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.