John Kerry for President - 126th National Guard Association of the United States General Conference

Kerry on the Military

Today's speech was almost a perfect mirror of the speech Kerry gave to the VFW. Kerry, after a career of voting to downsize and disarm the military, now wishes us to believe that he wants to increase it. Speaking at the 126th National Guard Association association today, he pledged that he would increase the size of the military by 40,000 men.

He also repeated another promise:

I will also double our Army Special Forces to hunt down the terrorists. In Afghanistan, after September 11th, our Special Forces fought the Taliban with remarkable skill. We saw what they could do during the Iraq war, when two teams of American Green Berets totaling 31 men worked with Kurdish troops to defeat an Iraqi force numbering in the hundreds. The victory at the battle of Debecka Pass is a tribute to the flexibility, training, and courage of our Special Forces.

Now, there are two things to be said about that. The first is that the part about the Special Forces being extremely skillful and highly successful is true.

The part about doubling the size of the Special Forces is not. It cannot be done while maintaining the standards of the Special Forces. Ralph Peters wrote about this the last time Kerry proposed it:

Specific promises Kerry made were outright nonsense. He claimed he'd double the size of our special operations forces. Sounds great. But to do so would rob regular line units of critically needed, experienced NCOs and officers, fatally compromise the high standards of our special operators and take at least a decade — unless he means to ruin special ops entirely.

And Kerry's going to increase our ground forces by 40,000 troops. Good idea. But he's not going to send them to Iraq, you understand.

Having it both ways again.

Kerry said we should never go to war without a plan to win the peace. Agreed. But where was he 18 months ago, when such a criticism could have made a difference?

Back then, he was voting for the war. Before he opposed it. Before supporting it again. Now he's against it again. Although he supports our troops, of course.

Does Kerry have no shame at all? No spine, whatsoever? Is it possible to be nothing but a bundle of pure ambition, with no shred of ethics? Is Kerry so hungry for office that he'll change any position to buy a vote?

Since Kerry gave the same speech, I suppose it's fair to recycle the critique, too. Keep reading until you get to "eel in a vat of olive oil."

Mudville Gazette

Clausewitz & The Triangle:

As some of you have noticed, I'm on the guestblogging team at the Mudville Gazette while Greyhawk is in Iraq. I've just posted a piece there on Von Clausewitz and the situation in the Sunni Triangle. It's a long piece, but will probably interest those of you who enjoy applying military science to the questions of Iraq.

It might also be of interest to those of you who are afraid of "losing the peace," or those opposed to the war altogether. It is a counterargument to both positions.

bloodletting.blog-city.com

A Marine's Plan for Healthcare Reform:

Doc Russia has composed one. If health care policy is one of your things (I confess it is not one of mine), give it a look.

Yahoo! Mail - grimbeornr@yahoo.com

Warlords:

The 2/2 is coming home. JHD sends the final letter, which I am reproducing in full. It's long, but worth your time.

Hello again Warlord families!

As I began this final letter to you from Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it is fitting that I do so on September 11th. That day and the tragic events that were the catalyst that brought the Warlords to this troubled land will forever be etched in our minds. It will not only be a day that we always remember where we were, but also a day that we remember as the day that so many of our country's citizens were lost to terrorism and also remembered as the day when so many stood up and said "enough!" Your Warlords were some of those who said "enough!" Accordingly, I consider it a singular honor, on this day in particular, to pass on to you some of the things that your husbands, sons, brothers and fathers have done since I last wrote you at the end of June.

I related to you at the beginning of the last letter that we had moved again (for the fifth time) and returned to our original location in Mahmudiyah where we relieved four Army battalions that had been conducting operations in this area while we had been in Al Kharma, Fallujah, and Zaidon. Upon returning to Mahmudiyah, the Task Force immediately rolled up its sleeves and reasserted its presence in the area with an aggressive series of actions that ignored the sometimes 140 degree temperatures. Those actions seized and maintained control of nearly 22 miles of six lane highway that had become one of the most volatile sections of road in Iraq, and put the terrorists on their heels within a nearly 800 square kilometer area of operations. Combined with those offensive and defensive operations, we rekindled old friendships with local leaders and families as the battalion assumed control of those civil-military actions designed to rebuild the infrastructure here in the Mahmudiyah area.

Unfortunately, the level and type of enemy activity in our absence spiked to a degree that made our final three months in Iraq less characterized by actions that would exemplify the "No Better Friend" portion of our mission, and more consistent with the "No Worse Enemy" angle. As has been their custom, your Marines and Sailors responded to this challenge and performed magnificently. The three rifle companies found themselves rotating through stints providing fixed site security along the main supply routes strategically supporting the links to Baghdad and Fallujah, providing security for other key infrastructure, conducting patrols to deter enemy activities designed to disrupt the functioning of the Iraqi National Conference and conducting raids and searches in the dead of night that kept the enemy looking over his shoulder and

wondering where the Marines would come from next. At every turn, the Marines of Easy, Fox and Golf and their assigned snipers met the enemy on his home ground with raids, cordon and search operations and coordinated stay-behind operations designed to ambush the insurgents … and on every occasion when he chose to challenge the Warlords, he was defeated decisively. There was no doubt in the mind of these cowards that there was a "new Sheriff in Town."

While the rifle companies asserted their presence with these missions, Weapons Company's 81's Platoon not only kept the enemy at bay by providing "spot on" counter mortar fire but continued their role as the Battalion's Combined Action Platoon helping to train the fledgling Iraqi national Guard. Capitalizing on the foundation they built during our six weeks here in March and April, they transformed a ragtag group of Iraqi soldiers into a Battalion that now regularly patrols and operates alongside their Marine counterparts. This is a singularly impressive accomplishment because not only did they keep their fighting edge, but they also overcame the language barrier and cultural differences to teach these Iraqis the basics of warfighting and provided them the foundation to begin assuming responsibility for security in their own country. Simultaneously, the Red, White and Blue Sections of the CAAT Platoon continued to earn their reputation as the workhorses of the battalion by conducting operations twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week with mobile patrols, escort duty for our Explosive Ordnance Disposal heroes, and aggressive actions designed to hunt down and kill terrorists with their hard-hitting firepower. Again and again, the enemy engaged our CAAT's with Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's), direct fire and indirect fire in order to try to shake them from accomplishing their mission. No matter the method the enemy tried to use, the Marines of this platoon stood tall in their turrets fast in the face of daily attacks against them and kept the pressure on. Incredible courage and attention to duty are the two phrases that most come to mind when I think of their daily ability to be "in the enemy's face" and defeat his best efforts.

Equally impressive were the efforts of our Combat Engineers and Counterintelligence Marines. The Engineers continued as the most productive platoon in theater finding dozens of enemy caches, adding to the survivability of our Marines on fixed site security missions with their construction skills, and as always adding their considerable infantry skills to an already deadly team. Their search methods are now used as the template for the entire Division. Complementing their actions were the warriors of our Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Exploitation Team (CI/HET) who continued to rack up the most significantly actionable intelligence of any team in theater. Their efforts alone, when combined with the rest of the Task Force's combat power was specifically responsible for the detention of dozens of high value terrorist personalities operating within our Area of Operations and some whose influence was international in scope.

A significant and welcome addition to our Task Force came with Artillery Marines from both the 11th Marine Regiment and 10th Marine Regiment as we returned to Mahmudiyah. Sixteen indirect fire attacks during our initial return here highlighted the need for a more robust counterfire capability. With that in mind, RCT-1 and later, the 24th MEU provided the Warlords with a split battery of 155mm howitzers. As a result, any time the enemy was foolish enough to engage us with indirect fire, the canoneers fired with responsiveness and pinpoint accuracy that in once case, forced the enemy to leave his position so quickly that he left his rocket launchers and ammunition in place.

Finally our Headquarters and Service Company kept every conceivable aspect of the Task Force supplied, supported and operating like a well-oiled machine. Our Battalion Aid Station and its Corpsmen literally saved the lives of dozens of Marines wounded in engagements with the enemy. Often under fire, these Sailors not only took the fight to the enemy themselves but often found themselves shielding their Marine brothers as they rendered lifesaving medical care—proving once again why a Navy Corpsmen will never buy a drink when there is a Marine infantryman present. As Corpsman triaged our Marines, our Motor Transport Marines drove thousands of miles supporting every combat need, and worked around the clock and with the enthusiasm of a well-practiced pit crew conducting "triage" on vehicles that if back in the states, would have been relegated to the dump. They worked around the clock installing life-saving armor, ballistic windshields and keeping our vital rolling assets in working order proving once again that "the pride don't ride without Motor "T!"

