter (very reasonably) did not want to get back in the cockpit.
and
But if there is "no way to tell," it is because Bush's files have been vacuumed--in which case that tells us something, no?
and
Fear that the TANG physical would reveal cocaine use. Yes, that's a theory. But are you saying that he couldn't even stop sniffing for the period needed to get a clean physical? Losing your flight status is such a loss of status among the fraternity of pilots...
And going from Deputy Asst' Treasury Sec'y to President of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society, would compare how?
I've long thought that it was a live possibility that George W. Bush crashed a plane in the winter of 1972--and thereafter (very reasonably) did not want to get back in the cockpit.
and
But if there is "no way to tell," it is because Bush's files have been vacuumed--in which case that tells us something, no?
and
Fear that the TANG physical would reveal cocaine use. Yes, that's a theory. But are you saying that he couldn't even stop sniffing for the period needed to get a clean physical? Losing your flight status is such a loss of status among the fraternity of pilots...
And going from Deputy Asst' Treasury Sec'y to President of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society, would compare how?
Economists Who Live In Glass Houses...
In the land of the self-unaware, there is attempted regicide:
The subtext of Mr. Bush's bombast is that because he can't bring himself to admit a mistake, he refuses to give up on his effort....
Which is a tactic on which the Princeton economist is something of an expert (selecting almost at random from his website):
A few people have asked me about that letter from Bush's former business associates, regarding the nature of his deal with the Texas Rangers syndicate. They assert something I didn't know: that he was granted a 12 percent share of the profits despite having put up only 2 percent of the money back in 1989, when the deal was initialized, rather than in 1998, when the franchise was sold. Assuming this is true - it would be nice to see the contract - does this make everything clean and above-board?
Actually, if anything it makes things worse. In fact, I suspect that the peculiarity of that contract, if it exists, is why we're only hearing about it now: had it been public knowledge at the time it would have raised a lot of questions.
Perish the thought! Someone can't bear to admit mistake...so he redoubles his effort by packing four more errors into one sentence:
1. Bush's contract was not only not "peculiar", it was SOP. He was the Managing General Partner of a limited partnership, that Bush had put together to buy the Texas Rangers. Unlike the limited partners, George W. Bush didn't have limited liability; that's why his share of the profits was larger than his investment. He was the one taking on risk beyond his investment.
2. The contract most certainly existed. He wouldn't have been allowed to purchase the team by the Commissioner of Baseball without it.
3. We weren't "just hearing about it now" (August 2002), for instance, in 1999:
Bush and [Edward, Rusty] Rose, it was agreed, would have joint power in running the franchise, with Rose behind the scenes and Bush serving as the ownership's public face. Bush's total investment eventually would reach $606,302. For putting the deal together and running the club, Bush would receive an additional 10 percent return when the team was sold.
4. It was public knowledge, and Bush won an election in Arlington, Texas to have a taxpayer funded baseball stadium built.
Now, let's get back to Professor Krugman's mistakes in today's column ("Let's Get Real", indeed):
Where is Mr. Bush taking us? As the reality of Iraq gets worse, his explanations of our goals get ever vaguer. ....
.... American policy shouldn't be dictated by Mr. Bush's infallibility complex; our first priority must be our own security. And in Iraq, that means setting realistic goals.
On "Meet The Press" back in April, Mr. Kerry wasn't as forthright about Iraq as he has now, at long last, become, but he did return several times to a point that shows that he is on the right track. "What is critical," he said, "is a stable Iraq." Not an Iraq in our image, but a country that isn't a "failed state" that poses a threat to American security.
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously, unspecific, to me. Not to mention; "exactly what we're currently doing."
The subtext of Mr. Bush's bombast is that because he can't bring himself to admit a mistake, he refuses to give up on his effort....
Which is a tactic on which the Princeton economist is something of an expert (selecting almost at random from his website):
A few people have asked me about that letter from Bush's former business associates, regarding the nature of his deal with the Texas Rangers syndicate. They assert something I didn't know: that he was granted a 12 percent share of the profits despite having put up only 2 percent of the money back in 1989, when the deal was initialized, rather than in 1998, when the franchise was sold. Assuming this is true - it would be nice to see the contract - does this make everything clean and above-board?
Actually, if anything it makes things worse. In fact, I suspect that the peculiarity of that contract, if it exists, is why we're only hearing about it now: had it been public knowledge at the time it would have raised a lot of questions.
Perish the thought! Someone can't bear to admit mistake...so he redoubles his effort by packing four more errors into one sentence:
1. Bush's contract was not only not "peculiar", it was SOP. He was the Managing General Partner of a limited partnership, that Bush had put together to buy the Texas Rangers. Unlike the limited partners, George W. Bush didn't have limited liability; that's why his share of the profits was larger than his investment. He was the one taking on risk beyond his investment.
2. The contract most certainly existed. He wouldn't have been allowed to purchase the team by the Commissioner of Baseball without it.
3. We weren't "just hearing about it now" (August 2002), for instance, in 1999:
Bush and [Edward, Rusty] Rose, it was agreed, would have joint power in running the franchise, with Rose behind the scenes and Bush serving as the ownership's public face. Bush's total investment eventually would reach $606,302. For putting the deal together and running the club, Bush would receive an additional 10 percent return when the team was sold.
4. It was public knowledge, and Bush won an election in Arlington, Texas to have a taxpayer funded baseball stadium built.
Now, let's get back to Professor Krugman's mistakes in today's column ("Let's Get Real", indeed):
Where is Mr. Bush taking us? As the reality of Iraq gets worse, his explanations of our goals get ever vaguer. ....
.... American policy shouldn't be dictated by Mr. Bush's infallibility complex; our first priority must be our own security. And in Iraq, that means setting realistic goals.
On "Meet The Press" back in April, Mr. Kerry wasn't as forthright about Iraq as he has now, at long last, become, but he did return several times to a point that shows that he is on the right track. "What is critical," he said, "is a stable Iraq." Not an Iraq in our image, but a country that isn't a "failed state" that poses a threat to American security.
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously, unspecific, to me. Not to mention; "exactly what we're currently doing."
Too Clever By 99-44/100%, "Luci"
Not that there's a shortage of clues that the CBS memos are forged, but one error that hasn't received its due is in the "04 May 1972" order to Lt Bush to report for his annual physical. It cites, as authority; AFM 35-13 (thanks to Paul Lukasiak for the link).