The Marines and leaders of the Communications Platoon continued to stretch the limits on every piece of equipment the battalion owned in ensuring timely and reliable communications across this 800 square kilometer area of operations thereby allowing the battalion to respond with devastating effects. The Communications reliability and versatility of this Task Force has literally become the envy of the Division because of their efforts. Other standouts include our Supply section, our Armorers, the NBC section and our administrators. Each Marine, in addition to their "day job" of keeping the battalion supplied, paid, and our weapons and chemical gear in top condition, also found themselves as the primary security for multiple tasks supporting the battalion's myriad missions. Each has proven unmistakably that "every Marine a rifleman" is more than just a catchy phrase.

A special mention during this letter must go to the Marines from H&S Company supporting us in the chow hall. Throughout the deployment, their extraordinary efforts, sometimes under fire, have ensured our Marines have had the best field mess support possible regardless of the conditions. Unlike so many other units, the Warlords maintained their own organic capability and these Marines worked twenty hour days consistently in 130 degree temperatures to make sure that the members of the Task Force were well-fed and able to enjoy the occasional special meal. Their commitment to their task added immeasurably to the morale of our Marines and Sailors.

As you can imagine, to try to recap all that your Marines and Sailors have done during the past two and one half months would be an almost impossible task from the standpoint of volume alone. To try to recall the hundreds of acts of heroism and compassion becomes and even greater task but one that merits some mention here as I try to share my immense pride in what these fine men have accomplished. As the commander of the Task Force I have had the privilege of reading the recommendations recognition for all of our Warlords. It is not uncommon for me to find myself up until the sun rises after I have returned from a mission, reading with great admiration and pride, the courageous acts of so many Marines and Sailors. I am not trying to sound melodramatic, but their deeds will now become part of the legends that make up the lore of the Naval Service as a result of their consistently selfless actions.

Examples of some of the more than 150 recommended awards for valor include men who crossed fire swept terrain to save Iraqi families caught in deadly crossfire as terrorists used them as human shields, Corpsmen who protected Marines with their bodies as indirect fire landed around them, Marines who continued to fight after having been wounded, not willing to give up their positions for fear that their buddies would pay the price, admonishing themselves to "stay in the fight," maintaining their fire to protect their fellow Marines without the slightest regard for their own danger. Most importantly however I will remember the dozens of Purple Heart ceremonies where we recognized those who day in and day out, put on their gear, checked their ammunition and headed out to get the mission accomplished regardless of the dangers they knew were waiting for them. That my friends is courage—and that is why these Marines and Sailors deserve every accolade a nation can bestow. They have paid the price for freedom with their courage.

If you remember, prior to the deployment I wrote you that "Those who would challenge us have underestimated the capability and resolve of the Warlords. They do not know what you know … that these men are of the same stock that won at places like Belleau Wood, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, Dai Do, Grenada, Kuwait and Al Kut. They are also men who are fathers, sons, brothers and husbands whose capability as warriors is exceeded only by their compassion and strong moral compass." I must tell you that those words were written based on my confidence in these men and what I had seen them do to prepare. I can tell you that that confidence was not misplaced. They exceeded my most ardent hopes and reminded me again what it means to be a part of a fighting unit like the Warlords of Task Force 2/2. Their actions are indeed the stuff of legend.

I will also tell you without reservation that much of our success is arguably the result of the strength we drew daily from your support. Your letters, your packages, your prayers and most of all your complete commitment to our mission here by your devotion to your Warlord gave us not only the focus we needed, but the promise of what we had to return to. In particular I must thank the Key Volunteers throughout the Task Force who consistently gave to us, and to each other, the support and sustained commitment that provided the foundation on which we succeeded. Your Marines and Sailors were able to focus on the mission because of the confidence they had in all of you at home to take care of each other when they could not be home with you. For all that you have done for all of us I will remain forever in your debt.

As uplifting and inspiring as the performance of your Warlords has been, each of you also know that those successes have not been without cost. Sadly, as the deployment comes to a close, I am reminded of each of the more than one hundred and fifty wounded and our six fallen. I ask that each of you continue your prayers for these men who gave so much in support of their fellow Marines and Sailors. Their names and their deeds will be remembered by each of us who were privileged to serve with them. But well after the welcome home celebrations are over, after Operation IRAQI FREEDOM II becomes part of the battalion's lineage, and after a new generation of Warlords carries the color forward, you must remember that the true legacy of their sacrifices will be revealed. First, their legacy will be in the gift of freedom and hope they gave to a nation ruled by a brutal dictator for four generations, and second, that legacy will live on in the example of courage and compassion that they gave not only to each of us, but to a nation. With that in mind, I ask that each of you keep the families of Sergeant Michael Speer, Gunnery Sergeant Ronald Baum, Lance Corporal Andrew Zabierek, Lance Corporal Bryan Kelly, Lance Corporal Nick Morrison, and Corporal Chris Belchik in your thoughts and prayers. They never broke faith with us or with you. I ask that you pray that their families are sustained and strengthened as their Marines sustained and strengthened us through their actions. Pray that their families and all Americans remember that it is in how they lived their lives that makes their memory the treasure it is, and the gift they gave so precious.

In closing, I will say yet again what an honor it has been to have been given the rare privilege of commanding such fine men under difficult conditions. They led, they fought for a nation and for a people, and they kept faith with each other and with you. They inspired the world with their example of what is best among the youth of our country and they have established a legacy of leadership and courage that will become the foundation for the leadership of the Naval Service well into the twenty-first century. As we reunite with our families and recall the moments of courage and compassion that changed our lives during the past seven months, I think you will see a change in these men. That change will reflect the special knowledge of what it means to have given freedom to a nation, hope to a people, and strength to each other during moments when the measure of a man's life is defined by his actions. You and they will find that those actions will stand the test of time and be remembered with great pride. Freedom has taken hold in Iraq and it will not let go because of what these brave men have done.

God Bless each of you, God Bless America, and Semper Fi from your Marines and Sailors in Iraq!

Humbly,

Giles Kyser
LtCol
USMC
"Warlord Six"

New Build

New Build:

Grim's Hall has a new look. Let me know if it's hard to read, or if you like it. The comments here are the place for that.

DNC Video: Fortunate Son

So Much For That Being A Rumor:

I guess the DNC isn't any brighter than I thought. They're going with the "Operation Fortunate Son" ad after all. This, by a campaign that admitted to the Washington Post this weekend that it was having to restrict its ad buys in order to compete in a "smaller" battleground through election day. This is what they're spending their money putting together.

As BlackFive points out, Op.FS is wrong on a major point.

Meanwhile, the ad itself actually uses Dan Rather footage -- from the Ben Barnes interview, which was the same piece that included the forged documents! As today's Washington Post piece unmercifully slams the CBS forgeries, Rather's credibility is going under.

Just after the Rather footage, they start showing blurry documents, but never quote them directly to let you know which ones they mean. Between the Rather footage and the document pictures, the DNC just tied the Kerry campaign to CBS' sinking ship in the strongest possible terms.

What are the odds that Kerry's campaign will not, now, be linked in the minds of the public with these forgeries? As poll numbers show Kerry with a favorability rating eleven points lower than Dukakis' in 1988, you can figure that people are already ready to believe something bad about Kerry. The DNC just handed them something very bad to believe, on a nice platter.

CNN.com - Lost nuclear bomb possibly found - Sep 13, 2004

I Knew There Was Something Odd About Those Fish:

From CNN:

Government experts are investigating a claim that an unarmed nuclear bomb, lost off the Georgia coast at the height of the Cold War, might have been found.... A group led by retired Air Force Lt. Col. Derek Duke of Statesboro, Georgia, said in July that it had found a large object underwater near Savannah that was emitting high levels of radioactivity, according to an Associated Press report.

The group said it used radiation and metal detection equipment to search an area in Wassaw Sound off Tybee Island where the bomb reportedly was dropped, the AP reported.

This will not surprise any Savannah residents. I lived there myself for four years, and I have to say it all makes perfect sense.

HughHewitt.com

Hewitt On Kerry:

From HughHewitt.com:

Calling a reporter on a Sunday while not appearing on the Sunday shows is an admission of both panic and certainty that the candidate couldn't have managed other than a controlled interview, and certainly not a television interview that would provide tape of a bumbler/stumbler still clutching his magic hat fantasy. What if Russert had rolled tape from StolenHonor? What is Chris Wallace had asked about the gun-running to Cambodia? The handlers can't risk letting Kerry out of the box he built for himself, so Campaign 2004 Deathwatch continues.

That's surely right. We must be very careful not to let the press ask the wrong questions, which they will surely do if we go talk to them. Everything must be carefully controlled.

Of course, I still want them to ask about that Senate pay. Taking money you know the law forbids you to have is stealing, right? Stealing taxpayer money, to pad your personal bank account? One of the wealthiest men in America?

Andrew C. McCarthy on the 9/11 Commission Report and Kerry on National Review Online

Intel:

Here you can read a rather brutal assault on Kerry's service (or lack thereof) on the Senate Intelligence committee.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

A Little Bit More from Zell:

The Honorable Zell Miller has a piece in today's OpinionJournal. It begins:

My critics in the national media are working overtime trying to paint me as an angry nut who got the facts all wrong in my speech to the Republican National Convention. Since there's not enough time to challenge all of these critics to a duel, let me set the record straight here and now.

There follows a perfectly fine rendition of the speech I've given myself often enough not to need to repeat it. Zell was right, and he remains right. He concludes:

So, my critics can call me a psychopath and fire spitballs at me and froth at the mouth when an ex-president sends me a nasty letter. That's the freedom of speech they all enjoy, courtesy of the American soldier.... So, they can call me names and ridicule my angry demeanor all day long. But facts are facts. And the fact is, John Kerry has a long record of proposals to weaken our national security in a time of war. And I would never put my family's safety in those hands.

Nor should anyone.

EducationGuardian.co.uk | Higher | Space probes feel cosmic tug of bizarre forces

Something Big On The Event Horizon:

Isaac Asimov once wrote: ""The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny....'"

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Ideas / Against types

More On Psychology:

Via Arts & Letters Daily, there is this article on the dubious nature of personality tests. It highlights some of the ethical issues Jean and I are discussing below:

DO YOU PREFER a bath to a shower? Are you fascinated by fire? At parties, do you sometimes get bored, or always have fun? Do you sometimes feel like smashing things? Do you think Lincoln was greater than Washington? Do you feel uneasy indoors? Do you think questions like these tell us anything meaningful about ourselves, or do you think they're nothing more than parlor game fodder?

Regardless of how you answer that last one, the fact is that personality tests featuring questions like those are everywhere these days. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, or MMPI, is taken by as many as 15 million people a year and used to screen applicants for jobs from police officer to nuclear technician to priest. Eighty-nine companies in the Fortune 100 use the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to determine how and with whom their employees work best. The Rorschach test, the granddaddy of them all, is used diagnostically by eight out of 10 psychologists and routinely submitted as evidence in child custody cases, criminal sentencing, and emotional damage lawsuits.

I've actually taken all of these tests for various employers and potential employers (as well as IQ tests, given by certain kinds of employers in spite of the loud arguments against them). I made a point of asking about the "bath or shower?" question, and was told simply that it didn't mean anything by itself, but was factored into a matrix of dozens of questions to see if a pattern emerged.

"What pattern?" you might be inclined to ask. "Seriously, what other activity in my life forms a pattern with that? If I like baths and swimming, I'm not afraid of water; but if I prefer showers and hiking, I am? And so what? Why should any aspect of my future career be predicated on this kind of question?"

The article is far kinder than I would be in its conclusions, but those of you interested in background are welcome to read it. It's not the first time Arts & Letters Daily has been interested in the question: you can also read this article, or this one, which shows how the inkblot test functions in roughly the same way as palm reading.

TIME.com Print Page: TIME Magazine -- "I've Been in Worse Situations"

Hey, Kerry Gave an Interview:

TIME has the first one in 43 days. I can see why they got it, too: not one hardball question. Nothing on any of the stuff his campaign has had to backtrack on (e.g., Cambodia, self-inflicted wounds), the Naval investigation into his record, his antiwar statements, the veterans opposed to him rallying today, none of it.

He was asked about timetables, but only if he had any. His response:

I have said that I have a goal to be able to bring our troops out of there within my first term, and I hope to be able to bring out some troops within the first year. But what's important here is that I can fight a more effective war on terror.

So: 'Yes, our enemies can count on my commitment to withdrawal. But I still expect to be more effective, with fewer troops, in the face of an enemy who knows I expect to get out ASAP.'

Blogs for Bush: Web of Connections Update -- Forged Documents Version!

More Fun with Ra^thergate:

The Blogs for Bush are now poking fun at the New York Times. They've built a Times-style "Web of Connections" between the players in Ra^thergate. It's mildly amusing, especially since it correctly points out that Ben Barnes is a Kerry Campaign vice-chair. It would have been nice if they'd mentioned Ra^ther's attendance at Democratic fundraisers, in despite of CBS' ethics policy, but you can't have everything.

There has been a lot of activity on the Internet recently concerning the forged CBS documents

Money Where His Mouth Is:

This fellow is serious about that forgery thing. He's not only posted the longest and most comprehensive attack on the docs I've seen yet, but he's also posted a prominent link to his resume, in case you doubt his credentials to make the charges. "No fan of Bush," he says, but an enemy of fraud.

Drudge, on the other hand, points to a rumor of a new DNC campaign that will "attack Bush's guard service." "George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service," it says. Drudge notes dryly that this means Clinton's advice to stay away from Vietnam is being ignored by the Kerry campaign.

Now, Bush has done all that really can be asked of a political opponent to save Kerry's bacon on this issue. He has repeatedly said that Kerry should be proud of his (Kerry's) service, and he's called for a stop to the Swifty ads and to 527 ads generally. He's had to put up with them paying him back by saying that "George Bush betrayed his country" by not serving in Vietnam, and now that he has "a clear pattern of lying about his military service."

Do they really think this is going to help? You can't win against a well-known incumbent by trying to redefine him in the eyes of voters. This kind of negative attack can work against a John Kerry, an empty suit lacking a national reputation (and the guts to talk to the media -- an incumbent can "do his job" to show his worth in the office, but a challenger has to talk and take questions). Negative ads can define who he is in the minds of the voters: in Kerry's case, a waffling, spineless, weak-on-everything playboy, who 'by the way served in Vietnam,' where he was known by hundreds of fellow veterans who now hate his guts.

But the voters know perfectly well who Bush is. Effective negative ads against a well-known incumbent have to attack the things people already believe about him. And to spend money on this kind of ad campaign right on the heels of Ra^thergate, when the minds of voters nationwide are fixed on how this very issue was used by people trying to slander the President with blatant forgeries?

Astonishing. Kerry almost certainly would have gotten a pass from the American people on any charge that he was connected to the forgeries. Rumors in the American Spectator don't generally rise to the public's notice, and people would assume such charges were partisan politics, like the charges that Bush was driving the Swifties in private while scorning them in public.

But if Kerry's camp insists on pushing the Guard angle, they're going to associate themselves with the forgery story in peoples' minds. Is this really the "issue" they want to be talking about? With an official US Navy investigation ongoing into his record, does Kerry really want "a pattern of lying about his military service" to be the thing people are discussing?

Well, it's just a rumor from Drudge, for now. Maybe he's brighter than that.

Belmont Club

Yeomen Bloggers:

If you haven't seen it yet, the Belmont Club has a charming comparison of blogs to longbows. I lift my cup of good October to you all, merry men.

Mudville Gazette

Milblogs on Ra^thergate:

Both the Mudville Gazette and BlackFive have the same reaction to Ra^thergate: the are outraged at the slander to LTCOL Killian. Greyhawk:

Not much has yet been made of the fact that this fraud has been perpetrated in the name of a deceased military officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian of the Texas Air National Guard. CBS's claims actually besmirch the reputation of a man who served his country nobly and well, a man whose opinions (by all accounts of those who knew him best - his family) were the exact opposite of those expressed in the Rather Forgeries. A man who after spending a lifetime defending his country is no longer able to defend himself.

B5:

By allowing the forgeries to stand against all logic - including statements against the documents issued by Killian's son (also a retired Air National Guard Officer) and his widow - CBS is defaming the character of the service of LTC Killian.

Defaming LTC Killian's character?

I am sure that you military folks (and many of you who never wore a uniform) understand that writing a memo referenced to CYA is craven and not looked upon as worthy of the uniform of our Armed Forces. To military Officers, putting your career ahead of doing what is right is possibly one of the most distgusting acts for someone to commit (anyone thinking of the VVAW?).

If any of this pisses me off, it's the fact that CBS probably doesn't care about that.

The thought had come to me, in less strong terms, that it was a bit cowardly to forge documents in the name of a man who could no longer speak in his defense. But BlackFive's point is well taken: the "content" of the memo is itself slanderous to Killian.

C-SPAN: Watch LIVE

"Vietnam Veterans for Truth" Rally:

It's on C-SPAN now.You can watch if you're so inclined. I'll live blog it for a bit. Quotes are as best as I can transcribe, but perfect accuracy is not guaranteed. I'll try to demark the ones I am sure of with full quotes, and the ones I'm doing my best with with half-quotes.

Right now Jim Warner is on to talk about what it was to be tortured by the Communists, and to have Kerry's words thrown in his face.

Warner, five and a half years a prisoner, began his statement by saying, "Semper Fi," and then said that he wanted to thank his country for the chance to fight in Vietnam. He spoke about the justness of the cause, and the harm caused not only to Vietnam and the Vietnamese, but to the people of Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia by the withdrawal.

Then he launched into a discussion of interrogation sessions in which Winter Soldier and John Kerry's words were used against him. He said, 'John Kerry said this was official policy... I remember my in-country briefing, where they said that these were all the things we weren't allowed to do.' He then went on and said, 'The Vietcong were defeated utterly at Tet... we were all they had left to bargain with... they said, "Your own naval officer says you deserve to be punished!"'