I'll let a former ANG pilot explain why that isn't authority for such an order (which itself is non-regulation; Bush had until July 31 to take his physical):
30- series regulations are Personnel regulations. Additionally, Manuals, as in AFM, are instructional documents telling you how to process something.
For a Physical, the 160 series is what authorizes and directs medical exams.
What has happened here is that the forger thought he was being clever in using the AFM 35-13 manual reference because it was quoted in the Bush removal from flying status letter from NGB (the Greenlief letter). However, that manual would never be used to order a physical, which would require a regulation (AFR) and would be in the 160 series (AFR 160-1 and AFR 160-23).
Iow, Dan and Mary...you are pathetic amateurs to be taken in by such crude fabrications.
I'll let a former ANG pilot explain why that isn't authority for such an order (which itself is non-regulation; Bush had until July 31 to take his physical):
30- series regulations are Personnel regulations. Additionally, Manuals, as in AFM, are instructional documents telling you how to process something.
For a Physical, the 160 series is what authorizes and directs medical exams.
What has happened here is that the forger thought he was being clever in using the AFM 35-13 manual reference because it was quoted in the Bush removal from flying status letter from NGB (the Greenlief letter). However, that manual would never be used to order a physical, which would require a regulation (AFR) and would be in the 160 series (AFR 160-1 and AFR 160-23).
Iow, Dan and Mary...you are pathetic amateurs to be taken in by such crude fabrications.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Some Elementary Arithmetic for John Kerry and Max Cleland
Thanks to an excellent early warning system, I'm loaded for bear about this
In a speech at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, [Max] Cleland told students they might find themselves pressed into military service if Bush wins a second term.
“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.
"Pay attention ... to what you've got going on in Iraq. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Vietnam. I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends. It does not end pleasantly," he added. ....
Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I.,
"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."
In a speech at Colorado College in Colorado Springs, [Max] Cleland told students they might find themselves pressed into military service if Bush wins a second term.
“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.
"Pay attention ... to what you've got going on in Iraq. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Vietnam. I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends. It does not end pleasantly," he added. ....
Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I.,
"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."
Because it gives me another opportunity to ask questions that certain useful idiots refuse to answer:
Please place an "X" in front of your selection of the number of troops required in the Moomaw Military:
__ 1. Between 1.5 and 2.0 million
__ 2. Between 2.0 and 2.5 million
__ 3. Between 2.5 and 3.0 million
__ 4. Between 3.0 and 3.5 million
__ 5. More than we had in 1968
Second question: Place an "X" in front of the number of Americans between the ages 18-30:
__ 1. Fewer than 5 million
__ 2. Between 5 million and 15 million
__ 3. Between 15 and 30 million
__ 4. Between 30 and 45 million
__ 5. Over 45 million
[Hints for the perplexed: The draft was ended in 1973, along with the Vietnam war. At which time we downsized from the 3.5 million men and women in uniform at the peak of the fighting, to about 2.4 million by 1985. The implosion of the Soviet Union allowed George HW Bush to further reduce force levels to about 1.7 million by 1992. Bill Clinton further reduced it to about 1.4 million--which is where we are today]
[Hint for any of the usual suspects from SDJ: Question #2, try "5".]
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
So, Tell Us, John, What Was the Lesson We Should Have Learned
In A War Remembered (Boston Publishing Company/Boston, 1986) a first term Senator from Massachusetts contributed a five page essay. From which, I excerpt:
It seemed to me that you had a classic insurgency in Vietnam in which the Communists were exercising governmental functions within the villages like taxation and so forth, a situation where the chief's head would appear on a stake and then a couple of days later if other people hadn't come on board they would start disappearing. You had to turn the process around. You had to secure territory, build your own political infrastructure, engage in the psychological contest for the population.
Good advice, John. So, you'd advise W to do in Iraq, what is in those last two sentences? I presume that, because near the end of your piece, you seem to be quite firm:
I don't disagree with those who refer to Vietnam as a noble cause. I think it was very noble that we sought to help the South Vietnamese. ....
But things that are noble may not always be realistic or well designed or well implemented. It wasn't a war we were determined to win. That was what enraged me and so many others when we returned from Vietnam, that there was a terrible expense of human life that added up to nothing. That's what I was trying to say to people.
Of course, it didn't have to add up to nothing. In fact it didn't in April 1972, when--with Nixon's Vietnamization 80% implemented, and only about 100,00 Americans in country--North Vietnam launched an all out invasion of the South, with nearly 250,000 troops. The South Vietnamese army beat back that invasion (with the help of American air power), humiliating the legendary Gen'l Giap, who was relieved of his command by Hanoi.
It was such a debacle for the Communists they agreed to a peace treaty. After a little more bombing in December. But then a disturbing thing happened in Washington DC. Friends of yours, John, among them Teddy Kennedy gave you what you'd been crying for for years; the Case-Church legislation prohibited any more money being spent for the defense of South Vietnam.
And, when Richard Nixon had had to resign (again thanks to friends of yours), the Communists knew they could win. In 1975 a smaller North Vietnamese army invaded the South and quickly overran it. Two and a half years after the South had prevailed, thanks to you and your buddies, our victory of 1972 was reversed. And millions of people died as a consequence.
Today, you want to see the sequel.
It seemed to me that you had a classic insurgency in Vietnam in which the Communists were exercising governmental functions within the villages like taxation and so forth, a situation where the chief's head would appear on a stake and then a couple of days later if other people hadn't come on board they would start disappearing. You had to turn the process around. You had to secure territory, build your own political infrastructure, engage in the psychological contest for the population.
Good advice, John. So, you'd advise W to do in Iraq, what is in those last two sentences? I presume that, because near the end of your piece, you seem to be quite firm:
I don't disagree with those who refer to Vietnam as a noble cause. I think it was very noble that we sought to help the South Vietnamese. ....
But things that are noble may not always be realistic or well designed or well implemented. It wasn't a war we were determined to win. That was what enraged me and so many others when we returned from Vietnam, that there was a terrible expense of human life that added up to nothing. That's what I was trying to say to people.
Of course, it didn't have to add up to nothing. In fact it didn't in April 1972, when--with Nixon's Vietnamization 80% implemented, and only about 100,00 Americans in country--North Vietnam launched an all out invasion of the South, with nearly 250,000 troops. The South Vietnamese army beat back that invasion (with the help of American air power), humiliating the legendary Gen'l Giap, who was relieved of his command by Hanoi.
It was such a debacle for the Communists they agreed to a peace treaty. After a little more bombing in December. But then a disturbing thing happened in Washington DC. Friends of yours, John, among them Teddy Kennedy gave you what you'd been crying for for years; the Case-Church legislation prohibited any more money being spent for the defense of South Vietnam.
And, when Richard Nixon had had to resign (again thanks to friends of yours), the Communists knew they could win. In 1975 a smaller North Vietnamese army invaded the South and quickly overran it. Two and a half years after the South had prevailed, thanks to you and your buddies, our victory of 1972 was reversed. And millions of people died as a consequence.
Today, you want to see the sequel.
Does NOW Have a Comment? Axis-of-Evil-Wise, I Mean.
From This Is London:
An Iranian woman, beaten every day by her husband, asked a court to tell him only to beat her once a week.
Maryam, the middle-age woman, said she did not want to divorce her husband because she loved him.
"Just tell him to beat me once a week ... Beating is part of his nature and he cannot stop it," Maryam told the court.
The Tehran court found the man guilty and banned him from beating the wife, the paper said.
"If I do not beat her, she will not be scared enough to obey me," the husband said.
An Iranian woman, beaten every day by her husband, asked a court to tell him only to beat her once a week.
Maryam, the middle-age woman, said she did not want to divorce her husband because she loved him.
"Just tell him to beat me once a week ... Beating is part of his nature and he cannot stop it," Maryam told the court.
The Tehran court found the man guilty and banned him from beating the wife, the paper said.
"If I do not beat her, she will not be scared enough to obey me," the husband said.
This Flip-Flop Thing Has a Catchy Beat, and You Can Dance To It
Yesterday, the usually predictable proprietor of Semi-Daily Journal titled a post STUPIDITY IS NOT A PLAN
Which was for Donald Rumsfeld's:
"At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country."
Now, we seem to have had a change of heart:
But what if there is no such "more subtle and effective form of counter-insurgency strategy"? What if McCain and others convince themselves that there is no way to convince Sunni fundamentalists to turn to civil politics? Then what? McCain would say that the "then what" is to make sure everybody knows that *if* your city shelters the likes of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, then there is a good chance that your relatives will die and your neighborhoods turned into rubble when the Marines come through to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and company.
The people of Fallujah have, I believe, a much larger stake in figuring out how to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and company out of Fallujah than the U.S. Marines do.
Is the Professor bidding to become a daytime tv sex symbol himself?
Which was for Donald Rumsfeld's:
"At some point the Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we’ll have enough of the Iraqi security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that country and we’ll be able to pare down the coalition security forces in the country."
Now, we seem to have had a change of heart:
But what if there is no such "more subtle and effective form of counter-insurgency strategy"? What if McCain and others convince themselves that there is no way to convince Sunni fundamentalists to turn to civil politics? Then what? McCain would say that the "then what" is to make sure everybody knows that *if* your city shelters the likes of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, then there is a good chance that your relatives will die and your neighborhoods turned into rubble when the Marines come through to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and company.
The people of Fallujah have, I believe, a much larger stake in figuring out how to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and company out of Fallujah than the U.S. Marines do.
Is the Professor bidding to become a daytime tv sex symbol himself?
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
When He Is Good, He Is Very Very Good...
But, when he is bad, he is...not blogging as a professional, but as a rabid partisan who wouldn't even fool Dan Rather into accepting fake documents from him. Today, however is one of those rare days when the economist in him can't be restrained. And under the LFUTB Politeness Policy, which is always enforced evenhandedly (unlike some I could mention), credit is given where credit is due:
Well, The Economists' Voice is now launched, with a small first issue. Now we get to begin the dynamic process of (a) finding a readership, (b) finding people who want to write, and (c) editing so that what appears on the website is *really* *good* and worth reading.
So, Bravo Zulus to the Captains of the swift boat they've just launched.
Well, The Economists' Voice is now launched, with a small first issue. Now we get to begin the dynamic process of (a) finding a readership, (b) finding people who want to write, and (c) editing so that what appears on the website is *really* *good* and worth reading.
So, Bravo Zulus to the Captains of the swift boat they've just launched.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Don't Know Much About History
Nor, judging by this piece, does Sara Rimer care much about chronology either:
...a wider examination of [Geo. W. Bush's] life in 1972, based on dozens of interviews and other documents released by the White House over the years, yields a portrait of a young man like many other young men of privilege in that turbulent time - entitled, unanchored and safe from combat, bouncing from a National Guard slot made possible by his family's prominence to a political job arranged through his father.
Putting aside that there is absolutely evidence of his pilot slot being made possible by his family's prominence, and proceeding to further stupidities from the no doubt lovely Sara--there must be some reason she's writing for the Times:
Mr. Bush, while missing months of the Guard duty that allowed him to avoid Vietnam...
Regular readers know how absolutely stupid is the above. What allowed Bush to avoid Vietnam was Richard Nixon's phased withdrawal of American troops under his Vietnamization plan. Plain and simple. There were only about 60,000 Americans left in Vietnam in the summer of 1972.
In Houston, nearly five years out of Yale, Mr. Bush had been adrift, without a career or even a long-running job..... Acquaintances recall him tooling around town in his Triumph sports car, partying with a crowd of well-to-do singles.
...a wider examination of [Geo. W. Bush's] life in 1972, based on dozens of interviews and other documents released by the White House over the years, yields a portrait of a young man like many other young men of privilege in that turbulent time - entitled, unanchored and safe from combat, bouncing from a National Guard slot made possible by his family's prominence to a political job arranged through his father.
Putting aside that there is absolutely evidence of his pilot slot being made possible by his family's prominence, and proceeding to further stupidities from the no doubt lovely Sara--there must be some reason she's writing for the Times:
Mr. Bush, while missing months of the Guard duty that allowed him to avoid Vietnam...
Regular readers know how absolutely stupid is the above. What allowed Bush to avoid Vietnam was Richard Nixon's phased withdrawal of American troops under his Vietnamization plan. Plain and simple. There were only about 60,000 Americans left in Vietnam in the summer of 1972.
In Houston, nearly five years out of Yale, Mr. Bush had been adrift, without a career or even a long-running job..... Acquaintances recall him tooling around town in his Triumph sports car, partying with a crowd of well-to-do singles.
Adrift? He was a military pilot for four years, which qualifies as a long-running job by the standards of a twenty-six year old. And I was tooling around my hometown (at nearly the same time) in a sports car, too. That's what single twenty-somethings do. Whether they're "well-to-do", or truck drivers as I was.