He says, "Everyone knew we were being tortured." 'Nobody had any way of knowing that we would not get hurt. But they did have a way of knowing that, if they said things like that, it could cause us to be hurt.'

Now he's talking about studies of military history. 'The first thing you need is a commander with sound judgment and steadfast character.... John Kerry made a famous statement, I'm told, "Don't be the last man to die in a lost cause." How is Communism doing now? Whose cause is lost now, John Kerry? It wasn't ours.'" That's a misquote of Kerry, I'll note (Kerry said not 'lost cause' but 'mistake'), but the point is valid.

Now he's wrapping up. He says he has something he wants us to take away, "Seared, seared! into your memory." This is it: "Here is a test you can apply universally every time someone wants to be your commander, or your leader... you'll know he has good judgement if he knows the best way to stop a war against an evil enemy is to win it. God bless you, God bless America, and Semper Fi."

Next speaker is now being introduced. He's a Swifty: John O'Neill, it turns out. The introduction contained the line, "Did you notice Dan Rather was more polite to Saddam Hussein than he was to the Swift Boat Vets?"

O'Neill begins: 'I'm no hero, but I served in a unit with a lot of heroes in it.' How many times have I heard that formula, from veterans from many wars? And never from John Kerry.

O'Neill digs at Kerry for hiding for 43 days (and counting) from the press, since the Swifties started raising their charges.

"When has there ever been an American presidential candiate who met with the enemy in time of war?"

He's not backing off of anything the Swifties have charged. Lots of applause from the assembled vets.

Talking about Arlington, 'across the river that divides life from death.' 'They were not the army of Genghis Khan. In fact, they were the greatest people I've ever known.'

The New York Times > Opinion > On Guard, America

The NYTimes Blows It Again:

Here follows a critique of yesterday's lead editorial, "On Guard, America":

As regressive milestones go, few are as frightful in this new era of homeland security as the decision by Congress and the Bush administration to allow the expiration of the 10-year-old law protecting the public from assault rifles and other rapid-fire battlefield weapons. The law - a far from perfect but demonstrably effective restraint on high-tech gunslingers - expires on Monday with not a whimper from the White House.

This lead paragraph needs as much correction as any whole article normally would. I hardly know where to begin. I suppose I shall begin with the outright untruths.

First, none of the weapons banned by this bill -- not one! -- were "rapid-fire." All of them fired one shot per pull of the trigger. All weapons that do otherwise (properly termed "automatic" weapons, or "select-fire" if they have a switch that lets you choose the rate of fire) were illegal before the ban, and remain illegal now. They were regulated by the National Firearms Acts of the 1930s. No one may legally own or possess one except the military, certain police units, and persons holding what is known as a "Class III" permit. A Class III permit requires large fees, extensive background checks, and other safeguards. In a lifetime spent around shooting ranges, I've met only one person who actually had one.

Second, none of these firearms -- not one! -- were "battlefield weapons." The military has firearms that look like these, but they don't function the same way. Battlefield weapons are generally speaking select-fire. None of these are. The Army would not issue any of these to forces it planned to send into the field.

Third, there is no evidence of any sort that this law was "effective" at stopping crime.

Fourth, I object to the notion that this is "regressive." As Chesterton pointed out, what's regression to one is progress to another. I consider this a major step forward in removing unconstitutional restrictions from the law; I also think it's generally progressive to strip away useless laws. But my goal is that of building a society based on individual liberty and independence, not that of building a society based on a life that is regulated 'for our safety.'

Fifth, I wonder at the suggestion that these were "frightful" and "high tech" weapons. Most of them have been around in their current form for between thirty and fifty years. All of the Kalishnikov variants, for example, are based on a WWII-era design. There have been minor adjustments and refinements since then, but it's pretty much the same rifle as ever.

When George Bush was a candidate four years ago and under campaign pressure from moderates, he announced that he did support the renewal of this highly popular law. It turned out that he was shooting rhetorical blanks; his support depended on the renewal's ever getting through Congress in the first place. As president, Mr. Bush has never once demanded that his G.O.P. leaders cease playing first responder to the demands of the gun lobby and take the initiative on this public safety issue.

The Times has an annoying habit of assuming the mantle of moderation. Anyone who agrees with them is a "moderate." Now, honestly, the fact is that the Times' position on gun control is reflected by the laws of only a double-handful of states; the vast majority of states now permit concealed carry on a shall-issue basis. Most of the rest permit concealed carry, though not on a shall-issue basis. The Times' position is hard to the left of what the majority of America practices, and the momentum is on the side of those who believe in the Right to Bear Arms.

Roughly the same objection can be raised against the notion that this was a "highly popular law." If that were the case, why have the Democrats been so quiet about gun control this election season? Kerry took a swipe at Bush over this, but made sure the same week to get out to the gun range and get photographed blasting away at sport clays. (Amusingly, the firearm he used was one he voted to ban.)

Again, pretty much the same argument can be fielded against the Times' demand that Bush should have done more to resurrect this monster. If this were such a moderate, highly popular law, why should it have been a hurdle to say that you would be glad to sign it if Congress sent it to you? The fact that the bill had no chance of getting through Congress is a little telling. Blaming it on the influence of the "gun lobby" doesn't get you out of the pit. The "gun lobby" is just American citizens, after all. I'm the NRA! (And so are you, Sovay, if you'll get around to cutting them that check you promised after losing a certain bet, which forfeit has been outstanding since February.)

A decade's experience with the assault weapons ban showed clearly that the only people who were inconvenienced were the criminals, the gun lobbyists and the least responsible gun dealers. Certainly the Second Amendment rights of responsible hunters were never crimped. Anyone taking to the woods next week with a freshly unfettered AK-47 or Uzi, or a TEC-9 assault pistol, will only make mincemeat of the game and a mockery of sportsmanship.

First of all, this garbage about "sportsmanship" needs to stop. The argument for firearms rights has almost nothing to do with hunting. By far the majority of the argument has to do with self-defense, and a citizen's duty to protect himself, his family, and his community. We have both the right and the duty under the law, and we also have a constitutional right to the tools.

However, since you mention it, an AK-47 is a .30 caliber rifle (7.62x39mm). Since (again!) none of these are automatic weapons, there's no fear of making "mincemeat" out of the animal; you get one shot per pull of the trigger. One shot from a .30 caliber rifle is the single most common means of bringing down a deer for your table. The AK-47 is not ideal: most people prefer a scoped .30-30 or .30-06 for the task. On the other hand, some persons apparently prefer crawling on their belly through the mud with a 12-gauge, so to each their own.

....Now the greedier gun dealers are preparing to profit on the law's expiration as if it signaled the arrival of Beaujolais nouveau. The Bush administration has allowed the right to bear arms to degenerate back to the right to brandish battlefield weapons on the home front.

"Beaujolais nouveau." Somehow that phrase does as much to show the Times' bias as anything else in the article. If you didn't get it, though, they hammer the point one more time: they repeat the dishonest formula, "battlefield weapons," and they refer to a restoration of our rights as "degenerate."

Once again, the Times has misrepresented the truth about these firearms. They have dishonestly portrayed them as automatic weapons, "rapid-fire" "battlefield weapons" that would make "mincemeat" out of their targets. They have suggested, in despite of the facts, that the ban somehow impacted crime rates. They have also misrepresented the argument of firearms rights proponents, who have never suggested that hunting was the reason for these firearms' legality.

The editors of the Times have, in other words, approached the issue without any regard for facts or fairness. If they wish to know why the majority of the country is opposed to their suggested policy, they might take that as a starting point.

Grim's Hall

Nuclear Test?

By now everyone's heard that the DPRK may have detonated an atomic weapon, although the US gov't and ROK gov't are both denying it. It's possible that it was non-nuclear: the DPRK may be trying to sort out what kind of bunker they need to contain an underground nuclear test. The US gov't did several similar tests with conventional explosives out in the desert back during the Manhattan project, as I recall -- they took a rough estimate of the explosive power from the scientists, loaded that much TNT into a hole, and blew it up.

Several people are pointing to the mushroom cloud that was reported. Well, here's a picture of last week's explosion in Jakarta:

If you get a big enough explosion, even with conventional explosives, you'll get something shaped in this fashion. It has to do with the way the air is pushed and heated by the blast (forming the cap of the "mushroom," which rises, being hot). Cool air rushes in below, drawn into the partial vacuum created both by the explosion's push, and by the rapid rise of the heated air. That keeps the stem of the mushroom slender, and helps drive the cap even higher.

Of course, instead of a test, this could be one of several other things: an uncontrolled explosion at an underground facility, an assassination attempt (that was what the official state media finally settled upon as the cause of the railway explosions), &c.

Still, Grim's Hall has been predicting a DPRK nuclear test for nearly as long as Grim's Hall has been on the internet. Their progress is slower than I've expected.

9/11

9/11:

As is the tradition of the Hall, I am going to repost "Enid & Geraint," which I wrote on 9/11. Three years on, I suppose it could use some editing, but I have left it in the form I composed that day, sitting on an island in a stream, when I could not watch the towers fall any more.

Enid & Geraint

Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.

And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.

They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.

At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.

And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.

By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.

End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.

Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.

Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.

And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.

And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.

His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.

And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.

The wind from that horn has shaken the world, but the forest has proven deep. There is still much to do; but over the fresh graves of Russian schoolchildren, we can only renew our oaths to see this to the very end.

Ed

A Colleague Writes:

A couple of weeks ago there was a bombing in Afghanistan that took out a DynCorp building. I don't work for DynCorp, but two of my colleagues had been in that building on several occasions while on an Afghan project.

Today, I got a mail from another colleague, about a bombing in Indonesia:

Here's some photos from a good friend and former colleague in Indonesia. BTW, **** (in one of the photos) is the headquarters of ****, where I used to work. The last two offices that I've worked in before coming home to the US have now been hit by car bombs.

He then suggests I consider another line of work. Heh. I don't think I'm in any danger in my heavily-armed compound in Warrenton, VA, where I'll be for at least another month and a half. Still, the overseas market is getting dangerous for "mercenaries," as KOS would have it.

The Scotsman - Top Stories - British couple shot dead by Thai policeman after restaurant row

The Wild East:

Out of Thailand, a story that could have come from an old American ballad. One doesn't expect good Buddhists to act in quite this way:

A THAI policeman ran down a British tourist in his car and shot her dead after murdering her boyfriend following a row in a town on the banks of the river Kwai....

Police said the couple had been involved in a violent argument with a man at a restaurant in the town, 100 miles north-west of Bangkok.

"We don’t know what the argument was about, but after Adam and Vanessa left, this man followed them on the way back to their guesthouse," said Inspector Milind Phienchand, of the tourist police.

"He followed them in his car. He shot Mr Lloyd three times - once in the head, once in the arm and once in the body.

"He tracked Ms Arscott for 200 metres and hit her with his car. Then he shot her once in the head and once in the chest."

This answers to the point raised earlier today, on the relative wisdom of arming only the 'servants of the state.' At least you might have returned the fire, poor Brit, in the brave old days of Dickens, but no more.

Mudville Gazette

Dan Rather Replaced:

The Mudville Gazette has the story. He got a nice sendoff, though:

Dan Rather will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity.

Walking The Walls

Death In the Afternoon:

Walking The Walls reports that the Senate has adjourned. The gun ban now expires at the end of the weekend, with no chance of renewal.

Good riddance. Thank you again, watchmen.

The Corner on National Review Online

*Chuckle*

That Howard Dean is a funny fellow. Via The Corner, an interview with the non-candidate who is still giving a lot more press interviews than the actual candidate:

"The Republicans have the best propaganda out there since Lenin, and they just make stuff up and they keep repeating it, and hope people are going to believe it," said Howard Dean.

And then:

"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term[.]"

Given that Rumsfeld and the Secretary of the Army have both categorically rejected the notion, does this count as "just mak[ing] stuff up and... repeating it, and hope people are going to believe it"?

Walking The Walls

On Gun Rights:

Walking The Walls has a beautiful post this morning -- not what I expected, since it was created just to provide a go-to place for news on any attempt to renew the Clinton Gun Ban. Apparently someone wrote in to tell the folks that the existence of a blog devoted to restoring gun rights frightened them.

One of the authors responds at length. It is a respectful, honest, and I think a convincing explanation of why they are opposed to the gun ban. If you're one of my readers who is a little frightened by guns, you might want to read this reply. It may not convince you to oppose the ban also, but it should ease your mind about the intentions of those who do oppose it.

Kitten killing soldiers appeal sparks outrage - National - www.smh.com.au

And You Thought Michael Moore Hated Soldiers:

You haven't yet read about the Great Australian Kitten-Killing Case.

Jesse robbed from the poor
and he gave to the rich.
He never did a friendly thing.
And when his best friend died
he was right there by her side
and he lifted off her golden wedding ring.

Poor Jesse had a wife
who mourned for his life,
three children, they were brave.
But that dirty little coward
who shot Mister Howard
has laid poor Jesse in his grave.

The New York Times > Books > Sunday Book Review > 'Secrets of the Soul': Is Psychoanalysis Science or Is It Toast?

Death To Pseudoscience!

The New York Times asks, "Is psychoanalysis science? Or is it toast?" A hint:

Almost from the moment of its inception... the mongrel of a discipline known as psychoanalysis was in a struggle for its life.

Few things have brought more damage to the cause of human freedom than psychology. We now live in a day when boys are regularly drugged to make them easier to handle. This is called "medicine," but it is poison. We will be better off when the last psychologist has been... well, I won't recycle metaphors from Communists. But we'll be better off when the "discipline" is dead, and these fake-doctor schools are forever closed.

BLACKFIVE

All Veterans Against John Kerry:

There's a rally on Sunday, for those who are not (like your correspondant) too sick to attend. Details from BlackFive:

A gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America

Where: Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C. It is easy to get to, shady and pretty, with a great view of the Capitol dome in back of the speaker's platform. THIS IS A NEW LOCATION AS OF 7/17/04

When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)

Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry

All Vietnam veterans and their families and supporters are asked to attend. Other veterans are invited as honored guests.

NOTE: Bring a blanket or lawn chairs. None will be provided.

Any of you who can manage it, go and give good cheer. I'll be here, coughing away and drinking "the ten year old cough syrup" until I feel better. (Actually, I'll likely make do with Guinness.)

Grim's Hall

Kill the Beast:

One more day. My salute to those keeping watch on this. Victory is nigh, so keep your head up: and give a call to Congressmen and the President. You can get the right numbers here.

pacetown

Polls Flawed:

Spacetown has an interesting point about the polls being conducted today. Almost all of them are telephone polls, he notes, and the polls are based on "2002 version of a nationally published set of phone CDs of listed households, ordered by telephone number."

Since 2002, an estimated 9 million customers have quit keeping "landlines," and gone to cell/digitial phones only. This is true for my household: we had a landline in 2002, but since 2003 have been cell-phone only.

What does this mean for polls? No one knows, except this: they aren't accurate.

INDC Journal: (UPDATED: Almost Positive It's a Fake)Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake?

All's Fair:

INDC Journal hires one of the nation's top forensics experts, and he says that the CBS memos are "90%" probably fakes. Hat tip: Allah, who has a lot more.

But this is all fair in the wake of the Swiftee stuff, right? Except, of course, that the Swiftees put their own names on sworn statements and, of course, Unfit for Command, putting their lives and fortunes at risk under slander and libel law. (Also, of course, they've been proven correct on several points... and then there's that US Navy investigation it's spawned into Kerry's records).

Wow. This really is turning into an ugly race. Forging federal documents is a federal crime, right? I suppose we'll be seeing the same folks who were calling for an investigation into the Plame business calling for a full investigation into CBS' source for these memos. Since I was one of the ones who wanted the Plame matter investigated, I'll start:

Let's get these reporters under oath.

Grim's Hall

Walking the Walls:

Two days. I just got off the phone with one of my Senators' offices. The other one has a recorded message playing saying that they are taking such a high volume of calls that no one can answer the phone. They aren't even taking voice mail. I sent an email instead.

Instapundit.com

Nov. 2nd is Veteran's Day:

Via the Sage, I see that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion have both endorsed President Bush's reelection. VVAW, oddly enough still around, says it doesn't endorse candidates in order to protect its tax status, so there's no way to know who they support.

UPDATE: You know, after I wrote that, I wondered why the VVAW would have a limitation on its endorsements the VFW doesn't. So, I looked into it and found that in fact the VFW can't endorse candidates either. A closer reading of the story Instapundit linked shows that it was actually some of the leadership who endorsed Bush, speaking one supposes for themselves, but identifying themselves as leaders. I expect this means that the VFW would like to endorse Bush, if it could legally do so.

WorldNetDaily: Kerry Navy probe to expand scope?

Wild:

Did you folks see this WorldNetDaily article?

Judicial Watch's supplemental filing points out Navy regulations state that only the secretary of the Navy can sign a Silver Star, on behalf of the president. But Kerry's first citation is signed by Vice Adm. E.R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam, and Adm. John J. Hyland, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Farrell said today he thinks there is reason to believe Kerry has attempted to 'paper over an unauthorized Silver Star.'

'It appears there was an attempt, by autopen, to 'ratify' what had been done in an unauthorized manner earlier,' he said.

'We don't know this for sure, but that's precisely why there should be an investigation,' Farrell added.

I was convinced that the whole "combat V" thing was a clerical error, and that the third citation would prove to be a political favor -- perhaps something done at Ted Kennedy's request, to bolster the language in order to make Kerry look heroic for his 1984 Senate run. Nothing big, nor actually illegal.