.... His entree to the Guard had come through Ben Barnes, then the lieutenant governor of Texas....
Again, this is simply not true. Bush got into flight school by passing an examination in 1968. The unit he signed on with needed pilots--there was a war on. Nobody interceded to get Bush into a unit that was understrength, and sending pilots in harm's way, at the time.
And, Ben Barnes was not lieutenant governor.
After basic training and a year at flight school in Georgia, he was assigned to Ellington Air Force Base outside Houston, where he flew F-102 fighter jets. In March 1970, with his father, himself a World War II Navy pilot, in Congress, the Texas Air National Guard issued a news release announcing that the young Mr. Bush "doesn't get his kicks from pot or hashish or speed," but from "the roaring afterburner of the F-102." As he wrote in his autobiography, "It was exciting the first time I flew, and it was exciting the last time." In a November 1970 evaluation, his squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called him a "top-notch" pilot and a "natural leader."
Funny, someone was claiming that Bush was adrift without a career or even a long-running job, a few paragraphs earlier in the story.
By 1972, though, something had changed...
Do tell. Let's put on our thinking caps.
...the excitement seemed to have waned. Mr. Bush's flying buddy from Ellington, Dean Roome, said Mr. Bush may have been frustrated because the unit's growing role as a training school left young pilots fewer opportunities to log hours in the air. ....
Duh!
More recently the White House has said that he did not take the physical because Alabama units were not flying the F-102. But his second application to transfer to Alabama - after the rejected transfer in July - was filed in September 1972, at least two months after he had missed his physical.
Perhaps we need a thinking cap with a chin strap. His physical was due by July 31st. He didn't accomplish it, and was suspended from flying August 1. Then, his CO agrees to allow Bush to fulfill his duties with the 187th in Alabama. Which would indicate that Bush isn't on the outs with his CO. Not rocket science, Sara.
....By that time, still without an Alabama unit, he had not attended a required monthly drill for almost five months, according to records released by the White House. Under the law at the time, he could have been sent to Vietnam.
Which would have been the opposite direction the troops were going in September 1972.
....By the summer of 1973, Mr. Bush had decided to go to Harvard Business School.
I've never even applied to HBS, but I'm guessing one doesn't just decide in the summer before you enroll, "Hey, I think I'd like to get an MBA."
According to documents released by the White House, he wanted an early discharge from the Guard but did not have enough service points for 1972 and 1973, since he had missed months of training. Guardsmen were required to earn 48 points each fiscal year, or four points for each weekend drill every month.
Where does the NY Times get these imbeciles? You needed 50 points. And Bush got them by June 30th (using the rules USN&WR wants).
Although missed drills can be made up, regulations at the time said it had to be done within 30 days and in the same fiscal year. As the time for his early discharge neared, Mr. Bush was lacking enough points; according to records for July 1973, he attended drills on 18 days that month.
Which is fiscal 1974, and had nothing to do with his points for the prior year, which is supposedly where the controversy is.
....However the points added up, on Oct. 1, 1973, Mr. Bush was awarded an honorable discharge. By that time he was already at Harvard.
Just like hundreds of thousands of other young men who were getting on with their lives now that the war had ended. Kinda like George H.W. Bush was able to do in September 1945.
"Nothing Polite Can Be Said About Such Analysis"
This post's title is stolen from a Nobel prize winning economist's famous dismissal of a Senator's question to him during a committee hearing. I immediately thought of it when I saw this Slate piece. From which, I excerpt:
Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968. The move was well-chosen and well-timed. Only four Air National Guard squadrons were sent to Vietnam, and none was sent after Bush enlisted.
Yes, but what relevence does that have to Bush's timing in signing up? Wouldn't the events at the time of Bush's decision to become a fighter pilot be what counts, not what happened eventually (and with no input from the then Lt.)? Does Will Saletan even read the articles to which he links:
On 23 January 1968, the North Koreans seized the American spy ship, U.S.S. Pueblo. President Johnson ordered a limited reserve mobilization. Next, the communists' Tet offensive in South Vietnam in February 1968 stretched American military resources thinner. The President ordered another small mobilization. In response to the first presidential order, the ANG mobilized 9,343 personnel on 25 January 1968. Within 36 hours, approximately 95 percent of the Air Guardsmen had reported to their units. Those included eight tactical fighter groups, three tactical reconnaissance groups and three wing headquarters. ....
On 3 May, F-100s from the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June, all of the l20th's pilots were flying combat missions. In the meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85 percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron -- on paper a regular Air Force unit -- were Air Guardsmen. The Air Guard units were quickly and effectively integrated into Air Force combat operations in Southeast Asia (SEA). Prior to their return home in April 1969, they flew 24,124 sortie and 38,614 combat hours.
The only conclusion that follows logically from Saletan's own source, is that Geo. W. Bush's decision would be, "well chosen and well-timed", only for a 1968 Yale grad who wanted to emulate Dick Bong.
Something that a certain young man (who is the inspiration for this blog) with a pilot's license in hand in 1966, didn't want to do.
Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968. The move was well-chosen and well-timed. Only four Air National Guard squadrons were sent to Vietnam, and none was sent after Bush enlisted.
Yes, but what relevence does that have to Bush's timing in signing up? Wouldn't the events at the time of Bush's decision to become a fighter pilot be what counts, not what happened eventually (and with no input from the then Lt.)? Does Will Saletan even read the articles to which he links:
On 23 January 1968, the North Koreans seized the American spy ship, U.S.S. Pueblo. President Johnson ordered a limited reserve mobilization. Next, the communists' Tet offensive in South Vietnam in February 1968 stretched American military resources thinner. The President ordered another small mobilization. In response to the first presidential order, the ANG mobilized 9,343 personnel on 25 January 1968. Within 36 hours, approximately 95 percent of the Air Guardsmen had reported to their units. Those included eight tactical fighter groups, three tactical reconnaissance groups and three wing headquarters. ....
On 3 May, F-100s from the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (Colorado) arrived at Phan Rang Air Base. By 1 June, all of the l20th's pilots were flying combat missions. In the meantime, the 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and the 136th (New York) had all deployed to Vietnam with their F-100s. In addition, 85 percent of the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron -- on paper a regular Air Force unit -- were Air Guardsmen. The Air Guard units were quickly and effectively integrated into Air Force combat operations in Southeast Asia (SEA). Prior to their return home in April 1969, they flew 24,124 sortie and 38,614 combat hours.
The only conclusion that follows logically from Saletan's own source, is that Geo. W. Bush's decision would be, "well chosen and well-timed", only for a 1968 Yale grad who wanted to emulate Dick Bong.
Something that a certain young man (who is the inspiration for this blog) with a pilot's license in hand in 1966, didn't want to do.
CBS to NY Times: Dan's Career is 'Inoperative'?
Ron Ziegler, call your office:
After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.
After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a "60 Minutes'' report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Mrs. Knox, You Have Such a Lovely Forger
Thanks to Betsy's Page for this story:
Mrs. Knox said that though the CBS documents weren't real, what is stated in the forgeries is. She talked and talked about how Killian was upset with Mr. Bush, how the rest of the pilots resented him for being a child of privilege, and said that Killian's son -- who disputes the validity of the CBS case against Mr. Bush -- "...has no way of knowing whether it's true or not." And she does? Not according to the members of the squadron I spoke to this morning.
Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, Ret.) wondered just how Mrs. Knox would have more knowledge than Killian's son. He told me that not only was young Killian the son of the squadron commander, he was a member of the squadron on duty with the rest of the guys. Mrs. Knox -- the squadron secretary -- only knew paper. Not people. Killian's son was in a very good position to know, and she wasn't.
Mrs. Knox said she remembered that Killian was upset because Mr. Bush didn't take his flight physical. And she transforms Killian's supposed frustration into a statement that the other pilots were resentful of Mr. Bush be cause of his attitude. That's flatly false according to both Campenni and Joe Glavin, another pilot who flew with Dubya. I asked Glavin if there was any such resentment of Bush. He said, "Absolutely not," and added that you'd have a really hard time finding anyone who would agree with that.
....Glavin says nobody should care what she said. "She had nothing to do with the unit. She didn't fly, she didn't hang out with us." According to Glavin, she was out of the mainstream of the squadron, in an office that the pilots only visited occasionally.
According to Bill Campenni, Knox is a "yellow dog" democrat, and her biases were noticeable even in 1972. Leave it to CBS to find the one yellow dog Dem in the 1972 Texas Air National Guard. Her statement is as valid as the CBS memos.
Mrs. Knox said that though the CBS documents weren't real, what is stated in the forgeries is. She talked and talked about how Killian was upset with Mr. Bush, how the rest of the pilots resented him for being a child of privilege, and said that Killian's son -- who disputes the validity of the CBS case against Mr. Bush -- "...has no way of knowing whether it's true or not." And she does? Not according to the members of the squadron I spoke to this morning.
Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, Ret.) wondered just how Mrs. Knox would have more knowledge than Killian's son. He told me that not only was young Killian the son of the squadron commander, he was a member of the squadron on duty with the rest of the guys. Mrs. Knox -- the squadron secretary -- only knew paper. Not people. Killian's son was in a very good position to know, and she wasn't.
Mrs. Knox said she remembered that Killian was upset because Mr. Bush didn't take his flight physical. And she transforms Killian's supposed frustration into a statement that the other pilots were resentful of Mr. Bush be cause of his attitude. That's flatly false according to both Campenni and Joe Glavin, another pilot who flew with Dubya. I asked Glavin if there was any such resentment of Bush. He said, "Absolutely not," and added that you'd have a really hard time finding anyone who would agree with that.
....Glavin says nobody should care what she said. "She had nothing to do with the unit. She didn't fly, she didn't hang out with us." According to Glavin, she was out of the mainstream of the squadron, in an office that the pilots only visited occasionally.
According to Bill Campenni, Knox is a "yellow dog" democrat, and her biases were noticeable even in 1972. Leave it to CBS to find the one yellow dog Dem in the 1972 Texas Air National Guard. Her statement is as valid as the CBS memos.
Willie Mays Busts Dan Rather
I was alerted to another problem with the bogus May 4, 1972 Jerry Killian memo, by a former pilot with the 111th FIS in Houston: May 14, 1972 was Mother's Day, and the group never drilled on Mother's Day week-end.
Here' how I confirmed the date
Sunday, May 14th IN THE NEWS:
In front a Mother's Day crowd of 35,000, Willie Mays, makes a triumphant return to New York with the Mets, hitting a game-winning home run against his old teammates. He scores in the 1st on Rusty Staub's grand slam and his solo in the 5th snaps a 4–4 tie. The final score is 5–4.
Here' how I confirmed the date
Sunday, May 14th IN THE NEWS:
In front a Mother's Day crowd of 35,000, Willie Mays, makes a triumphant return to New York with the Mets, hitting a game-winning home run against his old teammates. He scores in the 1st on Rusty Staub's grand slam and his solo in the 5th snaps a 4–4 tie. The final score is 5–4.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
She'll Do the Time, Not Having Done a Crime
The manliest girl in America has decided to get over it. Even though she'll probably win on Appeal some time next year, Martha Stewart apparently thinks her business career needs an end to the uncertainty immediately.
Those fortunate enough to live in the Seattle area, know from the Official Martha Stewart Correspondent of the David Boze Show, that Martha Stewart did not engage in illegal insider trading in the sale of approximately 4,000 shares of Imclone stock. Unlike that company's founder (and Martha friend) Sam Waksal.
Martha was convicted of lying to a federal investigator--and not while under oath--about the reasons she sold said stock while on a plane flying to Mexico in late December 2001. But at least one juror in her trial has made public statements indicating he thought she had been charged with insider trading--which she had not. That prejudicial information should not have been allowed to color her actual trial, which will likely result in Martha having her conviction overturned by the Court of Appeals.
Which makes her decision to simultaneously serve a five month sentence and continue to both proclaim her innocence, and pursue the formal appeal with former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, somewhat astounding. If I were a Swift Boat commander, that's the kind of person I want commanding the other boat beside me. And I think George W. Bush should also.
Therefore, I propose my Grand Unified Theory of the Election of 2004. President Bush should immediately Pardon Martha Stewart.
Further, he should refuse to attend any debates until the League of Women Voters (or whatever troublemakers are in charge of them) agrees to replace Bob Schieffer of CBS News as moderator of one debate, with Manly Girl Martha.
Those fortunate enough to live in the Seattle area, know from the Official Martha Stewart Correspondent of the David Boze Show, that Martha Stewart did not engage in illegal insider trading in the sale of approximately 4,000 shares of Imclone stock. Unlike that company's founder (and Martha friend) Sam Waksal.