Well, WND is hardly gospel, but they are citing a bipartisan group with a decent reputation. So the one question I had about it earlier:

I mean, it's a Silver Star citation. How bad can it be? Why not release it, like he did the two others?

...may have a good answer. It may be that first citation wasn't properly signed. And since the Secretary of the Navy says he didn't actually sign the other one, or know of it...

It can't really be this bad, can it? I'm no naif, but really -- we're talking about felonies now. It's one thing to scoff at the US code when it says you can't be paid for work you don't perform; and it's another thing to scoff at the Logan Act. Neither of those have ever actually been enforced.

But to falsify a Silver Star? I'm no fan of Kerry, but even I have trouble believing it. Godspeed to the Navy investigators in sorting it out.

Walking The Walls

Walking the Walls:

For those of you who haven't been following it, just three business days on the deathwatch. Call your congressmen tomorrow.

Cogicophony: Timetables: Suck or No Suck?

Who's Advising Kerry On Military Matters?

The answer appears to be, "No one."

The question came up during the Cogicophony debate on Kerry's new timeline-to-withdrawal. I looked into the matter, and discovered that Kerry's titular advisor on military matters is retired Air Force General Merrill A. McPeak. I'm not sure what McPeak's qualifications are beyond what is listed in his official biography, though I assume he has some. He's only published two papers in the last twenty years (one of which dates to 1985), both of which are on exclusively USAF matters. He attended War College, but it's been in the 1970s; since about 1976, he's been out of the "theory arena" and in the field and the bureaucracy. As a consequence, while I'm certain he must have views on military transformation, guerrilla war, and the like, I don't have any way to know what they are.

One reason for his position would appear to be that he was nominated for the USAF Chief by GHWB, served under Clinton, supported GWB in 2000, and now supports Kerry. He therefore has bipartisan credibility, which counts more among the press and citizenry than having the right ideas. Relatively few of the press, as we've discussed frequently, have the background to evaluate the ideas anyway. What matters is that you can say, "Here's a man who's been on both sides politically, and now supports our boy." What ideas he uses that credibility to advocate, I can't say.

However, it appears that it doesn't matter anyway. Kerry flatly ignores his advice.

General McPeak told Steph: “We need to about double the size” of our contingent of forces in Iraq. He’s JF Kerry’s military advisor, and Kerry said Friday:

“I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan,” Kerry said. “I believe we can.”

So apparently he's just a figurehead. One more veteran used to bolster Kerry's credibility, whose interests are ignored when they're inconvenient.

UPDATE: I found an interview with McPeak; the original is behind subscription walls, but a cache of it is here. It pre-dates the Iraq war. He appears to be "fighter mafia," which is to say that he belongs to that segment of the Air Force that believes the Army should eliminate its heavy divisions entirely, concentrate on special forces only, and let the Air Force do the work of destroying enemy armies. This is glorious, he says:

The man who headed the U.S. Air Force during Desert Storm will tell you, over black coffee in a Lake Oswego cafe, that the potential attack on Iraq is "the fight you dream about, a wonderful kind of war to have."

The former fighter pilot calls the conflict a "no brainer," pitting the U.S. military machine -- with precision-guided munitions that he conceived -- against a nation whose gross national product is dwarfed by what the Air Force spends each year.

"Everybody's going to get decorated out of this thing," says Tony McPeak, a four-star general who retired to Oregon in 1995. "Everyone comes home. It has a lot of appeal to me."

But what to do when the war is over? The Air Force can't do the work of occupying nations that need rebuilding, but that's OK, as McPeak is against it:

Airstrikes would wipe out Baghdad's communications system again, McPeak says. "If we go in there and occupy the place for 50 years, which is my prediction, we'll have to rebuild it."

Close combat in Baghdad would be stupid, he says, despite what Army generals may advocate. "We've already radicalized 99 percent of the Arabs in the world. We'll get the holdouts if we start doing hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad."

So, in short, he believes in a military that strikes from afar, destroys enemy civilizations, and then leaves them in ruins. Baghdad's people he would have left in the hands of the Fedayeen Saddam, and without civil services.

This kind of punitive-strike warfare was practiced by the Imperial Roman Legions to great effect. There is something to be said for it. But in a world in which failed states are the breeding ground for terrorists, who export rather than contain their misery and wrath, it must be regarded as a fool's approach.

In retrospect, McPeak seems to realize that. As in the quote above, he is now calling for doubling the forces on the ground. But where would those forces come from, if the Army disbanded its divisions to focus on "agile" special operations teams?

Not, as I say, that it matters. Kerry doesn't listen to his military advisor. But, even should he begin, this is the advice he'll get.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Carter Responds to Miller:

I see that Talking Points Memo has obtained a copy of a letter by Jimmy Carter, to Zell Miller. You can see the whole thing at Josh's site if you like. After scolding Zell for speaking out against the national party, and suggesting that dissent is improper in a Democrat, Carter says this:

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist.

We thank the former President for his service in the navy. This is the first time, however, I have heard it suggested by anyone that the Carter presidency "strengthened our military forces," to say nothing of "greatly strengthened." I wonder if he also believes that he "greatly strengthened" the CIA?

My Way - News

Kerry: I Guarantee Victory for the Enemy

Good lord.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term.

I honestly don't know what to say. "Elect me, and I promise that I'll withdraw troops before I leave office" means nothing other than, "If I'm elected, Zarqawi, keep your head down for a few months and I'll hand Iraq to you on a silver platter."

Chairman Mao wrote that a guerrilla campaign had three phases. The first was survival in the face of a superior army. The second, once dispersal and recruitment were achieved, was an engagement of the army. The third phase, when the guerrillas could actually face the enemy, had to wait until the enemy drew down its forces.

Iraq’s insurgents can’t defeat U.S. forces on the battlefield, and the insurgents know it. Unable to advance to a third phase of insurgency, a realistic goal of the insurgents is to stay deadlocked in a second phase until they can drive out the U.S.-led coalition....

The job of U.S. military forces is at minimum to contain the second phase of insurgency and reduce it to the level of the first phase as rapidly as possible.

Offensive operations of the sort begun in Iraq in November will have to continue and emphasize tactical interdiction — finding and destroying enemy capability before it can be used against American and allied coalition forces. These operations have been fruitful and led directly to locating and capturing Hussein.

The second phase is the most costly for a guerrilla movement. They have to engage a superior foe openly, and absorb the losses it costs them. We've seen the costs of such a policy in the fighting in Najaf, where several thousand of Sadr's forces have died since April. Yet the insurgents continue to engage, as failure to achieve anything that can be called "victory" means that the insurgency burns out, and cannot recruit replacements.

As long as Bush is in office, they will continue to engage us against their interests. This is because they know we're not going anywhere. They continue to press the odds in spite of massive fatalities because they have no choice. Elections approach, and time is not on their side. This dynamic will eventually break them, just as it broke the Viet Cong during Tet. There is no NVA to carry on the fight once the VC are broken. Iran, which everone now more or less openly recognizes is bankrolling this insurgency, cannot face the US openly, as no Soviet Union stands behind them to cast a protective arm around their shoulders.

But Kerry has handed the insurgents a promise of pulling out US forces if he's elected. All they have to do is wait. Nine months of relative peace, while the insurgents gather strength and recruit replacements, and he can send the troops home.

Then comes the third phase. What will it look like, when the insurgents overrun the country while President Kerry watches from Washington? Just what it looked like in South Vietnam, where half a million died because the US would no longer support the ARVN, not even with air power. Just what it looked like in Laos and -- dare we say it? -- Cambodia, where two million died at Communist hands, no longer restrained by the proximity of US firepower.

Astonishing: to have run on Vietnam, and to have learned none of its lessons.

UPDATE: Greyhawk thanks Kerry for his support, and requests some of yours.

UPDATE: KGC at Cogicophony has started a topic for this debate.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has noticed this too:

Memo to Fallujah terrorists: If Kerry wins, all you have to do is endure at most four years, then you can have another Afghanistan. If Bush wins, you will die in Fallujah or give up your war.

Could Kerry have done anything more stupid than to telegraph to terrorists everywhere that there is a party of retreat in the United States?

UPDATE: Citizen Smash adds his opinion: "Kerry has just given our enemies in Iraq a goal to shoot for. Thanks, Senator."

UPDATE: BlackFive has something to say also:

My friends who gave their lives knew what they were doing and supported the decision to go to war. I mourn them every damn day, but I don't pity them. I honor them. I remember them. The number one thousand has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with politics.

Then, I heard John Kerry speak, in reference to one thousand, about bringing the troops home. Doesn't he know that he's fueling the fires instead of supporting the troops? What the hell is he thinking?

Iraqi Sites Guide - The Mass Graves

The Mass Graves:

Via Mike the Marine, the mass graves of Iraq. It's hard hitting. The only thing I've seen like it lately are the pictures from Russia.