Martha was convicted of lying to a federal investigator--and not while under oath--about the reasons she sold said stock while on a plane flying to Mexico in late December 2001. But at least one juror in her trial has made public statements indicating he thought she had been charged with insider trading--which she had not. That prejudicial information should not have been allowed to color her actual trial, which will likely result in Martha having her conviction overturned by the Court of Appeals.
Which makes her decision to simultaneously serve a five month sentence and continue to both proclaim her innocence, and pursue the formal appeal with former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, somewhat astounding. If I were a Swift Boat commander, that's the kind of person I want commanding the other boat beside me. And I think George W. Bush should also.
Therefore, I propose my Grand Unified Theory of the Election of 2004. President Bush should immediately Pardon Martha Stewart.
Further, he should refuse to attend any debates until the League of Women Voters (or whatever troublemakers are in charge of them) agrees to replace Bob Schieffer of CBS News as moderator of one debate, with Manly Girl Martha.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Turn Out the Lights, the Memo Party is Over
This link destroys any shred of hope for Memo diehards. It is devastatingly effective.
Remember the Five O'Clock Follies?
That was the nickname given to Saigon press briefings during the Vietnam War. It became famous because of lines like, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Well, no one then ever said anything as amazing as the headline for this NY Times article:
Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says
Well, no one then ever said anything as amazing as the headline for this NY Times article:
Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says
Field Marshall Von Krugman, Reporting for Duty
It's a sure sign that we're at full employment when a major newspaper can't find a real military expert to analyze the situation in Iraq. As silly as the battlefield advice from the Princeton economist was, this is my favorite:
If Senator John Kerry really has advisers telling him not to attack Mr. Bush on national security, he should dump them. When Dick Cheney is saying vote Bush or die, responding with speeches about jobs and health care doesn't cut it.
Bring it on! It works for me. My advice would be for Cheney to respond to any such Kerry attacks, with a breezy:
If John Kerry is such a big time military man, how come he enlisted in 1966, for six years, in the navy (two years before George W. Bush entered the Air National Guard) but didn't get his honorable discharge until 1978? Five years after the President received his On October 1, 1973.
If Senator John Kerry really has advisers telling him not to attack Mr. Bush on national security, he should dump them. When Dick Cheney is saying vote Bush or die, responding with speeches about jobs and health care doesn't cut it.
Bring it on! It works for me. My advice would be for Cheney to respond to any such Kerry attacks, with a breezy:
If John Kerry is such a big time military man, how come he enlisted in 1966, for six years, in the navy (two years before George W. Bush entered the Air National Guard) but didn't get his honorable discharge until 1978? Five years after the President received his On October 1, 1973.
I Say the Party With the Better Sense of Humor Should Win
And after reading to the end of this NY Times story, I'd say it's the Republicans:
The Democratic National Committee released an Internet video on Tuesday accusing Mr. Bush of being dishonest about his National Guard service. The Republican National Committee shot back a one-line statement: "The video the Democrats released today is as creative and accurate as the memos they gave CBS."
The Democratic National Committee released an Internet video on Tuesday accusing Mr. Bush of being dishonest about his National Guard service. The Republican National Committee shot back a one-line statement: "The video the Democrats released today is as creative and accurate as the memos they gave CBS."
Oh No, It's Not, Professor
You're being far too modest. I'd say it's calibrated almost to a T for you.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Some Grade School Arithmetic for U.S. News (and its admirers)
[Update 9-14-04] LFUTB is nothing, if not educable. Under the guidance of a former Texas ANG pilot who flew with Lt George W. Bush, we undertook an alternative analysis of US News' claims. Using their own rules:
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period.... [H]e failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.... Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration....
Fine, let's use the fiscal year July 1, 1972-June 30, 1973, rather than the May 28th anniversary of Lt Bush's entry into the ANG. He still accumulates enough points--50--for a "good year" toward retirement. Interested (and not easily bored) readers can verify for themselves here, that Bush earned 51 points. Where the USN&WR erred, is in saying:
he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year
Because that is wrong. There are fourteen different "types of duty" that Bush could have pulled, and they are worth different numbers of points. In the document linked to above, under the column "TD", you will find the code number "2" (for UTA duty, and a little math will show these are worth 2 points) and you will also see some code "1" under the same "TD" column (for "AFT" duty, which are only worth one point).
Contrary to Professor DeLong's "news magazine", it is not the number of days that count, but the number of points. Bush's first points are earned Oct 28-29, 1972--"two UTA" worth a total of 4 points. Two weeks later (and after the election) he acquires 2 more "UTA" points each of four days, on November 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1972. Six days in the two months, counting for twelve points.
Similarly, in January 1973 Bush is pulling 6 more "UTA" duty days worth another 12 points; he's almost half way home. Which no doubt accounts for no duty in February and March, probably because he is moving back to Houston and hasn't the time.
April 7-8, are two more UTAs for 4 points, and May sees him earning 2 more UTA "doubles" (for 4 pts) and 9 "AFT" single points. In two months he's earned 17 points.
[And now I pause to solve another supposed mystery, for those too slow to have already figured it out: Bush's May 1973 Fitness Report has him not being rated, because he was not "observed" on Ellington AFB during the rating period. Not literally true, but according to ANG regulations (I've been told) his commander must have seen him for 90 days or more to rate him. April 7 to May 26 is less than sixty days. So, no rating for the period between his anniversary dates (which is a different period than the fiscal year) Btw, the Vietnam War is now officially ended, and our POWs home.]
To this point Bush has accumulated 41 points. To keep score at home, one has to click and here, where it tells us that on May 29, 30, and 31st he earned 3 "AFT" single points. Another three singles on June 5,6, and 7, and his final 4 points for "UTA" doubles on June 23, and 24.
That's all she wrote folks. Read em and weep, if you're a Harvard economist with your reputation for analysis in shreds, that is. Under either scenario, Bush has the points.
And, for good measure, about to be private citizen and MBA candidate Geo. W. Bush, puts in 13 days in July 1973: 7 single point "AFT", and 6 "UTA" doubles, for a total of 19 points. He takes August off, and applies for an "early out" to further his education, on September 5, and is granted that--on the recommendation of Lt Col Jerry Killian!--on October 1, 1973.
Almost 5 years before John Kerry is mysteriously granted his honorable discharge after six (or eight, depending how one counts the puzzling records) in 1978. Would Professor DeLong care to e-mail me an explanation of that phenomenon, I'd be happy to print it here.
-----------------ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS--------------------------
I want to re-explain something else that a Harvard trained economist should have been able to grasp (at least by the second time he was told) about the somewhat puzzling 5 month gap (May-Oct, 1972) in Geo. W. Bush's ANG records.
Lt Bush first got permission, in May '72, to drill with the 9921st in Montgomery. Alabama, in a "Training Category G" status. With no pay. Service that wasn't disallowed by Denver until July 31st. Air Force Headquarters sent a copy of that rejection to Lt Bush c/o of the 9921st in Montgomery Alabama. Which would indicate he spent some time with that unit.
And that could explain John "Bill" Calhoun's persistent memories of seeing Bush on Dannelly AFB as early as May '72. I'm attempting to contact Mr. Calhoun to verify that, but a former pilot colleague of Geo. W. Bush's, with whom I am in regular contact, believes my theory is plausible.
After serving at Ellington in April, Lt Bush "cleared the base" in Houston in May 1972. There are no pay records for any service by Bush until that October, but there wouldn't be, because he wasn't drawing any pay.
Since the transfer was disallowed, he might not have been eligible to use any drills with the 9921st to accumulate points toward retirement, either. Hence, according to the records, it looks like he's simply missing. But that doesn't make sense, since several people he worked with on the Blount campaign remember talking about his ANG duty then with him.
Occam's Razor: Bush did pull duty in June and July with the 9921st, but didn't get credit for it because of AF regulations. When he found out, sometime in August, that he'd been wasting his time "drilling" with the 9921st, he first found a home with John Calhoun's 187th. Mailed the information to his Houston COs, September 5th, and they, in turn, authorized his service in Alabama anew in time for him to drill in October.
And that is a perfect fit with the official records. Keep in mind while studying those records that, U.S. NEWS is a "news magazine", in the same sense that Dan Rather is a reporter. A "drill" with the ANG Reserve is four hours not a full day. Thus, most week-ends earn the person 4 points toward a "good year". The records have Bush earning:
On Oct 28 and 29, 197............................ 4 points
On Nov 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1972............ 8 ppoints
On Jan 4,5, and 6, 1973.......................... 6 points
On Jan 8,9 and 10, ................................. 6 points
That's how Lt. Bush made up for the disallowed drills with the 9921st. By doing extra service with the 187th on Dannelly AFB. He needed 50 points by May 26, 1973, and he got 56 (with additional service in April and May, when his year ends).
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period.... [H]e failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.... Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration....
Fine, let's use the fiscal year July 1, 1972-June 30, 1973, rather than the May 28th anniversary of Lt Bush's entry into the ANG. He still accumulates enough points--50--for a "good year" toward retirement. Interested (and not easily bored) readers can verify for themselves here, that Bush earned 51 points. Where the USN&WR erred, is in saying:
he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year
Because that is wrong. There are fourteen different "types of duty" that Bush could have pulled, and they are worth different numbers of points. In the document linked to above, under the column "TD", you will find the code number "2" (for UTA duty, and a little math will show these are worth 2 points) and you will also see some code "1" under the same "TD" column (for "AFT" duty, which are only worth one point).
Contrary to Professor DeLong's "news magazine", it is not the number of days that count, but the number of points. Bush's first points are earned Oct 28-29, 1972--"two UTA" worth a total of 4 points. Two weeks later (and after the election) he acquires 2 more "UTA" points each of four days, on November 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1972. Six days in the two months, counting for twelve points.
Similarly, in January 1973 Bush is pulling 6 more "UTA" duty days worth another 12 points; he's almost half way home. Which no doubt accounts for no duty in February and March, probably because he is moving back to Houston and hasn't the time.
April 7-8, are two more UTAs for 4 points, and May sees him earning 2 more UTA "doubles" (for 4 pts) and 9 "AFT" single points. In two months he's earned 17 points.
[And now I pause to solve another supposed mystery, for those too slow to have already figured it out: Bush's May 1973 Fitness Report has him not being rated, because he was not "observed" on Ellington AFB during the rating period. Not literally true, but according to ANG regulations (I've been told) his commander must have seen him for 90 days or more to rate him. April 7 to May 26 is less than sixty days. So, no rating for the period between his anniversary dates (which is a different period than the fiscal year) Btw, the Vietnam War is now officially ended, and our POWs home.]
To this point Bush has accumulated 41 points. To keep score at home, one has to click and here, where it tells us that on May 29, 30, and 31st he earned 3 "AFT" single points. Another three singles on June 5,6, and 7, and his final 4 points for "UTA" doubles on June 23, and 24.
That's all she wrote folks. Read em and weep, if you're a Harvard economist with your reputation for analysis in shreds, that is. Under either scenario, Bush has the points.
And, for good measure, about to be private citizen and MBA candidate Geo. W. Bush, puts in 13 days in July 1973: 7 single point "AFT", and 6 "UTA" doubles, for a total of 19 points. He takes August off, and applies for an "early out" to further his education, on September 5, and is granted that--on the recommendation of Lt Col Jerry Killian!--on October 1, 1973.
Almost 5 years before John Kerry is mysteriously granted his honorable discharge after six (or eight, depending how one counts the puzzling records) in 1978. Would Professor DeLong care to e-mail me an explanation of that phenomenon, I'd be happy to print it here.
-----------------ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS--------------------------
I want to re-explain something else that a Harvard trained economist should have been able to grasp (at least by the second time he was told) about the somewhat puzzling 5 month gap (May-Oct, 1972) in Geo. W. Bush's ANG records.
Lt Bush first got permission, in May '72, to drill with the 9921st in Montgomery. Alabama, in a "Training Category G" status. With no pay. Service that wasn't disallowed by Denver until July 31st. Air Force Headquarters sent a copy of that rejection to Lt Bush c/o of the 9921st in Montgomery Alabama. Which would indicate he spent some time with that unit.
And that could explain John "Bill" Calhoun's persistent memories of seeing Bush on Dannelly AFB as early as May '72. I'm attempting to contact Mr. Calhoun to verify that, but a former pilot colleague of Geo. W. Bush's, with whom I am in regular contact, believes my theory is plausible.
After serving at Ellington in April, Lt Bush "cleared the base" in Houston in May 1972. There are no pay records for any service by Bush until that October, but there wouldn't be, because he wasn't drawing any pay.