John F. Kerry's response to President Bush, Republican Convention -- 09/03/2004

John Kerry: John Kerry is Unfit for Command!

I've been thinking a bit about this line from the "Midnight Madness" speech:

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation.

Now, I watched "The Kerry Iraq Documentary." It's a production of the Bush campaign, and therefore has no cause to be kind to Kerry. Still, it presents Kerry's position in his own words, and in his own voice -- usually through videoclips of him appearing, time and again, over several years, to advocate war with Iraq over WMD.

Kerry eventually voted for the Iraq war resolution, and said at the time that he "fully supported" it.

Kerry had a seat on the Senate Intel committee, although apparently he didn't make much use of it. Still, he has had direct access when he wanted it to the CIA's intelligence on Iraq; to CIA staffers for questions; and to the documentation from the rest of the intel community as well. Whereas Bush had access to this information only after 2000, when he assumed office, Kerry has been 'in the know' for a decade and more. He should have been familiar with the intel backwards and forwards, and indeed in the television spots he makes a big deal about the fact that he was.

And Kerry supported the war resolution, as he supported the President's call throughout 2001 and 2002.

So, what to make of his statement?

Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation.

There are two possible answers. The first is that Kerry is, today, acting in bad faith. He knows that Bush did not mislead the nation, as he himself had the same information and access and advocated the same course. Kerry is parroting the Michael Moore line because he thinks it is an effective attack, not because he believes it to be true.

The second possibility is that Kerry does believe Bush misled the country. In that case, however, Kerry misled the country too. In his own words, he is unfit to lead this nation.

Since we prefer to give veterans the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, I'll choose to believe that Kerry really thinks he is unfit to command. If I'm right to believe Kerry's words, all sides now agree on the point: Vice President Cheney, the Swifties, the Honorable Senator Zell Miller, and now John Kerry himself.

SurveyUSA: Momentum Shifts to Bush; Big GOP Bounce After RNC Convention

SurveyUSA Poll:

We've all recognized that the Time and Newsweek polls are disproportionately Republican. However, here's another poll that says much the same thing. It asks not, "Who will you vote for?" but "Who do you expect to win?" It finds that there's been a thirty-six point bounce for Bush in NYC, in spite of the massive protests everyone got to watch all week; and in other liberal markets, the numbers are bigger still (thirty-nine in LA, for example).

We'll see if it holds.

Clinton Urges Kerry To Sharpen His Attack (washingtonpost.com)

Clinton Calls Kerry:

It's bad when a man undergoing a quadruple bypass calls from the hospital to tell you that you're dying. Kerry seems to be responding with another shakeup of his campaign staff, and another attempt to craft a message. So much for clearing that national defense hurdle, eh?

Google Answers: Defending the infallible Bible

The Infallible Bible:

While looking for something else entirely, I noticed an advertisment for "Google Answers." One of the answers they've recently provided is apparently called Google: Defending the infallible Bible.

You can judge for yourself -- Grim's Hall takes no official position on religious questions. Grim himself does, but doesn't blog about them or discuss them socially. I merely refer you to this because I thought it was a curiousity, seeing experts in the newest technology researching and replying to the oldest questions.

UPDATE: I suppose that's not quite true. I did undertake to defend Forn Sidr, "the Old Way," and disprove atheism on one occasion. The Raving Atheist didn't bother to reply to the challenge, which is odd since he issued it.

Low Casualties

Low Casualties:

I am glad to see someone finally picking up on this. I remain astonished at how low casualties in Iraq have been, considering the numbers of troops, the numbers of operations, and the fact that there has been continuous resistance for more than a year. Back in April, when there was heavy rumor of a draft, I wrote this at FreeSpeech:

Here you can find the official DOD figures for OIF as of 9 April. As you can see, including DOD civilian contractors, there have been 652 American killed and 3269 wounded during OIF. Of the wounded, 1137 were returned to duty within three days. The number not RTD within the three day period was 2,132; of these, some were sent home, and others returned to duty after rehabilitation.

(Compare with Afghan operations, btw, which are just below, and you'll notice that the Afghan theater is actually far more deadly. We've had about 1/6th the casualties, with a force 1/15th the size. Note also that OEF lists KIAs in unspecified areas 'other than Afghanistan.')

To keep the math simple, let's assume that all soldiers not returned to duty in three days don't return to duty at all. 2,784 combat losses out of a force level that approximates 150,000 means that we have lost 1.856 percent of forces deployed in Iraq.

This is not accurate, however, due to troop rotations--I MEF fought in the invasion, rotated out and was replaced by 82nd Airborne, then rotated back in; 3rd ID rotated out over the summer, but 4th ID rotated in, etc. 150,000 is the approximate number of troops in country at any given moment, but the actual number of American soldiers who have served in Iraq this year--that is, who have given the enemy a chance to kill them--is far higher. As a result, the loss level is much lower than the almost-two-percent we calculated above. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are for all forces, so I can't calculate the exact level, but my impression is that it would be around one percent.

Any military that can't keep up with a wartime loss rate of two percent is in trouble--and as I said above, our rate is lower than that, especially if you take into account the troop rotations. We have no need to consider a draft.

The Sage of Knoxville picks up an article from Strategy Page that says the same thing in a different way:

American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:8. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.

I suspect that the reason this doesn't get much play is that it is misunderstood, rather than ignored. We've talked about the media's lack of understanding of military science before (many times), and this looks like one more effect of it.

There may be an additional cause: media outlets may be afraid that, by talking about the remarkably low loss rates, they could appear to be downplaying the value of those who have died. The fact that the military has learned to fight with so few casualties is of tremendous importance to you if you are the mother of a Marine; but if you are the mother of a Marine who was killed yesterday, hearing about how few Marines die will not comfort you. Sensitivity to the dead may be a primary cause of this underreporting. If so, it's a noble reason to underreport.

However noble, it is the wrong tribute to pay to the dead. The focus on rising numbers makes it more likely that the American public will misunderstand Iraq as a losing war, rather than a war that we are winning, but which will take time. This underreporting makes it more likely that the American people could vote to withdraw forces from Iraq before the war is won. The cost of this tribute to the dead would be, finally, that they died in vain.

That is no kindness.

BLACKFIVE: Veterans'Day '04 Will Come Nine Days Early

Some Call It Treason:

A few days back, I suggested that I didn't know anyone who had actually accused Kerry of treason, excepting one fellow with a Veteran license plate and a bumper sticker to that effect. Well, make that two:

How liberals do defy the mind
For nothing in theirs’ can we find,
That willingly will look with reason
At how their man committed treason,
Skulked off to Paris this effete
To grovel at the Madame’s feet,
Betraying his sworn officer’s oath
To become the turncoat we so loathe.

Our law is clear you shall not treat
With America’s foes nor their cadres meet;
Give aid nor comfort to enemy forces
Nor espouse a view from hostile sources.

Without a mandate from the state
Wherefrom your right to negotiate?
Was treason, John, and is treason still
To this very day your unpaid bill.

Don’t try to hide behind your youth.
You knew the law you knew the truth.
You knew your faux negotiation
Would further tear our war-torn nation

And all for what, John, your career
So you can shameless brazen here,
And claim now that you’re fit to lead
The very nation you made bleed?

And yet before us there you stand
With medals blazing you demand
Such treachery we must ignore
Your treason that lost us our war.

But hold on, John, we veterans say,
You had your turn, now comes our day.
You thought we slept, forgot your crime?
Oh no, John boy, it’s come our time.

Some say let you apologize
But that won’t do it in our eyes.
A man astride of each position
Could we believe your true contrition?

The vindication we’ll accept
In settling up this long-held debt,
Is each of us will do his best
To deny you, John, your lifelong quest.

Listen carefully John to what we say,
November 2nd is Veterans’ Day.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

November 2nd is Veterans' Day. There's something to be said for that idea.

The Australian: Mark Steyn: No other word for it but slaughter [September 06, 2004]

Steyn:

Mark Steyn has a stemwinder of his own, on the Russian dead and what it means:

What happened in one Russian schoolhouse is an abomination that has to be defeated, not merely regretted. But the only guys with any kind of plan are the Bush administration. Last Thursday, the President committed himself yet again to wholesale reform of the Muslim world. This is a dysfunctional region that exports its toxins, to Beslan, Bali and beyond, and is wealthy enough to be able to continue doing so.

You can't turn Saudi Arabia and Yemen into New Hampshire or Sweden (according to taste), but if you could transform them into Singapore or Papua New Guinea or Belize or just about anything else you'd be making an immense improvement. It's a long shot, but, unlike Putin's plan to bomb them Islamists into submission or Chirac's reflexive inclination to buy them off, Bush is at least tackling the 'root cause'.

If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. Right now, his is the only plan on the table. The ideology and rationale that drove the child-killers in Beslan is the same as that motivating cells in Rome and Manchester and Seattle and Sydney. In this war, you can't hold the line against the next depravity.