Since the transfer was disallowed, he might not have been eligible to use any drills with the 9921st to accumulate points toward retirement, either. Hence, according to the records, it looks like he's simply missing. But that doesn't make sense, since several people he worked with on the Blount campaign remember talking about his ANG duty then with him.
Occam's Razor: Bush did pull duty in June and July with the 9921st, but didn't get credit for it because of AF regulations. When he found out, sometime in August, that he'd been wasting his time "drilling" with the 9921st, he first found a home with John Calhoun's 187th. Mailed the information to his Houston COs, September 5th, and they, in turn, authorized his service in Alabama anew in time for him to drill in October.
And that is a perfect fit with the official records. Keep in mind while studying those records that, U.S. NEWS is a "news magazine", in the same sense that Dan Rather is a reporter. A "drill" with the ANG Reserve is four hours not a full day. Thus, most week-ends earn the person 4 points toward a "good year". The records have Bush earning:
On Oct 28 and 29, 197............................ 4 points
On Nov 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1972............ 8 ppoints
On Jan 4,5, and 6, 1973.......................... 6 points
On Jan 8,9 and 10, ................................. 6 points
That's how Lt. Bush made up for the disallowed drills with the 9921st. By doing extra service with the 187th on Dannelly AFB. He needed 50 points by May 26, 1973, and he got 56 (with additional service in April and May, when his year ends).
It Doesn't Take an Econometrician to Understand Reductions in Force Levels After a War Ends
But it would be nice if those who are could. Especially when they've had it explained to them several times. And by people with first hand experience (as we'll shortly see) of the time.
Let's see, if American troops were downsized from 540,000 in Vietnam in 1968--the Year George W. Bush signed up to train as a fighter pilot, and John Kerry first saw action in the Brown Water Navy--to approximately 100,000 by the Spring of 1972, that would be something along the order of 80% of the "in country" force needing to find a home...and something to do, back in the U.S. Mightn't it be a little crowded at stateside air and naval bases?
Well, let's not speculate, let's let a veteran--"Lawrence"--of the period tell us as he told the usually suspect denizens of SDJ earlier this year (and not to their good advantage, alas) the way it was:
Starting in January 1970, fighter aircraft units started to deploy back to CONUS as part of Nixon's Vietnamization program. I know. I flew my F-4 all the way back from Da Nang to MCAS El Toro, CA. (Never saw so much blue water in all my life.) Some of my contemporaries flying F-4s at the time never made it into Vietnam basically due to a lack of need for their services.
By the time 1972 arrived, we active duty F-4 jocks were really scrounging for flight time. The operations funding that buys flight hours had really been cut back by the Nixon Administration. (Yes, flight hours have to be paid for and hours in fighter aircraft are very expensive. Don't ask how much. You don't want to know.) I heard similar whining about reduced flight hour funding from others on active duty as well from air guard pilots.
So it seems to me that by 1972, GWB's squadron of the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) squadron could have cared less whether he flew or not. More flight hours for others more deserving and in need. There was a surplus of Vietnam combat pilots recently released from active duty and who were trying to fly with the Guard in hopes of building up flight hours to get on with the airlines. (I had plenty of friends in that catagory.) And, as I noted before there was a reduction in the number of flight hours available because of reduced funding.
Let's see, if American troops were downsized from 540,000 in Vietnam in 1968--the Year George W. Bush signed up to train as a fighter pilot, and John Kerry first saw action in the Brown Water Navy--to approximately 100,000 by the Spring of 1972, that would be something along the order of 80% of the "in country" force needing to find a home...and something to do, back in the U.S. Mightn't it be a little crowded at stateside air and naval bases?
Well, let's not speculate, let's let a veteran--"Lawrence"--of the period tell us as he told the usually suspect denizens of SDJ earlier this year (and not to their good advantage, alas) the way it was:
Starting in January 1970, fighter aircraft units started to deploy back to CONUS as part of Nixon's Vietnamization program. I know. I flew my F-4 all the way back from Da Nang to MCAS El Toro, CA. (Never saw so much blue water in all my life.) Some of my contemporaries flying F-4s at the time never made it into Vietnam basically due to a lack of need for their services.
By the time 1972 arrived, we active duty F-4 jocks were really scrounging for flight time. The operations funding that buys flight hours had really been cut back by the Nixon Administration. (Yes, flight hours have to be paid for and hours in fighter aircraft are very expensive. Don't ask how much. You don't want to know.) I heard similar whining about reduced flight hour funding from others on active duty as well from air guard pilots.
So it seems to me that by 1972, GWB's squadron of the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) squadron could have cared less whether he flew or not. More flight hours for others more deserving and in need. There was a surplus of Vietnam combat pilots recently released from active duty and who were trying to fly with the Guard in hopes of building up flight hours to get on with the airlines. (I had plenty of friends in that catagory.) And, as I noted before there was a reduction in the number of flight hours available because of reduced funding.
In the Land of the Self-Unaware, Brad DeLong is King
Apparently put on this earth for the sole purpose of seeing that I do not lack entertainment 24/7, it appears Professor DeLong has fallen behind on his Kerry Talking Points Memo reading: Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations
Do you suppose Kerry can get a refund on the latest ads:
"Operation Fortunate Son."
"George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service,"
"From 1978 to the present day, George Bush has refused to tell voters the truth about his service. It's time for the President to come clean."
"Flyers distributed to Texas voters during Bush's failed Congressional race say 'he served in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard.' But according to Air Force officials, Air National Guardsmen are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force."
Do you suppose Kerry can get a refund on the latest ads:
"Operation Fortunate Son."
"George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service,"
"From 1978 to the present day, George Bush has refused to tell voters the truth about his service. It's time for the President to come clean."
"Flyers distributed to Texas voters during Bush's failed Congressional race say 'he served in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard.' But according to Air Force officials, Air National Guardsmen are not counted as members of the active-duty Air Force."
Who Ya Gonna Believe, John Kerry or Yer Own Lyin Eyes
Thanks to Beldar for alerting us to the latest desperate attempt by the Kerry campaign to rescue their boy.
To quickly demolish the argument, we can use the Bushphobes at awolbush.com. Say, this one , with it heading:
Though Dan Rather is the more amusing source, with this:
On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards....
To quickly demolish the argument, we can use the Bushphobes at awolbush.com. Say, this one , with it heading:
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
147TH FIGHTER INTERCEPTOR GROUP
ELLINGTON AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 77030
Though Dan Rather is the more amusing source, with this:
On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