The Politburo Diktat: Death Wish

Beautiful, Comrade:

The Commissar composes an open letter to Chechen rebels, to explain why their murderous tactics won't work against the Russians like they work against America or Israel:

Perhaps you don't understand the rules. As Yogi Berra might say: 'Ninety percent of the world's problems are America's fault; the other half are Israel's.'...

If the Americans arrest four hundred Iraqi fighters, headlines follow. More editorials and self-righteous denunciations of America. And foreigners won't like it either.

Sadly, that's all too true.

Duels

From Sharp Knife:

Noel of Sharp Knife sends this story, for your reading pleasure. It is from the Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal" (which, oddly enough, seems to be down this morning).

Noel adds, "Somewhere, Mr. Jackson just chuckled, if not Mr. Hamilton."

In the wake of Zell Miller's fiery denunciation of John Kerry at the GOP convention, the national media has been working overtime to remind people that Mr. Miller once worked for Georgia's axe-handle wielding segregationist Governor Lester Maddox backed in the 1960s. Curiously, this is something they never brought up when Mr. Miller was a loyal Democratic Governor or Senator.

But last night at a Club for Growth reception honoring Mr. Miller, Herman Cain, the former chairman of Godfather's Pizza and an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Mr. Miller's Senate seat this year, isn't having any of it. An African-American, Mr. Cain says attacks on Mr. Miller are 'bunk.' 'When I campaigned and people asked me who I wanted most to be like in the U.S. Senate, I always said Zell Miller,' he told me.

Later, Messrs. Cain and Miller embraced on stage and Mr. Miller was presented with a pair of 18th-century dueling pistols -- an obvious reference to the duel he said he'd like to have with Chris Matthews of MSNBC as the two tangled on air Wednesday night after Mr. Miller's controversial speech.

There really is something to be said for a return to duelling. Even the reminder of the institution, though, is clarifying. Consider the "Go to Hell, Zell," John Kerry Infant creeper, for those who think that American life isn't sufficiently profane for children. This shirt allows those of a particularly cowardly persuasion to express obscenity without fear of retribution. No reasonable person would take the baby to task (the baby would be just as happy if the creeper said "Vote Bush, 2004," or said nothing and was decorated only with carrot stains). No decent man would engage the parent in front of the child, as anyone bent out of shape enough to dress an infant in such garb would surely cause a scene upsetting to the innocent.

Or consider this interview with Zell, from the Imus program. He was asked about his defense of Michelle Malkin, whom he doesn't seem to have known at the time (during the Hardball interview, he called her 'that young lady you had on the other day'):

[I] ought to stay down in Young Harris with [my] two yellow labs, Gus and Woodrow, and let the world go by, I guess. I had just been holding one for Chris Matthews ever since I saw him browbeat Michelle Malkin on his show that night. He wouldn't let that little 5'2", 95-pound girl say a word, and I just said to myself, 'If he ever gets into my face like that, I'm gonna pop him.'

The image of the crossed pistols reminds us that men used to take responsibility for their words -- that the things they said were things they would risk death to defend. They remind us that once men would not permit women and children to be abused, which is no longer a popular sentiment. Today women wish to defend themselves, which is excellent. It nevertheless speaks very well of a man that, if he should see the strong abusing the weak, whether strong from size or from position of power (e.g., anchor of the news program), that he should take their part.

"I should in that case hold you,'' replied the yeoman, "a friend to the weaker party.''

"Such is the duty of a true knight at least,'' replied the Black Champion; "and I would not willingly that there were reason to think otherwise of
me.''

Malkin, who has certainly proven quite outspoken in her own right, still appears to have appreciated the courtesy.

How many times have I had to hear people toss around the words "lie!" or "liar!" in this election? It seems to be the very first line of defense, when anyone says anything you'd rather not believe. Not only do these people hide behind children, they sound like children. They spit deadly insults freely, knowing that they can never be called to account.

The end of the duel may have brought some good effects, but it has also ended the culture of responsibility that went with it. No one is called to account for their slander. That John Kerry of the VVAW is a candidate for the highest office in the land says this as truly as anything.

I'm with Zell. It is a shame that duels are no longer legal. Duels were private wars, and like wars they could be just. Like wars, for all the harm they did, they often did more good. In a world fallen from hope of perfection, that may be the best you can ask.

Dave Kopel on Guns, Terrorism & Teachers on National Review Online

An Excellent Suggestion:

Arm the teachers. We talked here about the Thai teachers unions back in June. Of course, if there is no formal training in weapons use offered by the government, such carrying would have to be entirely voluntary -- someone who is not trained, or who knows they are not capable of using their weapon, is only putting a weapon in the hands of whoever seizes that classroom.

The suggestion does not go far enough. One of the best ways that we can make terrorism more difficult is by making America a hard target. The way to do that is to arm, and train, the civilian population -- that is, to call up the general militia of the United States, as established in the US Code. These persons should be given necessary training in how to safely and accurately carry and use a firearm; and then they should carry them about their persons. It need not be a long course, that would take people away from their jobs -- not a fully military "Basic - AIT - etc" setup, but rather short series of courses, scheduled around their need to work for a living. Topics to be covered include the carrying of weapons, and range time, both traditional and tactical. It would be good if the order opened military base and police firing ranges to the public, so long as the public's use of them was scheduled around the needs of the authority.

These persons would be able to carry without regard to "exemption" laws, such as usually prevent carrying firearms into schools or courthouses. The 2nd Amendment, whatever else it covers, certainly does cover members of the US militia acting on orders to go armed.

Combined with those Americans who voluntarily carry under the various concealed weapons permits available from the several states (who would still be covered by exemption laws), this should provide a strong "immune system" to hostage crises. It makes them much more difficult and dangerous to execute, but not only that -- it makes them harder to plan. Because these weapons are usually concealed handguns, terrorists scoping out a potential site can't guess how many armed persons they would have to face. That seriously complicates planning and -- as it requires that they act in larger groups, in order to address the unknown threat level -- makes more likely the discovery of the plot or the capture of one of their number by counterintelligence and police.

"Unthinkable!" I imagine many are shouting. "The population would not stand for it!"

Let this happen just once to an American kindergarten, and the population will be demanding it with full lungs. Why, then, should we wait? Must we really insist on paying a blood price in order to recover this traditional, explicitly Constitutional defense of freedom, of our children, and our land?

And now, think.

And Now, Think.

You have had a moment to laugh over this picture of me playing with my son:

This is what the enemy wants to turn him into:

A little thought:

Zalina Dzandarova cradles her son Alan as he sleeps with his small face buried against her stomach. He is the child Dzandarova was able to save. The child she chose to save, really.

It is the other one, little Alana, her 6-year-old daughter, whose image torments her: Alana clutching her hand, Alana crying and calling after her. Alana's sobs disappearing into the distance as Dzandarova walked out of Middle School No. 1 here Thursday, clutching 2-year-old Alan in her arms.

This is why we fight. This is what Zell Miller meant, when he said he wanted a President who would defend his great-grandchildren.

Is there anyone left who fails to understand the stakes? John Kerry said the terrorist threat was "exaggerated." Is that the right way to think about this?

Swear then by all the children you could not save that the next dead little one will not be yours. Wrong. Swear then that you will defeat them whatever it takes and into whatever hell you must go.

I so swear.

MSNBC - GlennReynolds.com

"It's Hard to Criticize John Kerry These Days"

Glenn Reynolds, in his MSNBC clothing, picks up on a theme that has been bothering me for a while now.

Osama bin Laden has been captured in Pakistan?

Osama:

Another silly rumor.

We have received reports from US sources that Pakistani security forces have captured Osama bin Laden.

According to these sources, bin Laden was captured not far from Chitral in the Northern part of Pakistan (between Chitral and Peshawar), approximately 4 weeks ago....

According to the US sources, the capture of the "Big Fish" will not be officially announced until sometime next month, in what is sure to be "Headline" news throughout the world.

Of course, the Army is not helping:

"If you are asking if we are close to getting OBL, the answer is yes," he said, when asked whether the large-scale arrests are leading to the capture of bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

"Our president (George W. Bush) has said we will arrest Osama bin Laden. It is guaranteed," he said, adding it could happen tomorrow, in a week or a month from now.

This isn't the first time they've guaranteed his capture. No offense, old son, but show me the money. I don't think it's helpful to be overconfident, as if you don't find him -- and it's a hard thing, as you know better than anyone -- the enemy is encouraged by our failed boasts.

Now, if you do make good that boast, I know who I'm voting for in 2008.

Deserving victory

S.F. Gate:

Today the San Francisco Gate carries an editorial that says that Republicans deserve victory, and the Democrats "deserve to lose, and I think they know it." The reason? Read "Deserving Victory."

Hat tip: Allah.

TIME.com Print Page: Press Releases -- Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

52-41:

Call it the Zell Bounce:

Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.

Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

So much for clearing that hurdle. Let's talk about health care.